[birn559]

Just like with vaccines, some people apparently have lived in a first world bubble for so long and so deeply that they have forgotten what the alternatives really look like.

Of course there is democracy and corruption is much worse in non-democratic countries.

[Atlas667]

Most non-democratic countries that exist are capitalist countries.

Even the ones you're probably thinking about are capitalist, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Sudan, etc. All capitalists.

Capitalism creates authoritarianism through corruption as a grey market business practice.

[spwa4]

Ever notice how socialists ... never discuss real-world socialism? They only discuss what goes wrong with others (and of course all gets lumped together, when of course it is absolutely forbidden to draw the connection between western socialism and Soviets, or especially North Korea or Iran. But that the Saudia Arabian and the US economy work the same way, and have the same level of authoritarianism, that you can just state as gospel)

But here's one stat I think illustrates how well it goes in practice: the Taliban in full-blown war caused less victims in Afghanistan than communists did in peacetime (in fact less than half. This, incidentally, is the actual reason the Taliban started fighting the west, not CIA support. Communism is STILL one of the western influences that they state they try to eradicate, and I doubt that part of their agenda is very controversial in Afghanistan. And, of course, western socialists never mention this, and especially don't discuss why or how socialism came to Afghanistan, and how it is the direct cause, not CIA support, of the current situation in Afghanistan and Iran)

And this is not an exception in communism. For instance: "peace" in the Soviet Union killed more people than WW2 did worldwide, including the holocaust, hell, include all conflicts the Soviets ever had and it's still true. Hell, include all conflicts in Europe of the entire 20th century and it was still more. Same in China.

So I feel all rational people can honestly say "even if you're right, capitalist authoritarianism is still better", and given that authoritarianism is almost a basic principle of socialism, certainly in practice, I don't understand where they're coming from in the first place.

[Atlas667]

To laud Afghan mujahideen with their verified acid attacks on women is insane on your part. Afghanistan was a monarchy before the people overthrew their monarchs for socialism and before the americans funded their extremists, who you praise.

The Afghan socialists were fighting monarchies, warlords(tribal land lords) and even shitty socialist leaders. - Figures of Soviet deaths are overblown to include non-births and even Nazi deaths, that is the state of anti-communist propaganda these days (right now). There is no denying that Soviets made mistakes, I am no apologist, but the western narrative is wrong on so many accounts that it discredits itself. A country trying to industrialize while undergoing a civil war and foreign attacks had a hard time organizing their agriculture under a drought. It is objectively a massive failure, but it is not inherent to socialist democracy.

What you fail to mention about the world wars is that both world wars were caused by capitalist tensions between nations. Both world wars can be fully attributed to capitalists enrichment and their contradictions between nation states. These are the gashes in humanity caused by capitalist colonialism. -

Let me tell you, Socialism is not something you vote for, its something you do. Democracy takes the efforts of society to make happen.

Neighborhood councils are a fundamental part of socialist theory. Ask yourself why you've never heard of it? Who produces the media content that gets promoted and published? Is it your neighbors with their social interests? Or is it massive capitalist publishers with their interests? The censorship in capitalist societies is about monopoly control and volume/amplification.

Capitalists are a fundamental threat to mass democracy.

[spwa4]

Your entire reply is unhinged and total lunacy. Except for this part:

> Capitalists are a fundamental threat to mass democracy.

I wouldn't be much of a liberal capitalist if I didn't tell you "YES it is! Or at least I 100% support you thinking that. You should fight those aspects and help out". That you're a communist that defends mass-executing people for trying to participate ... well it's not like you'll honestly discuss that aspect of socialism, in Afghanistan, Russia, Iran or elsewhere.

[Atlas667]

I dont defend mass executions or even the mistakes of communism. Mismanagement and murder is inexcusable. But i do not see them as inherent to socialism, but as product of their times.

Conveniently you dont mention any of the mass executions caused by capitalism?

All the wars, all the covert operations, all the murderous and genocidal dictatorships, two world wars?

Knowing full well a sitting US president critiqued the military industrial complex as a capitalist threat.

Capital is even responsible for on going genocides.

You know well I do not advocate for mass murder.

I am advocating for mass democracy and the only way to acheive that permanently is through democratized production. I am advocating for progress and for an end of using base material needs for profits.

[spwa4]

> Conveniently you dont mention any of the mass executions caused by capitalism?

Such as? Oh wait, this is where you blame a communist massacre, like say the many ones committed in Cuba, on the pressure a capitalist state put on those poor, defenseless, communist warlords. Che Guevara!

It's like saying Iranian revolution was caused by capitalism (the oil companies), when of course the actual organizing, the starting of the revolution itself, and even a few massacres were executed by communists (yes, the most famous one was khomeini, however, that does not mean there were no others). Those poor massacring communists had no choice! They were forced to massacre by the pressure of the oil companies, who had a party in the desert! That just left them no choice at all. And then they just happened to bring a dictator to power, completely by accident! Victims!

(btw: in the Iranian case, if you kill to bring a dictator to power, that this dictator then proceeds to kill you does not make you innocent, or any less of a murderer, it just makes you a stupid dead murderer, who allied himself with a better murderer, and you dragged yourself into death and 10s of millions of people into 50 years of misery out of, let's face it, jealousy. THAT is what communism brought to Iran. Oh and Afghanistan was worse)

> You know well I do not advocate for mass murder.

Yes you do. That's what communism is: you replace money with a threat "do what the state plans for you to do or ..."

Since it is in almost everyone's best interest to NOT do what the state planned (because otherwise there would be no difference between capitalism and communism) you need to actually apply the threat. And any threat devolves into killing, after X steps, in some percentage of cases. X differs, the percentage differs, but not the end result. And because the threat needs to be universal in communism, the percentage is going to be large in practice.

> I am advocating for progress and for an end of using base material needs for profits.

No you are advocating for a planned economy and are refusing to think about any practical aspects of that. You are no different from an inquisitor or a taliban executioner who "protects" the people, but you can't see it because your cause is righteous.