As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
We both know you know what was meant. Don’t be like a republican. Have a good day.
no, you don’t seem to know what i meant.
your comfort and booming economy is a direct result of your imperialism and owning the world’s currency. “the economy of the 50s” was fueled by blood.
don’t be an apologist for it. don’t be like a republican.
Oh I know what you meant, exactly. It’s grade school history. It’s also the same take repeated endlessly on internet forums where pedantry and needing to spell out every single facet rule supreme. So I guess I’ll spell it out. “The economy refers to the fact someone was able to pay for a home, family, and yearly vacation on an entry level, high school diploma as the only requirement job. The civil rights and liberties people are stating as the one thing they didn’t want to bring to modern times.”
I’m going to assume you know why someone would want that without the abuse of minorities, immigrants, or third world countries.
Or you can just pull the same thing everyone else does and state, “A society like that couldn’t exist without that exploitation.” like the true unique free thinker you are. To which I say prove it. We’ve always had a rich parasite class that needed exploitation, those who are fine without being far wealthier than others are perfectly capable of doing fine without the exploitation, its the leeches that require it.
Ah it’s always the same with those ideologically blinded people.
Capitalism is inherently bad blah blah
Socialism can never work blah blah
It’s all bullshit. Capitalism does not matter, socialism does not matter. How we call it does not matter. What matters is that a society is healthy, sustainable and prospering.
The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality - each set of values or ideology is as much worth as the people who (supposedly) follow it.
In any system we ever built, there are greedy, corrupt, powerful people, who like shit, always somehow end up swimming at the top. And then everything begins to rot.
heres the actual material reality: western capitalists control the world, they are fucking us over. it was only ever “prosperous” to a select few countries.
socialism is historically one of the only ways to defeat it, i get the people who like it.
Edited
yes it was. how do you think socialist countries went from pisspoor poorest in the planet to industrial powerhouses in just a few decades?
if you like the status quo for whatever reason, why not say it in a less roundabout way? if you don’t mind fascism just let the adults talk.
Edited
This is nonsense, again.
The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).
The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.
Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.
Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.
Edited
I’m not trying to be mean here, but I really don’t care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it’s because I’ve done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.
I’m also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn’t outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It’s no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.
The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:
As for the PRC, “Socialist Market Economy” is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven’t actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark’s Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it’s public property that governs the large firms and key industries.
The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here’s a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao’s era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn’t very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It’s Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.