China lifted 400 million out of extreme poverty, Cuba has the most advanced healthcare system in the global south (and one of the best even among imperialist countries) and virtually eradicated illiteracy, Burkina Faso under Sankara built wealth that had never been seen before in colonial Africa thanks to the nationalization of their resources and the industries that had previously been running to create profits for French colonizers, the heroic people of Vietnam fought off like a million invading armies. That's just from the second half of the 20th century! Let alone the absolutely crazy victories of the Soviet Union in WW2 when they were the only communist nation state, and the victory of the communists in the Chinese civil war which involved the Long March and a very, very long struggle.

And you could say that none of those countries are communist because communism isn't a thing yet (which is true) but it's also true that they are led by communist parties and have socialist economic systems that put the means of production in democratic control. You could also say that I'm counting a lot of military campaigns when the question is about the economic policy, but do you think that Mao was running the PLA as a free market enterprise?

[–] bitwize01@reddthat.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the reply! I was aware of these countries + their successes, and I think there's a mixed bag of advantages. As someone who has lived in Vietnam for a stretch I'm not sure it's a place we should all aspire to emulate, but I recognize the strengths of authoritarian governments alongside their drawbacks. I also respect the acknowledgement about Marx's ideals and I think honestly we're not too ideologically far apart from one another. Perhaps I'm more innately pessimistic about life under communism and you're more optimistic. But I can respect the ideological bridge. Thanks again!

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago

Well you always gotta keep in mind that if these countries tried to fully implement the ideologically pure version of Marxism, which was (with some caveats) the approach the Soviets chose early on, they'd be under siege and not at all in ideal conditions for building socialism. Marx and Engels believed that it would be the Western European countries where capitalism had advanced the furthest to be the ones to have socialist revolutions, but the opposite became true.