The good, the bad and the exaggerated of socialism historically

[CynicalIdealist]

I've always thought of myself as a fairly libertarian or anarchist-leaning socialist, but I recognize the gains of authoritarian socialism/state capitalism/whatever you want to call it. However, I feel like I need a coherent summary of such regimes in order to really engage in meaningful dialog about them.

My sense is essentially some combination of extreme prosperity (booms in life expectancy, right to a job/healthcare, and--in some cases (purges, Great Leap Forward, suppression of dissent)--extreme repression and suffering.

But how true are both of these elements? I honestly never got a detailed history of either the goods or bads of state socialism, but I still appreciate seeing honest people actually bothering to outline the benefits when you never hear about them from mainstream media or schooling.

I guess my essential question is... what separated state socialist regimes and their extreme increases in standards of living from capitalist countries that underwent similar improvements in their own standards of living? What made the repression different in say, the left-wing Mao dictatorship and the Kim Il-Sung dictatorship, as compared to the right-wing South Korean dictatorship? What made the socialist states better, or as according to westerners and liberals, worse?

I've also heard all kinds of things about western lies about state socialism and whatnot, especially regarding that one Ukraine famine and the bloated statistics of Mao/Stalin killing 50 million people or some such nonsense. However, I don't really know who to believe half of the time I see big claims about socialist atrocities.

Ugh. I'm rambling. I guess I'm just asking for a crash course on 20th century socialism, particularly the good, the bad and the exaggerated. Additionally, how did they improve and degrade from the societies they replaced?

[ComradeOm]

I guess my essential question is... what separated state socialist regimes and their extreme increases in standards of living from capitalist countries that underwent similar improvements in their own standards of living?What "extreme increases" in living standards? I can't speak for China but the USSR saw little to no gains for the working class during Stalin's years. For most these were times of extreme hardship. It wasn't until the mid-1950s (ie, when the 'revisionists' came to power) that there was any real push to improve living standards


I've also heard all kinds of things about western lies about state socialism and whatnot, especially regarding that one Ukraine famine and the bloated statistics of Mao/Stalin killing 50 million people or some such nonsense. However, I don't really know who to believe half of the time I see big claims about socialist atrocitiesSee this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1933632&postcount=16) for Soviet numbers


Additionally, how did they improve and degrade from the societies they replaced?Measuring progress against crumbling ancien regime states is perhaps not the most enlightening comparison, no? It was after all the very failure of these Imperial Russia/China that gave rise to their successors

Don't forget as well that of equal importance to what was accomplished was how it was accomplished. Building an industrial base is not a particularly socialist achievement if it is built by brutalising the working class or largely owned by foreign capitalists. Socialists must be judged not just by the ends (which in any case are not impressive in Russia or China) but also by the means that they employ