this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
72 points (65.5% liked)
Memes
54155 readers
1060 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And is this "existing socialist state" with us in the room right now?
Yes, Cuba is a good example
I'm all for lifting the restrictions on Cuba. I don't understand why they are still in place. Presumably they were put there because of the cold war, but we are all buddies with Russia now, why are we still mad at Cuba?
The US is explicit about this: "every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government"
I don't believe the USA is buddies with Russia, though, they have opposing geopolitical interests. The fact that the USA is pulling out of Ukraine now is not because they're buddies with Russia, but because Ukraine is a broken toy now that the EU has fully antagonized Russia as a consequence of the invasion and has subserved itself to NATO and agreed to the 5% military expenditure (mostly to buy weapons from the USA military-industrial complex)
The US Empire isn't "buddies" with the Russian Federation, there's realpolitik at play when NATO is losing a proxy war against it. Cuba is still demonized for the same reason all socialism is, it represents an alternative and risks spreading to surrounding countries, which hurts the US Empire's super-profits.
The US doesn't blockade the entirety of Russia or China despite the Communist/Socialist political standing of either country, it does however do it to Cuba. Cuba does nothing to the US agenda that isn't also done by Russia or China, other than the latter two have economic scale.
Russia is no longer socialist, but both now and back then it was sanctioned like crazy. The US Empire physically cannot blockade it like they can Cuba. Cuba also does focus on exporting revolution, at least decades ago, such as in South Africa. As for China, it's because the US Empire is dependent on it.
China's rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a "love/hate" relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC's gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
At the risk of being all "this is just like video game", what Dengism did is basically the equivalent of some scene where the protagonist has to slam a little bit of The Serum the villain made in order to survive the final confrontation: enough to gain their powers and immunity, but not enough to lose their mind.
Yep, Marxists understand markets better than liberals do, and as such they can be used in certain comditions to tremendous effect. Social safety nets did indeed suffer as well, it wasn't a magic bullet, but by and large the gamble paid off.
You guys don't fear that a cheeky taste of capitalism hasn't introduced a poison into Chinese economics? Not that I disagree with your points.
It’s a calculated risk which so far China seems to have managed okay. Previously:
It absolutely has, at least as far as introducing new contradictions, but so far this has proven to be manageable. There are more liberals now, but at the same time they have stayed the course and maintained socialism.
Russia's capitalist as it gets now. No one is pretending they're still in any way socialist or even leftist. The US oligarchy loves them because Russia is now ideologically aligned with them. Cuba's actually still socialist.
Also interesting how capitalist Russia is more tyrannical and war happy than the USSR ever was eh? While having a lower productive output than the USSR.
Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. are all examples of socialism (or proto-socialism in Venezuela and Nicaragua's case) in action.
Til, socialism is when means of production are firmly in the hands of dynasty of autocratic rulers. Silly me, thinking that workers should be in charge.
It isn't, and I never said that it was. What exactly are you vagueposting about?
We all know it's DPRK. "Dynasty" is 99% of the time the DPRK.
Yep, just wanted them to spell out their claims exactly. It's much easier to debunk clear claims than vagueposting.
That also isn't what's going on in the DPRK, so I fail to see how that's relevant.
Do the citizens all live in comparable luxury as Kim Jong Un then?
Living conditions vary. Cities like Pyongyang have better living conditions than rural areas, as an example. However, socialism doesn't mean equal living conditions for all, especially in a poor country like the DPRK. What is true is that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, the working class in control of the state, and production and distribution are focused on satisfying the needs of the people primarily.
Where do you get you information from?
I think it’s amazing the Amish give their people the chance to explore the outer world with Rumspringa so they have a choice if that’s the life they want or not.
They’re also allowed to speak of their experiences freely too.
Various sources. One I have my eye on recently is Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the Theory and History of Socialist Governance.
Is that general theory or does it source out the claims you made about DPRK’s economy?
Both. It talks about various socialist systems and how they work in real life. Theory and history.
So is it specifically about DPRK’s socialist systems and economy?
Not exclusively, no. Are you asking for a work specifically on the DPRK alone? Prolewiki's article on the DPRK has 73 sources and lists them all out.
Thanks that’s going to take me a little bit of time to get through.
I’m interested in their takes on the famine and leadership structure.
Famine was common in the 90s and early 2000s, when the USSR was dissolved and Korea was hit with especially bad weather conditions. Northern Korea in general is especially inhospitable towards agriculture. However, steady development and industrialized farming improvements have helped dramatically in improving food security despite sanctions.
As for their leadership structure, Boer's work goes well in-depth on it, while the Prolewiki article is less-so.
Cuba, vietnam, laos, the state of Kerala in India. Pfft typical liberal
Hey! Don't knock over the strongman! He's brittle