I forget what the fallacy is called, but basically just because thing X is associated with Y and Y is bad doesn’t make X bad. If a communist leader killed people, it doesn’t necessarily mean communism is the reason he killed them.
In the same vain saying fascism is bad “because Hitler was a fascist” would also be a logical fallacy. Hitler also drank water but that doesn’t mean water is bad.
I’d say that all of these sucked to live in. There are definitely states that treat their citizens better than these. If something always leads to death and suffering, maybe we can conclude that it’s a bad idea. Communists are not “associated with“ communism, they are communism.
Every socialist state that has ever existed has been, contextually, far better than what came before it, and in instances where socialism dissolved, better than what replaced it, for the working classes.
This is true for all of these. What’s also important is analyzing context, life expectancy doubled in both Russia and China thanks to the lives saved by socialism. Cuba has, in many years, a higher life expectancy than the US Empire. On the whole, there may be states where quality of life is higher for the working classes, but these are exclusively imperialist states that subsidize their safety nets with the spoils of plundering the global south, and is why these same countries are surging to the far-right as imperialism is decaying.
And you’d be wrong to say so. Polls in most post-communist states (except some exceptionally right wing nationalist regimes such as the Baltics or Poland) clearly tell us that most people preferred living under socialism.
When talking about the effects of socialism, we need to compare with what came before or after. And what came after was horrifying:
Ahem. I wonder if non-communist states are any different, or it’s just that birth rates dipped before/during a World War, and they were all climbing back up until ~the '80s?
Would be an interesting thing to sed. My graphs are Wikipedia screenshots from the “Demographics of X” for each country mentioned. Would you post some from, say, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, US…?
I forget what the fallacy is called, but basically just because thing X is associated with Y and Y is bad doesn’t make X bad. If a communist leader killed people, it doesn’t necessarily mean communism is the reason he killed them.
In the same vain saying fascism is bad “because Hitler was a fascist” would also be a logical fallacy. Hitler also drank water but that doesn’t mean water is bad.
That’s not a very good example, because good and bad people drink water, pretty much everyone does. Here is a list of communist states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states_(communism)
I’d say that all of these sucked to live in. There are definitely states that treat their citizens better than these. If something always leads to death and suffering, maybe we can conclude that it’s a bad idea. Communists are not “associated with“ communism, they are communism.
As I said elsewhere:
This is true for all of these. What’s also important is analyzing context, life expectancy doubled in both Russia and China thanks to the lives saved by socialism. Cuba has, in many years, a higher life expectancy than the US Empire. On the whole, there may be states where quality of life is higher for the working classes, but these are exclusively imperialist states that subsidize their safety nets with the spoils of plundering the global south, and is why these same countries are surging to the far-right as imperialism is decaying.
Edit: replied to the wrong comment lmao
And you’d be wrong to say so. Polls in most post-communist states (except some exceptionally right wing nationalist regimes such as the Baltics or Poland) clearly tell us that most people preferred living under socialism.
When talking about the effects of socialism, we need to compare with what came before or after. And what came after was horrifying:
Lmao @ the reply to me, obliterated me
Gommunist DESTROYED by FACTS and @
🫠
Ahem. I wonder if non-communist states are any different, or it’s just that birth rates dipped before/during a World War, and they were all climbing back up until ~the '80s?
Would be an interesting thing to sed. My graphs are Wikipedia screenshots from the “Demographics of X” for each country mentioned. Would you post some from, say, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, US…?
Non-socialist states did not have that same severe drop right as socialism was dissolved.