• MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Eh, there’s a notional aspiration to socialism at least, which is more than can be said about the US sphere of countries.

    In practice though? Yeah, China is hyper-captialist, without much of the social security present in wealthier countries.

    Why Leftist get a hard-on for the former USSR, Russia and China, or frankly any country, is beyond me.

    There are positive and negative outcomes in line or against socialist ideals everywhere (I think people are too black and white about China in both directions personally)

    I just do not understand simping for any country, just because they are “socialist”.

    • Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: “Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation” - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - “and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism.”

      But that “communism” then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        My money is on fusion before proper socialism.

        There is always someone willing to twist the rules and game the system to get more money and power than everyone else. The 1% have always existed and so have the worker class. It will always shake out to that.

    • sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      IMO this is why it takes an additional axis to define a government, not just left/right but also free/authoritarian. You can find examples of all combinations. Left wing and repressive? Cuba. Left leaning and free? Sweden. Right wing and repressive? Russia, Saudi Arabia, whatever. Right leaning and free (mostly)? USA.

      Obviously, there’s a gradient within these axes, but it’s strange to see people cheering on a country that matches their preferred left or right wing ideology if they’re super repressive.

      • RidderSport@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 minutes ago

        I think Saudi Arabia is the perfect example of why even that model isn’t even enough. I mean sure they are a monarchy and quite self-focused but not really in a nationalistic way. To be fair I don’t know much about their domestic politics. To put them into the same corner as Russia, eh dunno.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 minutes ago

          I couldn’t ask for clearer evidence than not accepting Saudi Arabia as authoritarian to demonstrate that “free vs authoritarian” are just propaganda terms and that how “free” a country allegedly is is really just a function of how aligned it is with the US.

          In what universe is Saudi Arabia more free than Cuba?

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        This is why we need to reeducate people and stop using the traditional left-right spectrum and start using the axis spectrum