this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7731 readers
2085 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But how does that average compare to industrialized nations? Both rapidly industrialized during the period you linked to while many other countries were still left behind. One big change would be the expansion of medical care

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You don't want to account for too many variables, otherwise you no longer get the desired result.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So is industrialization something that just happens if you are lucky and has nothing to do with policy?

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Capitalists industrialized Marxist Leninist also industrialized. At least compare something more apples to apples.

Life expectancy going up is always a good thing however. Now if only the Marxist leninist governments worked on their tolerance of speech. And the capitalist governments stop looking to the Marxist leninist governments for inspiration on how to crack down on speech.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

capitalist governments stop looking to the Marxist leninist governments for inspiration on how to crack down on speech.

Capitalism had that figured out long before Marx had a beard.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That may be true. But the governments claiming to be a sub sect of the ideology have surpassed the capitalist in every way. Great firewall of China etc.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes both can achieve industrilization but communists had a better track record(higher percentage of countries(and population) that implemented communism industrialized and also with lower inequality) than capitalism when you look at africa and south america and india etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/561htv/map_of_public_sector_employees_as_a_percentage_of/.

And through the comparison with the world avarage there was no comparison with apples and oranges.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (11 children)

That's not a valid comparison. First there is the troublesome issue of sample size. Second there's the issue of whats actually qualifies as communism or capitalism.

There has NEVER been a communist country. So that right there is a huge problem with any claims. Marxist Leninism is not, and never will be communism. Most frequently devolving into outright fascism(modern Russia) or oppressive dictatorial regimes, state capitalist (China) or otherwise (North Korea). As well, a country being west aligned, doesn't make it capitalist.

This isn't a defense of capitalism. Far from. Ideologically I trend libertarian(true libertarian the Déjacque kind) /anarco communist. So I criticize both heavily when they're pulling their bullshit.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Industrialization is a big part of marxist thought and many countries around the world still havent industrialized to this day. For example countries in africa and india etc. . So that industrialization even happened is a good thing.

Edit: But to answer your question here are some industrialized countries added to the chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1870..latest&country=OWID_WRL~CHN~RUS~USA~GBR

Edit2: Income inequality was drastically reduced after the communist parties came to power: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/14o601y/oc_how_well_the_richest_top_1_have_been_doing_the/

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But that first graph pretty much proves my point?

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Industrialization does not magically happen. There need to be active policies done to make it happen like tariffs on manufactured goods or state ownership or subsidies for manufacturing etc. . Those policies have not been done enough in todays 3rd world countries and they were done in russia and china when they were backward and they went from backward countries to industrialized countries while having low wealth and income inequality.

Edit: Yes it proves your point but also my point.

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

no, the industrialization didn't depend on the type of governing body; only resources, opportunities, and localized wealth.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

and russia and china didnt have this(only resources, opportunities, and localized wealth.) until the communist parties came to power?

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

they had this before and during communist parties. They had all 3, but opportunity and resources are time variables which was more governed (pun intended) by the rapid spread of industrialism itself.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

why did it spread to south korea only in 1960? and not earlier? Why has it still not spread to africa and india today?

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think there is a lot more going on in those regions than I can account for their lack of industrialism. short answer is I don't know.

longer response is the whole opportunities, resource triad thing can be broken by cultural and other barriers. let's use Amish folks as that example.

the Koreas had a slightly isolationist time during the broader revolutions and since have different outside influences so they have different periods of growth.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Can culture get changed through policy? I think so. The soviet union was very heavily isolationist and still industrialized cause it was in their central plan to do it.

Edit: if you look at the export and import to gdp ratios https://www.reddit.com/user/nerbert123/comments/1czws2d/soviet_union_statistics/#lightbox

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago

adding to this line of thought:

this is why some marxists idealized revolutionary socialism being conducted in already industrialized countries, not necessarily the undeveloped ones it ended up taking root in.

[–] bobburger@fedia.io 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Edit2: Income inequality was drastically reduced after the communist parties came to power:

Are you talking about the 10-15 years after the revolutions? That chart shows that today China has income inequality similar to that of pre-1900 China, and higher income inequality than France, Sweden, and the UK. Even more interesting, the US only has 3% more income share going to the 1% than China does.

Also "share of income going to the top 1%" doesn't really tell the whole story. I think individual purchasing power would be a much more informative statistic.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

For china i am talking until mao died in 1976. For russia income inequality was low until 1991 when the communist party gave up power.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"The Great Leap forward never happened"/s

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I have not said it didnt happen and it doesnt make those statements in the meme wrong.

[–] ynazuma@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But it does make them irrelevant

Above the world average after WW2 was easy to achieve for countries that had not been bombed to oblivion, and in the case of the USSR, that had basically conquered Eastern Europe

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Life expectancy also rose like that in the entire eastern block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_in_Hungary.svg https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041400/life-expectancy-poland-all-time/ etc.

Edit: Why is this downvoted? Do you not believe the stats?

Edit2: If it is so easy why was India and Africa after WW2 still below the world avarage?

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because you're arguing in bad faith

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And the billionaire owned media(fox news etc.) is arguing in good faith regards to communism?

Edit: If i wanted to argue in bad faith i would not have posted any statistic.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ur meme gives the impression that USSR and PRC communism is good for health. I'm raising a counterpoint while attempting to maintain the tone of the meme.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I was just saying it cause some people might think that it cant be true when the great leap forward happened.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Correlation does not equal causation...

First, Russia and China are not communist. They are both dictatorships. Medical advances in all first world countries is the reason for life expectancy to rise.

Africa and South America have been prevented from improving medical care which in combination with the above accounts for Russia and China rising above the average.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

If India went the path of the chinese in 1955 instead of democratic capitalism i think they would have had the same results as China today. You could argue China has been also prevented from improving medical care until the communist party stopped letting it happen.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When you systematically purge the crippled sick and war veterans or starve out anyone old and inform or sickly and weak that seems to happen who would have guessed.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

they would be included in the death rate and russia had a high one before it went to above the world avarage cause of ww2.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

While the Soviet system had obvious problems, they're often exaggerated in favor of both painting communism as an ultimate evil, and obfuscate what communism (and capitalism) ultimately is, so they can continue to propagate the "right wing = small government; left wing = big government" lie.

[–] cenarius871@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The statistic https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1870..latest&country=OWID_WRL~CHN~RUS

Edit: And Russia went to below the world avarage after the communist party gave up power in russia in 1991.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Is there a chart that shows various countries that industrialized by different means (communism vs capitalism vs democratic socialism etc)? That seems like a little more accurate comparison, as opposed to comparing it to the global average, and saying the difference is definitely communism as opposed to industrialization.

Also, Communist China is the only country that has a specific drop in life expectancy so dramatic that it shows up on the chart of global life expectancy and needs its own special label. I feel like stuff like that is pretty relevant too.

[–] Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Communism and Capitalism both suck. Mutualism is way better.

[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You might want to check out Robert Wolf. He's a big advocate for worker co-ops, which are a type of communism. Of the cooperative principles, #6 is cooperation between Co-ops. It doesn't get much more mutualist than that.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Worker co-ops are a type of Socialism. Communism is specifically the movement towards a global Socialist Republic free of a State, Class, or Money.

Worker Co-ops are great, but retain the state and money, and alone can allow the resurgence of class.

[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Communism is literally workers owning the means of production.
Worker co-ops have the workers owning the means of production.
Richard Wolf is a professor of economics. He talks a lot about the different ways a state can be communist. I'd recommend checking him out. (Misspelled his name in the above comment)
The main way he advocates is with democracy at work.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Socialism is Workers sharing ownership of the Means of Production. Communism is a post-Socialist society where the remaining contradictions within Socialism have been resolved.

I'm familiar with Richard Wolf, his work, and that he's a Socialist. I agree, he's a great intro to Socialism for many people, but he doesn't really advocate much for Communism.

A state can be Communist in goal, sure, as in with a stated plan or goal to eventually reach Communism, but Communism can only exist globally once the international proletariat has successfully taken control of all Means of Production.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme. It's an important Marxist work that is helpful to understand Communism vs Socialism.

load more comments