• jroid8@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Go watch some documentsaries about USSR, north korea, khmer rouge, and china then talk. USSR collapsed, Khmer rogue executed 1/4 of its’s population and north korea is a nation of brainwashesd people thinking their leader doesn’t poop (I don’t know enough to talk about China, but they have an economy)

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.

      The USSR and China both drastically improved metrics like life expectancy, literacy rates, reduced poverty, eliminated famine, and generally uplifted the poor when compared with Fuedal Russia and Nationalist China. They had numerous issues and tragedies, yes, but overall did very well for its people.

      Please find a genuine source saying that North Koreans don’t think their leader poops. Or, just watch a video of some Aussies going to North Korea to get a haircut. North Korea is certainly no paradise, but it’s also one of the most propagandized against in the western world.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That hasn’t happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.

        A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.

        • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I need you to shut the fuck up until you investigate just a single fucking thing you say. “Achieve many of the same outcomes” just holy shit. Collaboration and liberation are the same if you really think about it!

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Revolution and the historical application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have resulted in more democratic institutions being put in place than what previously existed.

          Social Democracies are not Socialist, nor are they trying to be Socialist. They still depend on Capitalism, and exploitation of the Global South. They are also seeing rising disparity and weakening worker protections over time, because reforming a Capitalist state into something better over a gradual process is extremely difficult.

          History’s most notable democratically elected Socialist was couped in 2 years, Salvador Allende, with the help of the US.