ProtestationProtestation
davelStop couping yourself.
Stop couping yourself.
Stop couping yourself.
LifeInMultipleChoiceAnyone who says they don’t like socialism I just tell to stop using public roads moving forward.
socialism is when the government pays for things, and the more things it pays for, the more socialister it gets
socialism is where the government socialisms for things, the more they socialism for, the more socialismier it is.
- Cunk on socialism
Why do you need to redefine a world that ot’s creator defined?
Cowbee [he/they]They are sarcastically pointing out that public roads aren’t Socialist.
Then a dictatorship spending 80% of GDP to prepare for war would be a socialist country.
Even if all the money is spend on social issues, only utopian socialism equals this. It’s what got Karl Marx so fussy about because he knew the capitalists/monarchs/oligarchs will never allow it to happen for as long as they live. So a next social revolution à la the French revolution he predicted.
Since Marx, socialism is when the means of production is in the hands of the workers and one’s income is comparable to one’s contribution.
And since Marx didn’t have a good idea as to how a socialist government would function as his version did not get off the ground, we now have standard vanguard (SU) and capilliary vanguard (PRC '78) democracies as examples of socialist societies.
A few corrections:
For Marx, worker ownership is not Socialist. Cooperatives are petite bourgeois structures, the form of ownership must be public ownership, ie equal ownership across all of society, not just the working unit. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR all have public ownership as the principle basis of society.
Marx had a decent idea of how Socialism would function, you can read a bit about it in Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin and other Marxists took the basis created by Marx and implemented the first major steps towards Communism in real life.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭Marx's version of socialism has never actually been realized yet. Every country that's attempted to have revolutions was only inspired by Marxism but diverted from his original plan for revolution, mostly because these revolutions were done in undeveloped feudal counties, whereas Marx anticipated revolutions in advanced capitalist countries (which, even through he was wrong about which countries would have revolutions firsts, he was clearly right about which ones should).
Countries like the PRC, Cuba, USSR, and so forth did not divert from “Marx’s original plan.” Marx held a set of beliefs about Capitalism of his era, and when it came to pass into Imperialism, Lenin picked up where Marx left off. Marx was wrong about where revolution would sprout from first, correct, which means your point on needing Imperialist countries to become Socialist first is entirely off the mark. Imperialist countries see de-industrialization, they advance beyond real production and into financial domination.
The Socialist countries of the world are right to pursue Socialism. Workers in Imperialist countries should also fight for Socialism as well. When you say that only “developed Capitalist countries should rebel,” you ignore Imperialism and tell the workers in the Global South to hope workers in the Global North will save them. You curse them to inaction.
This is chauvanism and anti-Marxist.
Publicly funded infrastructure and utilities within a Capitalist system isn’t an example of Socialism. Socialism is an organization of society where public ownership is principle, ie at least over the large firms and key industries. The US Army is not “socialist,” it’s an arm of the state within a Capitalist system. Same with roads.
I get what you’re trying to say, but I think this line of thinking backfires more often than it helps. Anti-socialists can easily point out that it’s the broader system that needs to be viewed, not the discrete element.
Purely pedantic. The terms socialism and socialist are perfectly legitimate to describe the outlook or philosophy behind running aspects of society as “an arm of the state” vs having private interests run them for profit.
It isn’t pedantic at all. Capitalist countries like the Nordic Countries may have more social safety nets (even if they are slowly being picked apart by Capital), but that doesn’t make them “Socialist.” Using Socialism as a moniker in place of public ownership obfuscates how the entire economy is run, and in whose interests. The post office in the US, for example, primarily exists to work with the private sector and help smooth it out. Social programs aren’t Socialism.
You’re also on the community for Communism, you’re going to find people more strict and clear with using terms like “Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.”
I think most people associate socialism w social programs because we have a weak understanding of political theory due to cultural taboos about "politics’ in polite conversation.
If we talked about it as often as we do other things like sports or movies (and w should because of it has a HUGE impact on our lives) it would help us understand what socialism actually is and why social programs are usually half measures at best.
Social programs within Capitalism are band-aids, yes, but social programs within Socialism are necessary. I think that’s what you’re saying, but wanted to add clarity.
Technically lemmy and the fediverse implement socialiam principles
HiddenLayer555Open source is inherently socialist
HeyThisIsntTheYMCAMy younger brother moved from the bay area to a suburb of Nashville. He hates it because (per him, I haven’t verified this) there are no public parks or trails that he can run or bike at within like 40 miles of his place. Plenty of private parks, but nothing public. At least it seems that way to him since every city he’s lived in California had/has at least 15 miles of bike trail and usable public parks in every neighborhood.
Weird, I grew up in the Bay Area myself and I never even heard of private parks. Like, you need a membership? A resort I can understand, but a park??? That just seems insane. And I think of Nashville as a good ol’ down home American heartland kinda place.
I know it’s a meme, but if it doesn’t work because of the USA, then that is one of the reasons it doesn’t work.
Edit: and you being angry at me just shows your inability to imagine a way forward. “If the USA hadn’t stopped us then it would have worked!” Is as smart as saying pigs could fly only if they had wings.
Edit2: I can’t imagine why people would think communists are hateful beings.
Comrade Ferret@protestation @Valmond Bet you think black people must be inferior because they were enslaved by Europeans, too.
@ferret @protestation @Valmond
I think this is a fair criticism to make. The failures of past socialist states show that proletarian revolutions in undeveloped poor countries have next to no chance of being successful because of constant aggression from more powerful capitalist states like the US. From this, it's reasonable to conclude that proletarian revolutions in more powerful and developed capitalist countries (like Marx intended) are more optimal.
I think this is a fair criticism to make. The failures of past socialist states show that proletarian revolutions in undeveloped poor countries have next to no chance of being successful because of constant aggression from more powerful capitalist states like the US. From this, it's reasonable to conclude that proletarian revolutions in more powerful and developed capitalist countries (like Marx intended) are more optimal.
The USA had better fossil fuels and by better fossil fuels I mean more coal.
The Soviet Union fell because it mostly had to rely on oil and had no solution against the US petrodollar scheme…
China is already doing better with just half as much coal.
Even cultist theocracies could win against communism with enough energy/electricity sources packed in a small area that can’t be easily transported.
This coal advantage is quickly disappearing as solar power and to a lesser extend, wind power, is making inroads. By 2030, coal will be a curse like oil as it’s easier to transport than solar and wind, which aren’t transportable at all.
it was a good thing - what came after it was a bad thing.
ultimately what happened is that, confronted with either advancing the revolution or burocratizing the party cadres, the ussr chose the last one. the result could be no other than the restoration of capitalism. so far just cuba seems to be resisting this trend, but for how long?
PartisanInstead of repeating western progaganda, you could use your time to inform yourself about Cuban democracy and how that democracy is superior to western liberal democracies.
Democracy is a core part of communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
-K. Marx & F. Engels
The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.
-V.I. Lenin
From its origin the Soviet State consciously embodied features of democracy and features of dictatorship. But the democracy was enjoyed by the vast majority of the population, and the dictatorship was over a small minority. At present I do not wish to go into the whys and wherefores of this, or into its rights and wrongs, but I just want to make one point absolutely clear: it is that democracy and dictatorship have never necessarily been mutually exclusive terms. To speak of “democracy” without saying for whom may be misleading.
To refer to dictatorship without specifying who dictates to whom is also liable to cause misunderstanding. The Soviet State, set up in October 1917, professed to give full democratic rights to the vast majority of the people. Did it do this? In Part I of this book I shall give my answer to this question by describing the organization of Soviet life as I have lived it, from 1931 to 1936. Soviet life, to one who has been brought up in a country where the factories and the land, the mines and the shops, are private property, is a new life, a life which differs in a vast number of ways from that of other countries. And, having lived this life, I find I can only agree with the Webbs and with Sir Bernard Pares, and refer to it as essentially democratic.
-P. Sloan
We can go on. Democracy is essential to the lifeblood of Communism, and Communists everywhere have strengthened the democracy for the working class while removing it from the Capitalists. This is the truth of democracy and Communism.
Are you under the impression that Socialist economies and democracy are at odds with each other? Socialism is more comprehensively democratic for a much larger portion of the population than western-style liberal democracies, as Socialist democracy is run by and for the working class, while liberal democracy is run by and for the Capitalist class.
Cuba is propably one of the most democratic states on earth, what the fuck are you talking about?
“Advancing the revolution” of course being a shorthand for “spending all resources on exporting it like Trotsky wanted, only to end up failing externally and internally” rather than building up production so that it could actually afford to support revolution around the world, which it did in cases like Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, and more.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a complicated factor, but it was by no means because they chose to develop, rather than get themselves wiped out immediately like Trotsky wanted. There are many Socialist nations today, the PRC is by far the biggest and most relevant example on the global stage, it isn’t just Cuba.
Undeniably it was a bad thing that the Soviet Union fell. 7 million people died because of it falling, and we lost one of the most progressive countries from an international perspective. Never has a country been so firmly dedicated to anti-Imperialism and decolonization with the actual real power that the Soviet Union had to back that up, it not only came with huge victories for the working class internally, but also supported Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Korea, China, defeated the Nazis (90% of Nazis killed during WWII were from the Soviets), and more.
So yes, the USSR falling was a bad thing.
It was a bad thing.
Not only because of the things REEEEvolution said. Child prostitution, bread lines (which came AFTER the fall), wars and a fall of life expectency, but I live in Western Europe and the dismantling of the Soviet Union also triggered the dismantling of social democracy and rise of both fascism and rainbow capitalism in my own country and I sometimes don’t know which one to be more disgusted by.
Well fascism of course, but like religious people I consider their ideas to be so outdated that I’m often more amused and amazed by their stupidity and backwardness than I am frustrated by them during an age where China currently is undeniably the largest superpower in the world.
Not only because of the things REEEEvolution said. Child prostitution, bread lines (which came AFTER the fall), wars and a fall of life expectency, but I live in Western Europe and the dismantling of the Soviet Union also triggered the dismantling of social democracy and rise of both fascism and rainbow capitalism in my own country and I sometimes don’t know which one to be more disgusted by.
Well fascism of course, but like religious people I consider their ideas to be so outdated that I’m often more amused and amazed by their stupidity and backwardness than I am frustrated by them during an age where China currently is undeniably the largest superpower in the world.
@folaht@lemmy.ml quite literally stated “but I live in Western Europe.”
You’re a big fan of modern Russia then.
Neither dictatorship pleases me.
But I guess you’re onboard, you all seems to like a strong dictator like Mao or Stalin.
OK, so you’re not a fan of what the fall of the USSR led to. I guess you’re just a big fan of the mass poverty it caused?
The high oil prices led to a relative prosper russia after 1991. Now putin uses it all up in his stupid war because that is what dictators do. You can never win with russia because of autocracy and dutch disease.
Ah ok, so you’re just a racist.
nothing works if someone shoots you as soon as you try it.
If someone shoots you as soon as you try to drive your car, would you say “cars don’t work” or “fuck that guy shooting at me”?
If someone shoots you as soon as you try to drive your car, would you say “cars don’t work” or “fuck that guy shooting at me”?
If you drive through a shooting range, would you continue do it and blame it on the shooters? Again and again too.
You’re equating taking control of your own economy and trying to satisfy the needs of your people with something as gainless as driving through a shooting range. Socialism is a better mode of production, for more people, than Capitalism is. Remaining under the thumb of Imperialism comes with immense drawbacks, either you accept that or you work against it and draw a bigger target on your back.
@protestation
Trying to create socialism in a poor country that doesn't have a fully developed capitalist economy doesn't work.
#socialism #communism #capitalism #anarchism #anarchy #marxism #anticapitalism #revolution #classwar #politics
@Radical_EgoCom @protestation I think I'm about done. Dude just ignores my arguments and continues spouting the inane racist nonsense that's getting to me more than it ought to. I guess it just feels like a betrayal.
They all have fully developed capitalist economies. A hell of a lot more developed than Germany was in Marx's time. Get that through your head, and call me back.
They made similar errors 3 months ago over here on the Lemmy space.
Who's they? I'm referring to countries like Russia in 1917 that were semi-feudal and didn't have a developed capitalist economy, as well as all the other countries in the last century that had revolutions prematurely in similar manners.
One can absolutely create a society where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy without being a fully developed Capitalist country. “Full-development” itself is a misnomer, anyways, as analysis of Monopoly Capitalism has shown, Imperialist countries actually become less industrially developed, and would need to develop more, meaning over-development of Capitalism actually becomes a hinderance.
Moreover, we have seen Socialism works in the real world. Countries like the PRC are regularly making massive improvements while western countries sink and decay as Imperialism dies. Markets can be a useful tool, sure, but markets can exist in the context of an economy driven by public ownership, meaning Capital isn’t a major risk of overthrowing the system. Again, lessons from China.