this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
1464 points (98.5% liked)
solarpunk memes
4147 readers
704 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, obviously. But then we run into the whole issue of trade. If there's no free trade, the people in those areas would have nobody to sell goods to, which is developing their economies. But under free trade, foreign capital exploits them.
In a way, it's up to their own governments to protect their people from foreign capitalists. We here in the west/north/whatever can't force that. But that's easier said than done in a lot of places. They need to have their own money to build their own nations, but where do you get said money into your country unless you have oil, diamonds or other expensive resources that also attract bloodsuckers?
I suspect that the only workable solution is some sort of international fund that provides resources to poor nations and everyone pays into it. Kind of like here in the EU - richer countries pay more than they receive in benefits, but since it builds up the strength of the EU, they still end up benefiting. Thing is, acceptance into EU requires meeting some standards. Said global fund would also need to have standards for the nations they help - to make sure it's not all wasted on corrupt warlords in the government. But then who helps the people in those countries?
It's honestly an issue nobody wants to think about, myself included. How do you help people in those places? How do you force education and wealth on a backwards ass country?
The main argument against this is that these areas are not developing. Take the famous Steven Pinker graphs of poverty reduction worldwide, and extract China from them: look at poverty numbers in the world without including China. You'll see that poverty isn't being relieved outside China, I.e. these countries aren't really developing. They're selling their resources for cheap and obtaining essentially nothing in return. This is known in Marxist economics as "unequal exchange" and I highly encourage you to read on it if you're interested on the reasons for the underdevelopment of the global south. The wikipedia article itself is a good starting point.
The rest of your comment hinges on this crucial point of assuming theyre actually developing, that's why I'm only answering to this point.
If you read the rest of my comment, I acknowledged that foreign capitalists are taking all the profit. The question is, what's the solution? Because any local leadership in such a country, whether left or right wing, is likely to be corrupt and serving their own interests over that of the people.
Well, my position as a communist is that the local leadership should be supported on popular grassroots movements, which will no doubt spawn in these countries eventually as they did naturally in Iran with Mosaddeq, in Cuba with Fidel, or in China with Mao. Of course, only socialist leaders fight to improve the actual living conditions of the people, which is why all poverty alleviation in the past half a century comes from China, which took 800 million people out of poverty and extreme poverty.
Uhhh China has been embracing capitalism for a few decades now, sorry to say.
Problem with the "global south", on the local level, is not even capitalism vs socialism. It's corruption. The corruption of course stems from the poverty. When the leaders of your country come from poverty, had to gain power by force, and suddenly have access to resources... They do tend to abuse their access.
Yes, a functional socialist leadership is the best way forward for any of these countries, but even a well regulated capitalist system would be better than the leaders just selling their country to a bunch of corporations to increase their own wealth.
China hasn't been embracing capitalism, China has been reigning in capitalism through Dengism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Why did China develop and industrialize while India didn't? Why didn't the same process as in China take place in Indonesia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Pakistan, all of them capitalist countries? Why didn't Mexico or Brazil have similar growth rates?
China mixes and matches capitalism with state capitalism and socialism. They use subsidies to squash overseas competition, that's why you can get things for basically free, shipping included, from Aliexpress. China has almost as many billionaires as the US - and is going to overtake them soon enough.
They're smart in utilizing protectionism too. It's way harder for western companies to sell things to the Chinese than Chinese companies to sell things to the west. For an example, Volkswagen sells cars through joint ventures with Chinese companies. They can't just have a western-owned company selling the cars.
Why not India? Tough to say. For one reason or another, China became the factory of the world. Since then, they've made a lot of smart decisions to both profit from it as much as possible, and retain their status (just look at Shenzhen. There's no alternative in the world). The other countries you mentioned could never have the economies of scale that China does. India is the only one that theoretically could.
i.e. you don't have a serious analysis.
So why don't they have South-Korean style development?
Do you?
Are Chaebols a good thing now?
Yes. The serious analysis is that the Communist Party of China didn't just "go capitalist", it's socialist with Chinese caracteristics. They did allow for a massive inflow of capital, but they reigned it in in such a way that the country would industrialize and develop, and not just be exploited for resources and cheap labour as it happens with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines.
If I brought up South Korea it was to explain why the capitalist model doesn't seem to work for everyone, not because I like the south-korean fascist dictatorship. It's very easy to industrially develop when the American policy is to industrialize you through massive investment in industry and with tech transfer because they want you as a loyal military base, and not as an enslaved peripheral colony. The problem isn't "corruption in poor countries", because China was poor and it did develop, and the Soviet Union was poor and it developed. The problem is finding the correct formula for industrialization while not allowing the western empire to demolish you for trying. The Soviet way was self-suficient economy, state-directed 5-year economic plans, and safety through nuclear deterrence. The Chinese way was to antagonize the Soviets to become a western pseudo-ally, attracting investment from the western capitalist companies in the sectors of the economy they wanted, and to reign in these investments so that China wouldn't be a colony but an industrialized country with sovereignty of its own. Without communist parties at the head, Pakistan, India, Phillipines and Indonesia couldn't manage this.
Mate, I'm Estonian. Get the fuck out of here with any soviet praise.
The soviet way was to have the elites be rich, while deporting regular people with too many cows in their barn to Siberia. They were doing pretty much what ICE is doing in the US right now - complain that your neighbour is a kulak, and they get removed. Only in the US it's "complain that your neighbour is MS-13, and they get removed". Plus the 5 year economic plans brought with them lovely things like the Holodomor.
China is going to have the most billionaires of any nation in probably less than a decade. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is just capitalism with actual oversight. Truth is, their government, particularly the court system, actually sides with corporations more than people. Try criticizing a major corporation and you're fucked. Not even just Chinese corporations. You can't criticize fucking Tesla in China.
If you want an actual example of the success of communism, there's always Cuba. They're blockaded by pretty much everyone, and yet have a pretty good standard of living. Better healthcare than many European nations, let alone the US. They may be poor, but that's more the US's fault than Cuba's own.
"Mate, I'm American. Get the fuck out of here with any Mexican praise." This is how you sound to anyone who sees through your thinly veiled racism and russophobia.
Patently false propaganda. The Soviet Union was the most egalitarian that the region has ever seen.
So you agree that people should be dying at 30 years of age in absolute poverty while working the lands for the landlords on exchange for a misery wage, dying of disease of starvation? Because that's what led to the mass popular support for dekulakization.
The famine of the early 30s is a sad tragedy in Soviet history, but it's one of many famines that took place in the region from the time it was settled to begin with until the Soviets eliminated famines through industrial agriculture. While the first 5-year plans brought some misery such as the unforeseen sabotage of agriculture by kulaks, they also allowed the Soviet Union to industrialize at the quickest pace any country had industrialized up to that point, which is the main reason the Soviets were able to defeat the Nazis and save hundreds of millions of lives in the process.
I have disagreements with some Chinese policy such as that, but the results are out there. If it weren't for communism, China would be a western colony, and would be on a similar standing to India, to which it can be very much compared at the beginning of the 1900s. Why is China so much more developed than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines? It's not a perfect country, but it's some of the best the world has to offer.
I fully agree, but why do you criticise dekulakization in the USSR and not the repressions against landlords in Cuba? Most Cubans were literal slaves under the landowners, and worked the lands for next to nothing. There was a measurable degree of repression against landlords, why aren't you crying your eyes out for them? Maybe just because you, as an Estonian, have been injected Russophobic racism in your life, in the same way that USians are injected anti-Mexican racism and Spaniards (like me) are injected anti-Moroccan racism? Why aren't you complaining about the lack of freedom of press in Cuba? Why aren't you complaining about the Cuban leaders having so much more than the Cuban people?
You're not local so you wouldn't know. The leaders hailed dekulakization as landlord removal but it was really just about anyone who was well off through their own family's labor too. And political opponents obviously. It was a dark time and we still mourn all the lives lost to the labor camps.
Mexico never oppressed America like this. There's been conflicts, but the US was never forcefully occupied by Mexico.
I understand despising the Russian Empire, but Bolsheviks really were the best Europe had to offer. Estonians had the right to an education in Estonian, had political representation of their own, Estonia was industrialised more than the rest of the Soviet block as a purposeful policy of development of minority ethnicities, Estonia had better salaries and working positions (hence many Russians migrating there during Soviet times)...
What would have been of Estonia were it not for the Bolsheviks? What would have happened under the rule of Nazism? Would you be able to talk Estonian today? Would you even be alive? Finno-Ugric peoples were certainly not as demonized as Slavs by the Nazi racial theories, but still they didn't want you to be equal to them, unlike it can be said of Soviets.
Estonians had the right to an education in Estonian before the occupation as well. Before Stalin and Hitler carved up Europe.
Unspeakable things. Which is why I'm not a fan of the fact that the nazis and soviets literally divided up Europe to be shared among themselves. The soviets actually enabled nazis initially. They only later fought the nazis out of self-preservation, not principle, when Hitler's paranoia made him make the first move against the soviets.
Non-Russians weren't equal in the soviet empire either. It was a bit less racial than national there though - the people living in the core of the empire had more privileges, it just wasn't official policy.
As you may understand, I'm not against the principles of socialism. It's just that for anyone living in Eastern Europe, history with the soviet union has soured things.
me checks timeline and notices that this poverty allevation didn't start until long after Mao's death and only after China switched to a capitalist mode of production...
Fake news. Life expectancy in China before Mao was 35, by the time he died was close to 60, Maoism saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Lol, that is fake news. Life expectancy dropped during the war period as expected, but it was about as high before the war as it was after. The methods Mao employed rather delayed the recovery.
I had the same discussion with one of your fellow MLs before, and this is just completely silly cherry-picking of data to make the disasterous policies of Mao look somehow less bad 🤡
So easy to prove libs wrong man
Lol, can you even read that graph? MLs constantly disproving themselves with their own sources 🙄
And I am not a "lib", but an Anarchist 😅
Edit: and compare your above graph with this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088199/life-expectancy-south-korea-historical/ and then think about during which years Mao had the most influence on policy decisions in China...
Life expectancy from the graph was stable at abourt35 years old from 1850 to 1945, then Mao wins the war, and dies in 1976 with 60 years of life expectancy. Can you please tell me how to misread that?
An anarchist is indistinguishable from a lib when it comes to uneducated criticism of communism.
The data in your graph is too coarse to show the war dip, but other similar graphs your ML friends always cite, conveniently start right in the middle of the war period.
But regardless of that, your graph clearly shows that the before and after war life expectency was about the same, then there was a significantly delayed improvement during Mao's reign of terror, and when he was sidelined due to illness in the 1970ties and capitalist policies adopted, China finally caught up to its peer counties.
Just compare your graph with the development in South Korea: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088199/life-expectancy-south-korea-historical/
And you can clearly see that Mao delayed the improvements seen during that time all over the world. And no, I am not claiming SK was a great country during that time, yet somehow despite having a brutal military dictatorship they still outperformed China under Mao on this metric, which shows just how bad Mao did.
You're misreading the data. The biggest step in the graph is from 1965 to 1970, full Maoism, and from 1970 to 1975 it's still during Mao. I explicitly said at the beginning that life went from 35 to 60 and you said that's false, you literally didn't know the data, and now you're moving the goalposts from "Maoism didn't increase life expectancy" to "maybe it did but less so than in South Korea".
As for why China developed slower than South Korea, South Korea is an American military base with a population of just a few tens of millions. It received humongous investments and tech transfer from the US as part of a specific policy. If you want to compare to something more akin to China, you could compare China to Indonesia or Philippines, which didn't receive the same amount of American resources. What does life expectancy and poverty reduction tell you there?
All over the world? South Korea is the exception. Look at life expectancy evolution in India, Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh or Pakistan, all countries with a much greater population than South Korea. China industrialised because of communism, there's a reason why it's more developed than any of the aforementioned countries even if it had a very similar starting point in the early 1900s.
Also, you really think that telling me "Dengism in China uplifted 800mn people from poverty" is an argument against communism? The communist party of China literally envisioned the policies necessary to attract the level of western investment to grow so fast, and managed to direct this investment in a way that would industrialise the country and not just exploit it as the west does in South America and Southeast Asia. It's the best example in history of poverty alleviation through conscious state policy. Dengism in China is not "capitalism", it's socialism with Chinese characteristics, and it's what allowed China to become arguably the most powerful country in the 21st century in a way that Europe and the US can't even begin to understand. I take it you're a supporter of the modern Communist Party of China, which enabled all of this?
Also: what a fucking anarchist, mate, defending the literally fascist dictatorship of South Korea up to 1990 as the growth model of a country. You're dirtying the name of anarchists, and I say it as a Marxist Leninist
Lol, what an absurd interpretation of the data, and accusing me of moving goal posts when all I did was pointing out that the data doesn't fit to your warped story.
And 1965 to 1970 was the hight of the cultural revolution, meaning the communist party was mostly engulfed in an internal power struggle, which left the people in China mostly to their own devices (and not actively damaged by earlier disasterous policies by Mao, like the great leap forward), and in 1970 to 1975 the reformist around Deng already started getting the upper hand in actual implementation and the result is the state-capitalist country we know today ("communism", lol 🤦).
And I explicitly stated that I do not defend the military dictatorship in SK. I only pointed out that your beloved Maoists in China somehow did significantly worse than them until China started adopting similar policies in the 1970ties. Literally doing nothing would have been the better strategy for the Chinese government, as the 1965 to 1970 data clearly shows.
P.S.: The Phillipines seem to also have somewhat outperformed China on that metric in the 1950ties (at least they didn't do worse), but were later held back by the Marcos regime: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072232/life-expectancy-philippines-historical/
P.P.S.: Indonesia also doesn't show a Mao induced delay in the raise of life expectancy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072197/life-expectancy-indonesia-historical/
You're literally coming up with the argumentation as you go. Firstly it was "Deng already in the 70s" explaining the 1965-1970 growth of life expectancy, now it's internal power struggle. You're just making shit up as you type, deeply unserious analysis. The Cultural Revolution from Mao is precisely this 1965-1975 period, it wasn't "internal power struggle". Surely this is the stable point of Chinese history in which Chinese were left to themselves?
I'm gonna stop arguing with you because you're simply talking from ignorance of Chinese history and making up shit as you speak. Maybe consider for one second why India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia or Philippines aren't as developed as China are, having a comparable starting point in early 1900s. Spoiler: they're not communists
Lol, you literally have no idea what you are talking about (including non-propagandized 20th century Chinese history). And that you continue to claim that China post 1970ties is communist (or even just socialist) is hilarious. Maybe try looking up the number of Chinese billionaires as a start 🤦
Sure buddy, you as a westerner know more about Chinese socialism than the literal ideological heirs of the Chinese revolution whom are still in government. Xi Jinping's dad was a hardcore commie leader all his life, and Xi himself has a PhD in Marxism. Getting high up the Communist Party of China is one of the higher-functioning meritocracies, requires extremely high educational standards in the history of socialism, and a high degree of involvement and being a good example of party activity and hard work. But you, from your western sofa, know more than the Chinese who literally became the strongest country in the world and uplifted 800 million people from poverty (you keep not answering to why India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines and Indonesia didn't achieve this feat).
Fine, keep ignoring obvious facts and lie to yourself that China isn't full on capitalist these days. The cognitive dissonance must be painful 🤦
Keep being a western chauvinist who thinks knows more about socialism than the literal best of the nations which implemented it