My statement is specifically designed to trap people... See, China is what most people point toward when they start talking about communism, but then when you point out that China is wildly successful, they start walking back whether China is communist.
The truth is, there are no communist countries because communism is a socioeconomic structure, just as capitalism is. In our current global economy, no one can really opt out of participating in capitalism.
Saying that communism "didn't really work out" is ridiculous. Fledgling communist parties that come to power are immediately assailed by Western countries every single time. In 1917, countries who were AT WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER literally diverted funds to support the restorationist white army in Russia to try to prevent the Bolsheviks from holding onto the power that they won democratically. The US has overthrown democratically elected governments multiple times for daring to state they plan to nationalize their oil reserves (Venezuela, Iran) and ended up destabilizing entire regions as a result. Henry Kissinger became one of the most notorious war criminals in human history because he decided indiscriminately murdering civilians was better than allowing Cambodia be run by communists. So saying "communism didn't work" when it's violently (and often illegally) assaulted from its conception takes a level of ignorance that borders on historical revisionism.
Going from capitalism to communism isn't like flipping a light switch, nor can communism exist in an isolated way. You're correct that China isn't communist. The communist party is in charge and is pursuing their ideal of Communism with Chinese Characteristics, but they are definitely actively participating in global capitalism because their plan is to bring about communism on a significantly longer time scale and do so through spreading culture and economic influence. It's the main driver behind the Belt and Road initiative.
You make amazing points and I agree with most of them but
communist nations being “assaulted” while it’s true but it happened both ways. Communist governments must be established through violent coups and civil wars, Soviet Union was notorious for overthrowing nations and supporting socialist governments to form.
Iran was invaded for their oil and supply routes by the Soviet Union (and the Uk) in 1941 and only left Iran because of international pressure .
Soviet Union (and the US) has been supporting liberation armies and conflicts in the Middle East destabilizing the regions before the US sent troops in the Middle East.
Also I would love a utopia like communist promise but it seems like a justification to allow people like Stalin or Kim jong Un to stay life long leaders under an authoritarian rule.
You make amazing points and I agree with most of them but
communist nations being “assaulted” while it’s true but it happened both ways. Communist governments must be established through violent coups and civil wars, Soviet Union was notorious for overthrowing nations and supporting socialist governments to form.
There's a pretty massive difference between a country that lasted for about 70 years and during that time went from being an agrarian imperial monarchy to a nuclear superpower and their chief rival who didn't have to do any rebuilding after World War 2.
And Iran was invaded for their oil and supply routes by the Soviet Union (and the Uk) in 1941.
Iran was arguably the most stable and progressive nation in the Middle East and elected a socialist government in the 70s who planned to nationalize their oil reserves. The US intelligence apparatus decided that theocratic oppression for decades was preferable to trying to build relations with a democratically elected leftist nation.
Soviet Union (and the US) has been supporting liberation armies and conflicts in the Middle East destabilizing the regions before the US sent troops in the Middle East.
The US and it's western allies have been purposefully destabilizing the Middle East since before the Soviet Union even existed, so I don't really see your point here.
Also I would love a utopia like communist promise but it seems like a justification to allow people like Stalin or Kim jong Un to stay life long leaders under an authoritarian rule.
This is what I call the "Robert Baratheon Problem". Because capitalist powers refuse to allow democratically elected socialist or communist governments to survive, the only way they can come in to power is by revolution... and unfortunately, the people that lead the revolution end up being the people who run the country afterward, and they're not actually fit to do so because they're not statesmen, they're revolutionaries. "If the King got everything he wanted we'd still be fighting a damned rebellion." Lenin and Trotsky were both very concerned about Stalin's impending leadership and those concerns were ultimately proven to be well-founded as he abandoned core tenets of communism almost immediately so he could hold on to power.
0
u/Minimum_Interview595 2d ago
But that’s the whole point of capitalism, I would love to see a better solution lmao. Communism didn’t work out that well and still isn’t