• pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.

          If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.

              In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?

              Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.

              You both suck.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It absolutely doesn’t because the fact of the matter is that communism has failed across cultures and capitalism is failing as we speak.

                  Poor starving families escaping war and famine don’t give a fuck about why the USSR fell or how the U.S. purposefully installed dictators in communist countries to ensure the social structure wouldn’t be a threat to capital, they care about having food and water in their mouths and a roof over their head. And the whole point of you defending communism to your dying breath in an Internet argument is to ensure that happens, so explain to us how you want communism to achieve that without being destroyed from the inside over and over again like it already has been nonstop.

                  You can’t, therefore communism doesn’t work. It’s as simple as that.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.

    • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bro if you go from negative growth to one percent of positive growth you qualify for being rapidly developing

      Doesn’t mean anything about life quality which is shit btw

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.

        As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?