And if something did maybe happen, it’s the CIA’s fault

  • Cowbee [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don’t agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing “true” socialism.

    There’s no such thing as “true socialism,” that’s part of the point of the article.

    I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can’t work. It’s simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of “socialism”.

    Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?

    Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.

    Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.

    • shroomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      There’s no such thing as “true socialism,” that’s part of the point of the article.

      Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it’s only a part of the equation.

      Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?

      Socialism can not care, as it’s is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only “care” about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn’t care about things like self-serving people.

      Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.

      Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven’t collapsed yet only because it’s propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it’s full blown capitalist and “communist” in name only?

      • Cowbee [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it’s only a part of the equation.

        No, AES worked. It provided a reason why AES states weren’t and aren’t perfect paradises that only exist in imagination.

        Socialism can not care, as it’s is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only “care” about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn’t care about things like self-serving people.

        Socialism works, it just isn’t a magical wonderland. That’s the point.

        Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven’t collapsed yet only because it’s propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it’s full blown capitalist and “communist” in name only?

        USSR did work. PRC does work as well, and is Socialist, not Capitalist. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism and Blackshirts and Reds Cuba works, Vietnam works, Laos works too.

        Mao didn’t “starve a bunch of people,” Mao ended famines in one of the poorest countries in the world, something Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism proves.