Do first world countries have bigger governments than countries with communism do?

[Hardkill]

I do agree that governments in any countries need to be continually bigger overtime like Leo has explained a number of times. Yet, we all know that Conservatives or most Republicans in the US have been for smaller governments than bigger governments because they believe that the bigger the government the more it becomes Communistic or Socialistic.

However, what I wonder is whether or not governments in first world countries which are not communistic actually have had bigger governments than countries that are or were communistic or socialistic. For example, is USA's government bigger than China's government which has been governed by the CCP or bigger than Russia's government when it was communistic? 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Hardkill

[fortifyacacia3]

This has confused me also when Leo has said communism is achievable but only with large gov. Because communism is no government by definition. But he's also said it won't look like communism of the past, probably including its ideals. 

From a layman's perspective I'd say planned economies are more overreaching domestically than in first worlds. Communism in practice has in fact been far more authoritarian. Ideally it would be less authoritarian but that's only possible when it's not forced. And people are still too selfish for it to not be not forced. 

[Hardkill]

On 9/19/2021 at 9:44 PM, fortifyacacia3 said:

This has confused me also when Leo has said communism is achievable but only with large gov. Because communism is no government by definition. But he's also said it won't look like communism of the past, probably including its ideals. 

From a layman's perspective I'd say planned economies are more overreaching domestically than in first worlds. Communism in practice has in fact been far more authoritarian. Ideally it would be less authoritarian but that's only possible when it's not forced. And people are still too selfish for it to not be not forced. 

Yeah, I think I see your point as well as his. Actually, I just rewatched his whole video on "Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense - Deconstructing Freedom" on his Youtube channel. He said that even Communistic countries such as China and Russia, which have replaced their own communist economic systems with much more free-market types of economic systems, still have a lot more corruption than any first world country does. Leo said that it's because 2nd world countries such as China or Russia still don't have as much sophisticated regulation within their governments as do developed countries such as Canada, UK, Republic of Ireland, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Scandanavian countries, or even the US. 

So, from what I now understand, apparently 1st world countries, including America, do have bigger governments than do Communistic countries do because those less developed countries don't have enough complex infrastructure within their own governments to greatly reduce the amount of corruption and inequality they have.

 

[fortifyacacia3]

@Hardkill What rubs me the wrong way with some people who claim to be Marxist-Leninist is the ones against voting in capitalist countries in order to not "legitimize the system". Even though Marx Engels and Lenin saw bourgeois elecoralism as necessary. I've also heard them say "taxing the rich makes you complicit in all the evils of capitalism" like as if it's not largely enough for change. Nonsense.  I guess there's been some remarkable achievements in communism given their setbacks but the Nordic model seems to be a transition that's plausible. 

[Roy]

Keep in mind both Russia and China historically have had incomprehensible amounts of death (combined 50+ million) and destruction happen on their own soil from invasions and civil wars, while the US and a lot of other developed countries simply haven't. At least not to the same degree by a country mile.

So it makes sense why those countries fostered larger authoritarian governments. It was necessary to reign in huge populations and govern large landmasses. They needed to collectivize to defend themselves and survive.

Smaller governments for medium or larger countries where it's population is free to participate and develop the economy with not such intrusive oversight is a luxury of peace.

It's not just about the size of the government either (idk how you would accurately measure that anyways), it's about efficiency. Corruption hinders efficiency quite a bit, as actors will leech and siphon off resources of the collective for their own selfish benefit.

[vizual]

Where are the happiest people in the world according to research? Scandinavia and Western Europe

 Where are the healthiest and longest living people in the world according to research? Scandinavia and Western Europe

Where are governments the largest relative to the countries’ GDP? Scandinavia and Western Europe

Edited September 22, 2021 by vizual

[Stovo]

Countries get more complex as they develop, so you would expect bigger governments to manage that. 

China isn't communist in the way that westerners believe, because few westerners understand China. It's more of a state capitalist system.