this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2026
81 points (90.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
9428 readers
311 users here now
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why not?
Communism? What would the motivational indicator be as human beings, to evolve, to create better/bigger things? I highly doubt the internet would had been created in sovjet russia.
The sens of community, the feel of having a role in this life, thinking about the betterman of all people rather than profits being the main motivation for doing things
Motivation for innovation is the same as it always has been, to improve daily living and satisfy hunan curiosity. These have existed before capitalism and also existed in the soviet union. The USSR was actually quite impressive when it comes to scientific achievement, going from semi-feudalism to space in half a century.
Where are you getting your ideas about communism from?
From litterally every bad communistic country that has been: Sovjet Russia, Cuba, etc. Not hard to find. I am living in a socialist country, not that far away from communism. My grandfather lived to experience communism. It is not as nice as you guys think it is. It is a Utopia, where the powerful, gets all the good stuff, and will do everything in there hand, to make sure no one gets a dime, more than everyone else. (Rough police, wide survailance, etc.) It always ends up with NO FREEDOM. Which I am widely against. There is no proof in the world, that communism works what so ever.
I am not saying capitalsm does neither. That is why liberal socialism is a thing. That works. (scandinavia)
The USSR, Cuba, PRC, etc. have all been tremendous improvements on what came before, and remarlably progressive movements. Key life metrics like life expectancy, education, housing rates, literacy rates, and more skyrocketed in these countries. I don't know where you live, but unless you live in China, Vitenam, the DPRK, Cuba, Laos, Venezuela, or even Nicaragua, you certainly don't live in socialism.
Secondly, "liberal socialism" isn't a thing. You're referring to social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, and it doesn't work because it relies on imperialism. Scandinavian countries participate in the imperialist system plundering the global south in order to subsidize their safety nets.
Yep, I don't disagree.
I wasn't intending to replying to you but the other guy, my bad.
No worries!
Those metrics improved worldwide during those time periods. It had more to do with the development of vaccines and antibiotics.
Nope, had more to do with land reform, industrialization, and the mass social programs implemented by socialist governments, including literacy campaigns and expanded access to healthcare. Vaccines don't do much if you don't actually give them to people.
So why did life expectancy go up so much around the rest of the world at the same time? Come on...
It didn't go up around the rest of the world evenly. Most countries that adopted socialism were extremely poor and underdeveloped beforehand, and having much better access to healthcare was massively impactful, same with employment, housing, and land. Life expectancy was highest in the imperialist countries like the US and Europe, they didn't have life expectancies in the 30s even pre-vaccine, at least not at the same time.
Which countries are you thinking of? There aren't that many that still consider themselves socialist or communist. Cuba is really the only good example i can think of that fits what you are describing.
The PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are all socialist countries, with Venezuela and Nicaragua as budding proto-socialist projects. The former USSR was of course also socialist.
Cuba and China are currently 56 and 57th in the world for life expectancy. Even if there was a time where their life expectancy improved faster than the rest of the world because of socialist policies, their edge has since then disappeared.
When compared to peer countries, they consistently outperform, thanks to the capabilities of socialism. Cuba is under intense embargo, and the countries at the top are all imperialist, existing only due to plundering the global south.
SocioLiberal parties controlling the country, is what I call Liberal Socialism. Where we still donate 60% of our wealth for everyone to enjoy, while we still have some sort of free market, where politicians won't directly interfere.
You're talking about social democracy, capitalism with safety nets. Socialism is neither safety nets nor taxation, but a mode of production centering public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. All of the European social democracies rely on imperialism to support these safety nets, they are closer to global parasites than a closed, self-sufficient system.
Socialism, as found in the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc has resulted in dramatic expansions in personal freedoms for the working classes.
The urss has an impersive growth for 30 years. The fall was not because of communism but because of corruption and over militarization.
Innovation is created by small companies than purchased by big cooperation ruled by profit only , it destroy competition this is a product of capitalism
You wouldn't call the scandinavian welfare model liberal socialism? then I have to have a talk with my society teacher at my college.
"Liberal socialism" is an oxymoron. Liberalism is the ideology supporting private property rights, socialism is a mode of production surrounding public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. You're talking about social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, and this isn't socialism in the slightest.
At the end of the day, all I am saying is. I don't believe in communism, there is no evidence it isn't just a dream, and never function in reality
Communism isn't a religion, it's a mode of production based on collectivized production and distribution. We know socialism works remarkably well, better than capitalist peers. There's no evidence that continuing on from socialism to communism will fail.
Lol.
"Without a king to swear realty to, what would be the motivation for a person to plow the fields?"
Misanthropy.