I was in a kerfuffle with a western “leftist” on discord. I was once on a server called “socialism” but then i got kicked for being a “tankie”, but that’s not the point of this. When I asked about where “democratic socialism”, which is more of an us-not-them word than anything imo, worked out, they pointed to Gadaffiist Libya. What would be a good response to that?
It feels odd to use that argument on a Dem soc when that’s a common argument against communists. Previous success or failure of a system doesn’t mean the system is inherently ineffective.
Sorry about the bad wording in the first one. I have fixed it now.
Marxism Leninism succeeded everywhere where it was tried, the USSR and the Eastern Bloc did not fall due to communism’s “inherent failure”. It fell due to the capitalists bribing Gorbačëv with PIZZA HUT, bringing an end to the USSR/Eastern Bloc. China, on the other hand, while trading with other countries, pushes state and local enterprise. While with Gorbačëv, it was like “tHaNkS tO gOrBaČëV, wE nOw hAvE pIzZa HuT”. Dem Soc, on the other hand, never became a stable country (unless you count gaddafiist libya) which most demsocs don’t even consider a demsoc.
While I don’t think the USSR’s failure is due to communism, I’m saying that it’s odd to use the same sword used against us. The point should be that we have good ideas that don’t need to be stacked upon history. They’re just good ideas alone.