I wasn’t referring to Wikipedia backing up the June 2nd bit. I don’t 100% disagree or agree with the rest, but I don’t think there’s much to argue definitively anymore due to the nature of how hazy the estimates are.

Why do racist fascists come to the fediverse?

Edit: To be clear: I prefer socialism. Not whatever feelgood capitalism, but make it green on the left is.

The PRC has a socialist market economy, not “feelgood capitalism.” The commanding heights of industry are publicly owned, the working classes have control of the state, and this combination is what allows for the PRC’s strong movements towards electrification, combatting desertification, and uplifting the working classes. China in many ways is advancing towards what Solarpunks reportedly want, a green economy directed towards working class interests.

Socialism with Frutiger Aero Characteristics

And yet liberals view Churchill more positively than Stalin. Over time that will be swept away, but for the time being Churchill’s genocidal actions and clear neglect to prepare for the Nazis (and often friendly relations and trade) go nearly unknown.

It’s sarcasm.

Having a mix of people commenting with different viewpoints already contributes to this, but there’s also many people that scroll locally exclusively. There’s also differences in admins and moderators, their rules and preferences, etc. This itself forms its own culture. It isn’t the absence of culture, but the presence of a unique, blended culture, which isn’t inherently better or worse.

.world is widely federated, but it also selectively defederates from communist instances, and bans people for being too critical of Zionism. This influences Lemmy.world’s culture greatly despite relatively broad federation.

Interesting, I’ll have to give that a look!

The problem is that all of those “nicer parts” are used to justify and support the elephant in the room, the right to private property. Liberalism has been used historically to justify slavery, genocide, imperialism, and more. Liberalism cannot be removed from its economic basis, the economic basis is the driving force for the ideology. It’s individualism taken to an anti-social level.

Yep, that’s why language learning is such a useful skill!

Gotcha! For what it’s worth, neutrality doesn’t truly exist. What we think of as neutral is really that which conforms to our pre-existing beliefs. Our language, culture, norms, etc. reinforce this idea of what is “neutral,” which in reality is a comparison to these subjects. With that being said, I would think of it more in terms of what you want to see: broad federation, selective defederation, etc., as well as what each instance is like to browse locally. All have their own vibes, Lemmy.zip isn’t “vibeless” just because it is broadly federated.

Just a tip!

A bit odd coming from the instance currently trying to fake a Neo-Nazi takeover of an anarchist instance just because Feddit.org and Lemmy.world admins got outed as Zionists.

Regarding point 1, this is relatively true.

Regarding point 2, all of these states are “authoritarian,” the difference being which class has authority, and which classes has authority imposed upon them. Cuba, the PRC, and Vietnam are all socialist countries with the working class in charge of the state, while France, Europe, and the US are all imperialist countries/regions where capitalists control the state and impose their authoritarian rule upon the working classes.

Regarding point 3, this could be a possible explanation but requires actual backing.

Regarding point 4, it’s important to compare not just systems dogmatically, but against peers, and what came before. Germany, the UK, Austria, etc. are all imperialist countries, and thus have greater access to resources. It matters both how much resources you have, and what you do with them. Socialist countries have more pro-social policy that stretches resources farther.

In total, it certainly is propaganda in that it’s trying to convey a specific point for a specific aim, just like your comment can be considered propaganda. You offer some decent ideas of how to improve the data, but you also insert your own biases without backing them up, and run into metaphysical errors regarding how these are compared (such as ignoring levels of development and imperialism).

Yep! Been reading Gramsci lately, and he puts into words this phenomenon really well:

The widespread prejudice that philosophy is something very difficult because it is the intellectual activity of a specific category of specialist scholars or professional and systematic philosophers must be destroyed. To do this we must first show that all men are “philosophers,” defining the limitations of this “spontaneous philosophy” possessed by “everyone,” that is, of the philosophy contained in: (1) language itself, which is a totality of determined notions and concepts and not simply and solely of words grammatically void of content; (2) common sense and good sense; (3) popular religion and therefore also in the entire system of beliefs, superstitions, opinions, ways of perceiving and acting which make up what is generally called “folklore.”

Having shown that everyone is a philosopher, even if in his own way, unconsciously (because even in the smallest manifestation of any intellectual activity — “language” — is contained a definite conception of the world), we pass to the second stage, the stage of criticism and awareness. We pass to the question: is it preferable to “think” without having critical awareness, in a disjointed and irregular way, in other words to “participate” in a conception of the world “imposed” mechanically by external environment, that is, by one of the many social groups in which everyone is automatically involved from the time he enters the conscious world; [3] or is it preferable to work out one’s own conception of the world consciously and critically, and so out of this work of one’s own brain to choose one’s own sphere of activity, to participate actively in making the history of the world, and not simply to accept passively and without care the imprint of one’s own personality from outside?

Note 1: For his own conception of the world a man always belongs to a certain grouping, and precisely to that grouping of the social elements who all share the same ways of thinking and working. He is a conformist in relation to some conformity, he is always man of a mass or a man of a collective. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformity, the mass of which he is a part? When his conception of the world is not critical and coherent but haphazard and disconnected he belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of masses, giving his own personality a bizarre composition. It contains elements of the cave-man as well as principles of the most modern and advanced learning; shabby, local prejudices of all past historical phases as well as intuitions of a future philosophy of the human race united all over the world. Criticizing one’s own conception of the world means, therefore, to make it coherent and unified and to raise it to the point reached by the most advanced modern thought. It also means criticizing all hitherto existing philosophy in so far as it has left layers incorporated into the popular philosophy. The beginning of the critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, that is, a “know thyself” as the product of the historical process which has left you an infinity of traces gathered together without the advantage of an inventory. To begin, then, it is necessary to first compile such an inventory.

Note 2: Philosophy cannot be separated from the history of philosophy nor culture from the history of culture. In the most immediate and pertinent sense one cannot have a critically coherent conception of the world — that is, one cannot be a philosopher — without being aware of one’s conception’s history, of the phases of development it represents, and of the fact that any conception stands in contradiction to other conceptions, or elements of other conceptions. The correct conception of the world answers certain problems posed by reality which are very much determined and “original” in their actuality. How is it possible to think about the present — and a well-determined present at that — with a philosophy elaborated in response to the problems of a remote and often outdated past? If this happens it means that one is an “anachronism” in one’s own time, a fossil and not a modern living being. Or at least one is “composed” bizarrely. And in fact it so happens that social groups which in certain ways express the most developed modernity, are arrested in other ways by their social position, and so are incapable of complete historical independence. [4]

Note 3: Given that language contains the elements of a conception of the world and of a culture, it will also be true that the greater or lesser complexity of a person’s conception of the world can be judged from that person’s language. A person who only speaks a dialect or who understands the national language in varying degrees necessarily enjoys a more or less restricted and provincial, fossilized and anachronistic perception of the world in comparison with the great currents of thought which dominate world history. His interests will be restricted, more or less guild-like or economistic, and not universal. If it is not always possible to learn foreign languages so as to put oneself in touch with different cultures, one must at least learn the national tongue. One great culture can be translated into the language of another great culture, that is, one great national language which is historically rich and complex, can translate any other great culture, i.e. can be a world expression. But a dialect cannot do the same thing.

Note 4: The creation of a new culture does not only mean individually making some “original” discoveries. It means also and especially the critical propagation of truths already discovered, “socializing them” so to speak, and so making them become a basis for vibrant actions, an element of co-ordination and of intellectual and moral order. The leading of a mass of men to think coherently and in a unitary way about present-day reality is a “philosophical” fact of much greater importance and “originality” than the discovery by a philosophical “genius” of a new truth which remains the inheritance of small groups of intellectuals.

• The Study of Philosophy and of Historical Materialism

How exactly is this cherry-picking? Communists wanting everyone to have food and be taken care of are entirely different from capitalists that want to suck the surplus value out of every worker. Horseshoe theory is wrong.

OK. Well I see that encouraging freedom of thought with you is, itself, a waste of time.

Genuinely curious what this means, considering I came to my own conclusions after researching this topic heavily. You encouraged nothing.

You mention a lack of poverty - as defined by an authoritarian regime that defines both who is poor as well as who can talk about it. Same with citing surveys of subjective experience that is objectively questionable at best as your only reference of people that enjoyed living under socialism.

All states are “authoritarian” in that all states represent a ruling class, yet you seem to only call states where the working classes have power “authoritarian regimes.” You never elaborate further. I gave many books and primary sources going far more into detail, yet you laser-focus on the nostalgia polling. Dishonesty on your part.

This is a list of one-party states. Not countries practicing socialism.

All of these countries have public ownership as the principal aspect, with the working classes in control of the state. Having a single party does not go against that, it strengthens them. Further, the PRC has 8 political parties in addition to the CPC, and the DPRK has 2 additional parties beyond the WPK, none have the influence of the CPC nor WPK because both are more popularly supported.

Vietnam and the DPRK are client states of China so that political class Boomers can stick it to each other using 60-year-old political stances. Cuba is a client state of Russia for the same reasons. Or maybe it’s socialism in that Gazprom sales to Europe used to keep the power running in Havana.

This is pure chauvanism, socialist countries having favorable ties does not mean smaller ones are “client states.”

I do want to say, I genuinely feel sorry for the people of Cuba. An entire nation used as leverage so that a few old guys can thumb their nose at a few other old guys. Every Cuban (not Miami Cubans, doctors across Africa) I’ve ever met was really quite nice. Weird Spanish and some definite clothing…choices… but they didn’t talk up Cuba’s success. It’s natural beauty, sure.

Personal anecdote doesn’t actually trump the fact that Cuba’s socialist system has delivered incredible results, including in healthcare, despite the intense embargo.

This is very much not the case. Basic bartering in a village where one farmer sells grain or sheep cheese dispels the notion that the a “worker class” is powerless without socialism.

This isn’t how modern capitalism functions, lmao. Capitalism isn’t simply trade, it’s an entire economic system backed by a tyrannical state to oppress workers. The existence of individual petite bourgeois worker-owners does not negate the dominance of megacorps and dictatorial states of capital.

How many suicides from the Chinese-authorized Foxconn building due to low wages and brutal working conditions? Who, exactly, did those workers have authority over? The state? Apple? The political class in China? The landlords they still need to pay with those low wages? Answer: they had authority over no one and nothing. Not even to cry for help. So they fucking killed themselves to end it all. And it’s not changed.

China is lower on the suicide rate scale than the US Empire and much of western Europe. This is why facts and statistics matter, not just how you personally feel.

There is no such thing as a “political class” either. The state is the representative of the ruling class in society, not its own unique and distinct class. Classes are relations with definite counterparts, like peasant/lord, worker/capitalist. The state does not exist outside of class struggle.

Seriously - you’re going to tell me that China is a successful model of socialism when it’s developed a middle class over the last 20 years to help propagate state-run businesses that exploit workers on behalf of capitalist companies? It’s not making class go away, it’s making MORE classes! It’s entrenching political class stratification and menial workers that serve them. Mao murdered a million landlords - but there’s still landlords in China, my friend. It’s just that the current landlords are part of the CCP.

Again, more bullshit. China is not creating new classes, you’re misrepresenting what class even is to begin with, thinking it’s related to income. There is no “middle-income class” nor “political class.” What has happened is the dramatic uplifting of the working classes, including a renewed focus on eradicating the rural/urban divide within the working classes.

China is the largest sponsor of capitalism and classism in the world. It’s economic model relies on capitalism entirely, at a global scale. It’s kind of funny you don’t or won’t see that. This is China’s success? Gaslight yourself all you want. No country listed in your 5 survivors is even marching towards some golden dawn where class ceases to exist. It’s a laughable claim.

More bullshit. The PRC’s economy is driven by public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, with private ownership as secondary. The existence of private property and markets does not make a system capitalist if those elements form secondary aspects of the overall economy. Further, again, the class character of the state is proletarian. As markets centralize, private ownership is folded into the public sector and increasing degrees of public control are added. This is how socialism is built, on the basis of developed industry.

My friend, thanks for the chat, but whew…please, I beg you, go visit any of places where socialism failed and find out why. Five countries still doing it and literally dozens of failures. I’ve been to 17 countries that once tried socialism, and I always ask about it. Always a lively conversation with people!

Is it really so superior if the failure rate is more than 90%?

Not all countries are the same size, haha. The PRC alone has 1.4 billion people, and again, anecdote doesn’t replace facts and statistics. Socialism worked better than modern capitalism does in Eastern Europe, if you purely look at the fact that socialism dissolved without looking at how and why, and dogmatically assuming this is the case for any socialist state, you’re torturing your understanding of statistical analysis.

Buddy…for real. You’re into super fail sauce like this? Is it just to piss off your parents or something? It’s like Marxist-Leninist folks and Flat Earthers share some attribute about ignoring obvious evidence. I’ve never been so sold on the idea that socialism is maybe the silliest, worst thing people have ever tried. We can do better. It’s just time for something new, right?

The one in this conversation ignoring obvious evidence has been yourself, along with relying on anecdote and hearsay in place of facts and statistics. When you do bring up stats, it’s in a way that reveals a vulgar understanding of correlation and causation, betraying your own points.

Here - go find a failed socialist country near you and check it out:

Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Estonia, half of Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Armenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, any former Yugoslavian country, Mongolia, Benin, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, Guinea, Ghana, Congo-Brazzaville, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Mali, Algeria, Madagascar, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Yemen, Iraq, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Zimbabwe. I’m sure I’m missing a couple.

Checking out the devastation of capitalism to countries that by and large were far stronger under socialism only affirms my points. Further, Burkina Faso, for example, is currently going through a nationalist revolution drawing on its Marxist past, upholding Sankara. You even threw in semi-feudal anti-communists like Cambodia under Pol Pot to pad out your numbers, but it betrays you by pointing out that you’re willing to lie just to prove a point.

Have a nice day! (should I say “Have my nice day” because it’s socialism? I did work at making it nice, after all.)

I have no idea what your joke means, and given your love of lying, smearing me, and generally avoiding grappling with concrete reality, I’d say you failed at being nice if that was your goal.

The distribution of medicine in the USSR, a much poorer country, was widely available because of the socialist economy and distribution of resources. Medicine does not magically appear, economics decides how and where it goes.

That’s not what I was referencing, I was referencing Professor Roland Boer’s work. As for Otto Warmbier, his parents denied an autopsy, and he was arrested not just for stealing a sign, but veering off the tourist path into a restricted millitary-controlled zone to do so. He apologized to the DPRK, was treated in one of the DPRK’s better hospitals after contracting botulism, and the parents denied an autopsy that would have provided definitive proof backing the “DPRK tortured him to death” narrative.

No? Socialism made a life-saving medicine more widely available.

Several times in this thread, such as here. Where’s your proof?