Lol I meant to reply to the main thread, but you could pretend im being sarcastic and it kinda works

eradicated LOL, their population is growing, despite the many some US backed terrorist killed.
And Tibet doesn’t have slaves anymore who literally had chains around their necks suffering under the religious buddhist monks terror.
Yawn, can you bring up Tiananmen square again to not be original? I’ll wait

Im sure they love making iphones until they jump off a roof

Tribal societies existed without classes or trade, they largely pooled together resources.

The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc are more democratic than theie previous systems.

Communism still works, just because the Soviet Union isn’t here doesn’t mean everything is a failure.

Competition forces centralization and monopolies over time due to increasinly complex production practices that raise the barrier to entry. It’s unavoidable.

Pol Pot denounced Marxism and focused on an odd agrarian system, and was backed by the CIA.

Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That’s why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.

Competitions have winners, and in this case it means the competition goes out of business and dies, leaving you with a near monopoly or outright monopoly.

That power then gets used to

• lobby (bribe) the government to raise barriers to entry to prevent new competitors
• buy out new competitors
• intentionally price everything lower than competitors, at a loss, to kill competitors in a war of attrition that they can’t possibly outlast

And that’s even assuming there’s any competition at all, which often isn’t the case with certain things like healthcare, internet, electricity, etc.

How can you have a problem with Vaush when he is so ideologically similar to Hasan? Unless you have have disagreements with Hasan.

As far as I know, all the criticisms of Vaush watching child porn has been misinformation.

I am pretty familiar with Vaush’s arguments on Marxist theory. What are your points of contention?

Where can I find audiobooks you talked about? My app probably doesn’t show your userpage right.

I do get that vibe from Vaush occasionally. Unfortunately the attention economy is a real thing and I would be impressed with anyone with the same reach as Vaush wouldn’t be doing similar things. I am not sure I would be as far left as I am without his content.

Why? Information is information. Why does it matter if it comes from books or videos?

The 1930s famine was the last major famine out of wartime in the Soviet Union, same with the Great Chinese Famine, in countries where famine was common and regular before. Life expectancy doubled under Socialism in both the USSR and PRC as a consequence in the first few decades.

It’s almost as if the material conditions of a determinate place do not change overnight.

Yeah, as someone with Lakota, Irish, Bengali, Kurdish, and Iraqi friends and opiate and meth addicted family, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at children of your kind. I am sure the 1990s and the introduction of capitalism was a great and prosperous time.

What communist country did you personally live under, lemmy user in 2025?

I’ll also point out that tons of people all over the world are ignorant of how their own countries operate.

Socialism is a Mode of Production determined by having public property as primary. In China, large firms and key industries are firmly under public ownership and control, and they actually have a falling number of billionaires in the last couple years.

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

In short, China has billionaires but they are devoid of political power 👍 🇨🇳

im sorry Carl Marcos is too advanced.

they keep saying 'In one word; ’ and then writing a whole paragraph. and why do they keep making economics all political?

you’re right, they could be a monarchist instead. that’s much more sensible.

Very frequently, but it is exactly just as likely it would have moved on to Socialism and eventually Communism, or retained feudalism, it all depends on when in development.

So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don’t really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.

this rather shows the untestability of the hypothesis. this is no test at all.

the majority would be relatively the same with minor variances on cultural customs and traditions, society conforms to law whether if you realize it or not, this is a chief principle of materialist philosophy, understanding that the things conform to definite laws and that we must and can discover them. Historical materialism is the materialist conception of history with the conclusion that the development of production is the chief driving force in the development of society, quantitative improvements in production lead to qualitative changes in how society is organized.

With this in mind, Communism is a stage of development where developments in production led to a society of abundance that ended the exploitation of man by man. Communist states, like China, are not in that stage but are organized to pursue that goal, this is why China has a massive focus point on the development of productive industries.

deleted by creator

Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?

Edit: deleted a section that assumed you were the same guy who said communism was against human nature. Apologies.

China has a Socialist Market Economy. Large firms and key sectors like steel and banking are nearly entirely under public control, while there are a large number of self-employed people. They actually have a falling number of billionaires in the last couple years.

As for worker conditions, Europe is Imperialist and many European countries act like landlords, and China is still a developing country, though rapidly developing.

What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism.

The funny thing about discussions about China’s economy is that you can use pretty much any term to describe it as long as it’s bad. If “socialist” or “communist” is understood to be a bad thing to those in the conversation, you can use those terms without objection, but you can also say stuff like “Feudalism” or “Fascist Corporatism” or “Colonialism” or “Capitalist” or “State Capitalist” or whatever tf else, it’s all just vibes-based and the only requirement is that the vibes be bad.

China has a mixed economy with a combination of state ownership and private investment, with the state maintaining a controlling share in certain key industries, and preventing (at least so far) economic elites from infiltrating the government for the purpose of widespread regulatory capture and deregulation. Billionaires exist but sometimes face real consequences for illegal activity, and the balance between public and private ownership tips more heavily towards public when compared to other countries such as those in Europe.

The partial liberalization of the economy is meant to encourage economic development post-industrialization, and prevent the challenges the USSR faced with economic stagnation post-industrialization. Central planning works great if you’re just trying to meet people’s basic needs like food or shelter, but the demand for consumer goods is more fluid. This policy is also adapted to the global situation, China has benefitted greatly from industry moving there and by becoming a major trade partner of the US and other countries (while also holding the bulk of manufacturing output), that makes it difficult for outside forces to go to war or level sanctions/tariffs on them.

It is not a “communist” country in the sense of having achieved communism (in this sense, a “communist country” is an inherent contradiction). It could be called a communist/socialist country in the sense that it is governed by (self-identified) communists. Socialism, or I should specify Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, aren’t a set of specific policies but rather a materialist and class-based mode of analysis to be applied and adapted differently depending on material conditions.

Some hardcore Maoists would argue that China’s current system is a deviation from the correct socialist ideas, as espoused by Mao. However, there’s also this odd branch of Westerners that don’t like China’s liberalized system because “it has billionaires,” but also don’t like what they had before under Mao when they didn’t have billionaires, but also claim to dislike full-on capitalism - so as far as I can tell, they just dislike China regardless of what they do or don’t do. I’ve yet to find any such person who’s actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of “what should they do/have done economically” as opposed to just bashing them. And in fact, when asked what kind of economic system they support, they’ll often describe a mixed system similar to what China has, but then be like, “but not like that.”

I’m American they would have us believe that the average Chinese citizen is living one step of from a factory slave.

Download RedNote and see for yourself. You’ll never get a full picture from social media alone, but you can see a lot.

Varies dramatically depending on where you live, because China is an extremely rapidly developing country that was as poor as Haiti is today 100 years ago. Quality of life overall is good, and rising rapidly.

I know this doesn’t say actual statistics and stats, but watching videos that actually show China can help de-mystify it.

Why not? It’s rapidly overtaking everyone else, and has made massive strides for workers. What would you call it?

Communism is just socialism-flavored fascism.