At least in the US is proveably isn’t working as intended. Section 1983 of the federal code was illegally modified in 1874 by one person that had no authority to do so. That revision is what “decided” Harlow V Fitzgerald in 1982. That case should have found that the 1871 Congress had outlawed any immunity from prosecution for civil servants of any kind.
This is also similar to how “corporate personhood” became a legal fictive, yet legal precedent.
The system isn’t working as intended at all, and the consequences of those two minor “revisions” has allowed the rich to buy the government.
If I’m not mistaken, the usual cycle seems to be dismantling an existing system due to grievances unaddressed, seeking a consolidation of power, or other political machinations, attempts at forming & establishing new systems for a period of time, until eventually some system emerges that manages to survive for some time but its persistence is not assured.
No, but proposing to destroy a system in which you are presumably living relatively comfortably, in exchange for something else is some extremely privileged bullshit to say. E.g. go tell that to the people in Niger.
It’s a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty situation. Both viewpoints are correct. The question is: which is easier? Fixing a broken system or destroying the system and creating a new one?
The system is 10,000x stronger than you, it cannot be destroyed by direct attack. Cast it aside instead and move on without it. It needs you, it will fall.
Keeping it citizens fat and happy while an elite few rape it’s wealth and resources?
The best at papering over the massive problems that pervade its society at every level?
The best at mass shootings?
The best at electing possibly genuinely retarded people to political office (tens of millions of americans voted for donald trump, even after 4 years of him being clinically unhinged and extremely stupid)?
I had to pay a $3000 hospital bill last year for surgery that I waited two years to get and it didn’t even work. And I have what is considered good insurance.
Oh… Poor guy, lives in one of the richest countries of the world and has one of the best healthcare systems ever. Poor guy had to pay money :(, paying money = bad! Paying more of that money in taxes even yiu never use the system to have “free” care = good!
Considering I wouldn’t have had to pay that money if I lived in any other Western country, you’re correct, except not sarcastically. Why do people deserve to go broke just because they have cancer?
The best at what, exactly? It’s a dystopia where citizens don’t even get the basics and gun violence is so common it doesn’t make the new unless it’s a mass shooting.
Yeah, don’t seek to improve anything. I wouldn’t trade ours for that of Cambodia, but I’d sure as shit trade it for Denmark. We could strive to implement better processes in our system. First thing is to admit that there’s a problem.
If you learn how to read charts and graphs, you can look up worldwide happiness indexes and where the US is in education and freedom and all those things. They are all written down for you. Intelligent people have already done the research and had a peer reviewed. All that you have to do is learn how to understand it.
Because everyone has the capability to just move to anywhere if they don’t like a place. People don’t have any family or friends they would leave behind, and they always have enough money to just move to another country.
Not anyone, just people who are willing to go to a better place. Ask any imigrant at the south border if they left family/friends ot if they have “enough money” (whatever that means) to come to the US (better place than any of the places left behind).
The fun part about memes like this is that they could be posted by anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum. The only hint at intent is in the title or community
I never experienced another system and have come to the gradual realisation that the current system is inherently exploitative, values some people above others, and leaves very little hope for a future as it continues to render the planet’s surface less habitable by the year. My solution: let’s tear the system down before it tears all of us down with it.
My solution: let’s tear the system down before it tears all of us down with it.
“…without having any clue about what comes next, blindly hoping that it will rule out injustice and inherent exploitation although there is no precedence or vision by anyone.”
This is not a fix. It’s calling to kill the complete herd for a few sick animals while others take enormous efforts to find a cure.
I quoted the very part. Are you trolling? You can’t have missed my quote.
when I corrected an obvious strawman
You didn’t fix anything. You just explained the meme keeping it’s original ignorance.
my correction was strawmanned.
Read up what a Strawman is. I didn’t change the original argument - since there was none.
Best you could say is that I used a hyperbole so you understand how people who actually care about politics perceive your helpless destructive whining.
I never said anything about not knowing what to do next. Syndicalism, for example, offers an appealing alternative to the capitalist system. If my tone comes across as flippant, it’s because there’s a bunch of dumbfuck liberals in this thread who are so steeped in their capitalist realism that they just assume that anybody who isn’t one of them is coming from a place of childish naïvete.
The original meme’s ignorance? What ignorance? You haven’t established how it’s ignorant. It claims that the system is intentionally structured to create the outcomes it does, and that that’s bad. That seems like an accurate assessment to me.
I know what a strawman is, you condescending arsehole. It’s a wilful misinterpretation of somebody’s point that misconstrues it such that it’s easier to dismantle. For instance, if I say that capitalism is inherently bad and should be dismantled, and then someone comes along and pretends like I said that it should be supplanted by something even worse, that’s a wilful misrepresentation of my position, is it not?
Without really wanting to take a side here, you could explain why his metaphor doesn’t fit your real opinion instead of just saying it was a strawman, if you’d like.
Don’t get me wrong: I think nothing is more healthy for a society than a rebelling youth and all the “trouble” that comes with it. We’ve all been there.
But in times were edgy elders vote for Trump and carry no vision, morale or understanding besides mere platitudes like “tearing down everything”, “draining the swamp”, “building a wall” etc., all those calls for radical destruction without offering an alternative annoy the shit out of me.
In the past, angsty youth might have complained, but their living standards were still better than previous generations.
What’s different now, is most youth are actually experiencing multiple issues that are new, and caused by policy choices from older generations in government.
And yet, these youth still experience a higher standard of living than any generation before them.
Yeah also don’t understand that any system involving humans is never going to be perfect because people will find a way to screw it up. That doesn’t mean you give up on improving it of course, more the opposite. Every system will constantly require effort to improve or it will degrade over time.
There is no such thing as a perfect system, but that means there will always be ways to improve the existing system, no matter what the existing system is. The “tear it down and start over” mentality makes people useless in efforts to actually make things better. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Not just that but there is no “THE system” it’s more of a stew made out of dozens of systems working around and with each other. You can’t just throw out the stew and start over because it’s already got all of us and everything in it. I don’t want to go too far with that metaphor but you get the idea.
Speaking of stew… the SYSTEM is involved with distribution of food. I don’t have land to farm, so if we’re going to destroy the system, I’m gonna need the new system that replaces it to be functioning and somehow distributing food to me in about a week.
Historically there have been many times revolutions that have resulted in famines. And most revolutions end up with basically the same kind of system as before, just with different people in power, once they’ve run their course.
“I’m such a douchebag entitled narcissist so I’m going to plug my ears and go ‘na na na this is fine’ as the system destroys EVERY GODDAMN FUCKING FACET of society and whatever future these ‘teenagers’ may have. BUT IT’S THE TEENAGERS THAT ARE TO BLAME, RIGHT?”
Get off your fucking high horse. Jesus fucking christ dude.
I think what’s ironic about your comment is that you begin well: you’ve never experienced another, vastly superior system (like, for example, Germany) so you think any suggestions to make the US better is tantamount to an attack on it.
As for “isn’t perfect” that’s like getting a D in school and saying “well, at least I passed.”
I must have missed something. I just read a suggestion to destroy everything in a mediocre anime meme.
This sounds like trying to burn down the school when you got a bad grade but when you’re caught and called to the principal’s office, you claim to be the victim of a coldhearted and overgeneralizing grade system.
You’re suggesting that people who want to tear down an inherently corrupt system are immature or naive and it’s ironic because you sound equally naive about it.
At any rate, you haven’t even supplied any arguments, you merely lashed out by insulting people.
Versus doing nothing? Lemmy is fucking ass lately, shitting all over hyperbole while rolling over and letting capitalism and pessimism run your sorry, sad fucking lives.
I'd argue the only reason it was possible to implement in the first place was the post-war context of having to rebuild everything from scratch; the power dynamics in place before the war were left in the rubble. The father of Norwegian social democracy spent the years before the war in and out of jail, the war years in a prison camp, and the post war years as prime minister.
They also had to contrast the USSR, which had a very good quality of life for most citizens. Without socdem, people would have seen the difference between the USSR and Europe as positive due to things like eliminating homelessness, a right to food, and guaranteed healthcare. In the ~30 years since the Soviet Union fell, the EU is slowly crawling back in line with the US.
that poll is only of people currently living in russia… none of the former soviet states and other parts of the world. and of course we all trust the moscow times. when you do speak with them they mention never having tried fresh fruit until the 1990s, standing in line hours for bread… not being able to leave their apartments because strung out muggers took over the lobbies and always having to take the stairs, and not being able to control the temperature of their homes because the govt controlled the boilers, and having to use rugs as insulation against concrete, and all the drivers were terrible because the drivers tests were just a vodka buyoff, and the cars were constantly falling apart and the movies and music and artists in general were never allowed to criticize anything there, and the news didnt bother trying to be reality based etc
Even if you do, the past is a complicated thing. Plenty of people are nostalgic to the USSR, and many of them might very well have been better off under communism.
That said, in terms of standards of living, I think it's fair to say the Nordic countries were comparing themselves to the US way more than the Soviet Union in the postwar era. The Finns would rather be dead than associated with the Soviets, which many of them demonstrated quite forcefully during the war. As for the other Nordic countries, the Marshall Plan certainly didn't weaken the admiration of the US.
If anything, what made the Nordic model such a success was the decision to look away from the Soviets - the influence the Soviet Union had over European socialist parties somehow didn't catch on in the North. Marxist-Leninist parties existed (and still exist), but they were mostly sidelined (to a degree that is, in all fairness, problematic in its own right).
The principles of Bolshevism were rooted in good ideas. And if you just want the children’s version of what happened, read “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
It definitely is just reforming capitalism tho. If you want it in America you don’t have to overthrow any government, just vote them out of the white house
What a naively stated belief in a country with a clearly broken democracy. Actually, not a democracy, a Republic.
You people have two parties only (FUCKING TWO!), both of which are in bed with billionaires, both of which are basically run by super pacs filled with elites and bagmen.
The only good thing that ever happened to America was the revolution and the amazing ideals that came from there. The USA could have gone the Bolshevist route and Washington a dictator, but it had higher goals for a liberal democracy. And then corporations turned it into a pig’s trough.
The most ironic thing about America is you’re obsessed with your slave-owning founding fathers but I am certain they would be revolted at what you’ve built for yourselves in 2023.
lol yeah the lib approach of “vote harder” - look at how that goes. the closest thing they had was Bernie sanders and he was railroaded by the dnc. you’re asking the wolf to watch the wolfs.
I can't think of any successful implementation of socialism following from voting alone. Unionising tends to be where the power comes from.
The historical success rate of overthrowing the government and replacing it with something more ideologically pure doesn't really inspire confidence either. Sometimes it might be a necessary step on the winding path of history, but in terms of making anything better in the short term the track record is a bit iffy at best.
So like, every co-op, worker-owned company, and software company is socialist since their workers own the means of production?
Also, couldn’t you say that if the workers control the state, (i.e. through a democracy) that they own the “means of production”? Or does socialism have a requirement for more direct ownership?
Worker co-ops are probably the closest thing to a glimpse of a socialist workplace under capitalism, yes, but unfortunately these companies must exist in a capitalist economy. This means they still must compete against profit-driven companies and do things that are not in the interests of their workers in order to stay afloat. If you’re interested in learning more about how this directly related to socialism, I recommend this article: monthlyreview.org/…/cooperatives-on-the-path-to-s….
To your other question, the answer is no. Under a capitalist framework, corporations (the ruling class in Marxist terms) own the means of production in that they are the primary owners of private propery (the factories, machines, offices, etc that produce goods and services). They take the profit that workers generate and keep it for themselves - it isn’t distributed back to the workers. Just because the US is democratic does not mean the workers own this private property or have a say in how it is used.
Yep, just support and vote left for the next few decades. Take a page from the conservative handbook and mobilize a base that will actually turn out to vote. Conservatives have spent the last 50 years fine-tuning their messaging and tapping into a base that will get involved in politics down to a local level and it's working.
We have conservative schoolboards across the country deciding what will be taught, activist ideological judges waiting for Federalist Society-trained lawyers to bring the next case deregulating another corpo safeguard and religious fundamentalists regulating peoples genitals.
Well, nothing where a human is in charge. I’d rather let Bing AI take the wheel. AI isn’t greedy or ambitious for one so no need to go full totalitarian like every single revolution.
People fail to realize that socialism isn’t just an ideology but a process. It involves looking back at previous attempts and learning from their mistakes and improving.
Hey, you cut it out with that education! How are people supposed to falsly believe that socialism is China or Russia or Vuvuzela if you go around explaining how it’s not?
You are right that it’s a political shit show, but that government is nowhere near socialist. Spending a bit of money on social programs whilst existing under a typical corrupted “democracy” that decided to go in to massive debt based on a single-resource export… isn’t socialism. It’s mismanagement.
I think it's important to distinguish socialism and Marxism here, since you're referring pretty specifically to Marxist theory.
That said, you're not wrong - Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight. The fall of the monarchy was the result of class struggle, but so was the fall of the Soviet union; the Bolsheviks had just replaced the ruling elite, walking on two legs in Orwells terms. In this sense, every revolution could be understood under the logic of Marxism, as "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".
But then we're speaking about a Marxist understanding of history, not a socialist ideal for society.
Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight
We’ve been backsliding heavily since the 50s. I mean, things might be better than the industrial revolution but wealth inequality is even worse.
It doesn't need to be a unidirectional process - things get worse, the proletariat revolts, and they get better. Then things get worse again, and they revolt again. Eventually we reach a stable point where things are good enough for the proletariat to stop revolting - and that would be the communist society.
That said, while I largely subscribe to a Marxist understanding of history, I don't personally find historical determinism very convincing. Marx' theory might even have been a self-defeating prophesy, as it taught the ruling classes the mechanisms of history it needed to defeat in order to stay in power. The American right wing might not be fans of Marx, but they for sure ripped a page from his book to understand the importance of union busting.
In the unlikely event you’re a gamer, have you heard of Disco Elysium? It explores the concept that centrism or neutrality is actually the worst of social order choices (worse than fascism or communism) because you end up with the unending status quo. And holding the status quo in the middle (controlling the right and the left simultaneously) leaves a select few with absolute power.
The game points out that the most meaningful changes in human history have come from bloody revolts or extremist ideologies but neutrality and “radical centrism” leads to this kind of malaise in which power brokers can control things unendingly. I feel like that’s sort of what America has become.
It kind of echoes the old mantra that evil triumphs when good men do nothing - as opposed to when evil men do evil things. At the end of the day the thing to be concerned about is probably the combination of the two.
I'm not much of a gamer, but I do have a Nintendo Switch lying around somewhere - I might check out Disco Elysium if I find myself with time on my hands! Thanks for the recommendation. :)
It should also be noted that socialism or communism for that matter have never been implemented in practice. What we‘ve had so far were either just totalitarian regimes or a mixed systems. Mixed systems that tended to be more socialist than capitalist were destroyed by the USA before they had any chance of showing any results. Socialism ever working anywhere in the world would endanger the top 1%‘s wealth and status in the US since people would start demanding change and that’s exactly what the rich don’t want.
Fixing would be if we had logical productive discussions about these. But the US government is fundamentally broken and it is functionally impossible to fix these things in a reasonable amount of time.
Sure, you can get to a utopia by first destroying the old system, just look at how nice the world is in Star Trek.
It’s going to suuuuuck for you though, living through the apocalypse needed to clean out the old system. It might be quicker overall, but I wouldn’t wish that pain on the current generations of people living in the US.
The fun part is that you’re on lemmy and I’m surprised no one has called you a conservative yet. This is because all of your ideas involve keeping the current system, and many people around here specifically want full socialism, Marxism, what have you
Socialist by degree - but he mentions these things but not necessarily replacing the current system entirely. This is basically market socialism, which many (mainly Marxist-Leninists and the like) do not consider true socialism. There are a lot of MLs on lemmy. Hence my saying I’m surprised no one has come in yet to tell him he’s not going far enough. We came close, someone called these fixes with the possible implication that he isn’t going far enough, but not outright
Add comment