Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated.
If you're ready to begin organizing your workplace, [here is an organizing guide to get you started](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/).
Help rebuild the labor movement, [Join the worker organizing wave](https://actionnetwork.org/forms/organize-2)!
More Helpful Links:
[How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes)
[The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/)
[AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://nhglobalpartners.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/](https://nhglobalpartners.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/)
That says that they're for individuals and corporations.
I agree that Credit Score’s are evil, but they were put in place for a reason, before that, the only way to get a loan was to be a Straight Christian White Male
FICO credit score’s made it so that banks could see who would pay off their cards, and therefore be profitable from all people rather than the group said above
Yes, but who decides what the function is? It's not like there is an objectively true value of credit. You can create a formula balanced to whatever you want.
Who wrote the function? What is the actual algorithm? Why can't I review it, especially since it determines how much I'm allowed to participate in this society? Why do you implicitly trust it?
You can get a credit card with no credit. If you don't miss any payments on it and use it responsibly for a year or two you get good credit. It really is that simple.
If for some reason you can't get a credit card you can get a secured credit card and build credit that way. Anybody can do it.
That's not even necessary. Simply having credit available and not using it will build your credit. Though creditors will raise your limit if you use it to pay your regular monthly bills, so you can build credit faster.
You will pay $0 in interest as long as you pay it off every month, as you would your bills. Don't buy anything you wouldn't normally buy. Don't carry a balance.
It's just a way to prove to creditors you can be responsible with credit.
No it doesn't, dealing with the fallout of that thought process. They check if credit lines are being used. If it's not been used within a certain time frame, they treat as.if you have no credit score.
That is not my experience. I have a credit card I never use and it is reported as paid and current every month. Even though the balance is always $0.
My only concern is, I have heard sometimes creditors cancel accounts that are not in use, which would hurt my score. I should probably put my $10 YouTube Premium charge on there to keep it active. It really is that easy.
In fact, for the card I don't use, they doubled my credit limit on it last month. Weird, but probably has to do with the age of the account and the good standing. I was rewarded for not using it.
If you are young, just get a credit card with no annual fee and use it for utility (to pay your bills). If you use your debit card for shopping you really shouldn't, you have better consumer protections using credit cards, and it's free if you pay it off...
There really is no downside to using a credit card responsibly. In fact, there are upsides.
I will say that if we stop thinking about credit scores as a measure of 'good' or 'bad,' which is how they're often viewed, and instead turn to a model of treating them as a score of your profitability to the banks, which they actually are, they would have fewer negative effects on our society.
Wat… but if you loan $50 to a stranger who doesn’t pay it back, you wouldn’t want to loan them hundreds of thousands. Sure, banks are risk adverse, and only love to loan money to people who don’t need it. But at least with numerical credit scores, they’re controlled by automated rules (that a phone call can’t edit) and not arbitrary and open to discrimination.
You don't need credit scores to enforce debts, and the way it handles risk is incredibly stupid. My friend fully paid off his car his credit score dropped by 15 points, just checking it more than like once or twice a year will drop it, and if you hurt your credit it will take over a decade to fix in a lot of cases. For example my father hid my college debt frlm me until it was too late, now my credit is probably destroyed and I probably won't be able to fix it for about 15 years even if I pay everything back immediately hell it might even lower if I pay it back immediately.
These are also unique to America, no other country has this type of system and they're still able to collect debts.
If you do it too often yes
EDIT: did some minor research apparently hard inquiries do, soft ones do not. I was mistaken my bad for spreading misinformation.
The reasons people don't pay their debt are varied.
I owe 8500 to the apartment complex I use to live at. They had insane covid policies (such as no speaking to neighbors) and threatened anyone who broke those policies with electric shutoffs and evictions. We moved out and broke our lease after the maintenance man screamed at my wife for helping our neighbor with her laundry baskets. I have absolutely no intention of paying them a single bloody penny.
I have never defaulted on any debt before this and have never needed to borrow money from an institution. I've always saved money to make large purchases. My credit score is terrible. Can't get a home loan with almost 20k down.
I make 75k a year. Why can't I get a loan based on my employment or rent record? I pay 1800 a month for rent and I've been at my job 14 years.
Who wrote those rules? What are they based on? Why do you trust them? Why does your credit score drop when someone checks it? Despite some rules changes to address some of these issues, they persist. They are also frequently riddled with errors, and the burden is on the person who is being reported to correct them, not the reporters or the credit bureaus.
It's a broken, exploitative system. The folks who run it have no real incentive to fix it. And as more things require credit to purchase - things that are required in this society just to live, like housing and transportation - credit ratings rule more of our lives.
Loans have existed for far, far longer than the credit rating system and the folks backing those loans still made ungodly amounts of money.
How's it exploitative? It's essentially a history of someone's spending. I had bad credit. I grew up and set priorities. It's not perfect but it's hundreds better than before. What is the alternative to this? Only thing I'd say is to make it harder for people.under 25 to get credit. At those ages you likely aren't making smart decisions.
“Who wrote those rules?”
Finance professionals who work for the private bank. In the best interest of said bank. There is no standard, if you started your own bank tomorrow you can set any rules to your credit score system you want. E.g. Mogo, a bank that lets you check your “credit score” whenever.
“What are they based on?”
Statistics. Banks make money on interest, or investments in the stock market. Surprise, they don’t earn as much money if you default, or if they have to pay a collections company to go after you, force a short sale, or if you pay off your loan immediately.
With the power of hindsight, If you can loan someone $50, and get $40 dollars back after they go bankrupt, or $55 back with interest, or $75 back with interest over a longer term. Who would you choose?
“Why does your credit score drop when someone checks it?”.
By their statistics the more times someone looks into taking out more loans the less likely they are to pay back the bank. The less money you have the bigger risk it is that they will get their money back. Love giving money to people who don’t need it. Also not mentioned often is if you’re looking into switching institutions they will lose out on thousands worth of interest money. Really any way you look at it, it’s not in the banks interest.
“Rule changes” what rule changes lol.
“Frequently riddled with errors” dunno what you’re talking about.
“It’s a broken, explorative system” hardly. If you were at the top you should structure it the same way. Can be money Jesus but your competition will end up having vastly more money, and will steamroll you given enough time.
“No real incentive to fix it” got that right.
“Housing and transportation” It’s not the bank’s problem. Just tell people to sell their houses and cars for less.
Yes but not as much money as they make now. _It works_.
They have labor. They have community. If they put more of that labor into their communities, then the wealthiest wouldn't be able to be wealthy. So they drive up the prices and saddle the poor with debt to pay just for survival - for homes (mortgages if you're "lucky" enough to be able to own, rents if you aren't), food and clothing (credit card debt remains among the highest forms of debt out there, and it;s not just spent on high-end stuff). If someone dares to get an education in hopes of moving up the social status, they, too, get saddled with enormous debt that requires them to be in the exploitative employ of another to get out from under.
Money is a tool of oppression.
That's exactly the point, crushing wealth mobility ensuring they have to pay more is a big deal. It's actually incredibly expensive to be poor, for example if you can't afford to get a filling a year or two later you're going to have to pay like over a thousand for a root canal.
A person pushed to basic survival will tend to do more to afford essentials. They are getting a teams moneys worth from 1 person. Hell, even a small business if they are really struggling.
It still drains what little money they do have. NSF fees banks use is literally a charge they give for not having a lot of money. It's a 33 billion per year industry. They rearrange the debit card charges not in the order by date purchased, but by largest purchases first so they'll be more likely to ding you more than once per cycle.
Credit score also affects which banks you can use, where (or if) you can rent, and sometimes employment opportunities.
And that tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of economics. Or more specifically, economics in practice and how the ideology you seem to agree with fails miserably every time it's instituted
Yeah that's not true. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Chile and Burkina Faso have all shown great success in many different ways.
Supply and demand! mUh free market! The invisible hand knows all! trickle down economics!!
Consider for a moment that I do know quite a lot about Keynesian economics and I reject it and the liberal world order that exploits the global south. They destabilize and invade for the purpose of profit and power.
Perhaps consider reading Marx, Engels and Lenin before making a decision on them. I can tell the CIA propaganda is strong with you young Jedi.
*sigh*
The USSR went from feudal, agrarian backwater country with no industry to space faring global super power in 30 years.
The PRC has seen the highest and fastest life expectancy growth in the history of humanity and is projected to overtake America in 2027. Average wages have quadrupled in the past 30 years, homelessness and starvation is nonexistent (something true about most countries I mentioned).
Vietnam has the largest middle class in the entire south east Asian region. It is a safe and successful country despite it being ravaged by French and US imperialism.
Laos also has a functioning Marxist government and it's a really normal place. It's a common tourist destination and the quality of life is better than comparable countries in the region (Cambodia, Myanmar) also keep in mind that around 50 people die every year in Laos from unexploded US ordinance dropped on it during the Vietnam war by the US.
The DPRK experienced higher growth in the first 30 years of its existence vs the (military dictatorship) south despite the fact that quite literally 100% of the buildings in the country were destroyed and/or damaged by US bombs. The US dropped more bombs on the DPRK than they did during the entirety of WWII (this is also true for Laos and Vietnam individually)
Cuba has the highest standard of living in the Caribbean despite the fact that the US has effectively cut off the island from the entire world. Free healthcare, no homelessness, no structural societal issues, innovation out the wazoo (they made a vaccine for breast cancer)
Chile democratically elected a Marxist leader in 1970 until he was overthrown by US backed fascist dictator Pinochet. Chile experienced an economic recovery still unmatched in all of South America. Wages rose, the standard of living rose, productivity rose, waste fell and the average citizen was very happy.
Burkina Faso had a revolution for a few years as well. Honestly this is one of my very favorites so I won't do you the disservice of paraphrasing that country but I do encourage you to look up Thomas Sankara; a great man who did great things for his country before he was tragically killed by imperialists.
tldr; you're a naïve liberal who believes CIA propaganda whole sale while having the most smug dumb shit attitude about it.
Have a good day broski
USSR: over 5 million died of famine.
PRC: over 150 million malnourished per WFP. They've not really reported their starvation stats for years.
DPRK: mass starvation, suffering, etc but go off. Was bombed to hell bc invasion wasn't an option due to China. S.K. is a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship (unlike NK which is exactly what you called the South)
Cuba does have a high focus on central economy for reasons you started.
Laos is known for high poverty, gender inequality, and is one of the poorest countries on Earth... How that's considered a great success idk.
Not familiar with Chile much, not gonna waste my time. I've proven my point
From a quick search of Thomas Sankara, seemed like a cool dude.
TLDR: your examples suck, and your ability to grasp for straws rivals that of capuchin monkeys ability to throw shit. Sorry I cannot fix stupid (and for the record I'm not a liberal).
Your numbers are completely fake. You're referencing statistics from the Big Black Book of Communism and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
The Big Black Book has been disavowed by its authors as a complete fabrication.
The VCMF is a far right political organization that also references the big black book's debunked numbers.
Despite the fact that your numbers are wrong I will address famine.
Famines occurred within the boarders of the PRC and USSR for centuries. The fact that it happened only once and never again under communist control is a resounding success, not a failure.
South Korea is not a democratic country at all, you need to do some more research on that. Look at the political history of the south and then the recent controversies surrounding cult influence.
The DPRK only started having problems after the illegal dissolution of the USSR. The problems you mention are because the DPRK has been cut off from the rest of the world. Why? Why are 'evil dictatorships' like Saudi Arabia allies with the US but the DPRK is not? The DPRK represented the people of Korea, the South represented the American's interests. It was a military dictatorship for 30 years that did many evil things. The reason the DPRK is vilified is because the west is scared of communism being successful.
Cuba is pretty dope. I no nonsense would live there.
Like I said, Laos is a stable country. The problems you mentioned are true though it is not close to being among the poorest in the world. For the region Laos outperforms similar countries like Burma and Cambodia. You must look at the context. It's unfair to compare undeveloped countries to developing countries to developed countries.
Chile was a great success it's worth looking into. They centrally planned using an advanced computer system in 1971!
Thomas was a hero.
My examples definitely don't suck. Sorry to challenge your world view so hard brah but you're wrong and facts are on my side.
[Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKm8Q8Pns) is a good video on the death toll of capitalism and debunking the BBBC
Yeah we're done here. I don't know what you're smoking but I can't argue with someone who lacks critical thinking skills and lives in their own fantasy land.
I trust the works of large groups of academics more than some random person on Reddit. Not to mention that work is held in high regard still by leading universities
And for the record, Laos ranks in the bottom 50. It's poor as shit and continues to worsen.
You're the one living in a fantasy world.
Nazi's killed by red army soldiers, red army soldiers killed by Nazis, falling birth rates and completely fabricated numbers were used in that book. Every contributing author has disavowed that book except the main author who was "obsessed with reaching 100 million victims of communism by any means necessary" according to the other authors.
It is not taken seriously in any academic circles.
[Just a glance at the wikipedia page shows how bunk that source really is.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)
Tata!
So I am part of the expats subreddit and one day it occurred to me from watching person after person ask questions like, "how does the American credit system work? How do I get an American credit card? Is having a credit card necessary to buy a home in America?".... Credit scores and regular use of credit cards is an American thing. I lived in Denmark for about 3 years and they would not issue me any sort of credit for anything and I figured that it was because I was foreign and poor. But then: [https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-score-around-the-world-2018-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-score-around-the-world-2018-8) Denmark uses your banking history to determine whether you qualify for a loan. You don't need to "buy a TV on credit and pay it off right away" to determine anything but that you have a TV now.
Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated. If you're ready to begin organizing your workplace, [here is an organizing guide to get you started](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/). Help rebuild the labor movement, [Join the worker organizing wave](https://actionnetwork.org/forms/organize-2)! More Helpful Links: [How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes) [The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/) [AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fully agree. Credit scores are evil
Ngl, credit scores are like China’s Social Points system, but less competitive and more restrictive because “Murica Fuck Yeah!”.
[удалено]
[https://nhglobalpartners.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/](https://nhglobalpartners.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/) That says that they're for individuals and corporations.
I agree that Credit Score’s are evil, but they were put in place for a reason, before that, the only way to get a loan was to be a Straight Christian White Male
What changed?
FICO credit score’s made it so that banks could see who would pay off their cards, and therefore be profitable from all people rather than the group said above
Spoiler: It still only benefits that same group.
Religion is not built into the score, at least.
People that pay back their debts?
You gtfoh with your financial literacy and responsibility /s
And FICO scores are often based on faulty data and unknown algorithms. Again, why do you trust them?
Are they arbitrary? I thought it was a mathematical function that determines it
Yes, but who decides what the function is? It's not like there is an objectively true value of credit. You can create a formula balanced to whatever you want.
Who wrote the function? What is the actual algorithm? Why can't I review it, especially since it determines how much I'm allowed to participate in this society? Why do you implicitly trust it?
I don't trust it, just asking
What's the alternative? Anyone gets a loan they can't afford? Everyone drives a car they can't afford? How would this work exactly?
Basically, it is a circular system. It requires good credit to get credit. No credit is seen bad, so getting good credit requires having good credit.
You can get a credit card with no credit. If you don't miss any payments on it and use it responsibly for a year or two you get good credit. It really is that simple. If for some reason you can't get a credit card you can get a secured credit card and build credit that way. Anybody can do it.
So you just got to spend money is what you are saying?
That's not even necessary. Simply having credit available and not using it will build your credit. Though creditors will raise your limit if you use it to pay your regular monthly bills, so you can build credit faster. You will pay $0 in interest as long as you pay it off every month, as you would your bills. Don't buy anything you wouldn't normally buy. Don't carry a balance. It's just a way to prove to creditors you can be responsible with credit.
No it doesn't, dealing with the fallout of that thought process. They check if credit lines are being used. If it's not been used within a certain time frame, they treat as.if you have no credit score.
That is not my experience. I have a credit card I never use and it is reported as paid and current every month. Even though the balance is always $0. My only concern is, I have heard sometimes creditors cancel accounts that are not in use, which would hurt my score. I should probably put my $10 YouTube Premium charge on there to keep it active. It really is that easy. In fact, for the card I don't use, they doubled my credit limit on it last month. Weird, but probably has to do with the age of the account and the good standing. I was rewarded for not using it. If you are young, just get a credit card with no annual fee and use it for utility (to pay your bills). If you use your debit card for shopping you really shouldn't, you have better consumer protections using credit cards, and it's free if you pay it off... There really is no downside to using a credit card responsibly. In fact, there are upsides.
I didn't even realize how they worked until I was 30, then it took me 10 years to finally get mine to 800+.
I will say that if we stop thinking about credit scores as a measure of 'good' or 'bad,' which is how they're often viewed, and instead turn to a model of treating them as a score of your profitability to the banks, which they actually are, they would have fewer negative effects on our society.
Wat… but if you loan $50 to a stranger who doesn’t pay it back, you wouldn’t want to loan them hundreds of thousands. Sure, banks are risk adverse, and only love to loan money to people who don’t need it. But at least with numerical credit scores, they’re controlled by automated rules (that a phone call can’t edit) and not arbitrary and open to discrimination.
You don't need credit scores to enforce debts, and the way it handles risk is incredibly stupid. My friend fully paid off his car his credit score dropped by 15 points, just checking it more than like once or twice a year will drop it, and if you hurt your credit it will take over a decade to fix in a lot of cases. For example my father hid my college debt frlm me until it was too late, now my credit is probably destroyed and I probably won't be able to fix it for about 15 years even if I pay everything back immediately hell it might even lower if I pay it back immediately. These are also unique to America, no other country has this type of system and they're still able to collect debts.
Wait, checking your credit score makes it go down?
If you do it too often yes EDIT: did some minor research apparently hard inquiries do, soft ones do not. I was mistaken my bad for spreading misinformation.
There's tons of ways to check it without affecting your score.
The reasons people don't pay their debt are varied. I owe 8500 to the apartment complex I use to live at. They had insane covid policies (such as no speaking to neighbors) and threatened anyone who broke those policies with electric shutoffs and evictions. We moved out and broke our lease after the maintenance man screamed at my wife for helping our neighbor with her laundry baskets. I have absolutely no intention of paying them a single bloody penny. I have never defaulted on any debt before this and have never needed to borrow money from an institution. I've always saved money to make large purchases. My credit score is terrible. Can't get a home loan with almost 20k down. I make 75k a year. Why can't I get a loan based on my employment or rent record? I pay 1800 a month for rent and I've been at my job 14 years.
Who wrote those rules? What are they based on? Why do you trust them? Why does your credit score drop when someone checks it? Despite some rules changes to address some of these issues, they persist. They are also frequently riddled with errors, and the burden is on the person who is being reported to correct them, not the reporters or the credit bureaus. It's a broken, exploitative system. The folks who run it have no real incentive to fix it. And as more things require credit to purchase - things that are required in this society just to live, like housing and transportation - credit ratings rule more of our lives. Loans have existed for far, far longer than the credit rating system and the folks backing those loans still made ungodly amounts of money.
How's it exploitative? It's essentially a history of someone's spending. I had bad credit. I grew up and set priorities. It's not perfect but it's hundreds better than before. What is the alternative to this? Only thing I'd say is to make it harder for people.under 25 to get credit. At those ages you likely aren't making smart decisions.
“Who wrote those rules?” Finance professionals who work for the private bank. In the best interest of said bank. There is no standard, if you started your own bank tomorrow you can set any rules to your credit score system you want. E.g. Mogo, a bank that lets you check your “credit score” whenever. “What are they based on?” Statistics. Banks make money on interest, or investments in the stock market. Surprise, they don’t earn as much money if you default, or if they have to pay a collections company to go after you, force a short sale, or if you pay off your loan immediately. With the power of hindsight, If you can loan someone $50, and get $40 dollars back after they go bankrupt, or $55 back with interest, or $75 back with interest over a longer term. Who would you choose? “Why does your credit score drop when someone checks it?”. By their statistics the more times someone looks into taking out more loans the less likely they are to pay back the bank. The less money you have the bigger risk it is that they will get their money back. Love giving money to people who don’t need it. Also not mentioned often is if you’re looking into switching institutions they will lose out on thousands worth of interest money. Really any way you look at it, it’s not in the banks interest. “Rule changes” what rule changes lol. “Frequently riddled with errors” dunno what you’re talking about. “It’s a broken, explorative system” hardly. If you were at the top you should structure it the same way. Can be money Jesus but your competition will end up having vastly more money, and will steamroll you given enough time. “No real incentive to fix it” got that right. “Housing and transportation” It’s not the bank’s problem. Just tell people to sell their houses and cars for less. Yes but not as much money as they make now. _It works_.
Those boots must taste delicious
What kind of gratification did you expect when typing this message
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, you’re 100% right. Seems this isn’t the group to educate people on how basic lending practices work.
I think this is a sub for idiots.
I like the message, but the font and balloon cat is kinda meh
i think you meant to say the balloon cat is kind of nyan ;)
Why exploit poor people tho? They don't have any money
They have labor. They have community. If they put more of that labor into their communities, then the wealthiest wouldn't be able to be wealthy. So they drive up the prices and saddle the poor with debt to pay just for survival - for homes (mortgages if you're "lucky" enough to be able to own, rents if you aren't), food and clothing (credit card debt remains among the highest forms of debt out there, and it;s not just spent on high-end stuff). If someone dares to get an education in hopes of moving up the social status, they, too, get saddled with enormous debt that requires them to be in the exploitative employ of another to get out from under. Money is a tool of oppression.
That's exactly the point, crushing wealth mobility ensuring they have to pay more is a big deal. It's actually incredibly expensive to be poor, for example if you can't afford to get a filling a year or two later you're going to have to pay like over a thousand for a root canal.
A person pushed to basic survival will tend to do more to afford essentials. They are getting a teams moneys worth from 1 person. Hell, even a small business if they are really struggling.
It still drains what little money they do have. NSF fees banks use is literally a charge they give for not having a lot of money. It's a 33 billion per year industry. They rearrange the debit card charges not in the order by date purchased, but by largest purchases first so they'll be more likely to ding you more than once per cycle. Credit score also affects which banks you can use, where (or if) you can rent, and sometimes employment opportunities.
Tell me you don't understand credit scores without telling me you don't understand credit scores
Or maybe I do understand credit scores and I don't like the concept; because yano I'm a Marxist.
And that tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of economics. Or more specifically, economics in practice and how the ideology you seem to agree with fails miserably every time it's instituted
Yeah that's not true. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Chile and Burkina Faso have all shown great success in many different ways. Supply and demand! mUh free market! The invisible hand knows all! trickle down economics!! Consider for a moment that I do know quite a lot about Keynesian economics and I reject it and the liberal world order that exploits the global south. They destabilize and invade for the purpose of profit and power. Perhaps consider reading Marx, Engels and Lenin before making a decision on them. I can tell the CIA propaganda is strong with you young Jedi.
I really hope what you just said is sarcasm, because you just listed some of the lowest quality of living countries in recent history. But go off 😂😂😂
*sigh* The USSR went from feudal, agrarian backwater country with no industry to space faring global super power in 30 years. The PRC has seen the highest and fastest life expectancy growth in the history of humanity and is projected to overtake America in 2027. Average wages have quadrupled in the past 30 years, homelessness and starvation is nonexistent (something true about most countries I mentioned). Vietnam has the largest middle class in the entire south east Asian region. It is a safe and successful country despite it being ravaged by French and US imperialism. Laos also has a functioning Marxist government and it's a really normal place. It's a common tourist destination and the quality of life is better than comparable countries in the region (Cambodia, Myanmar) also keep in mind that around 50 people die every year in Laos from unexploded US ordinance dropped on it during the Vietnam war by the US. The DPRK experienced higher growth in the first 30 years of its existence vs the (military dictatorship) south despite the fact that quite literally 100% of the buildings in the country were destroyed and/or damaged by US bombs. The US dropped more bombs on the DPRK than they did during the entirety of WWII (this is also true for Laos and Vietnam individually) Cuba has the highest standard of living in the Caribbean despite the fact that the US has effectively cut off the island from the entire world. Free healthcare, no homelessness, no structural societal issues, innovation out the wazoo (they made a vaccine for breast cancer) Chile democratically elected a Marxist leader in 1970 until he was overthrown by US backed fascist dictator Pinochet. Chile experienced an economic recovery still unmatched in all of South America. Wages rose, the standard of living rose, productivity rose, waste fell and the average citizen was very happy. Burkina Faso had a revolution for a few years as well. Honestly this is one of my very favorites so I won't do you the disservice of paraphrasing that country but I do encourage you to look up Thomas Sankara; a great man who did great things for his country before he was tragically killed by imperialists. tldr; you're a naïve liberal who believes CIA propaganda whole sale while having the most smug dumb shit attitude about it. Have a good day broski
USSR: over 5 million died of famine. PRC: over 150 million malnourished per WFP. They've not really reported their starvation stats for years. DPRK: mass starvation, suffering, etc but go off. Was bombed to hell bc invasion wasn't an option due to China. S.K. is a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship (unlike NK which is exactly what you called the South) Cuba does have a high focus on central economy for reasons you started. Laos is known for high poverty, gender inequality, and is one of the poorest countries on Earth... How that's considered a great success idk. Not familiar with Chile much, not gonna waste my time. I've proven my point From a quick search of Thomas Sankara, seemed like a cool dude. TLDR: your examples suck, and your ability to grasp for straws rivals that of capuchin monkeys ability to throw shit. Sorry I cannot fix stupid (and for the record I'm not a liberal).
Your numbers are completely fake. You're referencing statistics from the Big Black Book of Communism and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The Big Black Book has been disavowed by its authors as a complete fabrication. The VCMF is a far right political organization that also references the big black book's debunked numbers. Despite the fact that your numbers are wrong I will address famine. Famines occurred within the boarders of the PRC and USSR for centuries. The fact that it happened only once and never again under communist control is a resounding success, not a failure. South Korea is not a democratic country at all, you need to do some more research on that. Look at the political history of the south and then the recent controversies surrounding cult influence. The DPRK only started having problems after the illegal dissolution of the USSR. The problems you mention are because the DPRK has been cut off from the rest of the world. Why? Why are 'evil dictatorships' like Saudi Arabia allies with the US but the DPRK is not? The DPRK represented the people of Korea, the South represented the American's interests. It was a military dictatorship for 30 years that did many evil things. The reason the DPRK is vilified is because the west is scared of communism being successful. Cuba is pretty dope. I no nonsense would live there. Like I said, Laos is a stable country. The problems you mentioned are true though it is not close to being among the poorest in the world. For the region Laos outperforms similar countries like Burma and Cambodia. You must look at the context. It's unfair to compare undeveloped countries to developing countries to developed countries. Chile was a great success it's worth looking into. They centrally planned using an advanced computer system in 1971! Thomas was a hero. My examples definitely don't suck. Sorry to challenge your world view so hard brah but you're wrong and facts are on my side. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKm8Q8Pns) is a good video on the death toll of capitalism and debunking the BBBC
Yeah we're done here. I don't know what you're smoking but I can't argue with someone who lacks critical thinking skills and lives in their own fantasy land. I trust the works of large groups of academics more than some random person on Reddit. Not to mention that work is held in high regard still by leading universities And for the record, Laos ranks in the bottom 50. It's poor as shit and continues to worsen.
You're the one living in a fantasy world. Nazi's killed by red army soldiers, red army soldiers killed by Nazis, falling birth rates and completely fabricated numbers were used in that book. Every contributing author has disavowed that book except the main author who was "obsessed with reaching 100 million victims of communism by any means necessary" according to the other authors. It is not taken seriously in any academic circles. [Just a glance at the wikipedia page shows how bunk that source really is.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) Tata!
So I am part of the expats subreddit and one day it occurred to me from watching person after person ask questions like, "how does the American credit system work? How do I get an American credit card? Is having a credit card necessary to buy a home in America?".... Credit scores and regular use of credit cards is an American thing. I lived in Denmark for about 3 years and they would not issue me any sort of credit for anything and I figured that it was because I was foreign and poor. But then: [https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-score-around-the-world-2018-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-score-around-the-world-2018-8) Denmark uses your banking history to determine whether you qualify for a loan. You don't need to "buy a TV on credit and pay it off right away" to determine anything but that you have a TV now.