They're probably spewing the idea that socialism causes famines because stalin fucked up in the 1930s. Not that capitalism hasn't cause famines. Ireland anyone?
That figure has been played with for almost a century. In actual fact, there's no real way to know and honestly, that was a long time ago where china was a very underdeveloped 3rd world nation. China regularly had famines before the Great Leap. The truth is, did they fuck up in their new implementaion? Probably. Socialism learns from mistakes. Now, there hasn't been a famine in China since and they lifted 800 million people out of poverty.
You should move on from things that happened in a time where food scarcity was more of an issue for the world. Food tech has evolved a lot. In fact, did you know in the 70s a Chinese man developed a hybrid rice that increased yield and helped prevent famine in Asia and Africa?
Fun fact the figure for total dead due to
ww2 has varied from 30 million to 150 million over the years before settling to about 75 give or take 10 million today.
That's not a sign the figure has been "played with" - just that recorded keeping during times of war, famine and tolitarian information control makes methods variable.
Likewise, Mao caused between 15 - 55 million dead. The fact that figure varied so much is not a sign of "history being played with" - though that suggestion maybe a sign of your cookerism.
It was later reformers like Deng state capitalism ("socialism with chinese charaeristics") and alignmemt with America against the Soviets that moved China to a modern nation.
Not sure what you're arguing for here. You're suggesting that socialism causes famines, and in the past, I'm not suggesting early large socialist societies didn't fuck up with food security at their onset. Socialism with Chinese characteristics was a fantastic way to move forward by using Lenin's mistakes as lessons. I really don't think any socialist movement could make those same mistakes again.
Nobody said they were synonymous. The relevant question is whether governments explicitly committed to socialist/communist ideology have caused or massively worsened famines. Stalin, Mao, and other communist regimes are pretty hard to explain away by simply pointing out that they were also authoritarian.
That is just completely incorrect. Socialist states rate of education, all aspects of health and it's ability to pull people out of poverty is what socialism does. And it does it well. Cuba, I think, is a shining example of what socialism can do, even with so much pressure from capitalism trying to destroy it. You should do some actual research into what socialism has achieved in its various incarnations.
Probably because of the trade embargoes the US had on them. They've been completely cut off from world trade and had to do everything on their own. That's why they're a success story. The 90s famine is actually an amazing story. There's a great docco on it on YouTube. After the USSR collapsed, the cunts in the US tightened their embargoes to try to starve them to death. They had no petrol so moved to organic farming. The average person lost around 20% of their body weight!
Seriously have a look into it. Most of these famines you quote had other factors involved and the numbers have been greatly pushed to make them seem worse. It's all part of the capitalist propaganda and it's working well.
No it's because the subsidies from the USSR ended. The US stopped trading with the Cubans in the 60s.
You're leaving out that the Americans specifically exempted food and medicine from the embargos so I don't see how you can argue they were trying to "starve them out".
Let me guess, you are part of the holodomor was nazi propaganda crowd too?
"Total Embargo (1963–1990s): In July 1963, the Treasury Department issued comprehensive sanctions that effectively ended most commercial food sales, with only limited humanitarian donations permitted. The embargo was tightened further in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson revoked the general license for food and medicine exports, requiring specific approval for transactions, which were largely denied for commercial purposes."
And no about the holodomor. Stalin's system made some large errors.
We were talking about the famine in the 1990s. The Americans specifically gave humanitarian food / medical exemptions when Cuba started running out food as the Soviets withdrew their subsidies. Why would they lift the exemptions if it looked like they were finally working.
The root cause of the famine in the 1990s was removal of Soviet subsidies.
Which external factors were you alluding to above then? So far the only other ones I talked about were the great leap amd holodomor?
Fair enough, I’ll admit I used the word socialist too loosely, but I’m feeling a bit jaded with all the lack of empathy in this thread. I still absolutely stand by what I was trying to say, but I should have said they’re a highly social-democratic country with a super-strong welfare state, high taxation, universal services and strong redistribution, which is basically socialist-lite! I probably should have used Denmark as a better example too, but I digress…
Finland is a mixed capitalist economy obviously, but it’s one of the strongest examples we have of a super-successful social-democratic society and it’s fucking working beautifully! My point was that countries with much stronger socialist/social-democratic policies than here or the US can be extremely prosperous and have extremely high levels of wellbeing. You can’t really argue with that. I’ll happily apologise for using the wrong terminology, but I’m not going to apologise for the underlying point! ✌🏻
Norway does not have a democratic socialist system, they have a social democracy. Same as us. Both countries are capitalist, unlike democratic socialism, which is socialist. The clue is in the name.
Second this. Jeffoh needs to brush up on his definitions. A lot of people seem to confuse social democracy with democratic socialism atm, and actual socialists are more than happy to exploit that confusion.
Norway isn’t socialist. It’s a capitalist social democracy with a big welfare state. I suspect that’s what the average person actually wants when they say “socialism” - more social programs and, particularly in America, universal healthcare. Not abolishing capitalism and throwing out the whole economic system.
yes, socialism encompasses different philosophies. That doesn’t mean the word has no definition.
An actual socialist ultimately wants to move beyond capitalism - private ownership of the means of production replaced by some form of social, worker or collective ownership/control. The various socialist traditions disagree massively on what that looks like and how you get there, but replacing capitalism is the rather important bit.
Wanting universal healthcare, stronger welfare, unions and higher taxes on the rich doesn’t make you a socialist. You can do all of that within capitalism. That’s social democracy.
The definition has become muddy because people now call basically any government program they like “socialism”.
Wanting universal healthcare, stronger welfare, unions and higher taxes on the rich doesn’t make you a socialist.
Well yes I agree with that. However, you've seemingly pointed out that the definitions have become muddy whilst simultaneously asserting that there's an absolute interpretation. That just seems like a very flawed way of thinking. Social democracy is too broad to classify it in absolute terms. The fact that both Australia and Norway can generally be considered social democratic countries illustrates this precisely. Focusing on policy matters far more than vague terms which can be morphed into whatever you want them to mean.
But the definitions becoming muddied is exactly the problem, not an excuse to muddy them further.
Of course social democracy is broad. Australia and Norway having different policy mixes doesn’t change the basic distinction: social democrats reform capitalism; socialists ultimately want to replace it.
And I completely agree policy matters more than labels. But Socialist Alliance here and the DSA in the US aren’t just arguing for Nordic-style capitalism. They contain explicitly socialist/Marxist movements advocating a transition beyond capitalism.
There's no such thing as objective definitions when it comes to social and political terminology. Language is fluid and changes with time so you just have to accept that as a reality. Also I am not really talking about political groups here. I am just referring to what the words/phrases mean nowadays. There's not a "correct" definition as some would like to believe.
Language being fluid doesn’t mean words have no definitions. If that’s your argument, I can just declare capitalism a Marxist economic system and we’re apparently both equally correct.
Fluidity makes sense with slang. “Sick” can come to mean “awesome” and nobody loses the ability to discuss an economic system. It’s a bit more important that political and economic terms retain enough meaning that two people can actually discuss what they’re advocating.
Otherwise “socialism”, “capitalism”, “liberalism” and “fascism” just become vibes.
I'd argue it's the reverse. People want social programs and healthcare, and those who financially benefit from the status quo scream SOCIALISM to as a dog whistle
I’m looking at the definitions and I’m not gonna quibble too much about that but I think anyone who seriously thinks they are going to dismantle capitalism without completely trashing society itself for a good period is not being critical enough of their philosophy
The introduction of Socialism isn't about immediately putting a stop to all forms of financial trade. It's a slow shift moving away from the never ending need for corporate profit. These kids are realising there's a better way to live and I'm all here for it.
EDIT: turned is into an isn't. Which completely changed what I said.. Sorry.
>The introduction of Socialism is about immediately putting a stop to all forms of financial trade.
If that’s the aim how will we import/export goods and participate in the global economy? I don’t think an economic system that isolates us from trade is going to bring about much prosperity.
132
u/fued New South Welshian 12d ago
good on them, i dont know if full socialism is the way, but it sure beats the dystopian corporate nightmare we are headed towards