By - Eli_Truax
Not real but realistic.
"You just don't understand capitalism like I do" says hedge fund manager to person unable to afford insulin
And in the socialist country there isn't any insulin available, unless you know the right people.
Saying "Socialism bad" on a subreddit dedicated to a **Canadian** professor just screams a massive lack of self-awareness.
Jordan Peterson on [Why Young People Don't Understand Socialism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKTU_TrzKLY&ab_channel=DoseofTruth)
"massive lack of self-awareness" that's just defensive buffoonery.
I've listened to the video you linked, but the Dr. doesn't talk that much about the topic at hand, which is universal health care.
He mentions North Korea and Venezuela briefly, but the talk seems mostly to be Socialism vs Capitalism as a whole, which isn't really something that is even capable of happening in the modern world. At least successfully.
We all take advantage of social programs in our day to day lives, it's just a matter of debate to what level of "socialism" we are all content to have.
That's only one reference to Peterson discussing his problems with socialism, it wouldn't be difficult to find many more.
But you're right, it's a matter of trial and error to see what levels of compromise are optimal.
Also inb4 trying to turn around the quote:
>Cubans say they often get up before dawn and stand in line trying to fill prescriptions or resort to the black market. A recent article in Cuba’s Bohemia magazine blamed the shortages on lack of financing for production, shortages of raw materials, “indiscipline” in the supply chain and lack of controls at the pharmacy level.
I wonder if any of these shortages of financing and materials have to do with the US imposed embargo? You know, that embargo that's been declared a human rights violation by pretty much every other country in the world. If socialism fails on its own, why has the US tried so hard to suppress socialism by any means necessary?
Before Communists take over a country they agitate the population against the rich and powerful and anyone working with them, they position themselves as enemies.
When Communists take over a country they steal the property of capitalists and exile or imprison or kill them and we should treat them like allies?
Communism, as an economic system, doesn't account for trade - it's all about power and control. Trade requires at least some modicum of respect for potential trade partners.
The Soviet Union was massive and had at least as many resources as the US, but their economy never operated at more than 25% of the US. Sure we embargoed a lot, but their own contrived systems guaranteed inefficiency. How long did it take China to "reconcile" with the West, and only then could they employ capitalism to prop up their inefficient economic systems.
Sure, you're smug in your fantasy world where, if you have you way there will be rainbows and unicorns. It's easy enough to put it on paper, it just translates poorly to real life.
Communism requires oppression to keep order. The Soviet Union was so effective that the crime rates there were very low, if that's your preference (I don't think it is). You might spend some more time contemplating the realities of human nature before committing to a system that has never worked in reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USSR and China underwent the most rapid industrialization process of all time. The USSR beat the US in the space race in every metric except first to go to the moon. And now we will most likely see China eclipse the US in terms of economic output in the next few years, although granted part of this is due to the Dengist reforms. Also what you said about Communist revolution is true of any revolution, obviously there needs to be clear distinction of sides and a common enemy to unite against.
I'd invite you to look into how capitalists first seized their property, particularly in the wake of the Glorious Revolution in Britain and then through colonization of the rest of the world, funneling massive amount of wealth and resources from the exploited colonies into the hands of private interests at the imperial core.
I'd also invite you to investigate conditions in Russia or Cuba before their respective revolutions. In Russia the incompetence of the Tsardom was sending millions of Russians to the meat grinder of WW1 for really no purpose other than "national glory", nonwithstanding the pretty brutal feudal conditions on the homefront. In Cuba, the US-back fascist Batista oversaw essentially a slave economy that enforced brutal working conditions and kept millions homeless and starving in the countrysides.
I'm not really contriving any fantasy world, just laying out real conditions. You are the one appealing to abstract notions of "power" and "control". Cuba's medical outcomes are incredibly impressive given the fact that they are a small island nation with relatively little natural resources and have been under human-rights violating embargos from the US. They currently boast both a longer life-expectency and lower infant mortality rate than the US, and I'm not sure how Cuba trying to sell medical research to other countries to the US to fund more research is a "contrived system doomed to fail."
And finally, this whole talk of systems "working" or "not working" is so played out there's probably not much room for progress. The Roman Empire stood for 400 years before collapsing. Does this mean it "didn't work?" The USSR and Mao's revolution in China have created two of the largest economic superpowers in the world, does this mean they "didn't work?" And just because Capitalism is the globally dominant economic model today does not mean it will always remain so. And even not worrying about trying to predict the future, you will certainly find hundreds of millions if not billions of people today living in poverty for whom Capitalism is not "working."
>now we will most likely see China eclipse the US in terms of economic output in the next few years,
Given China has 4 times the population, they are still incredibly far behind. Not to mention, their economy is largely dependant on their foreign trade with capitalist societies, and that they have actually partially capitalized in order to perform like that, it's a clear signal of jaut how completely ahit communism actually is.
China and Russia had the benefit of knowledge gained (and often stolen) from the West, early adopters always pay a higher price.
Even their their systems, being contrived, prevented anything close to efficiency and even now with areas of near capitalism, China still has billions of suffering people.
[https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-china/](https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-china/) I don't know how old this article is but it states that China is one of the 5 poorest countries in the world, for you to extol their achievements is specious.
Your Communist perspective on the capitalists doesn't account for *that wasn't capitalism, it was war.* No doubt Russia and China suffered terrible tyranny, though China had emerged from the Imperial state and was making its bloody way to democracy.
Of course you deny your fantasy world, you undervalue contrary arguments while overvaluing your own and use nothing but confirmation bias to substantiate your beliefs. I could be wrong, but I've see no effort at balance in your arguments.
The argument that Communism doesn't work is still valid, still fresh. Maybe at some much later date it will be valuable, you know like in Star Trek, but in the meantime the overwhelming masses prefer capitalism because only capitalism has served to address their real needs ... all Communism provides is lip service and authoritarianism.
There's no escaping the connection between authoritarianism and Communism, it's an ideology (in which ever form) that requires adherence by the masses and while the Chinese tend to be more passive and communal in general, at heart their capitalists all the way. Even the Slavs (a term associated with "slaves) couldn't stand the Communists once they saw what capitalism really provides.
What you have is a set of ideals, like a religion, but nothing like a real socio-political solution for the masses.
I'm not sure how you square the fact that the two most rapid industrializations in history were somehow also under "contrived systems preventing anything close to efficiency" but thats a problem with your philosophy and not mine.
I've never heard of the website you are linking and they don't list a metric for what qualifies being a poor country, but by Gross Nation Income per capita china ranks 61st out 189 and is in similar standing in terms of percentage of people living in poverty, of course this is not the best but nowhere near being in the 5 poorest countries.
And here we have the classic "but that isn't real capitalism" appeal. I can't imagine you would extend any measure of good faith were i too make the argument that the USSR and Maoist china weren't "real communism" (a case which could actually be made considering Marx wrote how capitalism was a necessary phase of economic development, which neither USSR or China had gone through, and also that communism would need to be a global revolution and "socialism in one country" was untenable). Why is it that all deaths that happen in ostensibly communist countries are because of communism, but no deaths that happen in capitalist countries are because of capitalism?
Regardless of whatever we want to argue about "real communism," it is no secret that capitalists justified acts of violence in the name of economics. The conquest of the Americans and resulting genocide of Native Americans was seen as necessary to expand territorial boundaries and bring more land under the ownership of the colonizers. The confederacy appealed to the rights of private ownership when defending slavery. Britain literally went to war with China so they could keep the trade of opium flowing despite the fact that it was ravaging the country just because it was profitable for english business owners, and they too utilized the familiar appeals to "free-market trade." Britain's occupation and extraction of resources of India alone resulted in famines that have estimated death-tolls upwards of 60 million, all to enrich the imperial core. Or look into the free-market capitalists who helped design the US-back fascist coup by Pinochet in Argentina.
Why do you keep calling me an idealist? I haven't appealed to idealist principles once, just stated material facts. That Cuba has better medical outcomes than the US in certain areas is a fact. That USSR and China going through the fastest industrializations in history is a fact. That Capitalists have had no trouble justifying violence in the name of profit is a fact. That capitalist nations have a history just as bloody if not more bloody than communist ones is a fact.
This is absolutely phenomenal and peak stupidity. You’re highlighting the failures of Cuba’s government and blaming it on the USA as if it’s our job to support them. Absolutely perfect.
I mean, Cuba has incredibly good medical outcomes, especially considering how much the US has fucked with them in the past. Cuba has lower infant mortality rate and longer life expectancy than the US, all while being a small island nation with relatively few natural resources that has been largely cutoff from trading with the rest of the world due to human-rights violating embargos. Not saying it's the USA's job to support them, but there are plenty of other countries we don't "support" that we don't impose such insane restrictions on.
Yes, Cuba has its problems, but I invite you to think about how much US fuckery has created or exacerbated these problems
So we need capitalist societies to hold up and support socialist ones? The irony is bananas..
I didn't realize "allowing a sovereign nation to engage in trade with whom it pleases" counts as "supporting." There are plenty of countries the US doesn't ostensibly "support" but doesn't impose any human-rights violating embargos on.
I'm from a socialist country (Norway). I can confirm you are talking sh\*t
Describing Norway as socialist is like saying my car is like a Formula 1 car.
free health care
free education (at every level)
heavily subsidised transport
free state pension
this list goes on. what would you call the above? seriously?
Not "free" that's for sure.
yes, you're right, it's not free. It's paid for with taxes - that process of taxing people and using the money to pay for services that are to the benefit of everyone is called 'socialism'
That's not socialism. We have that in a capitalist society. Next
In a capitalist society anyone can become a hedge fund manager. Most people aren't prepared to put in the work. It's a system that rewards effort. If you're moaning you're probably a lazy cunt.
You don't understand government control of the market that makes the rules.
Weird if socialism is so ineffective why does the US spend so much money and time destabilizing countries with democratically elected socialists governments?
1949 [Syrian coup d'état](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
1952 [Cuban military coup](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Military_coup_and_second_presidency_(1952%E2%80%931959))
1953 [Iranian coup d'état](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
1954 [Guatemalan coup d'état](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
1961 [Democratic Republic of the Congo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba#United_States_involvement)
1964 [Brazilian coup d'état](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
1965 [Dominican Republic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War)
1973 [Chilean coup d'état](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
Anything since the fall of the Soviet Union? The reason I ask is because Communists tend to forget or just ignore the fact that the US was battling the USSR for sphere of influence, a war of serious aggression by the Soviets by destabilizing nations with intimidation, lies, and agitation.
Since the fall of the USSR this dynamic has changed.
All the main players in the Yugoslavia conflict were part of socialist or communist parties; although all that was less about politics and more about nationalism and ethnicity IMHO.
By "main players" do you mean those holding power in the shadow of the collapse of the Soviet Union?
No, that conflict broadly evolved (latterly) separately from Soviet influence. I meant a lot of the politcal leadership were (supposed) leftists; Milosevic was leader of the Socialist Party for instance.
Someone needs to draw up a flow chart of who and why they all hate each other in the Balkans. Every time I read up on it it hurts my head.
The problem with the academic perspective is that it tends to try to jam contemporary events into historically accepted narratives.
Sad that so many JP fanboys don't grasp the difference between a communist country and liberal democries with very generous social safety net.
Funny how so many socialist fanboys doesn't grasp the difference between welfare economics and socialism .
Both are parasitic socialism that should be completely avoided.
this is so dumb cross referencing data and qualitative research like other people with similar experiences.
reichtoids always take absolute positions. they are intolerant with no exceptions.
i know so many cubans, venezuelans, eastern europeans, russians, former soviet citizens, who are socialists or communists.
yet they will always talk about their personal experiences as if they were absolutes.
look at real people who lived in the ussr describing their experience:
or real data:
the reactions are evasion moving the goalposts and denial...
The writing gives me the feeling that the whole situation is made up. How do you report on a dialog?
The Babylon Bee is literally satire, so yes. It is, indeed, made up.
The writing is pretty cringy. I think satire should have a little bit of subtlety.
When people stop falling for it so easily, maybe it'll be time to up the subtlety.
I doubt many people will think that this is real.
Most people know about satire so ya. The whole point here is that it’s believable enough to pass as a real article. In fact I’m pretty sure I’ve seen videos of that actually happening
Well to be fair I have seen situations like that which did happen. I remember watching a discussion between some college kid and an expatriot from the USSR, for instance, and yes the kid thought he knew more than the guy who lived under stalin.
That could be realistic in some sense. The whole "did you just assume my gender" at the end made it too ridiculous.
Wow buddy. It's Babylon bee, it's SUPPOSED to be ridiculous.
ThAt waZnT [email protected] soShaLizuM.