The common thread in successful countries is not overthrowing of “imperialists”, it’s nationalism.

Okay, here’s someone else then, basically there’s no ownership on land by anyone in China.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/vychg7/how_does_home_ownership_work_in_china/

The 90% figure also excludes rural residents, so it’s probably inflated.

Many countries used other people as slaves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

The U.S. or western nations were hardly the first to do it, but the way things came together at that point in history certainly helped.

Regardless, many countries which exploited the trans-Atlantic slave trade aren’t even that successful now, relative to the U.S. so it’s not just slavery which made America what it is.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/

Now days slavery is not just a west only problem though. But the west is more honest about its history than most in this regard.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery

No, I take them all the time

I think oppression politics exist solely in the hopes of redistributing wealth to a new cadre of ghouls who won’t be any better than the first. That’s not social justice, it’s revenge.

Oh please, forget it. You think they didn’t do that in countries which succeeded?

And you’ve shown time and time again that you choose to misrepresent things. No one owns anything in China lol, the government leases the land.

If you don’t want to admit that some of these countries are wholly disinterested in their own people, then don’t. Countries like those in BRIC, minus S, and only including the name-only ones are great examples of the kind of countries which overcame possible exploitation.

So no, it’s not just an outside baddie exploitation problem. Do those countries have their own issues, yes. Do they have the best systems, no. Does any country? Not necessarily.

Let’s be honest, a lot of political games make fools of us all, and it’s hard to judiciously determine the optimal system for economic development or social development outside of the context of history. Nothing has happened in a vacuum, and everything is tainted by history. The only thing we can hope for is fairness, justice and equity for everyone as best as we can provide, while not sacrificing the self-actualization of others. What really triggers me though is how people say disingenuous things about their ideology of choice, and that just makes me want to say the counterpoint, even if I agree on some aspects.

Yeah, I’ve never liked the oligarchic and kleptocratic side of capitalism, that’s exactly what I said in my first post.

Exactly thanks, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying! The exploitation comes from within the countries first, the outsiders help instigate it because it makes sense from a game theory pov. However, many nation states stand as counter examples of how they escaped that.

It’s not okay to take others peoples stuff just because you want it. That’s barbaric and uncivil.

It’s better to implement taxes and democratically decide how those revenues should be used.

Edit I am not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, it’s clear that you’re willing to paint a rosy picture on any pile of bodies and call it day.

I think that’s a fair point, to a degree. But again to my point, that’s a huge generalization and ignores many, many successful countries which overcame incredible odds. It’s important to understand why their success happened so similar models can be used in other countries. And no, their problems aren’t just “exploitation”, that’s just wishful and simplistic thinking. Is there exploitation, yes. Is it because of “western nations”, not necessarily. The corruption and greed is an inherent problem in many of these countries, it existed without the help of outsiders.

Some of those countries don’t even have plumbing.

Second, the best way to understand your weak spots is through your ideological opponents. I don’t care for capitalism or socialism per se, I just hate disingenuous propaganda.

The so-called right wing platforms are simply stating historical facts from primary sources.

I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.

Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.

Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?

In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!

Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.

https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric

I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!

I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.

Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Okay thanks for your super unbiased sources, I’ll read them all the same because it’s nice to know the kind of lies other people like to believe

Yeah, “Nazis” and “Kulaks”

Please stop trying to fool people with your revisionist and rose colored glasses historical fiction. Cherry picking some out of context quote is just disingenuous, and doesn’t make sense for me to continue discussing this then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.

It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.

You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/myths-about-the-soviet-union-inequality-poverty-and-quality-of-life/

https://www.adamsmith.org/research/back-in-the-ussr

https://www.ranker.com/list/life-in-the-soviet-union/kellen-perry

I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.

As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.

No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.

From a source (linked below):

As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.

Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.

https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en

One more for reference:

Soviet beggars found themselves in an ambivalent situation. The authorities wanted to exclude them from the future Communist society, but, incapable of solving the begging problem, they simply concealed it from the 1930s until the mid-1950s so as not to contradict the USSR’s image as a prosperous state —even as they made it impossible to devise any form of welfare policy towards them. The launch of a program aimed at solving the begging problem in the second half of the 1950s led to a debate in the press, which exposed the contradictions between the official discourse and social reality.

The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.

I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.

Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.

As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism.

I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.

Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.

The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.

You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.

How does that discount my point? Anyone can edit it.