If the defense for a NK-style society is that it “at least benefits the working class” I suppose even trickle-down isn’t that bad… whether class exists as a concept or not means nothing if you have to live like in NK…
The truth is that as long as you have a structure that allows a group of people to control and steer society - be it a “Proletarian dictatorship designed to benefit the workers” or otherwise - those people are gonna shape it in a way where it benefits themselves. It’s a reasonable assessment that the main issue of the Soviet Union was Stalin’s insanity and forcing certain policies (collectivisation) too fast, but the truth of the matter is that a new class simply emerged: the political, the ones that might not be traditionally rich but benefit in other ways. The working class was never the main beneficiary of the Soviet Union… at the end of a day a dictatorship is just a dictatorship and it’s never for the people. I’m in no way against socialism or enacting various socialist or socialist-adjacent fiscal policies but that doesn’t mean that all just magically become good when the working class dubiously “benefits”.
And how much has those same parameters improved in capitalist societies? China didn’t become rich and influential until they started transitioning into s capitalist class society. No shit that working class conditions improved compared to (almost) literally being serfs
Comparing socialism to trickle-down economics is a false-equivalence. Trickle-down was a lie sold to the working class to justify lower taxes and safety nets, nothing trickles down. Socialist economies like the PRC, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc have had the opposite experience to varying degrees, an uplifting of the working class.
It is absolutely not a reasonable assessment of the USSR that relies on Stalin simply being “insane.” He was paranoid towards his later years, sure, but he was never “insane.” Further, Stalin was neither an absolute leader, nor was he a bad leader. The USSR was run collectively, from top to bottom, Stalin merely had the most individual influence. The structure of the USSR required lots of input from every part of the system. Further, under Stalin, life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, healthcare and education was free and high quality, housing was cheap or even free, unemployment was practically 0, and the USSR went from feudalism to a developed economy that defeated the Nazis.
The idea of a “political class” is absurd. There were administrators and government officials, yes, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom. This numbers in the thousands to millions in Tsarism and capitalism. You have a fundamentally flawed view of socialism.
As for China, adopting market reforms does not mean transitioning to capitalism. They always had classes, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason that have limited private property. In China, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, they have a socialist market economy and are in the primary stage of socialism.
All in all, you have a very liberal, western view of socialism and socialist history that does not correspond to material reality.
This is all anticommunist gish-gallop with no bearing on material reality nor an understanding of socialism. The DPRK is villianized largely the same way Cuba is, it’s doing well despite overwhelming sanctions. Stalin didn’t change the weather to cause the 1930s famine nor did he tell the kulaks to burn their crops. China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the proletariat is in charge of the state.
Overall, you have no clue what you’re talking about, so you parrot standard liberalism.
If the defense for a NK-style society is that it “at least benefits the working class” I suppose even trickle-down isn’t that bad… whether class exists as a concept or not means nothing if you have to live like in NK…
The truth is that as long as you have a structure that allows a group of people to control and steer society - be it a “Proletarian dictatorship designed to benefit the workers” or otherwise - those people are gonna shape it in a way where it benefits themselves. It’s a reasonable assessment that the main issue of the Soviet Union was Stalin’s insanity and forcing certain policies (collectivisation) too fast, but the truth of the matter is that a new class simply emerged: the political, the ones that might not be traditionally rich but benefit in other ways. The working class was never the main beneficiary of the Soviet Union… at the end of a day a dictatorship is just a dictatorship and it’s never for the people. I’m in no way against socialism or enacting various socialist or socialist-adjacent fiscal policies but that doesn’t mean that all just magically become good when the working class dubiously “benefits”.
And how much has those same parameters improved in capitalist societies? China didn’t become rich and influential until they started transitioning into s capitalist class society. No shit that working class conditions improved compared to (almost) literally being serfs
Comparing socialism to trickle-down economics is a false-equivalence. Trickle-down was a lie sold to the working class to justify lower taxes and safety nets, nothing trickles down. Socialist economies like the PRC, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc have had the opposite experience to varying degrees, an uplifting of the working class.
It is absolutely not a reasonable assessment of the USSR that relies on Stalin simply being “insane.” He was paranoid towards his later years, sure, but he was never “insane.” Further, Stalin was neither an absolute leader, nor was he a bad leader. The USSR was run collectively, from top to bottom, Stalin merely had the most individual influence. The structure of the USSR required lots of input from every part of the system. Further, under Stalin, life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, healthcare and education was free and high quality, housing was cheap or even free, unemployment was practically 0, and the USSR went from feudalism to a developed economy that defeated the Nazis.
The idea of a “political class” is absurd. There were administrators and government officials, yes, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom. This numbers in the thousands to millions in Tsarism and capitalism. You have a fundamentally flawed view of socialism.
As for China, adopting market reforms does not mean transitioning to capitalism. They always had classes, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason that have limited private property. In China, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, they have a socialist market economy and are in the primary stage of socialism.
All in all, you have a very liberal, western view of socialism and socialist history that does not correspond to material reality.
Removed by mod
This is all anticommunist gish-gallop with no bearing on material reality nor an understanding of socialism. The DPRK is villianized largely the same way Cuba is, it’s doing well despite overwhelming sanctions. Stalin didn’t change the weather to cause the 1930s famine nor did he tell the kulaks to burn their crops. China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the proletariat is in charge of the state.
Overall, you have no clue what you’re talking about, so you parrot standard liberalism.