Why We Need Socialism
www.youtube.com
Get 40% off Nebula using my link: https://go.nebula.tv/occWatch the bonus video on the USSR's ecological impact on Nebula here: https://nebula.tv/videos/occ-...

Piped link | Invidious link

  • Troy Vettese, Drew Pendergrass, Half-Earth Socialism (2022)
  • Max Ajl, A People’s Green New Deal (2021)
  • Red Nation, The Red Deal (2021)

“Imagine a world where you don’t feel forced to go to your job just to put food on the table, where climate collapse isn’t driving every global disaster. A world where decisions about what products get made, what public goods are free and accessible, are made by everyday people, not by CEOs and board members. A world where community and chosen family are just a bike ride, a high-speed train, or a quick walk away.”

“The goal of oppressors is to limit your imagination about what is possible without them, so you might never imagine more for yourself and the world you live in.”

—Ashley C. Ford

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
    201·
    10 months ago

    Anarchism is a kind of socialism. It is a society which is structured as to eliminate rulership, which inherently means giving the people control over the means of production, which is the core of socialism.

    You can’t make anarchism happen without meeting the goals of socialism too. I don’t accept any of the flavours of anarchism that don’t look after vulnerable members of society. Anarchism is anti-ruler, and not looking after the vulnerable leaves an opening for rulers to return to dominate and exploit those people under the guise of being their saviours, or just because they are, you know, vulnerable.

    If you’ve learned that socialism is statist, that’s just statists coopting the term. There is nothing in the concept that requires a state unless you believe a state is necessary to organise people, which obviously anarchists don’t.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        Uh, yeah, I know.

        I don’t accept any of the flavours of anarchism that don’t look after vulnerable members of society.

        What about that was unclear?

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
          21·
          10 months ago

          I do apologize. Obviously when you ignore the parts of anarchism, which are not socialist, then all of anarchism is socialist. I overread it and should have known better.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            Okay, I don’t want to antagonise you unnecessarily. My snarky tone was because it sounded like you were promoting an ancap ideology, but your profile tells me I was wrong about that. Personally if I bring up any ideology that I consider harmful like ancap, I am very careful to frame it as something I disagree with.

            It does seem like you’re saying that I’m making a truism, like I’ve constrained my definition of anarchism artificially so that it excludes certain kinds. If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t think that’s true. I think the concept of ancapism is based on the notion that anarchy means “no rules”, which is not true. Anarchy means “no rulers”, which is a very, very different thing. If an ideology is indifferent to the emergence of quasi feudal states and warlords, as ancapism is, then it fails on the first test of even ideologically opposing the one thing anarchism is against.

            Here’s a very good writeup on how even Murray Rothbard, the originator of right-“libertarianism” or “anarcho”-capitalism concluded that his ideas were not anarchist: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/blog/rothbard-not-anarchists.html