This line of reasoning just straight up doesn’t make sense to me.
Like, okay, the Eastern Bloc was just a nicer variant of capitalism - sure, let’s accept this analysis for a minute. It’s still objectively better than neoliberalism or even social democracy both materially and strategically in that it offers a better position to pivot toward “real” socialism.
So unless your critique is “socialism didn’t happen right away” - which is a worthless, idealist complaint - it just seems strange to not want to follow this model that has proven successful. So even if it’s still “capitalism” (debatable) it’s an obviously weaker capitalism that is easier to break. But I guess that just isn’t good enough for some people…
Bonus, & malus:
It’s literally the “you made everyone’s lives better, but at what cost!”
Capitlism to these people is just a synonym for evil or things they don’t like rather than actual system with observable characteristics.
This line of reasoning just straight up doesn’t make sense to me.
Like, okay, the Eastern Bloc was just a nicer variant of capitalism - sure, let’s accept this analysis for a minute. It’s still objectively better than neoliberalism or even social democracy both materially and strategically in that it offers a better position to pivot toward “real” socialism.
So unless your critique is “socialism didn’t happen right away” - which is a worthless, idealist complaint - it just seems strange to not want to follow this model that has proven successful. So even if it’s still “capitalism” (debatable) it’s an obviously weaker capitalism that is easier to break. But I guess that just isn’t good enough for some people…