• DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.

      The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.

      Life just favors evil in that way.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.

              If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.

                  In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?

                  Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.

                  You both suck.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.

        • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bro if you go from negative growth to one percent of positive growth you qualify for being rapidly developing

          Doesn’t mean anything about life quality which is shit btw

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.

            As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity

          Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.

        Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.