Communists acknowledge that excess deaths have occured under socialist systems governed by communist parties. It’s reality, after all. However, we also acknowledge that these excess deaths pale in comparison to the systemic murders and genocides propogated by capitalism, as well as the fact that socialist systems have been responsible for doubling life expectancy in many cases such as Russia and China, along with huge material gains in quality of life.
It’s true that excess deaths occured, but it’s even more true that socialism has been responsible for preventing far more deaths than it has ever caused. Deaths due to unintentional famines were common in early socialism, and systemically ended by socialists when they used to be prevalent under previous semi-feudal conditions. Communists have consistently been the ones most responsible for uplifting living standards and metrics in the last century.
Socialist states have had excesses, but they pale in comparison to the killings systemic to capitalism, and moreover socialist states have been responsible for the largest uplifting in living standards in history.
All socialist states will have to use authority, though, in order to disempower capitalists and fascists, and protect the gains of the revolution. Capitalists will see this as authoritarian, but it’s also liberating for the working classes. States don’t just wield power for the sake of it, they are thoroughly connected to class struggle and as such class analysis needs to be at the core of understanding authority.
well sry i dont know what i mean. I mean authoriatarianism as in, using the power of the state and laws and whatever to keep a select few in power, who are above the laws, while also using the power of the state to fullfill whatever intrestest some group of people have.
like a dicatorship or a kingdom
while i dont mean like democratic authority (whitout it beeing opression/ more then nessasary opressing)
Okay, sure, but we aren’t talking about capitalism but existing/formerly existing socialist states like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. That doesn’t apply to those.
It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship.
If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people.
However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant.
A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of “benevolent dictators” from 1917 to 1991, it’s outrageous making such claims.
It was a dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat was in control and oppressed capitalists. For the working classes, ie the proletariat and the peasantry, it was a dramatic expansion in democratization, and society was oriented around fulfilling their needs. The gap between the richest and poorest was about ten times, compared to the hundreds of thousands to millions in the Tsarist and capitalist eras.
So, we just ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under communism?
I mean we are ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under capitalism, so why not?
Communists acknowledge that excess deaths have occured under socialist systems governed by communist parties. It’s reality, after all. However, we also acknowledge that these excess deaths pale in comparison to the systemic murders and genocides propogated by capitalism, as well as the fact that socialist systems have been responsible for doubling life expectancy in many cases such as Russia and China, along with huge material gains in quality of life.
It’s true that excess deaths occured, but it’s even more true that socialism has been responsible for preventing far more deaths than it has ever caused. Deaths due to unintentional famines were common in early socialism, and systemically ended by socialists when they used to be prevalent under previous semi-feudal conditions. Communists have consistently been the ones most responsible for uplifting living standards and metrics in the last century.
Compared to the shitload of capitalism only this year?
Removed by mod
authorian regime kills its citizen
“guys working together just does not work” ^^ this guy
Socialist states have had excesses, but they pale in comparison to the killings systemic to capitalism, and moreover socialist states have been responsible for the largest uplifting in living standards in history.
My point was more like that authoriatarianism and socialism/ communism does not habe to be connected
All socialist states will have to use authority, though, in order to disempower capitalists and fascists, and protect the gains of the revolution. Capitalists will see this as authoritarian, but it’s also liberating for the working classes. States don’t just wield power for the sake of it, they are thoroughly connected to class struggle and as such class analysis needs to be at the core of understanding authority.
well sry i dont know what i mean. I mean authoriatarianism as in, using the power of the state and laws and whatever to keep a select few in power, who are above the laws, while also using the power of the state to fullfill whatever intrestest some group of people have.
like a dicatorship or a kingdom
while i dont mean like democratic authority (whitout it beeing opression/ more then nessasary opressing)
Okay, sure, but we aren’t talking about capitalism but existing/formerly existing socialist states like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. That doesn’t apply to those.
how was the Ussr not a dictatorship
It was not a dictatorship because it did not produce the material results you would expect from a dictatorship.
If it had been a system in power of a few people against the vast majority, as was for example monarchic feudalism (the state immediately before the USSR, the Russian Empire, being a good example of it), you would expect vast inequality leading to a two-class system with vastly different life metrics, wealth, and a degradation of the rights of the working people.
However, the Soviet Union had the lowest wealth inequality the region has ever seen, the highest earners were the highly trained professionals (not policitians as you may have been led to believe) and the salary difference were perhaps at most tenfold; access to healthcare was universal and free, as was education to the highest level, pensions for retirement were universal with men retiring at 60 and women at 55, homelessness was abolished and everyone had access to affordable housing (3% of monthly income on average), and everyone had the right to a job making unemployment nonexistant.
A system producing these outcomes is not the result of 4 generations of “benevolent dictators” from 1917 to 1991, it’s outrageous making such claims.
It was a dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat was in control and oppressed capitalists. For the working classes, ie the proletariat and the peasantry, it was a dramatic expansion in democratization, and society was oriented around fulfilling their needs. The gap between the richest and poorest was about ten times, compared to the hundreds of thousands to millions in the Tsarist and capitalist eras.