Has anyone encountered someone from a country that has had socialist in the past falling for propaganda.
I have a couple friends who know I'm a ML and its difficult to try to discuss communism around them because of how they fall for the anti red propaganda.
I can discuss the issues with them but they often dismiss everything at themselves being an authority on the subject as I do not live in a post socialist society. I ususally write them off as impossible to enter reasonable discussions with and also I focus mostly on the people within my region to agitate. But occasionally they're a mutual friend or are in the vicinity of the discussion and return to the same old things.
Unnecessary but relevant story:
There was even an incident with a German I met at a party. I talked for a bit about normal stuff and mentioned how hard living was for me in my country because of capitalism and he shut me down not wanting to talk about politics which ofc I respect its a party. But later when I was discussing the feminist progress in socialist countries have accomplished and their impact on our country and culture with a professor I was totally chattin up(she wrote her final thesis on a similar matter), they came over and interrupted the conversation with their own opinions on the matter. Mostly referring to the history in Berlin of which ofc they hands personally experienced. Thankfully this didnt ruin the vibe and us socialists got social lmao.
But Its something I have encountered repeatedly and I'm not sure how to approach it. Especially as someone from a imperial country.
社会主義採用してた国の人とプロパガンダ信じるのがありますか？ 少し友達に僕はMLだを知ってます。プロパガンダひっかかるので、辺で共産主義について話は難しです。
あの人とよく話せますけど、よく僕の意見は無視されますよ。あの人にとって、あの人は共産主義について権威振舞いますよ。あの人とちゃんと話無理と思いますて, 同国人とに焦点変わります。しかし、よくあの人辺がいますて、よく僕の話に遮ります。どうしようかな
[Edit: lmao I misclicked or something into the wrong community ty for the replies tho]
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.
"Better" can also be defined as simply not going through the total collapse of one's country. Stability, not economic power, has value. Humans do a lot to maintain homeostasis and low risk living. It's a looooong timeline to unfuck a country. Generations, in fact. Not limited to post-Soviet bloc counties either. Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, the US after the Civil War, Germany, Italy, Spain, Iraq. Take your pick.
How many East Germans "regretted" the collapse of the Nazi regime simply because their currency ceased to buy them food?
Stop thinking that an economic model of governance solves or causes all problems. Humans cause problems. They'll use any economic model to show you how easy it is to fuck it up.
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.
Is the absence of socialism capitalism? Is the absence of capitalism socialism?
I'm asking you to take a higher level philosophical view of being tied to defending a human-made economic model.
Why even waste the energy? Never mind the fact that socialism requires authoritarianism as the starting point. 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?
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?
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.
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.
My energy isn't wasted, in my opinion, because I've created many comrades that otherwise may not have come around to socialism.
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."
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.
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.
Genuinely curious what this means, considering I came to my own conclusions after researching this topic heavily. You encouraged nothing.
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.
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.
This is pure chauvanism, socialist countries having favorable ties does not mean smaller ones are "client states."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.