You must log in or register to comment.
Humans are brainwashed into thinking it’s “Human nature” to be greedy and self-centered, so when someone comes offering help those stuck in this condition can’t help but think “What’s the catch?”
And the clearer it is that the person has good intent, the more dangerous the catch must be.
I’m not really knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion going on here.
I just wanted to say I’ve seen you engaging in good faith discussion all over Lemmy, and I really, really, appreciate that. Whenever socialism, communism, Marxism and the like come up, people are quick to jump to ad hominem and flinging shit-covered sarcasm at each other, and you consistently engage thoughtfully in the discussion, even when your interlocutors don’t. Thank you.
Thank you! I really appreciate it, I do try to be level headed when engaging with people. I know I used to have a lot of the same misconceptions so I try to correct them when I can. Thanks!
Please share your wisdom, I always get snarky as hell and I don’t like that about myself
If I’m being honest? Reading Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist (also in the reading list on my profile). A good part of it stresses the importance of maintaining a level head and trying to maintain good relations with “wrong” but well-meaning comrades.
It had everything to do with human greed.
As long as there is the suggestion or possibility, no matter how remote that anyone of us can become enormously wealthy, we won’t want to change the system.
I love how people act like their knowledge alone somehow makes them better than their peers, just utilizing knowledge to appear aloof, or above it all, when in reality, if capitalism shot itself in the chest and socialism took over tomorrow, we would still have the same rich 1% families stealing from the working class and none of us would actually be in any better a position because no damned political system to date has figured out how to keep the rich from sacrificing the poor for their own selfish ends. End of story. Time to change.
Not only is this ahistorical, it’s self-contradictory. If the same rich 1% still owns the means of production and is still expropriating the working class’ surplus value, then capitalism never died and socialism never took over.
That’s not historically accurate, though. Socialist states have made dramatic improvements to the lives of the working class and generally dramatically reduced wealth disparity, such as in the USSR. This seems to be more political apathy than genuine analysis.
Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.
The only type of socialism which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.
Capitalism doesn’t suck because of individual bad actors, but systemic issues. Competition naturally results in monopolization and the death of competition, and rising disparity. In addition, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall results in businesses and corporations seeking to move production abroad, to over-exploit and under-develop countries in the Global South by paying poverty wages. This extends to IMF loans, as well.
Socialism doesn’t have these same problems. No, it isn’t some perfect system, such a claim would be absurd. However, collectivization of Capital and producing with the aim of fulfilling needs, rather than pursuit of profit, helps to eliminate the excesses of Capitalist exploitation. In addition to the reduction in exploitation, central planning is very efficient once competition stagnates.
It’s funny that you bring up the Nordic model, Nordic countries are seeing withering safety nets, (and are Capitalist, not Socialist) which in turn are generally funded from the same hyper-exploitation of the Global South in the form of brutal IMF loans and unequal exchange. The Safety Nets themselves came as concessions towards strong internal labor organization and the strong safety nets of the neighboring USSR, who had free high quality healthcare, education, and more. Now that the USSR is gone, the safety nets have been withering.
I wouldn’t say decaying Imperialist ethno states are a “good” model to look towards.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
The Nordic countries are pretty clearly among the most ethnically homogenous and at a state level quite hostile to foreigners and immigrants. This is pretty clear cut and dry. The US, Australia, etc are more Settler-Colonial. The Nordics certainly have stronger labor organization, which helps, but ultimately rely on Imperialism and again, are decaying like the rest of the Global North.
As for the Glonal South, I think you’re vastly misanalyzing the situation. BRICS is successful despite the Imperialist countries, the blame should not be on the oppressed but the oppressors. Such a blame is akin to Macron’s recent statement that African countries should be greatful to the French for colonizing them and making them “sovereign nations.” The Imperialists aren’t merely a convenient scapegoat, but regularly exploiting them. Countries like Burkina Faso and Algeria became the extreme targets of Empire for daring to go against the Imperialist countries, it isn’t like countries can just “say no” to Imperialism.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism. It’s pretty unquestionable that the working class had far more power back then, with some of the best education and healthcare in the world provided entirely free. The Soviets were advancing science and global healthcare. It’s worth listening to Dr. Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, affectionately titled “Yellow Parenti.” Socialism may not be perfect, but that doesn’t mean it is equally bad to Capitalism, and to pretend “greed” impacts all economic systems equally is a failed form of logic without doing the legwork of proving that.
Circling back to the Nordics, the model only “works” inasmuch as the Nordic Countries currently function as global parasites on the labor of the Global South, like the rest of the Global North, their model depends on this, and as the tendency for the rate of profit persists they are introducing more austerity measures and weakening the safety nets, disparity is rising, and worker protections are falling. Higher unionization rates slow this process, but can’t stop it, Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
You don’t have to dismantle the world, it has prepared the foundations for moving beyond the current system into a Socialist one. Centralization and monopolization of markets paves the way for public ownership and central planning to be a smooth transition. Socialists don’t want to tear down the system, but to move beyond it to the next Mode of Production via erasure of the Capitalist state and replacing with a Proletarian one.
I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.
Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism.
I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.
Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.
You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.
The Nordic Model is socialism
It is not socialism. I already went over this upthread:
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
The social safety nets in the imperial core—which are built on the backs of the neocolonized—are not socialism.
You legitimately are arguing that it is the fault of Imperialized countries for being Imperialized? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, here, this is what it sounds like you are saying to me. The leaders of a country, especially those in Imperialized countries, do not necessarily have the best interests of their populace in mind and frequently sell out the populace for money to Imperialists, and are placed in said positions by said Imperialists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
The Nordic model is not Socialism. The Nordic model is Capitalism, though with more generous social safety nets than most Capitalist countries. GDP growth is not what I am referring to, I am talking about a declining Rate of Profit and the erosion of safety nets. It is not better than Socialism, which democratizes the economy and uplifts the working class.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
72·6 hours agoRemember Stalin and his style of socialism?
No. Cuz I wasn’t alive at that time.
But yea, I did read about it in This Soviet World, Soviet Democracy, Russian Justice, and Blackshirts and Reds
Cool, also read about it on neutral sources
Jesus, how fucking illiterate are westerners that they think fucking Wikipedia is a neutral source.
Wikipedia, especially English language Wikipedia, ain’t exactly neutral. And anyway “neutral” is fantasy. It doesn’t exist.
Anyone can edit it, what’s your problem?
Sure, anyone can edit. It’s just the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas. and I have a bridge to sell you.
- The primary editor of Wikipedia is a fascist named Steven Pruitt. Steven currently works for the Dept. of Customs and Border Protection, where he’s been for four years, and the 8 years before that he worked for TSA and ICE.
- CIA and FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
- Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages
- Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust
How does that discount my point? Anyone can edit it.
And your edits will be reverted and you will be banned
“neutral” as if.
Edit: also oh no! Not the Stalinist… prohibition on using handcuffs?
Chapter X, Russian Justice
But the idea was there in the minds of those who were to define the penal policy and the Code of 1922, and set down the principle that punishment was not for the purpose of revenge and might not have for its purpose the infliction of physical pain. With this beginning there was a steady progress toward the removing of those indignities that tend to degrade a man, until the Correctional Labor Code of 1933 completed the process. In the meantime various amendments have prohibited torture, the use of handcuffs, solitary confinement, deprivation of food, or any other measure that would have the effect of degradation or do physical harm to the person.
lol what a cherry picked example, ignoring ranks of his people getting picked up by state agents to be put to death. How disingenuous
They were state capitalists. Most revolutionaries that win fall into the same trap, let’s change everything everywhere at all once. Don’t like farm structures? Fuck it, invent a new system and enforce it violently. And that same thing we’re seeing GOP Trumpist about to do right now. Purge the ranks. Again and again and again. Fascism is a death cult that devalues life. It never lasts long.
State Capitalism went away when they transitioned away from the NEP and went for a more collectivized economy. I think you need to brush up more on theory.
I don’t know what worse, the corruption of communism or the corruption of capitalism. Right now, we’re in the American Nightmare stage of capitalism. Seems to me humanity can’t have an economic system where a group of people want all the wealth and power.
What do you mean “corruption of Communism?”
“but you’re gonna take my private property !”
That’s the People’s Toothbrush!
I think “private property” isn’t well defined in socialist discourse and this idea of no private property gets a lot of backlash from some. A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo. The dildo is your personal property and no one is going to take it. A piece of land can be someones private property when they employ you and pay you a wage to work it - you get payed a pittance and they, without work, take the cream.
Its well defined IMO, but anti-communist propaganda intentionally spreads the wrong definition of it to make communists look scary.
A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo
That’s always the definition. It is well defined, the problem is that there are national propaganda machines outright lying to the people.
This is a reasonable explanation, similar to the ones I write on the spot when attempting to explain things. Made more difficult by the fact many signs barring entry to owned land say “private property” (or some variation on it, at least in France and the US)
If we can simply help Americans understand small-s socialism from small-c communism, we’d be in much better shape.
Because yes, my healthcare is already paid in advance by me and everyone else from our taxes; and my buddy’s emergency Sunday morning quintuple stent install after the widowmaker heart attack and two ambulances and a bed in one hospital before transfer (a third bus) to the regional trauma/cardiac center for the operation and 2 weeks of aftercare was free to him that day – and his only concern was not dying. And that’s not just normal but that’s the general expectation. No monthly subscription, no premium cost, no user fee, just paid-parking and vendor-machine food for visitors not coming in via the train.
Our upcoming election will gut that, though. Being bankrupt, losing retirement savings and mortgaged to the hilt at 61 is the American dream mr Polievre has for all Canadian plebes.
Socialism leads to Communism, Socialism isn’t social safety nets, but an economy where public ownership and central planning is the primary driving force.
Removed by mod
I call fed
I mean this is provably false
[Citations needed]
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
The social safety nets in the imperial core—which are built on the backs of the neocolonized—are not socialism.
Which part is “provably false,” and why are you using a homophobic insult? Moreover, I’m a Communist, I have no idea what you mean by me supporting Capitalism.
My dad: “Yeah, maybe a good solution to the problem of not being able to pay rent would be government-provided housing”
Also my dad: “Socialism is horrible! If it wasn’t, then why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???”
I didnt know i was living in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
Its also strange that there are anti-communist stickers in a communist country
No it isn’t. Revolution isn’t the rapture. Fascists and liberals don’t just cease to exist.
But there wasnt a socialist revolution since the sticker was placed
Okay…?
why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???
China is empty. Russia is empty. Cuba is empty. Vietnam is empty. South Africa is empty. They’ve all been hollowed out by the scourge of Communism. That’s why nobody lives there anymore.
Meanwhile, the US is the most populous country on Earth. We have the densest cities. We have the largest apartment towers. We have the most-used transit systems. Our nation is full to bursting thanks to all of the people who want to live here. And the more traditionally conservative, the more flagrantly capitalist, the more Christian and Based and Traditional, the larger the US State. That’s right, folks. West Virginia, South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho are the four most densely populated corners of the planet.
I wonder what the modern world would look like had the USSR not been dissolved, and repaired its relationship with the PRC.
To me the biggest hypocracy in general when it came to forms of communism.
It’s a failed ideology, it will always collapse in on itself as soon as it grows.
Followed with
We need to destroy it at all costs to keep it from taking hold anywhere in the world.
You don’t need to stop something that’s self defeating. It’s like the tower of babel story in the bible. Mankind was building up a great tower because they thought uniting they would be a powerful as gods, so god knocked over their tower, scrambled their languages to divide and conquer the world… Isn’t that kind of an admission that, God believed without his interference man can be as strong as he is?
Yep, really US foreign policy purely supports that which it can profit from, and it can’t do that if the population starts using its own resources for its own benefit rather than allowing them to be stolen by the US.
God ? Really ? Self-defeating, oh yes via spending billiins of dollars funding coups & sanctioning & bombing them in the name of Freeeeeeedom
Probably like Europe
At the end of the day, there is a reason the USSR dissolved. Generally related to bread lines, gulags, all that fun stuff
If the USSR had dissolved due to issues like the ones you’re talking about (Gulags being basically entirely dismantled after WW2 so 45 years before the dissolution, and breadlines being nonexistent until the 1980s liberalisation during Perestroika), it would have been dissolved with the popular consensus. There was a referendum in 1990 that asked the citizens of the Soviet Union if they wanted to maintain their country under communism and 70% of voters (admittedly a few republics didn’t participate) voted yes, so the USSR was extremely popular and people didn’t want it dissolved. The reasons for the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR are much more complex than that.
Removed by mod
I’m getting a little tired of hot takes from those who don’t know shit about fuck.
Did… Did you just equate the former socialist state that was the Soviet Union to the contemporary proto-fascist and capitalist Russian Federation that literally emerged out of the dismantling and auctioning of the former??
If an election shows a socialist country’s government is unpopular, it’s a clear sign of oppression. If an election instead shows a socialist country’s government is popular, well that’s clearly rigged, another clear sign of oppression.
I disagree with the reasons you gave, feeding those in need didn’t hurt the USSR and the GULAG system was abolished several decades prior to the dissolution of the USSR. It’s ultimately a complicated issue, but one that I believe ultimately had to do with rejecting much of the world economy, which resulted in a form of Siege Socialism.
Can we put the combined efforts of every capitalist market and oligarchy who’s power has reigned uninterrupted since centuries before communism was formally theorized?
Or nah it was probably the… checks notes
prisonsgulags, right glad those are gone.Or the bread distribution? Yea didn’t work for Rome either.
Ever tried Sabotage ?
“No, no, they tries to tricks us, precious [capitalism]! They wants to take you from us, stop you from helping us, precious, gollum!”
deleted by creator
Socialism is the people. If you are afraid of socialism, you’re afraid of yourself.
- Fred Hampton
The same folks I know who wouldn’t even consider a conversation about socialism are not going to be swayed when I quote any black man to them, much less a panther.
Totally fair. The trick is to meet them where they’re at, and then work from there. The folks you’re thinking about will take a lot of effort, but if union organizers can do it then so can you
Rest in Power Fred Hampton, a brave Marxist-Leninist that tried to do what was right and got murdered by the US police for it.
But the talking head on Fox told me what to think about socialism, using no facts or common sense.
What am I supposed to do? NOT believe them?
All you have to do is come up with a new name for it. It’s not like any of them have a clue about what socialism actually entails.
Historically, such a strategy doesn’t actually work. Sooner or later, you get accused of being a godless commie or a tankie anyways. You can either stand firm in your beliefs and attempt to sweep away the dirt of the Red Scare to accurately contextualize Socialism and AES states, or fail to support them at all, leading to issues like Trotskyism (poor understanding of theory and a lack of support for AES) or PatSocs (Nationalist Socialists in the Imperialist countries).
You can try acknowledging that people have actual differences of opinion instead of referring to different ideological tendencies as a result of poor understanding. Doesn’t really help your cause to always come across as pretentious and arrogant, even to people who would otherwise be your allies.
There’s a difference between a difference in opinion, and a difference in understanding of what is clear-cut. I specifically singled out Trotskyism as an example because it’s an overwhelmingly western ideology, hasn’t seen any real practical success, and the fact that Trotskyists have historically ended up indirectly supporting Capitalism by attacking AES with the same or sometimes even greater vigor. I don’t denounce Trotskyism out of arrogance or pretentiousness, most Trots spend more time fighting Leftists than working to overthrow Capitalism, and can therefore not be seen as genuine allies.
Are there good Trots? Yes, many in fact. The Party for Socialism and Liberation has Marcyite roots, but due to adopting a strong, pro-AES internationalist position, they end up, despite differences in opinion and what I consider clear-cut theoretical shortcomings, as actual allies worthy of support. In fact, that’s why many Marxist-Leninists end up joining PSL. I also get along quite well with many Anarchists, as I used to be one myself, and many Anarchists get along quite well with Marxist-Leninist analysis of geopolitics and thus serve as more immediate allies than anti-AES Trots do.
If you mean that I in general am pretentious and arrogant, I try not to be. In fact, I try to always take a positive and gentle approach when correcting misconceptions about Marxism, and try to disengage when it’s clear that that isn’t working. If you have suggestions for how I can be better, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am not going to stop correcting misconceptions when I see them, as to not do so when I know better weakens the movement overall. It’s akin to the Socialist Revolutionaries in pre-Revolutionary Russia denouncing theory as “divisive” and celebrating individual acts of terror as “real victories,” when we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
In fact, building off that last point, I think we have spoken about this before with respect to Solarpunk as an instance. The lack of actionable theory and the instead focus on “Utopia Building,” ie the process of trying to design a perfect society rather than focusing on working with existing society and what needs to be done in the immediate for revolution and building Socialism, can lead to bad-faith actors taking advantage of it, like traditional conservativism and misogynistic gender roles did with Cottage-core. That’s the key danger of aesthetic-based movements, and why I suggest coming up with a clear theoretical line and list of actionable theory first and foremost. An example of this is China’s clear-cut domination of the solar industry, but many Solarpunks being vehemontly anti-PRC, which is antithetical to the process of building mass sustainable green energy in as short a time as possible.
we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.
To give an example, I disagree on this. Now, if you were to approach this discussion under the pretense that my disagreement is based on poor understanding of history or of theory, that would be pretentious, and therefore unproductive if you actually want to change my mind. Instead, keep an open mind and be willing to entertain an alternative perspective.
In my opinion, the Bolsheviks were oppurtunists who co-opted the revolutionary fervor in order to centralize power and influence in the movement under their control. They did indeed use Marxist theory to guide and justify their actions, but that doesn’t make it right. I understand that Marxist theory advocates for the centralization of power and control, I just disagree with it, which is a view more in line with Trotskyites than Marxist-Leninists.
I’m not trying to say that you are particularly arrogant or pretentious, but Marx and especially Lenin certainly were, and that is reflected in their work.
If you want to make that point, I would ask that you back that claim up. There are a few important things you need to tackle in order to do so:
-
The mass support for the Bolsheviks among the Working Class, and the Soviet system in general
-
The mass expansion in democratic power under the Socialist system as opposed to the prior Tsarist system
-
You need to prove the cause of the Bolsheviks being “power/control” and not a genuine adherance to the pursuit of Socialism
All 3 of those are hard truths that we can see through commonly accessible historical texts and archival evidence. We can track metrics like the doubling of Life Expectancy, free healthcare and education, the highest literacy rates in the world, massively lowered wealth disparity, a huge emphasis on teaching Marxism to all workers, and more. What we find, is that while not perfect, the USSR was indeed a massive progressive movement for the working class not only in Russia, but the whole world over, from Cuba, to Algeria, to Palestine, to China, to Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more. The presence of the USSR forced the New Deal into existence, among other western concessions, even those not aligned with the USSR benefited.
If you have an opinion and feel confident enough to stand by it, I would hope you also have reasons and experiences that back that up. From what I have shown, and if you want me to link stats and sources I can, I think it’s fair to say that the Bolsheviks were genuine Marxists that upheld and carried through the revolution. Regardless of percieved arrogance of Marx and Lenin, their teachings and theory provided the theoretical backbone for every long-lasting leftist country, even the EZLN who most think of as more Anarchistic (they have their own ideology but much was inspired by Marxism-Leninism).
I highly recommend listening to Michael Parenti’s 1986 “Yellow Parenti” lecture.
-
It worked when people rebranded “falsehoods” to “alternative facts” so why not try it?
