While there was pressure from the outside, outside pressure did not kill the USSR. China changing since the time of Mao is a given, even if they followed the path of the Gang of Four to today, this would still look radically different from the era of Mao simply due to economic development. China of today is still a socialist economy. The DPRK survives because it is heavily millitarized and focuses on economic independence, with nuclear deterrence. Vietnam and Laos are both doing well as well. Cuba is still trucking along.
As for “subjugation,” I think it’s better to understand why this happens and for what reason. Capitalist states eventually see a merging of bank and industrial capital, creating finance capital, and this monopoly stage of capitalism is what drives imperialism. Socialist states do not have such an economic drive. While conflict persists, there is more of a drive for cooperation, consolidation, and increasing sovereignty. This is not “Utopian,” this is the recognition that centralization of production is economically compelled, which is why States have largely merged over the years, similar to corporations.
What would a global economy with Communism as the rule of the land look like? Those of us in the developed world would surely have to give up some of the luxuries we’re used to if the workers in the nations providing the raw materials and gross production got their fair share.
Has anyone tried to create that particular “what if?” scenario?
If the world were all on the same page, then production and distribution would be far better anyways, and the working classes in developed countries would also benefit. Working together works.
Yeah, I figure that’s a given. But with our world reliant on imperialism and unfair trade, what would a world built on equitable trade look like? What level of comfort would the average person have, regardless of nation?
I guess I’m trying to picture what an average person’s life would look like if the majority of the world went Communist. I’d assume that developed nations would have fewer luxuries because they’d no longer be siphoning wealth from undeveloped nations and trade would be equitable. Right?
This is why I am asking you for a time period. The transition from capitalism to socialism in the imperialist countries would likely result in a shortage of endless cheap commodities, while expanding social safety nets. In the medium to long-term, quality of life would improve as the world would better be able to produce and distribute for everyone than is presently available. Imperialism holds the global south back from economic development for the short term gain of the imperial core, but a world aligned can better develop and produce.
While there was pressure from the outside, outside pressure did not kill the USSR. China changing since the time of Mao is a given, even if they followed the path of the Gang of Four to today, this would still look radically different from the era of Mao simply due to economic development. China of today is still a socialist economy. The DPRK survives because it is heavily millitarized and focuses on economic independence, with nuclear deterrence. Vietnam and Laos are both doing well as well. Cuba is still trucking along.
As for “subjugation,” I think it’s better to understand why this happens and for what reason. Capitalist states eventually see a merging of bank and industrial capital, creating finance capital, and this monopoly stage of capitalism is what drives imperialism. Socialist states do not have such an economic drive. While conflict persists, there is more of a drive for cooperation, consolidation, and increasing sovereignty. This is not “Utopian,” this is the recognition that centralization of production is economically compelled, which is why States have largely merged over the years, similar to corporations.
What would a global economy with Communism as the rule of the land look like? Those of us in the developed world would surely have to give up some of the luxuries we’re used to if the workers in the nations providing the raw materials and gross production got their fair share.
Has anyone tried to create that particular “what if?” scenario?
If the world were all on the same page, then production and distribution would be far better anyways, and the working classes in developed countries would also benefit. Working together works.
Yeah, I figure that’s a given. But with our world reliant on imperialism and unfair trade, what would a world built on equitable trade look like? What level of comfort would the average person have, regardless of nation?
What point in time are you talking about? You’re asking me to hit a moving target and make an outlandishy speculative claim. For what purpose?
I guess I’m trying to picture what an average person’s life would look like if the majority of the world went Communist. I’d assume that developed nations would have fewer luxuries because they’d no longer be siphoning wealth from undeveloped nations and trade would be equitable. Right?
This is why I am asking you for a time period. The transition from capitalism to socialism in the imperialist countries would likely result in a shortage of endless cheap commodities, while expanding social safety nets. In the medium to long-term, quality of life would improve as the world would better be able to produce and distribute for everyone than is presently available. Imperialism holds the global south back from economic development for the short term gain of the imperial core, but a world aligned can better develop and produce.
Ohhhh. Hmm, say two generations? Progress can be faster but two generations allows for foundational policies to really bear fruit.
Why would I put an estimate on it?