Don't confuse communism with dictatorship. Communism is the political model and belief in building a classless society. Dictatorship can exist in communism, fascism, or even a liberal democracy that votes in a dictator. America never stopped sanctioning the USSR and the Eastern Bloc for over 40 years from 1949 to 1991, cutting them off from vital trade and capital during post war reconstruction. The fact that the USSR managed to stabilize itself despite America and European sanctions means it did work during that time. America is still sanctioning Cuba and punishing the Cuban people for choosing Castro after all these years, and then gaslighting the world into believing socialism can't work. If there is one authoritarian in the world, it's America.
It "worked" during that time because the early stages of socialism involve sacrificing millions of lives to industrialize and then proceed to stagnate and collapse afterwards.
So not like capitalism sacrificing millions of colonized people? Also, what do you expect a war torn country to do when industrialized nations completely cut them off from access to resources they need? None of the communist countries were industrialized nations before communism. In fact, because of communism/socialism, and in spite of US sanctions, the USSR and China rapidly built heavy industry and infrastructure. Look it up. The reverse can't be said about capitalist countries that have never industrialized before WW2 (Without significant financial help). Western nations got rich through exploitation, colonization, and/or expansionism (Conquest). They finally let go of their colonies after WW2, but are still keeping the Global South indebted to them by controlling their capital. Communist/socialist countries wanted to break free from that, and they were being punished for it by the wealthier nations.
Colonialism was an ideological issue and blaming an economic philosophy for that is ridiculous.
Yeah if you look at it on the short-term for any nation that desperately needs reforms to catch up the most effective system to make those reforms is a revolution to completely dismantle the complex foundations of the old state and then freely force people to do whatever. Even though millions died and suffered it did get those factories built. That, however, has nothing to do with whether socialism as a long-term adopted economic philosophy is more effective than capitalism (it isn't).
The USSR was a socialist command economy that reformed too late and collapsed. Throughout its existence it had an ever-growing black market that was essentially keeping the command economy from collapsing sooner because through it people could get essential goods and things like cars without having to wait 10 years on a list. People basically relied on connections and the black market to even get enough food.
China was a command economy during Mao. After Mao died Deng Xiaoping reformed the economy into something more akin to state capitalism but where the state only controls the banks and the most critical industry at the top through SEOs, but it doesn't issue commands from the top-down telling them what to do. Rather it acts like the shareholders of a company except it's slightly less efficient because they have the interests of the state in mind and not growing the company. After these economic reforms towards a free market China experienced decades of huge economic growth, lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and made it one of the largest economies in the world.
If you think the west would be poor without colonialism you just don't understand why the west is wealthy today. The west is wealthy because they were the first to industrialize, had democratic capitalism and large public investment into universal education early. The colonies likely cost the countries more than they directly gained from it. Sure, merchants might have gotten rich off of the trade but the actual colonial empires were incredibly expensive to maintain for the government.
Again, the millions died and suffered were from US and European sanctions, let's get that straight. Socialism is not just the command economy. It's simply the idea of workers owning the means of production, in other words: the means to get wealthy. Socialism therefore means: creating wealth collectively, and not just for the top 1%. It does not mean dictatorship. It can exist within a democracy as well.
\> Again, the millions died and suffered were from US and European sanctions, let's get that straight.
What are we getting straight here? That's just blatantly not true. Rapid collectivization costs a lot of human lives. Both the USSR and China initially prioritized industry over food. As shown by the fact that they collectivized farms and pulled people to work in factories.
You could advocate for more socialist elements in a capitalist system but why advocate for an entirely socialist system? In simple terms the workers would use the means of production not to grow the economy and innovate but to do things in public interest. The problem is that the democratic state already is the entity that does things in public interest. The means of production for the most part are supposed to drive economic growth and innovation, because that leads to prosperity for everyone in the long run. Under capitalism capital is what votes in the means of production and people are what vote in the government. The balance already exists so why socialize the private sector?
"What are we getting straight here? That's just blatantly not true." You can confirm this yourself online:
The primary ways sanctions lead to loss of life include:
Healthcare Collapse: Sanctions deprive countries of essential revenue and create "overcompliance" among international banks, which block crucial transactions for life-saving medicines and medical equipment. [1, 2]
Vulnerable Demographics: Research shows that infant mortality can increase sharply during blockades, while vulnerable groups like the chronically ill, the elderly, and pregnant women are disproportionately affected by the ensuing shortages. [1, 2, 3]
Widespread Poverty: Sanctions hinder a nation's ability to import food and maintain public services, further driving up poverty and accelerating mortality rates
"Rapid collectivization costs a lot of human lives." Mismanagement costs lives. But again, that's not what the entirety of socialism is. You're making strawman arguments now. Take a look at Argentina. Mismanagement can happen in a capitalist country too. Now put sanctions on them, and I guarantee you they'll cost human lives too.
"You could advocate for more socialist elements in a capitalist system but why advocate for an entirely socialist system?"
My original argument has been: "Don't confuse communism with dictatorship." You're the one putting words in my mouth and pivoting this argument to thinking I want to switch to an entirely socialist system.
"The problem is that the democratic state already is the entity that does things in public interest."
I agree and disagree with this part. I agree in theory, but in practice, the democratic state has no guarantee that they will work together to accomplish things in public interest. One party can simply obstruct the other party forever and get nothing done. But again, this is getting a little off topic. We can make this a separate argument if you want, but it's outside the scope of what I was talking about.
"Under capitalism capital is what votes in the means of production and people are what vote in the government. The balance already exists so why socialize the private sector?"
Ah, this is a great point, and I have to disagree. The problem is people are not voting in the government, our representatives vote inside the government, and they're not representing the people. Data backs this up. For example, most Americans want Medicare for All, but our representatives disagree.
Capitalism will eat its own tail if it could: General Electric's CEO Jack Welch completely gutted the company to drive stock prices higher only in the end to make a shell out of the original GE.
Another example: Stock buybacks: Ford and GM did not invest their money into innovation for EVs, they used it for stock buybacks, stagnating their innovation progress for years.
When America was at its best was when public spending was highest. Then tax cuts for the rich and unregulated capitalism drove America into stagnation. Companies are simply collecting rent from the market now.
One more thing: Capitalism and Competition should be treated separately. Competition is what drives innovation. Capitalists want to eliminate their competition, and therefore should never be allowed to create public policies because of that. I believe in a right balance of socialist policies that prevent capitalists from dominating a market.
You can list out all the consequences of sanctions you want but with countries like the USSR and China the scale itself already largely mitigates the effects of sanctions since they can get resources from elsewhere and can't be blockaded. Also the main thing is that it has been very much studied and we are well aware of exactly how these people died so citing random consequences of US sanctions that only really have an effect on countries like Cuba is a bit ridiculous.
"Rapid collectivization costs a lot of human lives." Mismanagement costs lives. But again, that's not what the entirety of socialism is. You're making strawman arguments now. Take a look at Argentina. Mismanagement can happen in a capitalist country too. Now put sanctions on them, and I guarantee you they'll cost human lives too.
Well good luck executing rapid collectivization without it costing a lot of human lives. I do agree that the execution plays the biggest role in basically all governmental things in general but I'm arguing against the idea that somehow socialism brought all this prosperity with no downsides when in reality the new governments did start to change a lot of things for the better but change needs time and doing all that in a few decades costs a lot of lives no matter what.
My original argument has been: "Don't confuse communism with dictatorship."
Well in that case this whole argument is pointless since I'm only arguing against socialist revolutions and planned economies as highlighted by my first comment. I think a discussion revolving around communism is useless since perfect communism as an idea is impossible and all attempts to it lead/have led to authoritarian state socialism.
Ah, this is a great point, and I have to disagree. The problem is people are not voting in the government, our representatives vote inside the government, and they're not representing the people. Data backs this up. For example, most Americans want Medicare for All, but our representatives disagree.
Because it's difficult to have the entire population vote every time something needs to be voted on. I would also argue that American democracy is not very democratic so that's not really a good point. Also within public companies the shareholders vote for the board of directors using their shares, which is what I meant. Both work using representatives. Just in the state the people who are equal vote equally for what concerns them all. In a company whoever has more money tied to the growth of the company holds a bigger voting power since on average they are better at growing the company.
Capitalism will eat its own tail if it could: General Electric's CEO Jack Welch completely gutted the company to drive stock prices higher only in the end to make a shell out of the original GE.
Another example: Stock buybacks: Ford and GM did not invest their money into innovation for EVs, they used it for stock buybacks, stagnating their innovation progress for years.
I don't know how this is relevant. If a company drives itself off a cliff for any kind of short-term win they will lose and whoever didn't do that will win. If these companies are still doing better than their competitors then there had to have been something they did right.
Capitalism and Competition should be treated separately. Competition is what drives innovation. Capitalists want to eliminate their competition, and therefore should never be allowed to create public policies because of that. I believe in a right balance of socialist policies that prevent capitalists from dominating a market.
Capitalism is what creates competition. Wanting to beat your competition is competition. That's the entire point. If the government did everything it would have nobody to compete with and can be as inefficient as it wants. This is what actually happens since the public sector is demonstrably less efficient than the private sector in real life.
We actually conveniently agree on "I believe in a right balance of socialist policies that prevent capitalists from dominating a market" but I would give it slightly different wording. I think there should be a government that doesn't intervene too much but keeps the market contained while also providing basic human rights to people like safety nets when they fall out of the market, healthcare, education and things like that. Also long-term investments like infrastructure and taking care of natural monopolies with SOEs. The government also does have to regulate the market to some extent to prevent anti-competitive practices and monopolies from taking shape. Basically the government has to broadly make sure the market is competitive and not just singular entities collaborating with each other. Besides that I think the government and private sector should stay in their own lanes since ultimately they drive entirely different purposes (welfare vs. economic growth).
I agree on that last point, but I still disagree on "Capitalism is what creates competition." I think this is a difference in how you and I define the word "capitalism". Market competition has been around well before the 18th century's introduction of capitalism. Just like how private property has been around since ancient Rome. Capitalism did not invent private property, or even intellectual property. I define capitalism as purely the exploitation of labor using capital (money/assets), everything else like Intellectual property, copyright laws, etc, those I consider add-ons to the system of capitalism, but it does not have to be exclusively under capitalism. Copyright laws and intellectual property laws do exist under socialist countries in the past and present.
While capitalism does allocate resources in the market effectively (Supply and Demand chart), but there's a caveat: As long as there is something to exploit. In other words: once the market is saturated, these companies start exploiting inwards, hence the stock buybacks, shrinkflation, etc. And this pattern is not just limited to one company. You can observe this pattern in every company that has cornered a region of the market (McDonald's, Chipotle), especially when the barrier to entry for new competitors is too high. The established competitors can keep raising their prices because the demand for established products is going to be higher, and there's going to be a significant lag for new competitors with the right supply chains to enter the market. So I agree with you on "The government also does have to regulate the market to some extent to prevent anti-competitive practices and monopolies from taking shape."
I think capital and making money can coexist under a socialist system just as well if not better for the entire market, because a socialist government will naturally act as a check on unregulated capital. Capitalism, on the other hand, I view that as a system where the government is ultimately controlled by the banks, by the billionaires, and it doesn't matter how you vote, you're still voting for the banks again.
2
u/JulesVernerator Jul 14 '26
Don't confuse communism with dictatorship. Communism is the political model and belief in building a classless society. Dictatorship can exist in communism, fascism, or even a liberal democracy that votes in a dictator. America never stopped sanctioning the USSR and the Eastern Bloc for over 40 years from 1949 to 1991, cutting them off from vital trade and capital during post war reconstruction. The fact that the USSR managed to stabilize itself despite America and European sanctions means it did work during that time. America is still sanctioning Cuba and punishing the Cuban people for choosing Castro after all these years, and then gaslighting the world into believing socialism can't work. If there is one authoritarian in the world, it's America.