Is the absence of socialism capitalism? Is the absence of capitalism socialism?

No. Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalist class in control of the state. Socialisn is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Feudalism is neither socialism nor capitalism, as an example of absence of both.

I’m asking you to take a higher level philosophical view of being tied to defending a human-made economic model.

All views are baked in our philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not. Everyone is a “philosopher,” based on their own values and experiences shaping how they view the world and their place in it. I follow dialectical materialism, which is how I view the world and attempt to understand it.

Why even waste the energy?

My energy isn’t wasted, in my opinion, because I’ve created many comrades that otherwise may not have come around to socialism.

Never mind the fact that socialism requires authoritarianism as the starting point.

All societies since primitive communism have been class societies, and thus all societies rely on the authority of the state to represent the ruling class. Capitalism requires the authoritarianism of capitalists over the working classes, socialism is superior to capitalism in that it is the authoritarianism of workers over capitalists, landlords, and fascists. Only once all class has been abolished through socialism into communism will the state wither away, leaving classless society devoid of such talk of “authoritarianism.”

You don’t even have many models of success to point to. Have even half of counties that tried socialism survived? It’s not much different than wearing a Confederate flag on your shirt and shouting “The South Will Rise Again!” Even China went to a hybrid system. Why spend you limited life defending a proven mediocre idea?

This is nonsense, the confederacy was a slave-driven economy that lasted 4 years on its own. Socialism in Europe lasted nearly a century, and today we still have the PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, and Cuba. China is not a “hybrid system,” it’s a socialist market economy. The backbone of the economy is in strong State Owned Enterprises, with marketization filling in the gaps left behind by the publicly owned commanding heights of the economy.

Socialism is the opposite of a “proven mediocre idea,” it has worked every time it has been implemented in achieving its broad aims. The largest ecomomy in the world by PPP is socialist, and the PRC shows no signs of this slowing down. The 21st century will be driven by decay of imperialism and the rise of socialism.

You don’t want countries to chose for themselves based on their own priorities? You really think you have it all figured out and should force it on everyone?

I agree with self-determination, I also believe that based on the facts at hand, capitalism is at the end of its existence and socialism remains the only path forward. I advocate for the formation of revolutionary parties to grow working class movements and establish socialism, not for tiny adventurist cells to try to coup governments. Establishing socialism only works with popular support.

This is just you turning a blind eye to the very real fact that the reason metrics collapsed with the adoption of capitalism and the dissolution of socialism is because critical safety nets were destroyed, disparity skyrocketed, and profit became king. I didn’t give you hard evidence of the successes of socialism for no reason, but to definitively point out why socialism’s absence and capitalism’s presence has been disastrous. Because this is inconvenient for you, you just try to shift it to a general “human problem,” even though the socialist system worked well up until the very end.

Regretting the fall of the USSR and stating that they live worse lives economically than under socialism doesn’t make them all fascists. There’s a collective yearning for a time when life was better, that doesn’t make every one of them fascist, and the fact that fascists try to take advantage of this fact to gain power does not mean that socialism was secretly worse. I demonstrated numerous ways how the dissolution of socialism was disastrous to back this up, which you called “fangirling” (which itself is misogynistic and misgendering) and unrelated.

And the really angry ones tend to be banned for some flavor of bigotry.

Simple, fascism always glorifies the past, but tries to twist it into a point of national pride rather than socialist pride, combined with the fact that the left was thoroughly de-rooted. I didn’t debunk literally every author, because the first one I saw was a Nazi and a fiction writer. I also gave you many books written by people living in the USSR giving a positive overview of the experience, something you said is rare.

The rise in the far-right in post-socialist countries is due to the systematic eradication of the left. These now capitalist countries are not democratic in any way, and their systems have largely been dominated by western finance capital.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was an anti-semitic Nazi sympathizer, and was arrested as such. His fiction is based on the folklore of the gulag system, and archival evidence and historical texts paint a much clearer picture of the soviet prison system. He’s essentially Yeonmi Park but for the USSR.

Here’s a real quote:

The German army could have liberated the Soviet Union from Communism but Hitler was stupid and did not use this weapon.

From an excellent thread going over his many ideological failings:

In his 2003 book, Two Hundred Years Together, he wrote that “from 20 ministers in the first Soviet government one was Russian, one Georgian, one Armenian and 17 Jews”. In reality, there were 15 Commissars in the first Soviet government, not 20: 11 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 1 Pole, and only 1 Jew. He stated: “I had to bury many comrades at the front, but not once did I have to bury a Jew”. He also stated that according to his personal experience, Jews had a much easier life in the Gulag camps that he was interned in.

According to the Northwestern University historian Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern: Solzhenitsyn used unreliable and manipulated figures and ignored both evidence unfavorable to his own point of view and numerous publications of reputable authors in Jewish history. He claimed that Jews promoted alcoholism among the peasantry, flooded the retail trade with contraband, and “strangled” the Russian merchant class in Moscow. He called Jews non-producing people (“непроизводительный народ”) who refused to engage in factory labor. He said they were averse to agriculture and unwilling to till the land either in Russia, in Argentina, or in Palestine, and he blamed the Jews’ own behavior for pogroms. He also claimed that Jews used Kabbalah to tempt Russians into heresy, seduced Russians with rationalism and fashion, provoked sectarianism and weakened the financial system, committed murders on the orders of qahal authorities, and exerted undue influence on the prerevolutionary government. Petrovsky-Shtern concludes that, “200 Years Together is destined to take a place of honor in the canon of russophone antisemitica.”

His own wife called the Gulag Archipelago “folklore,” why on Earth are you listening to a rabid anti-semite and fiction author over 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 that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. 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. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.

Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.

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.

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.

Death rates spiked:

And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:

Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries.

When you look at the US Empire and western Europe as having higher quality of life than the USSR, you are looking at the benefits of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism and wishing the USSR also practiced this, instead of helping liberate colonies and the global south. Russia in particular was a semi-feudal backwater in 1917, and made it to space 5 decades later. The USSR was not the picture of wealth, but was for its time the picture of development and rapid progress.

The USSR was stable by the time it dissolved, it was dissolved from the top-down. It did not fail horribly, it was killed by a corrupt wing that had taken hold since Khruschev. It remained socialist until the very end, but by no means was it an inevitable failure, and modern socialist states have learned from it.

I’m not really sure what you’re referring to specifically, because by and large socialist countries have persecuted genuine fascists, capitalists, and those guilty of genuine treason.

You can browse an instance without an account to check it out.

Copying over @Marasenna@lemmygrad.ml’s comment, as you can’t see it due to being defederated from Lemmygrad.ml:

You can’t “transfer a user” to another instance but you can transfer your subscriptions (including blocked users, blocked communities, saved posts, saved comments) and account settings. Go into your settings page (probably lemmy.world/settings) and then, on the right hand side above the Delete Account button, you’ll see a section where you can Import/Export your settings as a .json file. Do that, then go to a new instance, create an account there, and then upload that .json file into the import box in the same area (the one that says Browse…) on your new account at your new instance and then hit import.

It’s super simple. I hope I explained it adequately.

Yep, agreed!

Your last paragraphs again prove my point of China and Vietnam progressing after having liberalised their economies. Of course, they didn’t become US or Singapore. But they had to let go of socialist doctrines.

Wrong. Both the PRC and Vietnam were rapidly developing prior to increasing marketization, and socialism was not abandoned, but strengthened. Marketization of secondary industries stableized growth, it did not create growth:

Secondly, the soviets stopped Russification from the Tsar. Stalin did not implement Russification, it was stopped by Lenin and Stalin protected that. Ethnic minorities were protected. As for Afghanistan, the legitimate government requested aid from the soviets, the soviets did not invade.

As for the protection of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, none of what you said is true. Mandarin, for example, is taught while Uyghur language and culture is protected. You are sidestepping the mountain of resources provided to you to double down. Socialism is rising, and was not defeated. The USSR falling was a tragedy, but the PRC is the largest economy in the world by PPP and is driving the world forward, thanks to their socialist system.

Federation matters quite a lot, for example you cannot see anything on Hexbear.net or Lemmygrad.ml, because .world blocks communist instances. If you want a generalist instance, lemmy.zip is often recommended and more widely federated. Alternatively, find an instance that aligns with your interests and scroll locally as you like.

The USSR was not “Russified.” It was a federation of multi-national ethnicities, which were protected by the soviets. Tsarist Russification was stopped by the soviets. Advocating for a common writing system and language was done alongside vast literacy programs and protecting ethnicities and languages. National liberation was taken incredibly seriously by the soviets.

Tibet was a feudal slave society backed by the CIA. The PLA liberated Tibet. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:

Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.” [12]

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. [13] Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” [14] In fact it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeatedremoved, beginning at age nine. [15] The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. [16] The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care. They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord’s land — or the monastery’s land — without pay, to repair the lord’s houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. [17] Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. [18]

As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf’s maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” [19] Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed. [20]

The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery. [21]

The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Regarding Xinjiang, the best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is a group of Chinese diaspora living in the west, and they compiled an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims. The majority of their sourcing is western, and they cite official Chinese government writing and white papers when relevant. Uyghur culture is preserved.

I also recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail.These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz’ work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of “forced sterilization,” from this chart:

As for the socialist market economies of Vietnam and China, they are not liberalized, and are still socialist. Private ownership is secondary to public, and is relegated to small/medium firms, as well as highly competitive, non-critical industries like tech. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership typically is found in secondary industries and highly competitive non-critical industries like tech. In China, the CPC often has controlling shares of private companies as well, especially the larger ones. As these private firms grow, they are socialized and often folded into the public sector. This is why public ownership is the principal aspect of their economies, and determines the nature of Vietnam the PRC’s path on the socialist road.

See also the stages of socialism presented by Chinese economists, like Cheng Enfu:

The character of the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whole-Process People’s Democracy is the form of consultative democracy in China. Local candidates are directly elected, and then these ladder upwards in indirect elections. The top conducts many surveys and tries to find policy from the people via the Mass Line, while practicing democratic centralism and maintaining the ability to quickly respond to changing conditions. Long-term policy change is slow but positive as consensus is built, short-term crisis is quickly adapted to as needed.

Both Vietnam and China have similar systems with unique characteristics best fitting their conditions.

The soviets were not imperialist, and any socialist society will need to imprison fascists and deal with them as class struggle does not end overnight.

The soviets did not have any colonies. China did not colonize Tibet nor Xinjiang. Neither the PRC nor Vietnam liberalized their economies, they retained proletarian control of the state and public ownership of the commanding heights of industry. The expansion of markets was a complement to the socialist system, not a change in system.

The large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall.

I personally am economically extremely communist while being very anti-soviet and anti-CCP, because I disagree with their authoritarian methods of enforcing socialism.

Any socialist country that exists will need to use the state to oppress capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries. The working class holding state power over capitalists is a good thing. Being “extremely communist” while opposing all possible methods of building socialism isn’t being a communist, it’s letting the perfect version of socialism in your head become the enemy of existing socialism.

Yes, haha, but in ways more similar than being FOSS would imply. .world isn’t neutral.

Yep, well-said! That’s why liberalism cannot fight fascism, and instead enables it.

Yep, that’s a whole other can of woms, haha.

A lot of Lemmy.world users sign up because they believe it to be a “neutral” instance, and just want a drop-in FOSS reddit replacement. The truth is that Lemmy.world is highly partisan, particularly of the establishment DNC variety. Liberal zionism, anti-communism, and more are the mainstays of Lemmy.world admins and moderators, but many users don’t realize it until much later. Further, Lemmy.world defederates and censors communist and other leftist instances, creating a walled garden where their users cannot even see opposition.