I keep running up against this wall when talking to people about communism in the "wild":
"Give me an example of a real world country that flourished after transitioning to communism."
When I look at statistics relating to human flourishing, I can't seem to find any instances where adopting communism lead to more human flourishing. It seems like a lot of people can't be satisfied with the theory, they need a real world practical example to be convinced that it is viable.
Do you guys have any good examples I can use?
25 Comments
TiredTiger@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 37d
I'm assuming you mean transition to socialism, as no one has achieved or claimed to achieve communism. Look at how much Cuba has accomplished in spite of the embargo. They have more doctors per capita than any other nation on earth and even developed their own COVID vaccine. That they are suffering so much now is due to the crimes of the US, not any internal reason.
davel@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 37d
United Nations, 2019: Helping 800 million people escape poverty was greatest such effort in history, says Secretary-General, on 70th anniversary of China’s founding
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 37d
I have heard about this example of course, but there are two issues with using this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_opening_up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 37d
The famine during the great leap forward wasn’t due to communist policy though? It was due to China being a backward country thanks to the century of humiliation (caused by capitalism) leading to lacking the necessary technical knowledge (there’s a reason it was the last famine China ever had).
The actual reasons for the famine in reality were natural causes mixed with agricultural plans made with poor agronomic knowledge due to the backwardness of the country coming from the century of humiliation and a degree of poor reporting tradition held over from the feudal and landlord years.
Also capitalism isn't when there is trade or when there is markets. The Chinese Socialist market economy is exactly that socialist, and the poverty gains during reform and opening up were built on the foundation created by Chairman Mao and would have otherwise been impossible.
You could also look at your question in reverse, when the USSR transitioned to capitalism poverty skyrocketed, life expectancy plunged and by every metric human suffering increased.
(P.s. you really shouldn't use Wikipedia for information on China especially regarding political or sensitive events you'd get an equally honest answer if you asked the CIA)
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 37d
No, this isn't accurate. Only pro-communist propaganda tries to downplay the horrendous Maoist agricultural policies and general economic mismanagement.
So the communists played no part in it?
True, but you can't have markets and trade under communism.
The Democratic people's Republic of Korea is exactly that...
Source?
Really? Just like how infant mortality spiked when Tsarist Russia was taken over by the communists?
Be more paranoid please.
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 37d
It wasn't a specifically communist policy it was an attempt to industrialise and escape cyclical famine implemented poorly due to the backwardness of the nation at the time leading to lacking the proper agronomic knowledge to implement such changes and poor reporting traditions held over from the feudal and landlord years.
The communist party administered this however the fact they are communist plays no role as the root cause is unrelated (that again being natural disaster, lacking agronomic knowledge, and poor reporting tradition).
You also can't press a button and instantly be communist, or have communism in one country. Socialism is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. Which I assumed is what you were really asking about as communism is the end goal of a worldwide collectivised system. You absolutely can have trade and markets under socialism just like how you can have social policy under capitalism. What actually defines the system is primacy of public Vs private ownership and class content of the state.
I'm not going to argue about Korea with an arrogant chauvinist who would put them down with no recognition of the fact they know nothing.
It's a widely known fact in China here's one but I'm sure there's many more but you don't seem particularly interested
Almost like having to fight a war against the whites will have a negative effect, whereas with no war or invading force (other than capitalism) 1990s Russia saw a fall in life expectancy of nearly a decade, skyrocketing poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, crime, human trafficking and more.
It's not paranoia it's hyperbole about how terrible Wikipedia sourcing is, constantly referencing the likes of Radio Free Asia and western press puff pieces about the evil scary Chinese and there imminent collapse.
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 37d
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 37d
Good for them they wouldn't be the first white people wrong about China and certainly won't be the last.
Then this entire thread doesn't make sense.
I've argued with too many racist westerners to bother taking your feelings into account at this point.
See what I mean you people can't help yourselves but be racist chauvinists.
pleiades@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 37d
The comment you're replying to was removed, but if you really are a chinese government employee, I was wondering if you need to use a VPN to access Lemmy/the Fediverse or not?
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 37d
procapra@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 37d
“Give me an example of a real world country that flourished after transitioning to communism.”
None. I personally don't agree that we've seen socialism (which is just early stage communism). Most socialists you encounter will disagree with me, and that is fine.
"It seems like a lot of people can’t be satisfied with the theory"
A lot of people don't even read the theory, including the people who claim to.
pleiades@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 37d
I'm interested to hear why you don't think we've seen socialism? I'm somewhat new to the socialist side of the internet so I want to hear as many opinions as possible
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 37d
Sure, but you have to admit that it is incredibly dry and not very intuitive. Not to mention borderline utopian.
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 37d
Depends on the author, I personally found Lenin to be a very engaging writer for example.
Considering how much time effectively every major theorist spends bashing utopians and explaining how struggle needs to be grounded in the material conditions of the time I'd be interested what you mean by this.
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 37d
I mean that the only honest attempt to square with the human drive to compete is luxury space communism. However, even that theory hinges on a near utopian dream (Napoleon's windmill) of a future where humans produce enough resources and energy to have eliminated scarcity.
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 37d
Oh you read and took Orwell seriously. My condolences.
Aside from that what human drive to compete? You think humans have some magical essence that makes us simply vessels of greed/competition? No. Humans are greedy and competitive because we live under a system that not only rewards but necessitates it. If you wish to understand the communist position on things you need to do away with your idealist understanding of the world and apply a proper materialist analysis instead.
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 37d
Seriously insofar as I could elucidate that he had seen recurring themes in communist and socialist societal experiments.
Our genes are not magical. Some humans are more competitive, but all cultures nd most species on the plnet show signs of competition for something.
Yes.
No.
What does that mean? Do I need to unlearn science and how to think about the world scientifically?
QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 37d
I wonder what causes that it couldn't possibly be the material conditions of the world we currently live in?!?!?!
The opposite you need to actually look at the world scientifically instead of with the nonsense notion of human nature etc. while pretending to have a scientific outlook.
pleiades@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 37d
Marx's and Engel's whole thing was being anti-utopian dawg
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 37d
USSR is the obvious example. This was the first successful socialist uprising in the world, which transformed Russia from a poor and backward feudal country into a leading economic, political, military, scientific, technical, cultural and educational power!
Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:
USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%:
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
USSR ended famines https://artir.wordpress.com/2017/02/04
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960:
USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996:
https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm
Had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century after Japan. The USSR started out at the same level of economic development and population as Brazil in 1920, which makes comparisons to the US, an already industrialized country by the 1920s, even more spectacular.
Free Universal Health care, and most doctors per capita in the world. 42 doctors per 10k population, vs 24 in Denmark and Sweden, 19 in US.
Had near zero unemployment, continuous economic growth for 70 straight years. The "continuous" part should make sense – the USSR was a planned, non-market economy, so market crashes á la capitalism were pretty much impossible.
In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016:
https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-you-get-by-on-the-average-americans-retirement-income/
All education, including university level, free. 2
99% literacy.
Combatted sex inequality. Equal wages for men and women mandated by law, but sex inequality, although not as pronounced as under capitalism, was perpetuated in social roles.
Combatted Racial inequality.
Soviet power production per capita in 1990 was more than the EU, Great Britain, or China's in 2014. GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capita.gif
The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0735675784900482 (use sci-hub for access)
USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-smallpox
The Social Consequences of Soviet Immunization Policies https://web.archive.org/web/20240218132709/https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1997-812-03g-Hoch.pdf
What happens after the USSR collapsed, and what came with capitalist privatization:
For an overview of the soviet experiment, watch this brilliant talk by Micheal Parenti, or read his article, Left anticommunism, the unkindest cut.
Also read this great article by Stephen Gowans, Do publicly owned, planned economies work?. Audio on youtube
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 37d
academic studies on USSR
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possible:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
Romania, the inustrialization of an agrarian economy under socialist planning
So, how do people who lived under communism feel now that they got a taste of capitalism?
Adult mortality increased enormously in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet system collapsed 30 years ago. https://archive.ph/9Z12u
Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
The Free market paradise goes East chapters in Blackshirts and Reds details some more results of the transition to capitalism.
straussbelial@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 37d
There is none. Capitalism is the era we're all living right now. It was created from feudal era and expanded global wide with the industrial revolution. Is not just some specific local optional system.
Every "communist" country was/is just another capitalist country with a dictatorship that claims it will end capitalism at some point. Capitalism is the existence of capital and the system that arises from it.
Comunism is being against it, not a system. Go and take a look at the Communist Manifesto, it's very short and self explanatory. Leninism was one, but it's technically an extreme form of capitalism: a ridiculously strong state/nation, a extreme separation of classes and a total control of private property and means of production (exactly what communism wants to abolish). They just took the term "marxism" as propaganda (as thr nazis took the term "socialism" or n.korea took the term "democratic"); actual marxists are actually super against leninism.
So, a "communist" system would be anything that arises after the fall of capitalism. It would be a system with no social classes (so no ruling class separate from worker class), no private property (so no state or landlords) and no ownership of means of production (no company owners). And by definition, no capital, so no "lands", no shares and... please sit down for this... no money.
That's why capitalists NEED to demonize communism and misinform of what it is. Because communism is basically the idea of abolish capitalism, not a system by itself. Communism in another era could have been something like "we don't want kings to own these lands and our labor as farmers".
So no, there is no communist country... yet.
Talentlesssculptor@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 37d
Thanks for the honest answer.
I personally understand why people don't want to demolish a system from which they prosper and within which they enjoy a high living standard.
straussbelial@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
Also our brains are deeply molded by capitalism, as part ofnit is difficult to think that there will be some other system in the future (like there were before this one). Thinking that a society without money or nations (as an example) could work, is really really hard to consider. Is like telling a peasant from the middle ages thet he/she could own land.