Remix.run Logo
dumbledoren 5 days ago

> and, yes, this is where a major non-Leninist Communist criticism of Leninism, and its descendants like Stalinism and Maoism, that feature totalitarian control of a command economy by a narrow self-perpetuating party elite stems from.

People always criticize that, and yet those systems delivered: They raised the Soviet citizens from mud huts to apartments within one generation. One thing that is prominent in the stories about the fall of the Eastern Bloc and its aftermath is how the Soviet citizens never thought that they could lose 'staples' like free education, healthcare, childcare, housing, food, paid vacations, maternity leave, guaranteed jobs etc in capitalism. They thought that they would have everything that Leninist socialism gave them in the USSR and an additional consumer economy. They were dumbfounded to find out that wasnt the case.

paulryanrogers 5 days ago | parent [-]

It can be argued those systems 'delivered' in spite of their cruel, indifferent, and centralized nature. Not solely because of them.

dumbledoren 5 days ago | parent [-]

> cruel

If the US killing people when they cant pay for healthcare or pushing the homeless outside city centers in the winter to have them freeze to death does not make capitalism 'cruel', then those systems werent cruel either.

Doublespeak poisons the mind.

paulryanrogers 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not trying to defend capitalism here, so not sure where you think you see doublespeak

dumbledoren 3 days ago | parent [-]

The 'cruel' adjective. If capitalism is not cruel, then such a criticism cannot be made against socialism, communism etc.

And if one would bring up 'political persecution', capitalism persecutes the politically non-compliant harder than any eastern bloc country - and did so both in the 1950s and still does it today.