this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
310 points (95.6% liked)
Memes
45734 readers
683 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Under Communism poverty is erradicated or close to it. The floor is raised and the ceiling is lowered.
And also a small group of people monopolize power and wealth to oppress those who didn't
...You're describing capitalism.
Hmm?
Poverty rates are steadily decreasing in China...
...under every income group.
While homeownership rates have been steadily rising, reaching 90% in 2018
Those are some bold claims to make with nothing to back it up, when in fact reality says otherwise.
A market economy under a socialist state, similar to what the USSR had under the NEP for its first 20 years.
Explain this graph:
Late 1991, but yep, that's when inequality skyrocketed, as it was illegally disbanded and the former state sliced up and sold for parts to the highest bidder against the wishes of the public at large, causing roughly 7 million deaths.
I'm assuming you'll actually answer now that the full source is linked, correct? Or are you just incapable of facing reality?
For images that don't list the source in themselves like these I like to put the source in the alt text like this
![https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-and-property-russia-1905-2016](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/65a34c1d-e49d-47b1-bf83-07c344b109d5.png)
Oh, nice! Thanks!
I'm usually quite particular about labelling axes, but this graph has both axes partially labled, and while the dates are easily inferred, the meaning of the left axis is in the footer, as is the general explanation.
Incorrect.
Wealth inequality was far lower in the USSR than the Tsarist system before it, the Capitalist system after it, and than western countries. Additionally, Soviet Democracy was extensive, with far more political participation than western countries have.
Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Also, poverty rates are steadily decreasing in China...
...under every income group.
While homeownership rates have been steadily rising, reaching 90% in 2018
I'd also recommend Human Rights In The Soviet Union, Including Comparisons With The U.S.A. by Albert Szymanski
Excellent addition, comrade.
I've heard lemmy.ml claim China is not communist, before. I guess they are communist only when it supports your argument.
I'm seeing /u/10_0 from lemmy.ml in this thread trying to argue against socialism, currently. I guess they are anticommunist only when... what was your point again?
Anyone claiming China isn't socialist is grossly misinformed.
Deng Xiaoping on productive forces
Socialism With Chinese Characteristics by Roland Boer
Lemmy.ml isn't like Lemmygrad or Hexbear, where you are required to be a Leftist, or accept Leftism and want to learn. Lemmy.ml is maintained by Marxist-Leninists and the ML references Marxism-Leninism, but non-Communists use it too.
Yeah, but that excuse is only used when people are criticising communist using China as an example, that's why I consider China's status as a communist nation an opinion that lemmy.ml always flip flops on.
And by what metric is China considered a communist nation?
It's headed by a Communist Party along the principles of Marxism-Leninism with the goal of using Socialism with Chinese Characteristics to oversee a Market Economy and build up their productive forces to achieve full socialization of the economy.
If you have an hour and genuinely want to know, read China Has Billionaires. It isn't a fully socialized system, but it does use Central Planning extensively, and the Party is in control of the Bourgeoisie, not the other way around.
I have. Which ones do you recommend?
Any russian book? Like This Soviet World? Or does that not count because she was born in America?
You might learn something.
And very shallow apparently...
Funny that you're telling someone else to read a history book then, like you know what you're talking about.