Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see why there has to be a dichotomy. In a communist world, no reason we couldn’t fairly compensate workers and manage the environment for growing bananas.
It’s the history written by the labor aristocrats and petite bourgeoisie who thought they’d make out better under capitalism than socialism. It ignores the many millions of working class individuals who suffered and died and who would gladly take security and safety over fucking oranges. But we never hear their stories in the west. We only hear from businessmen, journalists, academics etc who decry “no oranges” and ignore the suffering of the masses.
“Communism bad because no oranges and bananas!”
man, screw bananas. if we can’t have bananas without absolutely screwing over Guatemala or Colombia or whoever, we just shouldn’t have them.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see why there has to be a dichotomy. In a communist world, no reason we couldn’t fairly compensate workers and manage the environment for growing bananas.
That’s literally the pop-history definition here why the gdr failed because of muh bananas, jeans and coffee.
How long does something have to exist before it’s not considered a failure? Or is everything a failure and always was if it collapsed eventually?
Only socialism. Anything else isn’t.
It’s the history written by the labor aristocrats and petite bourgeoisie who thought they’d make out better under capitalism than socialism. It ignores the many millions of working class individuals who suffered and died and who would gladly take security and safety over fucking oranges. But we never hear their stories in the west. We only hear from businessmen, journalists, academics etc who decry “no oranges” and ignore the suffering of the masses.