I agree. Fascist countries like Denmark, Germany and Canada often get called “socialist” and they have been disastrous for the reputation of socialism.
Of course /s. Germany, with Fuhrer Schultz, Denmark with Grand Admiral Frederiksen (I had to look it up lmao), and Canada with Supreme Commander Trudeau. All of them are actively involved in passing legislation against socialists and Muslims. All of them are involved in gathering Muslims into re-education camps. When socialists protested their respective governments for starting to become capitalist, they were run over by tanks. Also, all of these governments prevent their citizens from accessing the internet outside their own countries. Agreed! Very fascist indeed!
Dayum… That’s shameful for Denmark. As for the German far right, polls tell many different stories. The German government is still very democratic. What about Canada? You also accused them of fascism.
To be fair, I would agree that the German government is the most decent in Western Europe. But the far right and anti-refugee sentiment in Germany has risen dramatically, and it wasn’t that great to begin with.
But just to add a few more examples, you have places like Italy, Spain (the current government is still a direct descendant of Franco’s fascist monarchy) and France (see latest laws against Muslims and Arabs, and just the rising hatred in general).
The point is, Western Europe is always painted as this morally superior place, when it is very much not. People are quick to shit talk third world countries as if we’re the only ones dealing with fascistic governments. At least we acknowledge it. So many Europeans do not.
Ugh horrible argument. No, you have to contend with the source I provided, not skip it and provide a different source, especially when the prolewiki page is a challenge to the Wikipedia page, and so citing the latter is like citing a work against which a polemic is directed at the polemic as an “alternative.”
Apparently Wikipedia is “not biased”, they just forbid certain sources, include U.S. government aligned sources by and large (this article you’ve cited sources Radio Free Europe, a CIA propaganda outlet; the New York Times summaries of situations in countries the U.S. is opposed to (this is done 10x), despite the source being a rubber stamp for the U.S. government; a Washington Post opinion article which completely obfuscates the nature of the press as a tool of class rule), and so on. Sorry, Wikipedia is biased.
It does give a definition: that there is none (lack of a definition is a definition). This is pretty clear if you read the whole page. Authoritarianism is just trying to distance itself from authority because all states wield authority in various ways, and so a word was created to separate the two and criticize the socialist bloc that also wielded authority, like the west did, but their authority was bad you see, not like ours which is good.
But why am I saying this; you didn’t read the page, you’re not gonna read this either.
In fact nobody has ever really been able to articulate to me why authoritarianism is bad beyond “I want my freedom”. It just inherently is undesirable, don’t ask too many questions, just accept it.
Nobody said it’s not; the concept of an unbiased party, like so many other liberal frictionless spheres, doesn’t exist and so is a useless hueristic for determining the veracity of information. The better question is what are this source’s biases?
But then what the other commenter said would basically be “Both Wikipedia and Prolewiki are biased, but Wikipedia is biased to the wrong direction. I like Prolewiki’s bias more than I like Wikipedia’s bias. Therefore, Wikipedia is not reliable on the topic of Authoritarianism.”
I like Prolewiki’s bias more than I like Wikipedia’s bias. Therefore, Wikipedia is not reliable on the topic of Authoritarianism."
Aand here you lose me. The fact that you have to assign them a frivolous reason to choose one definition over the other (I just like it lol) as opposed to this choice being the outcome of any assessment of their relative usefulnes as analytical tools kind of gives away your game here.
Oh well, I guess I should not have claimed that you chose to like ProleWiki more because you just like it. Now, how about I explain why I don’t trust ProleWiki on “Authoritarianism” because of its bias?
If you look at ProleWiki’s main page, it literally says that it is a communist (Marxist-Leninist) project. It leans towards Marxism-Leninism, which IMO makes its defense of those Marxist-Leninist socialist states heavily biased and unreliable.
Bias is important for credibility of a source, but not for the validity of the argument presented, and for the latter you actually have to understand and think about the argument presented.
The most important part of that page is its argument that all states wield authority and tend to tighten or relax the exercise of that authority in order to serve a given set of class interests. There’s nothing in this that relies on credibility, and dismissing it on account of bias makes as much sense as responding to someone in a debate by saying “you’re biased, so why should I believe you?”.
Authoritarianism is an idealist and loosely defined concept that is often used by liberals (liberalism being the ideology of capitalism) to demonize both past and present socialist states and dismiss any argument in support of these states.
In the very beginning of the article, ProleWIki equated liberalism with capitalism (they are very different), and also claimed them that liberals have “demonized” socialist states with this term. There is no denying that some liberals have demonized socialist states, but I would argue that this term was used properly in that context.
Have you ever noticed the most prominent difference between socialist governments and the governments of the rest of the world? In most socialist countries, you aren’t really allowed to publicly criticize the government. Ever noticed how much criticisms of the USA, the UK, France, or really any liberal country floats around the Internet? If you speak Chinese, I kindly ask you to go check out Weibo (Chinese Twitter), try posting something remotely critical of President Xi and watch your post get removed. Or try sending a message to a Chinese citizen with Weixin (Chinese Whatsapp), talk about the protest banner that someone hung on Sitong bridge in Beijing 11 months ago and see how your account gets disabled.
As you can see, the Chinese government exerts a lot more power on censoring Internet speech than the liberal countries do. I am not qualified to say whether the “western” countries are authoritarian, but in comparison, those socialist states really do enforce a lot more rules. Socialist states really are more authoritarian in comparison. It is more than fitting to call them authoritarian.
[that’s like saying] “you’re biased, so why should I believe you?” [in a debate]
Now that I think about it, I realize that that was indeed not a good argument. But that was also what another Hexbear user said to dismiss the Wikipedia article just a few parent comments above. They basically said “Wikipedia is biased, so why should I believe Wikipedia?”
It’s their go-to move. They’ll do it every time. Redefine the terms and words in ways that are favorable to their positions. It’s what one does when they have no objectively sound arguments. Again, pay attention, watch for it. They do it every single time.
The problem is that people throw around “fascism” like my 70 year old mom uses the word “communism.” She couldn’t even define the actual meaning of communism let alone her use of the word.
In the common internet usage fascism just means “anything authoritarian and to the right of where I stand.” It also has the issue of making people think that the problem is with left versus right politics when authoritarianism can and has existed everywhere in the political spectrum in history.
“I hereby appoint myself the final arbiter of all terms and definitions!”
All you guys do this, for obvious reasons.
In this context, in political science, “authoritarian” does in fact have a very specific and well-defined meaning. Pretending otherwise just excludes yourself from the conversation. Maybe that’s for the best.
As if Hobbes’ Leviathan isn’t a thing. Thanks, but no thanks. This is a pedestrian understanding of reality, and one with which I have zero desire to engage.
*authoritarian, not fascist. There is a difference.
When authoritarians are in power long enough, whatever ideology the revolution the previous generation had gets replaced by an emphasis of simply maintaining power through whatever means necessary. And fascism is the easiest way to accomplish that.
We can debate over whether Mao was really socialist or whatever, but he’s dead it doesn’t much matter now. The CCP today is accepting of billionaires, capitalism is legal, labour unions are illegal, the leadership is misogynistic, oppressive towards minorities, promotes the “century of humiliation” narrative. Oh and people live in fear of another Tienanmen Square style massacre. Whatever China was in the past, it’s fascist today.
And Russia? WTF are leftist (or so they claim) weirdos going on about there? The Soviet Union collapsed and was replaced with a capitalist democracy which became fascist under Putin’s regime.
There’s this weird thing where so-called leftists think that if some kind of socialism existed on a patch of earth then they need to carry water whatever fascist that’s ruling over that patch of earth today.
Set up all the groundwork for funding the Mujahideen terrorists in Afghanistan, the funding of the dictatorship and death squads in El Salvadore, setting up the groundwork for the fuckery Reagan did with Iran-Contra.
Supplied arms to support genocide in Indonesia, among other crimes. Him building homes now is just some light penance before he’s shipped off to hell. fair.org/…/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-behind-t…
Just got banned from Hexbear for saying something negative about China and the US at the same time. They have no tolerance of any discussion that challenges their preconceptions.
Yeah, the Chinese government is totally very democratic and is receptive to the criticism of its citizens! They never censor words and topics they don’t like on their social media platforms!
Right, cause commies don’t dream of a better future. They seize the means of production, put you to work, and then creatively fuck with you and forcibly shut your whiny ass up if you try to say something stupid.
The status quo of not throwing a revolution, letting a bunch of authoritarian assholes take charge and handle the communist transition as heads of the Party, locking up anyone who vocally doesn’t like them and their shit, and calling that better?
If people werent Ukraine defending Nazis then there might not be an issue. If you can’t handle someone having a different opinion then get off the internet
That’s not what I said though, is it? I’m talking about you, your anger, and the fact that whatever your position may be, lashing out at people with such vitriol is counterproductive and shows you to be completely un-self-aware.
As they say, go touch grass. You are completely off your rocker.
If they just want to hear they are right and the conservatives are correct then I think they ought to go engage with those nuts on that “news”. You lot obviously have fallen for that bullshit so may as well continue to waste your life watching it since it’s obviously true to you. You are just some conservative roll who can fuck right off
Do you mean the german ones thrown in the camps or the soviet leadership who were the last of the eventual allied powers to do any sort of appeasement with Hitler (after exhausting all attempts to form an alliance with Britain and France) because communism is less aligned with fascist goals than liberalism is aligned with fascist goals, massive underexageration mine? Do you mean the communist low level officials who helped in a massive ethnic relocation program to move vulnerable minorities out of the way of the eventual german invasion? Or do you mean the population of the only communist nation which lost 26 million people, around 1/6th of their population, stopping the holocaust?
Or were you referring to the joke about racism? If so, you gotta look up how the population of the USSR was not considered white at the time. Emma Goldman for example basically called Stalin a slanty eyed conniving Asian, for example. Nowadays slavs are still called orcs and shit by westerners.
Always has been. Government taking control of every action of citizens is dictatorship. Theese people have total power of the country
The DPRK and China both don’t have parties that are in any way capable of controlling every action of their citizenry. They both have massive grassroots democratic institutions. Hell, look up whole process peoples democracy and the taean work system.
what
The initial meme made fun of being against those countries as a socialist. This meme is against that idea. Ergo… the meme is against all those socialist countries.
You have a lifetime of anti communist propaganda to overcome. You’re close, take the last step and realize you’ve been lied to about AES countries. No place is a utopia, but those countries are lights in the dark.
That’s a fair question. There’s a reason why authoritarian nations don’t have immigration issues, unlike virtually all of the west.
People aren’t stupid; they can pretty easily see through nationalist bullshit and figure out which, if they have to leave their own country, are going to be the best countries to land in.
Guess what? Nobody wants to immigrate to Russia or China or Cuba or Venezuela. Full stop.
The US prevented a democratic unified korea and killed 20 percent of all Koreans. MacArthur had to have his nuclear command secreted away to prevent him nuking Korea.
Read about it or if youre not into reading listen to the blowback season.
The US bombed and firebombed until there were “no more targets in Korea.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea Examine the primary sources if you like, they’re decent. It was comparable to genocide.
And now we point and laugh at the DPRK for being less developed than the US-backed South?
The war was even more devastating to the South. It’s their incompetence, not US bombing.
They were(and still somewhat are) being backed by commie friends who were also as incompetent and, as the op says, not even commies but just dirty dictators.
South’s growth, while the U.S.s’ (and Japans’) support was crucial, cannot be simplified by that.
And even if U.S.s’ bombing is the only reason they’re failing, who’s to blame? They started the war that even other commie dictators thought that it’s one of the stupidest war to start from one of the stupidest dictators in the world, Kim Il Sung.
this most of us, myself included grew up believing the same things you do about China and the DPRK and every other socialist state. Because thats what we are all told living in the West under capitslist liberal regimes. We already know all this propganda you’re repeating to us. We learned to see past it and seek out actual information about these places to understand for ourselves.
Internationalism is the most important aspect of socialism. If you choose to believe nationalist western propganda over people you should be in solidarity with, you will only help your oppressors
Very interesting how all those “pretend socialists” only exist in the third world, and all the “real socialists” existin the west. Yet all the successful revolutions have been done in the third world by “pretend socialists”, and the so called “real socialists” in the west have accomplished nothing. Their biggest success of the “real socialists” in the west being capitalist welfare states or social democracies that rely on old school imperial relationships to fund their welfare in a select few areas.
No Eurocentrism present to this line of thought here at all…
What do you think of Nelson Mandela OP? He was a very good leader, right? You know that he considered Cuba an ally and supported their revolution as Cuba sent troops to fight against the apartheid government in the border wars, took inspiration from Mao and called the Chinese revolution a miracle, thanked the Soviets for giving unending support in the fight against apartheid while receiving the a Lenin Peace Prize? So is Nelson Mandela now a fascist according to your meme?
Nelson Mandela was not a great man. At least not great enough to be so admired while F.W De Klerk had his funeral protested (F.W De Klerk helped end Apartheid).
Nelson Mandela did no more besides be a figurehead and help make a constitution that no one (not even when he was in power) follows. The ANC is corrupt to this day
I’m South African, I know who F.W de Klerk is. Don’t lie about what he did, there’s a reason he was unanimously booed while receiving his joint noble peace prize. He didn’t help end apartheid, he was forced into a position where it was the only viable option. Pure pragmatism. He was a member of the NP for many years, he willingly joined that organisation at the height of apartheid in 1972. If he was actually interested in ending fighting apartheid, he would have joined a liberation movement, not the apartheid party.
de Klerk was an apartheid president that was so corrupt he ordered the incineration of evidence of his, and his parties, corruption and crimes against humanity to be carried out by industrial steel smelters. Not to mention what he did with all the “third force” shenanigans towards the end of apartheid that almost caused civil war. It’s been revealed that he knew all about it. Or all the racist things he said later in life that revealed his true character, such as refusing to call apartheid a crime against humanity. Yes, I also used to be a liberal that thought de Klerk was a good guy that helped end apartheid, that was until I actually decided to do some research into the matter. Nelson Mandela said it best when it comes to de Klerk:
“Despite his seemingly progressive actions, Mr de Klerk was by no means the great emancipator…He did not make any of his reforms with the intention of putting himself out of power. He made them for precisely the opposite reason: to ensure power for the Afrikaner in a new dispensation.”
Yes the ANC is now extremely corrupt, it was effectively couped by corporate interests in the late 90s and early 2000s. Remember the move from RPD to GEAR? Thabo Mbeki and Trevor Manuel? Ramaphosa running away to make money in McDonalds and mining instead of succeeding Mandela? Leaving the door open for Mbeki to become president, a self described Thacherite who instituted austerity measures, underfund Eskom and give South Africa it’s first bout of load shedding, and denied that HIV causes AIDS, killing hundreds of thousands in the process? This all paved the way for Zuma’s corruption and ineptitude, and for Ramaphosa to come back, even after his shameful involvement in Marikana. Yes the ANC is shamefully corrupt, incompetent and useless, and it’s interesting to look at exactly how it got to that position.
Authoritarian nations I can name off the top of my head tend to be near the top of that “chart”; I certainly don’t think Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China or Trump’s America are “okay”, especially not just because of the leader’s skin color or ancestry.
All governments are authoritarian. Its a meaningless term. Its usually thrown at any state opposing the US as part of the xenophobic rhetoric used in western propoganda toward its enemies.
Lumping nazis and other fascists in with communists is a technique used to smear socialism and make nazis look less bad. Its nazi apologia
The best results (for certain degrees of “good”, see the “Fuck Cars” movement, #MoreThanJustBikes and Racist by Design for its downsides) from any socialist experiment to ever be undertaken was, of all things, the US Interstate Highway Act. Yes, the highways that serve as the beacon of Capitalist freedom are also socialist; they’re funded by taxes.
Now, Communism is another beast entirely. In a Communist society, 100% of the economy is planned and funded by taxes; this quite simply puts too much power in too few hands, much like America’s current corporate oligarchy but as a nationalized monopoly. Authoritarians adore a concentration of power and will consume and violate powerful positions if given the option.
A government railroad is not communism. A public school system is not communism.
The reason to fear communism is because it is designed by extremely authoritarian individuals, not because it runs off your tax dollars.
Socialism is an aquarium within which the communist fish (communist nations) are dead but the capitalist fish (corporations) are the tiny fish feeding of the remaining government fish (the modern globalized nations of the world, regardless of stability, technology or form of government), which vary in health and size but are generally bigger and healthier than the capitalist fish… Except day by day the government fish get thinner and weaker and certain capitalist fish get fat off the blood they leech. The blood is tax-funded resources like health care, and the capitalist fish which aren’t growing fat off the government fish are the charities, unions and the average persons who collect food for and pick parasites off the skin of the government fish.
Obviously that’s abstract, but the relationship is basically that. You are already socialist, you just don’t realise socialism can exist beyond the trap that is planned economics.
Yes, the highways that serve as the beacon of Capitalist freedom are also socialist; they’re funded by taxes.
Socialism is when the government does stuff
Socialism is an aquarium within which the communist fish (communist nations) are dead but the capitalist fish (corporations) are the tiny fish feeding of the remaining government fish (the modern globalized nations of the world, regardless of stability, technology or form of government), which vary in health and size but are generally bigger and healthier than the capitalist fish… Except day by day the government fish get thinner and weaker and certain corporate fish get fat off the blood they leech. The blood is tax-funded resources like health care, and the capitalist fish which aren’t growing fat off the government fish are the charities, unions and the average persons who collect food for and pick parasites off the skin of the government fish.
jesse-wtf Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Uh, yeah? Socialism is a product or service provided by a government agency at a reduced or waived price. The products and services in question don’t just happen.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Trying to explain the world economic state to the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Because they don’t seem to understand mass media lied about the definitions of various political ideologies. Sush.
Uh, yeah? Socialism is a product or service provided by a government agency at a reduced or waived price. The products and services in question don’t just happen.
no it isn’t. socialism is worker control of the means of production.
Okay, then I’m willing to admit fault but… Which is it? Worker control of production, or production according to need?
Or are you honestly going to tell me you think Collectivism (worker control of government and economy) or Communism (according to need and with no profit-making allowed) are the only forms that socialism takes?
Not saying you’re wrong, only that conflicting definitions do not help your cases, Cynetri and GreenTeaRedFlag.
The historical reality is that the word’s meaning has changed over time and the meaning currently being used by GreenTeaRedFlag has also changed words. There used to be “social democrats” who would be more recognizable as Marxists nowadays and who bear little resemblance to what we call them nowadays.
That actually explains a lot, thank you. I’m just going to duck out now then since clearly I walked into a minefield of conflicting historical definitions.
That’s fair. For what it’s worth, I don’t know any socialist schools of thought which define socialism as equivalent to government social spending.
No need to reply since you’re ducking out, but if you don’t mind me offering a couple videos on the subject of central planning, these are well done and measured analyses in my opinion:
You are literally saying something that is so thoroughly absurd it is a well known meme used to make fun of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Look, ignorance is not a crime. But you really are painfully ignorant about the topic you are claiming to explain and you would do well to learn more before presuming to educate “extremists on both sides.” Your comments are so lacking in self awareness and so cringe that I’m half convinced this is a bit.
Edit: So after a refresh of the thread I read more of your comments and I’m glad to see you’re willing to learn and discuss. Here is another good introduction point that’s been well received by a lot of people beginning to look beyond the buzzwords and genuinely learn: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpKsygbNLT4 Actually, the same could be said for about every video on that channel (Second Thought).
Socialism is an economic system defined by production of goods and services according to their need, in contrast to capitalism where they’re produced for profit. Two totally different, incompatible systems
Okay, then I’m willing to admit fault but… Which is it? Worker control of production, or production according to need?
Or are you honestly going to tell me you think Collectivism (worker control of government and economy) or Communism (according to need and with no profit-making allowed) are the only forms that socialism takes?
Not saying you’re wrong, only that conflicting definitions do not help your cases, Cynetri and GreenTeaRedFlag.
Honestly, why not just peg the value of 100 of a a currency to the energy used to create a loaf of bread? Then bread will always cost close to 100 and other products will be priced according to energy and not speculation. The recipe would need to be standardized and compared but not automatically equivocated to supermarket/bakery/homemade bread, and changing it once the hypothetical currency is live would not be an option, but you’re asking to replace the entire capitalist economy so I can only hope you understand a revolution doesn’t come without risk and has never truly succeeded yet for anyone ever.
That might work. Really it isn’t that hard. Most societies through history have practiced some form of social production. Without the fear and lie nation of capitlaism the desire to do good and not live in a bad place has been drive enough to make things work.
Honestly, why not just peg the value of 100 of a a currency to the energy used to create a loaf of bread? Then bread will always cost close to 100 and other products will be priced according to energy and not speculation.
Markets aren’t that efficient compared to planning. There is a reason why firms nowadays work off of a bastardized descendent of Cybersyn.
but you’re asking to replace the entire capitalist economy so I can only hope you understand a revolution doesn’t come without risk and has never truly succeeded yet for anyone ever.
Tell that to Cubans, who had a longer life expectancy than people than the US even with the blockade before Trump intensified the blockade.
I just said, for anyone. Democracies included. This isn’t about who did what, it’s about how everyone has failed to create everlasting utopia and I’m sick of people assuming a given political system will ever fix any problem on its own.
Don’t bother friend. I know from long experience that they will insist on defining the terms of the discussion on their own, as if some whack job fringe theorist is somehow to be accorded the final word in adjudicating our use of language.
The problem therein is of course that when your opponent gets to set the parameters of meaning and discussion, you aren’t really exchanging ideas on an intellectually even playing field.
I’ve pointed this out many times over the years, but it still hasn’t taken with your true believers/idiots.
Long story short; don’t waste your time; you aren’t arguing with good-faith interlocutors.
They are playing semantic games and have no interest in honest discussion.
To them. You and I are simply uneducated morons who have yet to receive the true message.
Noted fringe theorists no one ever heard of Marx and Engels.
I’m sure people have tried to define basic terms like socialism to you because you’re politically illiterate. Thats not a scam to “define terms” to win an arguement it is a literal defining of terms, of actual words, that you don’t know the meaning of
Don’t bother friend. I know from long experience that they will insist on defining the terms of the discussion on their own, as if some whack job fringe theorist is somehow to be accorded the final word in adjudicating our use of language.
Ahh right, why should adherents of an ideology have any say in how that ideology is defined and how terminology specific to that ideology means?
The problem therein is of course that when your opponent gets to set the parameters of meaning and discussion
Your opponents shouldn’t get to set the definitions, but the opponents of socialism should get to set the definition of socialism. Makes sense.
you aren’t really exchanging ideas on an intellectually even playing field.
Correct, thought the intellectual disparity clearly cleaves in the opposite direction to what you believe.
I acknowledge that ‘socialism’ is a vague term with dozens of definitions, but this strange strictly-American idea that publicly-funded infrastructure is socialist isn’t a useful definition, nor a common one. It will really just confuse people.
Historically and presently, socialism is a labour movement which, despite all the variations, had the common goal of the workers controlling their means of production, rather than the owning class. Almost every political dictionary and socialist will back that up, and also Wikipedia (for something we can check right now). It’s not about whether something is private or public.
Paying taxes and voting in a (systematically broken, throroughly corrupted) government representative democracy isn’t really accomplishing this. We are arill beholden to the owning capitalist class. How I spend my working hours is still governed by a bourgeois board of directors, I don’t own the tools I use, I don’t have meaningful power to make democratic decisions about my work or my society governance.
You are correct that socialism exists (present tense! see: Zapatistas) without planned economies. But if you want to see what socialist modes of organisation look like within capitalism, it would be a workers cooperative.
Anti-car movements are not socialist nor socialism. They are good and pro-society, but are completely incidental to the socialist movement.
Collectively-funded operations like roads, police and our military airstriking hospitals aren’t socialist nor socialism. We have no control over the use of our money and labour; even if voting was democratic power in practice, a campaigning platform isn’t a guarantee of policy, they can completely ignore that once elected. And also, no matter who you vote for, your tax money will still go towards anti-socialism!
As for the parts about communism, well, no. The definition you’ve invented wildly conflicts with both theory and historical events. You’re gonna have to start from scratch on that one, even just looking at the Wiki article will provide a much better base. Very popular ideologies like anarcho-communism just completely contradict all that.
Also, how on earth is “Fuck cars” a successful “socialist experiment”? The biggest action anyone associated with that movement is flatten a few tires from SUV’s
Interstate Highways and similar systems are “successful” socialism, as far as I understand socialism, because they are a piece of tax-funded infrastructure that has outlasted and avoided issues that have proven inherent to soviet-style, communist nation-states.
Interstate Highways and similar systems are “successful” socialism, as far as I understand socialism
I must be blunt here: socialism is not about taxation. At all. Socialist communes don’t even require taxes or money to exist. Socialism is about workers’ relationship with work.
As far as I’ve ever been aware, socialism is the use of tax dollars to provide goods or services beyond simply the military protection provided by feudal governments.
I do use a monarch’s definition of democracy. Or rather, I use the worst things a type of government has done to define whether it meets its ideals. Communism disappeared people who criticized the leadership, democracy is a witch trial on a national scale, and monarchy is an asshole who has a private army running a protection racket.
socialism can be understood as the transitional state between a capitalist mode of production and a communist one. the US government is a 100% certified capitalist state, any project they have undertaken has nothing to do with socialism
Sorry mate, socialism isn’t that. Here’s a good place to start learning about what socialism is. check out Richard Wolff, a economics professor, on YouTube for some interesting lecturers about how it works in reality if you want to go a bit further.
Yeah, that’s definitely a usage of the word socialism I have heard, but it is not generally a definition most socialists or socialist parties would use and it has some issues in my opinion.
This is such a broad definition of socialism as to make it almost meaningless, as this definition fits every nation on earth today and most through history. ancient Rome used public money to fund public roads, subsidized grain for the poor, public entertainment and land grants for veterans, public aqueducts, and other public programs, yet this was 2000 years before the concept of socialism was really invented and I don’t think anyone is holding up ancient Rome as an example of a socialist society.
I would define socialism by two characteristics. One is control over the political economy by the proletariat (workers), as opposed to the bourgeoisie (capitalists/financiers/business owners). In a bourgeois run capitalist state, there is still publicly funded services, but they generally set up to benefit privately run industry (public highways, government subsidized research, police) or they are concessions won by the proletariat through class struggle (universal healthcare, social welfare programs).
The second characteristic is economic organization around common need, rather than around the pursuit of profits. This would require taking the means off production (factories, businesses, utilities, etc) out of the hands of the bourgeoisie.
As far as I’ve ever been aware, socialism is the use of tax dollars to provide goods or services
I’ve seen others comment but I’ll add my own two cents. You don’t know what socialism is, and that’s not a criticism of you, it’s just a fact.
What you’re describing is social democracy wherein governments allow a capitalist relationship to the means of production to exist while providing social programs and investing. Socialism and Capitalism are about the worker’s relationship to the means of production. Under capitalism Capitalists take money generated by worker’s surplus labor as profits and use these profits to create a government that will protect their power to continue stealing from their workers. Under socialism profits are not held privately but publicly, by worker’s or socialist governments that exist to redistribute the ill gotten wealth of the Capitalists.
It’s not about how many programs a government does or the taxes it collects, it’s about the workers relations to the means of production. The problem with social democracy, which Lenin pointed out over a hundred years ago in State and Revolution, is that by letting Capitalists exist they will not allow workers to take away their wealth and power democratically, they will use fascism to secure their wealth. Another problem is that these programs cannot exist for long because Capitalists are parasites and will do everything they can to privatize them and milk as much profit out of them as possible, for examples of this look at nearly every government program that exists in Europe and point to me one that works better now than it did 30 years ago before Capitalists had time to take cuts out of it, it’s a really big problem typically with healthcare programs in these countries.
Even by you’d definition of “socialism” being public infrastructure spending, how is the US highway system more successful than the Chinese High Speed Rail system?
That might be why everyone’s probably assuming I’m right-wing. I mentioned it (the highway system) with its criticisms because, while successful at remaining operational, the Chinese high speed rail system is, by virtue of being a rail system, much more efficient. It would be better if there were low-speed rail connections too, but as it is the Chinese high speed rail system is indeed a successful socialist(?)/socially-funded(?) intercity transit system. OIf course, the Chinese rail system has flaws like lines that lose billions of tax dollars every year (or rather the important part is that this says there aren’t enough riders on those routes), but the Interstates were often built through areas in the middle of nowhere b ecause it made construction companies a shitload of money.
In short, you’re right to mention the chinese rail, “succesful” in my eyes also meant longevity along with a national scale and the highways happen to be older.
Lines losing money is implying that the point of the lines is to make money. That is so staggeringly uninformed and capitalist minded it blows me away.
I will shock you by informing you most fish are bad at flying.
The problem isn’t the money. Its that the money coming from fares doesn’t cover the track maintenance. Besides, my point is not the cost because you’re right on that part, but rather that…
The cost is probably due to lower ridership than needed to make the line useful rather than wasteful.
High speed rail lines are bad at low density nations/regions. So, like a fish in the air versus a panda in the air, neither rail lines nor highways actually function well in that situation, though highways are pretty crappy no matter what. The best solution is actually rural mechanization/electrification and an increase in urbanization, which - despite international impressions - has barely been done in China in favor of keeping the remaining impoverished people poor.
Believe me, I’m aware the money isn’t the point, I’m saying that if you institute a government, even a communist one, you shouldn’t completely ignore the currency someone has on hand or spends anymore than you should rely solely on the currency someone has or spends as the primary or only measure of their importance.
A penny versus a dollar should not define the people carrying them, but the person can usually influence the world using them, and whether you’re a selfish or benevolent bureaucrat, the ability to know what kind of influence a person is likely to exert is the entire reason we are having to discuss politics with a degree of edge in the first place; Our leadership has access to that information and STILL aren’t using it to fix things instead of filling their pockets, therefore each of us is unsatisfied. I think everyone who’s posed in this thread can at least agree on that, considering this is Lemmy.
My brother in Christ, China has urbanized faster than any society in human history. They build entire cities and then move people in once they’re finished.
The people pay to maintain the rails through taxes, failing to “recoup the maintenance” just means the lines are subsidized.
By that logic if they charged no fee to use them, it would be infinitely wasteful…
Which, by the way, have you noticed most highways are free to use? Does that not make them money losers?
So are parks, and sidewalks.
I’ve never seen them criticized as wasteful. The point is not to make money with them.
but as it is the Chinese high speed rail system is indeed a successful socialist(?)/socially-funded(?) intercity transit system.
It’s funny to call America’s highways socialist and then hedge your phrasing against China’s rail system.
More genuinely, would you like me to go through the Marxian conception of socialism in a non-combative way? It looks like you’re doing your best but just aren’t familiar with the topic.
“far as I understand socialism” We got a lot to unpack here.
Youbtalked about how all the post soviet states crumbled into disrepair. They are cpaitlaist. That is cpaitlaism. When they were not capitalist things got better. When they were cpaitlaist. Things got worse. This is basic stuff here.
Ever seen that chart of standard of living for the top 10% and bottom 40% of wealth in Russia since 1880?
I don’t remember where it was but I’ll explain.
1880 to the Soviet Union were completely unfair. 1990 to present was and is completely unfair. I am not going to argue in favor of capitalism because to capitalism I, specificly me as a person, am unprofitable. I would be killed in a cyberpunk dystopia.
During the Soviet Union, the standards of living were roughly equal, but dropped 66% below the standards of living the 10% experienced before and after.
According to a calculation, to reach a state of being secure from the climate crisis and have equal wealth, we would need to revert to the standard of living of 1960s America technologically.
I don’t like capitalism or hate socialism. I hate that the universe works in such a way that my lifestyle - no car, living with my parents, and writing on a modern computer with fiber internet access for a living, with no possessions individually worth more than $5000 and a net worth of basically zero - is not fair under capitalism AND impossible under the kind of world YOU want to live in.
You want to live in a world where my only niche in life is too luxurious for everyone else? Fuck you, I’ll just commit suicide.
There are lies, and then there are statistics, and trying to do living standard calculations about this shit with a 10% cutoff that’s including the feudal warlords who owned literally everything and were spending fuckoff amounts of money on fucking glass eggs is just dancing around the actual point here.
They went from a feudal partially industrialized backwater to space in the span of ~30 years, with a catastrophic war right in the middle. They operated for decades under siege from the rest of the world outside their relatively small and poor sphere.
I don’t like capitalism or hate socialism. I hate that the universe works in such a way that my lifestyle - no car, living with my parents, and writing on a modern computer with fiber internet access for a living, with no possessions individually worth more than $5000 and a net worth of basically zero - is not fair under capitalism AND impossible under the kind of world YOU want to live in.
You want to live in a world where my only niche in life is too luxurious for everyone else? Fuck you, I’ll just commit suicide.
Socialism is when no electronic treats? those devices you’re so protective of are almost definitely made in China or nearby already, what do you think the anti-China warmongering is going to result in if not a disruption of your treats?
your life sounds pretty miserable under capitalism, wild how we have a system which prioritizes the right of property owners to extract rents from people in perpetuity.
My life is miserable because I have a disability that means I have to rely on others and was literally been screwed out of a happy childhood by my own government from 2001-2002. I can barely trust my government to give me enough to live on (~$20,000 CAD a year), and full-bodied lasseiz-faire capitalism would view me as human vermin, while all attempts at communism has proven to be endemically-afflicted with an authoritarian existence that would have me exterminated as “useless”.
I’m not defending capitalism. I’m calling reality hell and calling each and every one of you my jailors for not giving a fuck how MY LIFE means NOTHING to you.
I never called any of YOU worthless or lazy or genetically substandard. You all seem to have no thought towards what happens to the people who will die when you revolt because they are TERMINALLY DEPENDENT on the status quo, nor do you care that history has shown over and over and FUCKING over that regardless of what type of government or economy you choose, revolutions ALWAYS fail.
I’m trying to say, this isn’t about a fucking political compass to me, and I don’t have a position on that compass. This is about how EVERYONE has fucking rejected me except my closest family and friends, and now I hate all of you equally regardless of your position because you insist I pick a goddamn side when no matter who wins, I DIE. So why SHOULDN’T I say that capitalism is evil, and communism is evil, and socialism is evil, and anarchy and monarchy and fascism and everything else we’ve EVER used to structure a society is EVIL, because IT DOESN’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
You want a fucking flame war? How about I fucking dox you all and steal a car to drive haphazardly to all of your houses and BURN THEM TO THE FUCKING GROUND?! No, I’m not serious, but THAT is what your political opinions are threatening to do to my life; take the few things that matter to me away and then leave me to die, or hunt me down and have me tortured until I break or die from the stress.
Fuck you. I own a computer, I have a bedroom, I play video games and read ebooks. That’s all that I can afford, and you think I should give up everything except the bedroom. How about all of you give up your cars, transit passes, televisions, motorhomes, ATVs, boats, private schools, swimming pools, summer camps, vacations to ANYWHERE, IoT devices, smartphones, model train sets, gym memberships, single family homes, college educations, going out to restaurants at your own expense, collections of trading cards or china plates or beanie babies, keeping pets, having children, working a job that you like, working a job you are psychologically capable of doing, AND never owning anything expensive that you just think looks neat? Because I have none of those other things, and you expect me to give up my computer for your own benefit as much as the wealthy assholes do.
while all attempts at communism has proven to be endemically-afflicted with an authoritarian existence that would have me exterminated as “useless”.
This is completely false. Socialist states aren’t the ones doing eugenics and killing the disabled. That’s fascist and liberal states doing it (I’m sure you see how MAiD is sinister). Socialist states, while not always prioritizing the issue of disability, have sought to help the disabled so that they can help in the ways they can rather than waste away in a hovel as they were left to in feudal society.
I’m trying to say, this isn’t about a fucking political compass to me, and I don’t have a position on that compass.
The compass shit is bullshit anyways
revolutions ALWAYS fail.
They have succeeded in the past, and it was often disabled people fighting the hardest for socialist revolution- because the status quo was killing them. Helen keller was a socialist.
My life is miserable because I have a disability that means I have to rely on others and was literally been screwed out of a happy childhood by my own government from 2001-2002. I can barely trust my government to give me enough to live on (~$20,000 CAD a year), and full-bodied lasseiz-faire capitalism would view me as human vermin, while all attempts at communism has proven to be endemically-afflicted with an authoritarian existence that would have me exterminated as “useless”.
You are in full-bodied capitalism, it’s just that it’s the people outside your national borders who are the ‘human vermin’ getting exterminated by your countries military, along with its allies. You get some meager existence in the meantime and lots of treats to enjoy.
You seem pretty worked up about this, but don’t seem to have an understanding of what socialists even want. You also don’t seem interested in learning.
I work with people who are unhoused living on the streets with far less toys than you have, I’ve know many people that didn’t make it through the last few years. You can eat my shit and hair.
2, tell me if the USA is going to last another 20 years because I doubt it. Now tell me if your fucking revolution’s results will still be around in 248 years. ALL political systems are doomed to fail, so LEAVE MY LIFE THE FUCK ALONE.
3, trying to guilt me into giving up what little I do have through whataboutism makes you look like an asshole.
I’ve never murdered a person. If that’s what you think of me through no fault of my own, maybe - regardless of your skin color - I should make you the first?
I’m fucking done. Choke on my fucking cock, you goddamn hypocritical woke-ass bitch.
You are in full-bodied capitalism, it’s just that it’s the people outside your national borders who are the ‘human vermin’ getting exterminated by your countries military, along with its allies.
I never said you murdered anyone, you are just on the side of the soul harvester where the goodies pop out
socialism is when I listen to NPR. capitalism is when I go to my parent’s house for Christmas. communism is when I get to program the radio presets in mom’s Honda Odyssey. social democracy is when I go to Starbucks. liberalism is when I look through the LL Bean catalogue.
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
Look, I agree that it’s dumb to call yourself a socialist and have zero respect for most attempts at socialism, especially when your critique doesn’t come from anything serious but just parroting of cold war propaganda. I agree that these countries weren’t literally the devil, nor fascist, not “pretending”, that’s all fine.
But it’s still so dishonest of MLs to dig for quotes and smugly boastbout how “libertarians never succeed”. Even if we completely ignore all the very explicit and deliberate attempts at sabotage anarchists had to endure from their statist “comrades” (which we shouldn’t but we always casually seem to be forced to do in the name of “unity”), it doesn’t change the fact that vanguardist revolutions have all been incredibly flawed too.
You all are very often willing to recognize your failures, most of the people like you I have talked to seem to agree that at some point the revolution was “hijacked”, usurped, corrupted, lost aim, usually coinciding with a figure they don’t like taking over the revolutionary government and messing things up.
The supposed “strong state that crushes all opposition” being taken over by the reformist opposition and then the capitalist one in the case of the USSR and Leninists. The market reforms of Deng in the case of China and Maoists. But you all never seem to ask yourselves the question “Why was that allowed to happen?”. Why am I supposed to put my trust in some authoritarian bullshit solution specifically justified as a means to protect the revolution when it failed at doing so? Why do you have to be so smug and condescending at me for not trusting in things that didn’t work?
Why do you instead of learning from the mistakes in your methods that most of the time you yourself recognize and trying to come up with new ideas and systems for the current age, insist on still clinging to material analysis of the world of a hundred years ago as the gospel, the sole undying and absolute truth on how to Make Socialism, merely saying “it’ll totally work right this time” instead? Why do you insist on mocking and “”“dunking”“” on anyone who refuses to do that?
They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted.
This is all completely false. It genuinely is just lies. You can disagree with the explanations, but to claim there literally aren’t any is just ignorance and a complete lack of good faith. Look, if you’re a socialist in the internet, you probably have dealt with confidently incorrect liberals whining about strawmen that you don’t believe, because they haven’t read anything about it - and it’s probably been incredibly frustrating. So why do you never think twice before doing the same thing with anarchists?
I’m always told to read Lenin and a ton of authoritarian essays and I always do in good faith, but it’s extremely rare for me to ever be afforded the same honour, and then all the conversations I have end up with people telling me shit like this and me having to explain anarchism 101 to them because they genuinely don’t actually know anything.
No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
I am also always told to be charitable and nuanced about the failures and mistakes of vanguardist revolutions, but no one ever has the same honour with anarchist ones.
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t have hard opinions about anarchists vs MLs. I generally think Engels was more convincing on authority, but I’m not well read enough to have a formed opinion on it and haven’t read anything from the last decade or so. I especially don’t think the things that you’re asking here because I didn’t write the statement, Parenti did, and he did so for rhetorical effect against western leftists putting ideology over AES. I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I am sorry for being agressive. I mostly assumed you thought the same things as the person you were quoting. I appreciate that you at least admit you aren’t well read enough, that’s more than most people I talk to.
I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I really appreciate this too. Thank you. I think as a direct expanding on what I’m talking about, this essay is very good:
Cheers pal, I’ve favorited this post to come back too. I’ve read Bakunin before, but I haven’t read the rebuttal on On Authority or the other essays you linked. Looking forward to it! Appreciate the time you put into this
At least it’s something new instead of a method that has failed to bring about socialism time and time again through history. All those transitory government systems just end up being dictatorships that give as much power to the workers as the fucking US, less even.
You will never achieve socialism if you just prop up a ruling class with vastly different class interests, they will never cede power to the workers.
What I support is workers organising. What I don’t support is Stalinist strongmen oppressing workers. Socialism without power of the workers is meaningless and not worth achieving, that’s literally the current system. If I wanted capitalism with socialist aesthetics I can just move to China, that already exists. What I want is actual power to the workers and nothing else.
You attributed some failed strategy to me and then accused me of purity testing states that are only aesthetically socialist. That response had nothing to do with what I said.
You attributed the failed strategy to yourself, and I accused you of it because that’s exactly what you were doing. That’s a response, to your comment.
As you yourself said: it’s untainted by existing practice, there is no existing strategy as in its new. In relation to the numerous failed attempts at socialism through dictatorship it’s better to try something new and not keep shooting the working class in the foot.
Currently our group has been working on raising avereness of unions since there are a lot of white collar workers that aren’t a member of any union. We are also trying to popularise the coop business model especially in the public sector. We are also advocating for wealth redistribution reforms. The USSR kinda ruined calling yourself a socialist(And calling yourself a communist here will more likely get you punched here) so a lot of advocacy has been about pushing for socialist ideas with different wording.
For more long term we are hoping to get unions more involved in government and possibly form a worker’s party with the union members.
Workers had more power and say in democracy in the USSR then they have ever had in a Western capitalist country, and American police are more brutal, more violent, more repressive, and kill more people than any “strong men” under Stalin. You’ve consumed too much anti-communist propaganda.
No, me and my family lived under Soviet rule in an annexed satellite state. Workers had no power here, people who were friendly to high ranking party members had power and if workers did not comply they got sent to slave camps in siberia where they were not likely to return.
I really don’t care about the US and it’s quite weird how literally everyone who is trying to paint the USSR in a good light says that with no prompting. Like lung cancer is also bad but bringing that up in every single conversation about anything is weird.
Was Stalin the president of the US? Is the US the leader of socialism or something? The US has nothing to do with socialism, like I have been part of my local anarchist group for years and no one has ever even mentioned the US.
Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle.
No, it’s pretty simple. It’s called “profit sharing” where workers get the lions share of profits. It’s more realistic than alternatives in a country that thinks Joe Biden is a communist.
Add comment