Communism looks good on paper
and looks even better in the real world
As usual I’d love for the down voters to comment instead of being cowards.
Communism looks good. In theory. But for me it seems human mentality isn’t far enough evolved so it would work. Also China is far away from an ideal communism.
I can say capitalism is shit and all the other large scale established systems arent perfect too. No need to pick a side. We won’t develop something better saying one of these is already good enough
I don’t understand what you mean by saying “human mentality isn’t far evolved enough.” Human mentality is shaped by how we live, produce, and distribute, in other words by our material conditions. We get to communism through socialism, which involves changing our conditions and thus this changed our mentality. As for China, it’s still in the developing stages of socialism, it has not reached communism yet.
Power corrupts people. Everyone powerful, even with the best intentions starting, becomes more or less evil because there is no good regulation and feedback. The transformation to communism needs people with power to ensure society stays on its path. So has every socialism country. Having a powerful minority ruling the population will cause discrimination and abuse because almost nobody will give back his power by choice.
growing up in a country with socialism past I can say that the change to democracy has changed more to the good than to the worse. Sure there were some things better back then. But overall it’s a better society now. Not ignoring, that there are many things really bad in our current mainly capitalistic democracy damaging it from inside. And doesn’t matter which country with a former socialism system you look into: the majority of people experiencing both say overall it changed to the better.
I hope one day humanity will evolve to a point where ideal communism will work. But I don’t expect us to experience this soon. And if we get to this point, we won’t need something like socialism for transition.
Power isn’t some mystical force that “corrupts” like a supernatural curse, that’s idealist hand-waving. Power operates within material structures: who controls production, how institutions are designed, what class interests they serve. Blaming “power itself” dodges the actual question: power for whom, exercised how, under what constraints?
China’s system for example isn’t an “all-powerful minority” ruling by fiat. It’s whole-process people’s democracy: democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight woven into a continuous cycle. NPC deputies aren’t a closed clique, they come from factories, farms, labs, ethnic minority communities; even the smallest ethnic group has guaranteed representation. Major policies (like protections for delivery workers) emerge from legislative proposals and public consultation, not backroom decrees.
You mention growing up in a “socialism past” country (which leads me to assume post soviet, please correct me if I’m wrong). Given you’re posting online with this analysis, you’re almost certainly too young to have lived experience of the actual socialist period. What you’re calling “socialism” was likely the shock therapy neoliberal collapse that followed: male life expectancy in Russia dropped over six years between 1989 and 1994; similar crashes hit all across the former USSR. That wasn’t due to communism(socialism) failing, it was rapid privatization, asset stripping, and the rise of oligarchic kleptocracy. Inequality didn’t just rise; it exploded. People saying “it’s better now” aren’t comparing capitalism to socialism, they’re comparing post-shock-therapy stability to the immediate humanitarian disaster of the 1990s, with no lived memory of the prior system’s guarantees.
And no, we won’t just “press the communism button” once humanity “evolves.” That’s pure idealism. People aren’t abstract moral agents who magically become selfless when the time is right. Consciousness is shaped by material conditions. You don’t skip the socialist transition by wishing harder; you build the material foundations (productive forces, social relations, institutional capacity) that make higher-stage communism possible. Wishing for the end state while rejecting the transitional process is like demanding a skyscraper while refusing to pour the foundation.
Vibes aren’t analysis. Nostalgia for a period you didn’t live, conflated with the trauma of its violent dismantling, is not the correct way to approach this issue. If you want to critique socialism, engage with its actual theory and practice, not a caricature filtered through the lens of neoliberal collapse.
“Power” is not a supernatural corrupting force. Evil does not exist, there is no such thing as a supernatural force that guides the actions of people. What you are confusing is the profit motive within capitalism incentivizing rule bending and corruption, as well as the continuation of class struggle into socialism requiring constant vigilance against capitalist restoration.
As for the majority saying life is better post-socialism, this is wrong. The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back. Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system. In reality, socialism delivers far better democratic results, because the working classes are in control:
We will always need to transition between capitalism and communism with socialism. You cannot collectivize all production and distribution overnight, you cannot wither the state overnight, you cannot eliminate classes overnight, and you cannot take people from capitalism to communism mentally overnight. This is an impossibility.
I’ll bite.
China is not communist. But we should talk about different economic systems because that’s the ultimate goal.
Communism in itself is a true ideal as long as output exceeds intake and satisfaction is high. It’s also possible on a global scale, if not designed for it.
Capitalism is also a true ideal as long as it’s built on an immovable foundation of human rights paid for by centralized non profit corporations.
The issue has nothing to do with the ideas themselves. The issue is and always has been the concentration of power.
It is the ideas of the few which can never properly represent the masses. Even with the best intentions. The only true ideal for power is that there is none except when handled by all. The US Constitution seemed to have this idea in mind with its intent, though it’s evolved into the same old concentration of power over time. Doesn’t matter which party either. The reality is power is so concentrated now that there are no true parties anymore. This is a mafia that transcends both sides.
So no China is no proof of anything except improper concentration of power. Mostly capitalist by the way. And totally tyrannical in their wielding of power against free thought, sex, religion, etc. It’s practically anti freedom and contradicts every protected class we have in the US.
Does anyone have the statistics on how many abortion occur there? Even if you’re pro choice, the piles of discarded fetuses could reach skyscraper height. This is not a normal issue to have. How many illiterate? How many old people died while they were bolted inside their homes during COVID?
If the question is what system would you be willing to put your life in the hands of, there is only one answer: which one has the most distributed power and wealth above the rest.
This is entirely vibes-based. Capitalism, socialism, and communism are modes of production and distribution, not ideals or ideas. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, socialism is public ownership as the principle aspect and the working classes in charge of the state, and communism is a post-socialist mode of production where all production and distribution has been collectivized.
China is a socialist country governed by a communist party. Public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy, and the working classes control the state. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
The US Constitution was written to protect slave owners, capitalists, and landlords. It is not written to protect the many. China, on the other hand, puts the working classes first and manages to use this system to uplift the working classes year over year.
An excellent and very clear answer comrade, but don’t you have any book recommendations that are more on the commenter’s level? Roland Boer is great but it takes a pretty advanced level of political econ and history knowledge to grasp. Do you know of any simpler books on the subject? Or would you recommend just listening to Hasan Piker to someone at that stage of the journey?
Roland Boer’s work is useful because it’s meticulously well-researched and sourced. Unfortunatley, for someone actively hostile to the idea of democracy in China, simple works are easily tossed aside as “propaganda.”
Do you have a pdf for Boer’s book on SWCC? I’ve wanted to read it but haven’t been able to find it.
Tysm!
This should work! Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners
Thank you!
I don’t have time to go through everything wrong with your post but I want to touch on Chinese vs American literacy rates for a moment
In America while the total population literacy rate is often cited at 99%, functional literacy (the ability to manage daily living and employment tasks) is lower, with estimates placing it between 65% and 85%.
China’s literacy rate has grown from 79% in 1982 to 97% in 2020.
In 2018 PISA results,15-year-olds in China outperformed U.S. peers in reading, math, and science. Some analyses suggest about 20% of U.S. 15-year-olds do not read as well as they should by age 10.
In the 2018 PISA China ranked first globally in all subjects. The U.S. ranked roughly 13th in reading and 37th in math among 79 education systems
Youth literacy in the U.S. is facing a crisis, with 25% of 16-to-24-year-olds deemed functionally illiterate as of 2023, up from 16% in 2017. Roughly 60% of U.S. teens do not read at grade level, and 34% of fourth-graders perform below basic reading levels.
In 2020, youth (15–24) literacy in China reached 100%.
Nothing you said contradicts anything I wrote, so I’m struggling to understand why you started your comment this way. To say “everything wrong with my post” then address nothing I wrote… I’m not sure you should be quoting literacy at all.
You’ll find I’m highly critical of both China and the US once we discuss further.
Lastly, there is no chance in hell China’s literacy reached 97%, not will it as long as rural lifestyle continues with no need for it.
Literacy rate by country, 2026. China is at 97%. Get out of the 20th century and turn off Fox News.
First off, I’m a progressive. Second, I lived in China for 6 months and I’m telling you the statistic is wrong. I have first hand experience among the many many many rural areas that are basically third world. China historically reports garbage numbers and this one of them. Shocking I know! How could they!
Nah, you’re repeating far-right talking points. You have no counter-evidence other than your belief that underdeveloped rural areas cannot possibly achieve high literacy rates, when exactly that has happened everytime socialism has been established around the world. Further, in recent decades China has been focusing on the urban/rural divide.
First off, I don’t have any right wing, let alone far right propaganda in my life. I’m a progressive. Do you think a MAGA idiot would go live in China themselves? Obviously not.
I don’t actually need evidence to be correct, because I saw it first hand. But I probably can prove it anyways. The simplest way: there are multiple definitions of literacy. They now call it functioning literacy in some cases. Others get very specific such as can they read a newspaper or write a statement about a topic? I do believe China is achieving great things with their younger generations. That, I also saw first hand. Although, they conveniently rewrite history as well. Completely covering up the atrocities the government has caused. That is pretty unforgivable.
Anyways, the older generation is filled with people who are still illiterate. They are not in school. They are not learning. They are working. And mostly happy by the way. Illiteracy is not a criticism on well being. That was someone else’s argument that “they must be doing well because they’ve achieved so much LITERACY.” Those are the happiest people I’ve ever met. Willing to share their food and home with total strangers. Their jobs and their lives and their happiness do not require literacy. That is why they will never change. Only once the younger generation has outlived the older long enough to reach a 97% rate could we call it the achievement you are wanting to believe.
Anyways, none of this has anything to do with my initial statement. Both systems suck! Everyone else is throwing these random statements such as literacy to try to change the argument. Draw it into a which is better contest. It’s just like red and blue politics in America. Fuck all that. We the people, everywhere, deserve better than either of these power and control hungry psychos would have for us. Period.
