Kerala India achieved developed nation level performance on HDI (human development index) indices in a few short decades with expansive land and policy reforms under a democratically elected communist party.
Communism is an extremely effective tool at shaking off feudalistic old world tendencies but, as a system, it is extremely economically handicapped in a world where the wealthiest nations are capitalist.
Which is why China has had to adopted a hybrid “state capitalism” / mercantilism to achieve its rapid economic ascent.
China is not “state capitalist” or mercantilist. Its a socialist market economy with a limited / restricted private sector, where the publicly owned portion dominates the economy, and private capital is not allowed to rise to the level of political power.
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
Thanks for that. Always interested in hearing different perspectives.
And then you realize only half your audience has an issue with the colonization.
Unfortunately a lot of other instances let white / western supremacists set up shop there, and don’t moderate them.
Not trying to start an argument: what are examples the biggest successes of communist regimes/movements
Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work?
Public transportation was efficient, extensive, and practically free. Subway fare was about eight cents in the 1970s, unchanged from the 1930s (Szymanski, 1984). Nothing comparable has ever existed in capitalist countries. This is because efficient, affordable and extensive public transportation would severely limit the profit-making opportunities of automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, and civil engineering firms. In order to safeguard their profits, these firms use their wealth, connections and influence to stymie development of extensive, efficient and inexpensive public alternatives to private transportation. Governments, which need to keep private industry happy so that it continues to provide jobs, are constrained to play along. The only way to alter this is to bring capital under public control, in order to use it to meet public policy goals set out in a consciously constructed plan.
The Soviet Union placed greater stress on healthcare than their capitalist competitors did. No other country had more physicians per capita or more hospital beds per capita than the USSR. In 1977, the Soviet Union had 35 doctors and 212 hospital beds per 10,000 compared to 18 doctors and 63 hospital beds in the United States (Szymanski, 1984). Most important, healthcare was free. That US citizens had to pay for their healthcare was considered extremely barbaric in the Soviet Union, and Soviet citizens “often questioned US tourists quite incredulously on this point” (Sherman, 1969).
In China a notable example is the raising of the median income significantly, to almost 40k USD last I checked, essentially lifting a huge amount of people out of poverty.
The USSR raised life expectancy and HDI significantly, and when it collapsed both fell sharply in the resulting countries.
Was that income after Deng opened up China as the world’s manufactory? That giant amount of support from capital seems to be more effective than any decision communism made.
12·5 hours agoYou cannot take that “support” out of the context of the decisions made by communists. Without the efforts made in “Mao-era” china, agriculture, industrialization, education, etc., the reform and opening up would likely have gone differently, china would probably look more like India and Brazil. And during (and after) reform and opening up, china actively steered the economy and set priorities, they continued to hold, as dessalines points out, the commanding heights of the economy, and used 5 year plans. So yes, you can say it was the “support” (capital) that came into china which made them richer, but only in context.
Reform and Opening Up was a plan devised by communists to more quickly achieve communism, and was made in such a fashion that built upon the existing socialist system, not undermining it.
Both Mao and Deng era’s both had foreign investment, and high growth rates compared to capitalist countries.
Both are still built on the foundation of socialism: 5 year plans, no private land ownership, public ownership commanding the heights of the economy, and a smaller capitalist sector for foreign investment.
From 1949-1978, the Mao Era, China’s GDP grew an average of 7% per annum. Mao sincerely wanted the Chinese to get rich, just that all that wealth must be distributed as equally as possible. This is reflected in China’s 1978 GINI coefficient being a very egalitarian 0.16. A GINI coefficient of zero means that all the income is evenly distributed to all citizens and a coefficient of one means one person has all the income and everybody else has nothing. As a comparison, Sweden’s is currently 0.25, the lowest in the world, China’s is 0.37, the US’s is 0.41 and for all of humanity, 0.65. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
With the advent of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and opening up China’s economy to do battle with Western capitalism(the Deng Era, 1979-2012), China’s economy has grown an average of 10% per annum, while America’s growth averaged 6%. A not-well-known point of history is that many of Deng’s reforms were actually started by Mao, Deng and Zhou Enlai, going back into the 70s and 60s, which helps explain the Mao Era’s phenomenal socioeconomic achievements. These earlier reforms were cleverly rebranded as “new” by Deng. Western capitalists eagerly lapped it up, in their lustful pursuit of Chinese profits, starting in 1978.
These imperial lies have continued into the Deng Era. China is still a communist and socialist country. Baba Beijing has simply used the West’s methods, markets, investment and technology to continue to advance the wellbeing of China’s people, within its non-capitalist economy. This is hard for most Westerners to wrap their heads around, that China has been and continues to be a communist and socialist country, till now, 2015, and will continue to be so as long as Baba Beijing is in power. This explains why the West has been relentlessly trying to overthrow the Communist Party of China (CPC), since liberation in 1949.
it did a lot of harm before the party leaders learned how to control it and it led to occupy wall street style protests in the late 80’s which included the tiannamen square protest.
that event forced the party to devise ways to neuter the harmful aspects of capitalism that were taking root in the country because of deng’s reforms and it’s been a continuous try/fail effort ever since.
PRC, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK. All succeeded where others failed in defeating western colonialist attempts, and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
PRC deserves special recognition for lifting more people out of poverty in the past 30 years than any other country in history… so much so that world poverty is increasing if we leave it out.
The first was the USSR, which was dramatically uplifting for the working classes. It was followed by PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc, and movements in countries like Venezuela are trying to establish socialism. All of these countries brought dramatic improvements to their living standards upon adopting socialism. For example, in Russia and China, life expectancies doubled, and functional literacy rates went from 20-30% to 99.9%. In the case of Cuba and the DPRK, we can see resiliance against sanctions that results in higher living standards contextually than peer capitalist countries.
Generally speaking, communism usually starts off great for the majority of people. Brings people out of poverty and whatnot. Very, very bad for the rich and upper middle classes but overall the public benefits.
Then authoritarianism kicks in and everything goes to shit really fast. People very quickly lose equality and equal treatment as a result.
Corruption is the biggest, inevitable problem because people naturally want to improve their position relative to their peers. Since that’s incredibly difficult under communism, you end up with lots of quid pro quo. Underground, black markets for anything and everything take hold and become just as important as the main economy.
Basically, it never works out. The end result is authoritarianism and deep corruption every time. Just like other forms of government! Except with communism, the pressures of the system force these sorts of problems to arise much faster.
This is inaccurate. Let’s break it down.
Generally speaking, communism usually starts off great for the majority of people
Generally speaking, the movement for communism reaches revolutionary potential during the absolute worst times for the majority of people. The movement for communism, helmed by a communist party, pushes to organize the masses during times of deep desperation and then applies revolution to the entire society, starting with the government and the military. During this time, the society is the most authoritarian it can ever be as the revolutionaries and the existing government, as well as other groups, all attempt to establish control over the society by imposing their authority.
If the communists succeed, it gets better from there, not worse. You can see this in literally every single communist project in modern history.
Brings people out of poverty and whatnot. Very, very bad for the rich and upper middle classes but overall the public benefits.
This is pretty handwavy of the massive amount of effort and complexity required to solve mass poverty. In the USSR and China, both countries had centuries of cyclic famines that caused the masses to suffer and die off while the rich hoarded everything they needed to survive and maintain their power. It takes years of huge effort to modernize an entire country’s agricultural sector to end the cycle of famines, and modernizing agriculture means modernizing a lot of other things - chemical production for fertilizer, machine factories, internal combustion engines, steel foundries, etc. It’s a gargantuan effort.
The sense in which it’s very very bad for the rich is the sense that the royal family doesn’t get to keep their palace and their jewels, the aristocracy don’t get to keep charging rent to indentured servants and peasants on the farm land they own (usually the majority of farmland in the country), etc. It’s “bad” in the sense that they no longer have the ability to be billionaires and luxuries stop getting produced. They lose the caviar and the jewelry and the palaces but they get the same benefits as everyone else - an end to the famine cycle, an end to homelessness, major improvements to the medical system, the sanitation systems, etc.
Then authoritarianism kicks in and everything goes to shit really fast
So we’ve established why the authoritarianism is worst at the beginning of the revolutionary moment. So let’s talk about the history that supports your position.
In the USSR, the revolution of 1917 was quickly followed by an invasion of Russia by Western Europe and the US in 1918. War always results in authoritarian social controls. By 1925, Hitler had published Mein Kampf which clearly stated that this intention was invade Russia, destroy the USSR, and enslave the population. During this time, the USSR was busy trying to stop the endless cycle of famines and it was experiencing internal resistance from the petit bourgeois farm owners. Authoritarian social control was applied both to force the change in the agriculture sector to finally be able to feed everyone, but also in ensuring society against those that agreed with the West and particular were willing to collaborate with the Third Reich.
By the time the Nazis invaded, Stalin had spent years using authoritarianism to force the country to prepare for war when many people didn’t believe there would be a war and even among those that did didn’t believe the doomsday scenarios that Stalin was driven by. Again, authoritarianism applied, this time in the industrial sectors to drive the preparations for war and in the political sector to ensure the war preparations would continue.
We know that these were limited applications of authority, no matter how egregious, because the masses of the population were in love with Stalin. He was from an ethnic minority, he had zero personal wealth, he was committed entirely to the masses and was willing to use authority on their behalf, and then after the USSR not only survived the onslaught but marched all the way through Berlin and liberated the concentration camps, the masses support for Stalin was incredible.
So, despite the initial revolutionary period being the most authoritarian, it is also true that the authoritarianism that followed after the initial revolution was very acute and dramatic. Things DID go to shit, but not because of authoritarianism. The famines were solved until the Nazis invaded. The invasion sent everything to shit. Millions died, famines returned, etc.
But AFTER Stalin came Kruschev. And Kruschev and every subsequent leader actually went for LESS overt authoritarianism. They all engaged in a process of liberalization of the economy, allowing more private wealth accumulation. In the early years after the war, this was actually accompanied by an incredible increase in living standards based on the industrial strength develop before and during the war, and based on the fact that they were no longer facing imminent invasion. The USSR was second only to the United States in food availability and nutrition. They were the 2nd best fed country in the world according to the CIA.
It was the last few decades of the USSR where things really went to shit. The country was deep in its liberalization movement, with private wealth accumulating and inequality getting horrible. There were two prominent periods of scarcity (like bread lines) in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 80s caused by the wealth inequality caused by liberalization. There were two prominent periods of mass deaths in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 7 years following the dissolution of the USSR when liberalization shock therapy caused mass deaths due to lack of medicine, food, and hope.
China follows similar patterns. The initial revolution is deeply authoritarian. Then it lightens up. But the US is launching wars in Korea, Vietnam, etc and they are threatening to invade and even to nuke China. The authoritarianism becomes more acute, but less universal. Unlike the USSR, China has managed to continue to build up the autonomy and wealth of the masses over its 75 years. The USSR was already gone by year 75.
People very quickly lose equality and equal treatment as a result.
As you can deduce from the above, the problem is the opposite, in fact. Things go to shit because of the elevation of private wealth accumulation (unequal treatment is the cause not the effect).
Corruption is the biggest, inevitable problem […] Since that’s incredibly difficult under communism, you end up with lots of quid pro quo. Underground, black markets
You say this, but the US has been running covert drug operations for decades, literally creating entire cartels and running drugs globally for black market profits. Organized crime has always been a huge part of the US history, including its mythos. And we’re literally looking at that exact thing happening with Donald Trump and realizing it’s been this way for decades involving weapons manufacturing, human trafficking, feeder schools, the movie industry, etc. You’re pointing at a universal problem of power and saying somehow its special under communism, but Epstein, Trump, Enron, Bear Stearns, LIBOR, the Sacklers, and so many others happened under capitalism.
Basically, it never works out.
It’s been tried 6 times (USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, DPRK). One has failed.
The end result is authoritarianism and deep corruption every time.
Just look at the authoritarianism and corruption in the USA, UK. Most countries in the world are capitalist, and most are corrupt as shit and most are beating pro-Palestine protestors or imprisoning political dissidents.
Except with communism, the pressures of the system force these sorts of problems to arise much faster.
The US was literally founded on indigenous genocide and mass slavery? It was so fast, it literally took zero time.
Bro add some sources and publish it as an article. Goddamn! Thank you!!
Excellent response, and very eloquently put
Then authoritarianism kicks in
PragerU-ass sentence
Vibes based analysis with nothing backing it except vague anticommunism.
This is the west’s leading country, accusing its enemies of “authoritarianism”:
This isn’t really true, though. You’re confusing the necessary mechanisms put in place to defend socialism with a general, vague, idealist notion of “authoritarianism.” People don’t seek to improve their conditions with respect to their peers, but instead seek to uplift themselves. In capitalism, you see such anti-social behavior because that’s what the underlying mode of production is focused on.
Whoah there! I was talking about communism, specifically. Not socialism (which isn’t well defined).
You were referring to socialist countries like the USSR, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Communism is post-socialist.
What would be the opposite/absence of “authoritarianism”?
Not looking to offend but I’d be curious how they define ‘authoritarianism’ as well. My experience has been essentially that it’s often defined as “when the government does something”, which is essentially meaningless.
Corruption often rises from centralizarion of power without having “checks and balances”. So Central economy planning system might be more to blame, than the socialist movement part of communism.
Not to mention, that in a central economy planning system, there is no accurate way for the average Joe to signal on what he needs/wants to be made (talking about consumer items, not base needs).
That kinda creates the need for separate markets to rise to meet the demand, which works without the supervision by the state. The market can’t really self-regulate, so a lot of people end up scammed daily.
Ah… the glory of USSR and the hoops and whistles an average man had to take to buy a shitty radio.
Shit, even if you wanted to have a birthday party, you had to pay extra to get vodka from under the counter.
Corruption often rises from centralizarion of power without having “checks and balances”. So Central economy planning system might be more to blame, than the socialist movement part of communism.
Corruption arises from people desiring better conditions for themselves, and manipulating available levers. There’s nothing about socialism and central planning that makes it more corrupt than capitalism.
Not to mention, that in a central economy planning system, there is no accurate way for the average Joe to signal on what he needs/wants to be made (talking about consumer items, not base needs).
Fundamentally incorrect. Not only can you gather feedback directly, but you can use planned economics based on consumption to reallocate production and distribution.
That kinda creates the need for separate markets to rise to meet the demand, which works without the supervision by the state. The market can’t really self-regulate, so a lot of people end up scammed daily.
Socialist systems can legalize markets and control them by maintaining ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. Black markets arise from problems with the socialist system, but these are not unsolvable problems.
There’s nothing about socialism and central planning that makes it more corrupt than capitalism.
There is in that things that we call corrupt under socialism, is just normal business under capitalism.
True! A much more elegant way of getting across the broader point I was trying to make.
Removed by mod
The USSR wasn’t “broken systematically,” nor was it a “shithole.” Those are better descriptors for Russia under tsarism and capitalism than under socialism. Following actual historical evidence, the USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Removed by mod
I love~ your actual historical evidence.
Life expectancy from birth:
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Supply issues in the USSR were magnified by sanctions and recovery from taking by far the biggest hit in World War II. When looked at from its historical progress, the USSR was a system of dramatic, rapid development and improvement that was under siege for its entire existence. It never once had a year of “normal” development, nor was it allowed to.
Any shortcomings compared to western, imperialist countries need to be analyzed with the context that the USSR was developing from utter immiseration under the tsar. The USSR did not fall from tsarism, but rose from tsarism as its base level of development. Tsarist Russia was not a peer country of the west, so the idea that the west having better access to luxuries than the USSR isn’t a point against it.
The rest of your comment is a personal anecdote, which can be dismissed incredibly easy as such.
I’m still glad the CCCP dissolved. I will not argue that Russia is better after that, because it didn’t change for the better, but here I’m much happier
This really says it all, doesn’t it? Russia is worse off for the adoption of capitalism and the dissolution of socialism, but you in particular are happier about it. Love your reasoning, being essentially having access to western commodities.
