• El Barto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Thanks for the lesson. Now, what do people mean when they say that Soviet Russia and Cuba are communists?

    I don’t think democratic socialism leads towards communism. Hasn’t Sweden implemented a form of socialism, for example?

    My questions are not confrontational, but I’ll admit they’re rooted in my limited knowledge but also in my very real experience.

    I come from a country that could have been a communism wonder having adopted a socialist approach in 1999, and today it’s in shambles.

    • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Great questions, and I’ll answer both.

      1. The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.

      2. Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.

      I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Thanks for explaining.

        And why is it that there hasn’t been a successful adoption of this movement?

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          What do you mean by successful? By most metrics, implementations have led to higher life expectancies, literacy rates, and more, when compared to preceding systems. In forms like Worker co-operatives, these systems are more stable than Capitalist businesses with higher satisfaction, and in cases like the EZLN where its more Libertarian Socialist, they have successfully created a community for themselves.

          That’s why I tried to ask why you think Socialist states can’t develop, because quality of life follows development, not Capitalism.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well, like I said, that’s the perception I’ve had from observing nations such as Cuba, Russia and, more recently, Venezuela.

            I’ll concede that some programs under socialism/communism benefit a lot of people. But at what cost? Failing infrastructure, brain drain, indoctrination…

            What country under communism has experienced such improvement in quality of life?

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Cuba has higher literacy rates and life expectancy than the US, the USSR doubled life expectancy compared to Tsarist Russia and went from Feudalism style farming to space in less than a century. Let there be no misconception, none of these states were ideal, and all had a good deal of issues, but what you’re describing just didn’t exist. All of them improved upon previous conditions.

              Venezuela is majority privatized, it’s a Capitalist state anyways.

              Again, not under Communism, but under Socialism.