Yep, by the definitions of food security capitalist countries have always done better than communist ones. In the USSR, only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. Famines resulted when food was forcibly taken from them to feed the rest. By the above definition, the 70% of the USSR was food insecure.

China didn't look much better and the less centralized they were, the worse it got. (before folks come out of the woodwork to claim that it wasn't true socialism or anarchism) All non capitalist systems we have ever seen including feudalism and socialism have required violence to force production. That's just slavery with extra steps.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 7 points 1 year ago

There weren't really famines in the USSR after the beginning, when they fucked up collectivization and then went through a long and brutal war for their people. Same thing with China. They messed up some stuff a lot but they were also basically the first two countries trying a new thing.

But capitalist countries have gone through famines as well, even more so because there have been more of them, and when they were in the same pre-industrial and early industrial periods of their development as well. UK controlled India went through its own famine due to human causes, there was the Great Dust Bowl in the US, basically half of Africa and everything that has gone on there, etc.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is false, even by the CIA's own admission:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf

You must be speaking about the USSR's early period, transitioning from a rural backwater into an industrial power house. They experienced a famine then (and unfortunately it was the routine even before communism), but once they completed collectivication, there no longer were any. In other words, communism ended the pattern of famines in Russia and Ukraine.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correct, once they shifted from smaller communes where people were free to do what they wanted and shifted to directed labor, they solved their productivity problem. Slaves do make for greater production.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The definition of forced labor.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Forced labor is when labor is done involuntarily, under the threat of penalty. That would be what the working class is subjected to under capitalism. You must work for your capitalist overlords to give you enough for basic subsistence. Don't work, face the repercussions of poverty, even though we already produce enough to feed you.

The USSR never fully achieved communism, even by its own admission. So they still operated under a capitalist mode of production with respect to the global economy. So people were also required to work, but there were many improvements. Worker conditions and rights we're far better in the USSR. The USSR had the "right to work" policy, meaning as long as you are willing to work, you're fine, even if it means sitting in an office doing little. The USSR also operated the means of production in a centralized manner towards bettering its society and reducing working hours.

You called it "directed labor". Not sure what you mean by this, but you later called it "slavery". I suppose you could call it wage slavery, as it still operated in surplus production, but it was an improvement on capitalism and towards achieving communism. People were working for their own interests and needs, not for capitalist profits.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

An improvement on capitalism because surplus production was enjoyed by the political elites instead of the capital owners with no chance to gain it without gaining the favor of the party. This cronyism still survived in the largely centralized Russian and Chinese corporate systems to this day. The initial years were attempts to achieve that idealized form of decentralized communism which is why it resulted in famine. The centralization under a single party made it fascism without the corporations, aka totalitarianism. The primary burdens of a centrally dictated economic system is not suffered by the majority but minority regions. This is why Russians look back fondly on communism and every border partner in the union cannot get away from them fast enough. They were able to control not only the means of production, but the goods and surplus produced for their benefit. A system where the means of production are privately owned has a natural resistance to that.

Totalitarian slavery of the minority is what ultimately results from even a democratic socialist system. Any sufficiently decentralized system is eventually forced to centralize and locals lose their power to determine what they produce and where it goes. True socialism and communism at scale has been tried and it fails to take care of its people at the smaller level.

Centralization results in centralized autocracy, militarism, forced suppression of opposition, and the subordination of individual interests to that of the state every time. Yes, it's literally the definition of fascism and it's a powerful thing. Terrible, but powerful.

I'm happy in a liberal society that accounts for capitalist externalities with social programs. I'm quite happy owning my tiny portion of the means of production as things rapidly become more decentralized and artisanal these past few decades. Most people are okay leaving a little on the table for people that make things possible instead of everything on the table to be wasted by the state or for corrupt bureaucrats. We have enough of an issue with them in their limited capacity now. You won't make them better by giving them more power.