Socialism has not consistently failed to do that. Even in some of the most famous examples of AES which had numerous issues with over the top, brutal Authoritarianism, such as the Stalinist USSR and Maoist China, both countries ended famine following collectivization, outside wartime.
Socialism isn’t a wash just because you want to assume means from snapshot ends, look at the entire context and then judge. One could just as easily say Capitalism has consistently failed to do that because of the Bengal Famine and Irish Great Famine.
There are absolutely legitimate ways to criticize Socialism and its various forms, but ignoring historical context and making blanket statements based on half-truths isn’t the way.
I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.
The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.
Lysenko was such a dumbass, up there with Mao telling his soldiers to kill the pest-eating, rice-eating birds, leaving an uncontrollable rice-eating pest population.
You’re exactly correct, people assume Means from Ends to fit their narrative.
Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.
Both China and the USSR were among the most rapidly developing countries in the 20th century. At the same time, both started the 20th century as largely agrarian, even Feudalist societies while other countries were far ahead of them.
Ignoring historical context and inserting your own means to fit your narrative is precisely my point, you do no analysis and just make shit up and say history supports your ideas.
Let’s look at the context. The US was a developed country before the USSR even existed.
Secondly, the USSR took the brunt of the Nazi assault and took the majority of the damage, while the US was profiting off of weapon trade before finally entering.
The US is at the top because it managed to avoid conflict on their own land in WW1 and WW2, while also leveraging this advantage to press Imperialist control over the world.
The USSR lagged behind because it was a developing country and played a far larger role in WWII, simple as.
As for China, you could say the same in reverse, the US is almost wholly dependent on Chinese production. That’s on top of Deng’s shift towards Capitalistic production over jumping straight to Socialism under Mao.
All in all, you continue to substitute whatever views you want and ignore historical context. You also seem to not understand the concept of related rates, and think anything with faster growth in the past must be ahead of places with slower growth, regardless of starting points.
That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.
If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.
Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.
In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?
Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.
It absolutely matters why, and you still haven’t explained anything. You just vaguely gesture and insert your own narrative to avoid critically thinking.
I propose production for use, rather than production for profit. Less bullshit consumables like party favors results in less climate damage.
How does it not take it into account?
You can only gesture, you havent made a single point.
You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.
The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.
As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?
And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity
Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time
It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.
Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.
Socialism has not consistently failed to do that. Even in some of the most famous examples of AES which had numerous issues with over the top, brutal Authoritarianism, such as the Stalinist USSR and Maoist China, both countries ended famine following collectivization, outside wartime.
Socialism isn’t a wash just because you want to assume means from snapshot ends, look at the entire context and then judge. One could just as easily say Capitalism has consistently failed to do that because of the Bengal Famine and Irish Great Famine.
There are absolutely legitimate ways to criticize Socialism and its various forms, but ignoring historical context and making blanket statements based on half-truths isn’t the way.
I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.
The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.
Lysenko was such a dumbass, up there with Mao telling his soldiers to kill the pest-eating, rice-eating birds, leaving an uncontrollable rice-eating pest population.
You’re exactly correct, people assume Means from Ends to fit their narrative.
Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.
Life just favors evil in that way.
That’s not how it works.
Both China and the USSR were among the most rapidly developing countries in the 20th century. At the same time, both started the 20th century as largely agrarian, even Feudalist societies while other countries were far ahead of them.
Ignoring historical context and inserting your own means to fit your narrative is precisely my point, you do no analysis and just make shit up and say history supports your ideas.
Removed by mod
No, again, that’s not how it works.
Let’s look at the context. The US was a developed country before the USSR even existed.
Secondly, the USSR took the brunt of the Nazi assault and took the majority of the damage, while the US was profiting off of weapon trade before finally entering.
The US is at the top because it managed to avoid conflict on their own land in WW1 and WW2, while also leveraging this advantage to press Imperialist control over the world.
The USSR lagged behind because it was a developing country and played a far larger role in WWII, simple as.
As for China, you could say the same in reverse, the US is almost wholly dependent on Chinese production. That’s on top of Deng’s shift towards Capitalistic production over jumping straight to Socialism under Mao.
All in all, you continue to substitute whatever views you want and ignore historical context. You also seem to not understand the concept of related rates, and think anything with faster growth in the past must be ahead of places with slower growth, regardless of starting points.
That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.
If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.
Why isn’t it possible? You keep making claims with no evidence, just “look around” as you vaguely gesture.
Additionally, Social Darwinism is a Nazi talking point. Not saying you’re a Nazi, but you’re close to being radicalized into one.
Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.
In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?
Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.
You both suck.
It absolutely matters why, and you still haven’t explained anything. You just vaguely gesture and insert your own narrative to avoid critically thinking.
I propose production for use, rather than production for profit. Less bullshit consumables like party favors results in less climate damage.
How does it not take it into account?
You can only gesture, you havent made a single point.
OK troll.
OK troll.
I suggest not worrying too much about the “Darwinist nature of existence”.
You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.
China did that by becoming an authoritarian capitalist country, so that just proves my point. Communism doesn’t work.
Ugh.
Your premise has been that China is not capitalist. Now you insert the contradicting premise that China is capitalist.
No matter, though, if logical consistency is too arduous, you can always fall back on your pseudoscientific schtick 'cuz nature.
It literally doesn’t matter, you’re still wrong.
Fuck off.
Bro if you go from negative growth to one percent of positive growth you qualify for being rapidly developing
Doesn’t mean anything about life quality which is shit btw
Quality of life skyrocketed alongside development, as QoL comes primarily from development. Life expectancy doubled and literacy rates neared 100%.
The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.
As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?
You don’t hate it. You’re just a troll.
And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity
Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time
Oh no.
Anyways.
Removed by mod
Listen, troll.
The argument is that activity driven by the profit motive is antithetical to the prevention of needless suffering and death.
Do you have one of your own, or are we done?
It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.
Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.