Why have socialist countries universally uplifted their population into higher literacy, standard of living, working conditions, women’s rights etc etc?
Because they started out very poorly educated with few rights?
Edit: the initial populations before communism typically have fewer rights and weren’t educated. For example Imperial Russian citizens were largely uneducated and had the same lifestyle in 1900 that their ancestors in 1700 would have had. Stalin’s first five year plan changed that for tens of millions as they suddenly had running water, electricity and public schooling/vocational training. These populations saw greater improvement because access to education and QOL improvements were limited before the communists took over.
Stalin’s first five year plan changed that for tens of millions as they suddenly had running water, electricity and public schooling/vocational training.
Yes it did. Im not allied with any particular ideology as long as it is not authoritarian. I see them as tools and techniques to be adopted and implemented as needed. Socialism was incredibly beneficial to most of the early Soviet union.
I applaud you for acknowledging the benefits of socialism even though it sounds like you disagree with it overall.
I’d encourage you, though, to think more about what “authoritarian” actually means. All states claim authority to use violence. The only limits states acknowledge on how much violence they can use are the limits they agree to (and therefore can abandon at their convenience). All states sharply respond to certain types of dissent – certainly violent dissent, almost always dissent that (the state claims) is associated with a foreign state, and often even peaceful dissent. This applies to any liberal democracy you can name. Look at how many peaceful protesters the U.S. brutalized in 2020, look at the recent U.K. ruling on sentences for peaceful protesters blocking roads, look at how Germany preemptively bans even discussion of Nazism.
So when Cuba arrests dissenters who are backed by an extremely hostile foreign power, is that any different from what the U.S. would do? When the USSR arrested nationalist dissenters who sympathized with Nazis, is that any different than what Germany does? What actually makes these “authoritarian” countries different from the “good” ones, apart from having the audacity to reject capitalism?
I don’t disagree with socialism overall I just think it provides greater benefit in certain situations. For example Norway might not benefit from greater socialism in the way that Saudi Arabia would.
Authoritarianism in this case is the traditional right of the classic left/right binary from the French Revolution. While some nations have been less inclined to listen to the people in this case authoritarianism is those that have little to no input in their government eg Iran or NK.
Your economic system isn’t what makes a nation authoritarian.
Capitalist society has tried to fearmonger about vague “Authoritarianism” as long as it has been around. They were calling socialism “authoritarian” before Mao, before Stalin, before any actual socialist state even existed to use as a case study.
I am here in good faith but to be clear “good faith” does not mean always agreeing with you or your sources.
I have a degree in political science. I have read a lot about authoritarianism and I have previously explained the exact definition I was using.
There isn’t “fearmongering” about socialism and authoritarianism as factually China and Cuba are authoritarian as are/were others. If you doubt this explain how you can only vote for a communist party in those nations and cannot organize for any other political ideology. They are authoritarian nations because of this.
“Good faith” just means being willing to hear us out. Obviously I’d like it if you would change your mind, but as long as you’re trying to understand our point of view(even if you don’t change yours) you’re still welcome here.
My point was that capitalist media of the 1800s was accusing socialism of being “authoritarian” before any socialist nations existed. How could they declare something to be “authoritarian” (or anything for that matter) before it actually existed? Does that not seem like poisoning the well?
And it seems your understanding of these nations comes solely from a western, capitalist country’s interpretation of them and their system.
Are their systems “authoritarian” or are they just “different” to the system you live in?
Maybe try and read some primary sources on how they structure their system, and listen to what they say about their own system, then weigh what they say about it with what you already know, compare and contrast, that sort of thing. If the only information you get about a nation comes directly from their biggest enemies, of course you’re going to think they’re all horrible.
Authoritarian states are not always unpopular with their population but if they cannot advocate for a completely different system without legal reprisal then they are authoritarian states.
Stating that a nation is authoritarian is not a value judgement. It is like saying a country is a monarchy. It is a simple statement of fact. Some authoritarian states are better than others. For example Cuba is authoritarian and it would be very hard to argue the previous capitalist “democratic” system was better.
I think the implied question is how they started behind the advanced capitalist nations and came to rival or better them. Part of the literacy drive in China, for example was to shift from traditional to simplified characters. I’m actually curious as to whether any other (capitalist) country has done or could do anything similar. And whether this could be achieved without exercising state authority.
The obvious answer is that most of the Western nations did a bad job of educating the non-dominant population(s) mostly due to racism/classism. This varies depending on the nation but is the most obvious answer as to why communist nations tend to have better education rates. This is not to say racism was not a problem or is not a problem in communist states but it rarely if ever is the driver of policy like it is/was in the West.
There’s also fewer incentives for communist nations to not educate people. There’s no financial incentive at play to have uneducated people.
Finally there is the fact that the numbers coming out from the more authoritarian states tend to not be accurate. There are a wide range if incentives to always be promoting “better” numbers so there can be some cases where the numbers are fudged. This is more common with things like production rates and GNP/GDP.
Basically communist nations tend to be aimed at collectivism and don’t benefit from an uneducated class in the same way capitalism can plus they are theoretically less racist in terms of policy.
Why have socialist countries universally uplifted their population into higher literacy, standard of living, working conditions, women’s rights etc etc?
Because they started out very poorly educated with few rights?
Edit: the initial populations before communism typically have fewer rights and weren’t educated. For example Imperial Russian citizens were largely uneducated and had the same lifestyle in 1900 that their ancestors in 1700 would have had. Stalin’s first five year plan changed that for tens of millions as they suddenly had running water, electricity and public schooling/vocational training. These populations saw greater improvement because access to education and QOL improvements were limited before the communists took over.
So it worked
Yes it did. Im not allied with any particular ideology as long as it is not authoritarian. I see them as tools and techniques to be adopted and implemented as needed. Socialism was incredibly beneficial to most of the early Soviet union.
I applaud you for acknowledging the benefits of socialism even though it sounds like you disagree with it overall.
I’d encourage you, though, to think more about what “authoritarian” actually means. All states claim authority to use violence. The only limits states acknowledge on how much violence they can use are the limits they agree to (and therefore can abandon at their convenience). All states sharply respond to certain types of dissent – certainly violent dissent, almost always dissent that (the state claims) is associated with a foreign state, and often even peaceful dissent. This applies to any liberal democracy you can name. Look at how many peaceful protesters the U.S. brutalized in 2020, look at the recent U.K. ruling on sentences for peaceful protesters blocking roads, look at how Germany preemptively bans even discussion of Nazism.
So when Cuba arrests dissenters who are backed by an extremely hostile foreign power, is that any different from what the U.S. would do? When the USSR arrested nationalist dissenters who sympathized with Nazis, is that any different than what Germany does? What actually makes these “authoritarian” countries different from the “good” ones, apart from having the audacity to reject capitalism?
I don’t disagree with socialism overall I just think it provides greater benefit in certain situations. For example Norway might not benefit from greater socialism in the way that Saudi Arabia would.
Authoritarianism in this case is the traditional right of the classic left/right binary from the French Revolution. While some nations have been less inclined to listen to the people in this case authoritarianism is those that have little to no input in their government eg Iran or NK.
Your economic system isn’t what makes a nation authoritarian.
If you’re here in good faith, I would recommend reading “On Authority.” It isn’t too long, more of a pamphlet than anything else.
https://redsails.org/on-authority/
Capitalist society has tried to fearmonger about vague “Authoritarianism” as long as it has been around. They were calling socialism “authoritarian” before Mao, before Stalin, before any actual socialist state even existed to use as a case study.
I am here in good faith but to be clear “good faith” does not mean always agreeing with you or your sources.
I have a degree in political science. I have read a lot about authoritarianism and I have previously explained the exact definition I was using.
There isn’t “fearmongering” about socialism and authoritarianism as factually China and Cuba are authoritarian as are/were others. If you doubt this explain how you can only vote for a communist party in those nations and cannot organize for any other political ideology. They are authoritarian nations because of this.
“Good faith” just means being willing to hear us out. Obviously I’d like it if you would change your mind, but as long as you’re trying to understand our point of view(even if you don’t change yours) you’re still welcome here.
My point was that capitalist media of the 1800s was accusing socialism of being “authoritarian” before any socialist nations existed. How could they declare something to be “authoritarian” (or anything for that matter) before it actually existed? Does that not seem like poisoning the well?
And it seems your understanding of these nations comes solely from a western, capitalist country’s interpretation of them and their system. Are their systems “authoritarian” or are they just “different” to the system you live in? Maybe try and read some primary sources on how they structure their system, and listen to what they say about their own system, then weigh what they say about it with what you already know, compare and contrast, that sort of thing. If the only information you get about a nation comes directly from their biggest enemies, of course you’re going to think they’re all horrible.
Authoritarian states are not always unpopular with their population but if they cannot advocate for a completely different system without legal reprisal then they are authoritarian states.
Stating that a nation is authoritarian is not a value judgement. It is like saying a country is a monarchy. It is a simple statement of fact. Some authoritarian states are better than others. For example Cuba is authoritarian and it would be very hard to argue the previous capitalist “democratic” system was better.
By that definition every state would be “authoritarian”. Try overthrowing your government and see how that goes.
Are you actually listening to what you are saying? Because it really doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this definition through.
Good point but it wouldn’t explain why their literacy rates are higher than even the West who have been industrialized and given every advantage
They started much further behind. Nations like China taught almost no one how to read before Mao came along.
I think the implied question is how they started behind the advanced capitalist nations and came to rival or better them. Part of the literacy drive in China, for example was to shift from traditional to simplified characters. I’m actually curious as to whether any other (capitalist) country has done or could do anything similar. And whether this could be achieved without exercising state authority.
The obvious answer is that most of the Western nations did a bad job of educating the non-dominant population(s) mostly due to racism/classism. This varies depending on the nation but is the most obvious answer as to why communist nations tend to have better education rates. This is not to say racism was not a problem or is not a problem in communist states but it rarely if ever is the driver of policy like it is/was in the West.
There’s also fewer incentives for communist nations to not educate people. There’s no financial incentive at play to have uneducated people.
Finally there is the fact that the numbers coming out from the more authoritarian states tend to not be accurate. There are a wide range if incentives to always be promoting “better” numbers so there can be some cases where the numbers are fudged. This is more common with things like production rates and GNP/GDP.
Basically communist nations tend to be aimed at collectivism and don’t benefit from an uneducated class in the same way capitalism can plus they are theoretically less racist in terms of policy.
deleted by creator
There is no magical literacy equilibrium.
There are nations that had wider access to education and saw an educated populace differently.