I vaguely remember a user debunking this claim but I cannot find that comment and I don’t remember what post it was on.

    • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stalin’s first five year plan changed that for tens of millions as they suddenly had running water, electricity and public schooling/vocational training.

      So it worked

        • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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?

        • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.