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.
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.
Dude you still don't stop worker exploitation, don't solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don't end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world), and just set up a future capitalist takeover and descent into neoliberal hell.
You really haven't read any theory. At all. Did you take one silly phrase and think you had something?! Your politics are immature and uninformed. Please read theory.
Socialism is my ideal, communism is my ideal, any world where the oppressed are free and the fascists, capitalists, and neoliberals are gulaged is my ideal
Did you think comrade stalin's name in my user was ironic? I'm a communist, through and through. Its not my fault my blood beats red and my heart is on the left.
Because they don't own the means of production. Socialism isn't just redirecting capital, it is about eliminating it and the ruling class. Profit sharing is a bandaid on the grand canyon; workers are still exploited by the capital class. Socialism is a completely and total shift so large and threatening to the ruling class that it can only happen through revolution, it's way bigger than sharing profits
how redirecting capital from the capital class to the working class is anything other than socialism.
Theres this concept, where the Capitalists are expropriated from and reproletarianized back into the working class whom in turn seize full control of the means of production and abolish the capitalist governments in order to build governments of/by/for the working class. Thats called building Socialism, and to do anything other than working towards the goal of liquidating the enemies of the working class is to do anything other than fighting for socialism.
Taking money from the rich and simply redistributing it a la your "profit sharing" does not solve the fundamental contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class as it does nothing to change the economic structure the two exist in opposition to each other. If nothing else. all you're advocating for is prolonging the existence of Capitalism and fighting against the interests of your own class by advocating for maintaining the cruel system of Capitalism but trying to disguise the worst visages it wears with smiley face emojis
No lol that's just welfare - something that can be done regardless of what economic system is in place. Now if you want a discussion on a contrastive analysis of the class dynamics of welfare under a Socialist and Capitalist system, that'd be an interesting topic to research into.
I think it's a whole field of research I'm not very familiar with. Personally, I'd start looking into the history of welfare in England a la the late feudal and emerging capitalist period of social welfare known as the "poor laws", seeing how they would develop into the more familiar contemporary welfare system of the UK, then delving into U.S history of welfare during the same period, and then examining the Tsarist Russian period and the Soviet period's welfare systems. But if you want to abbreviate that a bit then simply doing a contrasting analysis of social welfare of the U.S and the U.S.S.R in whatever period you desired to learn about.
Now in terms of what I know and can extrapolate off the top of my head, social welfare as broadly defined to include education, health, and social security under a socialist or capitalist system tend to wildly differ from one another in some aspects and in others - depending on states - appear similar.
On education, nearly all countries have some form of compulsory education that tend to be state funded to a certain ages with variations being dictated by their own national standards. An example of this could be how the U.S and R.O.K has free public school from the ages 5 to 19 with university being individually funded whereas Japan and the PRC has free public education from the ages 6 to 15 with high school onwards being individually funded. (Reasons why so will have to be researched in-depth). There's also other minor variations such as the subsidization of aspects of compulsory education. With the exception of Sweden, Finland, Estonia and India the entire world has do not have universal free school lunch in compulsory education as funded by their State. This means it is left to the prerogative to every level below the State from province, to the city, to the school, etc. on the question of free/paid school lunch in compulsory education. Similar stuff can be looked into for school supplies, mandatory uniforms, education materials, etc.
On health, it's also a mixed bag. The question of analysis can simply range from the availability of universal healthcare to the level of depth of funding for aspects of it depending on the standards desired by differing States. One can look at the ratio of doctors and other medical positions to the number of citizens, how healthcare is distributed, and so forth. This is more so outside my knowledge and probably needs someone more familiar with the field to examine and explain details on.
On social security, which may be broader than the first two, range from examining unemployment, senior citizen, housing, food, or a plethora more subjects as it's as broad in scope as the society it's directed towards. One can examine how differently houselessness is addressed in differing states as houselessness and combatting it tend to fall under multiple forms of social security. A simple barometer would be analyzing whether or not the state recognizes economic rights of its citizens and seeks to pursue those rights for its citizens. On this regard I can throw in this link called "China’s Employment Policies and Strategies" By Yan DI, Research fellow of the Chinese Academy of Labour and Social Security, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, P.R.China.
I'd primarily argue the main distinction of welfare under a socialist or capitalist system is in how each system performs its duties on social security and whether or not the economic rights of the worker are the primary concern of the State or not. From that point onwards it becomes the tedious task of administration of building the socio-economic structures to address the needs of social security.
thats because you're a dipshit idealist with your head up your ass in the clouds fantasizing about make-believe shit and denouncing everything that isn't as ephemeral and pure as a thought. Your entire ideology is that of theatrics that thinks nothing of concrete human beings, not the concrete workers of flesh and blood who are living and struggling in your country - or any country for that matter - but is an ideology devoid of materialist common sense.
You're a liberal phrasemonger - Advocating for things and using phrases are Leftist, but in practice it turns out that they are aiding the enemies of the working class. You talk like you're on the Left but in actuality come out on the Right.
I'm sorry you just did the fallacy-fallacy and your entire argument and opinion are now disregarded. Please return to the Rochester School of Rhetoric to obtain your speaking license.
A tankie is a hardline ML in your opinion yes? Did you know most "tankies" read theory to better understand the world and are definitely more knowledgeable than "socialists" (by which you mean libs who aren't actually socialist like yourself)
I'm not really in the business of sourcing things to users from an instance that is basically a Sealioning factory.
Ultimately, I will get told I don't understand economics until I've read all three volumes of Das Kapital. Ironically, it's no different that libertarians saying you don't understand economics unless you've read the works of Milton Friedman, or more importantly, Ayn Rand.
"When you make a contentious claim and someone asks for a source that's them doing a logical fallacy"
Ultimately, I will get told I don't understand economics until I've read all three volumes of Das Kapital. Ironically, it's no different that libertarians saying you don't understand economics unless you've read the works of Milton Friedman, or more importantly, Ayn Rand.
Okay, except as part of the background of growing up in the imperial core youre already exposed to their ideology so you don't need to read it. You're not really exposed to Marxism here and you need a background to understand it.
I agree capital isn't the best starting point but for some reason anti-communists love trying to argue economics when they know nothing about economics, so thats when capital generally gets brought up and its become a meme from that.
What to you is a tankie. Are they in the room with us right now? Anyway I'm disengaging because you're clearly a debatebro (and lib) who can't argue in good faith. but I'll leave you a link to hexbears policy posting bulletins
I agree. This is why I caution more nuanced takes on economics. A lot of people on Hexbear think a revolution occuring in the US is going to look like 1917, but really it's going to be more like 1923. Take a look at the closest we have been to a "revolution" since 1776.
The question is just how bad things are going to get before socialism happens. It might get to fascists killing people like me in the streets beforehand, but fascism will not resolve the contradictions of capitalism and will not prevent the inevitability of socialism.
This is a human problem that cannot seem to be fixed. It feels like a simulation how history is constantly stuck in the same power cycles without sustained improvement.
There are innocent people who have been conditioned to think the status quo is the best we have, who themselves are victims of misinformation. The only left-wing revolutions I've seen in history involves purging these people from society, which eventually creates the left wing gestapos, like the NKVD. These organizations persist to squash dissidents and millions of deaths later these countries revert to capitalism or quasi-capitalism due to a failed system.
I don't know what the best answer to it is, but there are no quick fixes.
As someone who knew people who were in nazi concentration camps, Im done talking with you about this. You're wrong and you're being incredibly offensive.
Both organizations participated in overwhelming amount of extrajudicial killings.
Of who?
Incidentally, both organizations also purged socialists.
Arresting someone for a crime who happens to be a socialist is exactly the same as purging socialists for being socialists because you think they're secret agents of the Jews.
This is the laziest equivocation I've ever seen and you should eat a pile of leaves.
Again, coming from a German instance you should be more mindful. Equating a fascist regime and a socialist state is actually a fascist talking point disguised as centrism.
Extrajudicial killings are definitely not good when you just look at it in a vacuum/without context and noone argues in favor of that. Not on hexbear at least.
That said, looking at things without context is not dialectical aka lib. And the context here being WW2..
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.
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.
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.
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
There were like two times your revolutions were important enough to exist: Spain and Soviet Union. Both times you were a competitor that killed us just as much
Miss, fuck off. Everytime I try to be reasonable and charitable and try to actually have a conversation I just get mocked. None of you have any interest to learn or reach out, no matter how much nuance you claim to stand for. You just repeat the same quotes and memes implanted in your heads ad infinitum. You don't know anything of what you're talking about, you've just been told things that you keep repeating without ever bothering to actually look into it yourself. You give us no nuance, no benefit of the doubt, no "its complicated", just a very big middle finger. But then you turn around, expect us to do be charitable to you, and pretend like we're at fault when we aren't. Happens alllll the fucking time.
You're not even from lemmygrad! You're from the "left unity" one! I see now that it's the "almost entirely ML but anarchists that shut the fuck up are fine I guess" kind of "left unity".
Everytime I try to be reasonable and charitable and try to actually have a conversation I just get mocked.
I have very little time to care about your personal feelings on the matter. I mock everyone, from friend to foe. I'm a bitch.
None of you have any interest to learn or reach out, no matter how much nuance you claim to stand for.
Just because I'm a bitch who doesn't want to give your shit the time of day, doesn't mean thats the same for everyone else. You even have a very nice comrade giving you some nice conversation in this same reply chain!
You just repeat the same quotes and memes implanted in your heads ad infinitum. You don't know anything of what you're talking about, you've just been told things that you keep repeating without ever bothering to actually look into it yourself.
I could say the same thing about you, but in this case it would be true. I have read quite a lot of theory, and done a lot of work in my community (primarily in environmental relief). Its really offensive to say that I just don't know what I'm talking about. Like, I know you know what you're talking about, I just don't care that you do. I have decided that Marxism Leninism is the best way to go about things, due to its usefulness, and will discard every other answer until I see Marxism Leninism as less useful.
Other comrades are better than me, I just really don't care. I will care more at some point, but I'm in a really shit place mentally, so im not going to try for this.
I regard your opinions as shit, not that of all anarchists, I debate their criticisms to myself every day (many are fair). I do not regard them with the same attitude as you. I respect them, you have not earned that.
You're not even from lemmygrad! You're from the "left unity" one! I see now that it's the "almost entirely ML but anarchists that shut the fuck up are fine I guess" kind of "left unity".
ive been on lemmygrad for two years, baby. This is my hexbear alt. Get a grip and stop jumping to conclusions.
you seem to be the same thing as me, but in reverse. Don't try to take a moral high ground where you have none, its very infantile.
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.
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.
Not sure what your point here is mate
I didn't expect you to
Lmao good talk
no, because you're literally just being fucking stupid
No, it's literally socialism 101 so I wouldn't expect a tankie to understand.
I've read all three volumes of capital around a month ago because I had an autistic urge to do it
tell me with full seriousness that you've even glanced at it
My dog has been exposed to more theory via audiobooks than that lib
Literally some basic engels socialism utopian and scientific would throw this boy for a loop
deleted by creator
cries
This is the worst attempt at Sealioning that I have ever seen.
Please tell me with full seriousness how redirecting capital from the capital class to the working class is anything other than socialism.
DUDE YOU ARE LITERALLY JUST MAKING UP SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AGAIN
you definitely have not read a single page of marxist theory
Social democracy sounds great, sign me up.
Dude you still don't stop worker exploitation, don't solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don't end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world), and just set up a future capitalist takeover and descent into neoliberal hell.
You really haven't read any theory. At all. Did you take one silly phrase and think you had something?! Your politics are immature and uninformed. Please read theory.
Ok let me know how your method works out because right now it's neither.
The method has worked, is working, and will work
you won't see it though, I hope to kill people like you
If course you would, like a good little authoritarian.
In my ideal society I'd give people like you the freedom you deserve.
Only a person with no moral compass would disagree with the banning of such terrible ideologies
My ideal society is real, yours never has been
Pick one. It's either real or ideal, therefore fantasy.
Socialism is my ideal, communism is my ideal, any world where the oppressed are free and the fascists, capitalists, and neoliberals are gulaged is my ideal
Did you think comrade stalin's name in my user was ironic? I'm a communist, through and through. Its not my fault my blood beats red and my heart is on the left.
It is your fault, actually.
communism is in our nature, to deny it is to deny your humanity
Oh so you're into dehumanizing too.
She literally didn't
Well if that's not part of my belief system then I'm apparently not human. Probably explains why she wanted to kill me.
Literally not what she said though.
Regardless of whatever word games you want to play, you have to admit wanting to kill someone is the ultimate way of dehumanizing someone.
That was not accepted on our end either. In this particular instance however you're the one playing games.
No, she said she wanted to kill me because I support democratic socialism.
games
How so?
Low energy, I'm done.
I'll work on improving society in achievable ways so you guys can save your energy debating whether Mao or Stalin was better at crushing dissidents.
Damn you're right, guess I gotta give her credit for deciding to be cool as fuck
No one gives a shit about your ideal society, because we don't live in your imagination land.
Because they don't own the means of production. Socialism isn't just redirecting capital, it is about eliminating it and the ruling class. Profit sharing is a bandaid on the grand canyon; workers are still exploited by the capital class. Socialism is a completely and total shift so large and threatening to the ruling class that it can only happen through revolution, it's way bigger than sharing profits
But you have to agree it’s a lot closer to socialism than the status quo.
No, it is the status quo. What you're describing is capitalism. It is not closer to socialism.
Please link me to the careers page of these plentiful jobs that engage in substantive profit sharing for all working class employees.
Profits go to the capital class currently, that's the whole problem, right?
You've never heard the term "stock option"?
Lol I guess you people never have had actual jobs if you believe that is remotely common for the working class.
Hmm, I wonder if there might be a reason they aren't common for the working class.
So it's not the status quo like you actually said. Great talk buddy.
Where did I say that?
Sorry, it was your Hexbear friend. You all sound the same, hard to keep track.
Lol, moron.
That's exactly what I would say if someone thought stock options were available to the working class.
They are.
Lol, moron.
You sure went from "it's socialism 101, you stupid tankie!" to "well it's a marginal improvement on the status quo..." really quickly.
It's actually quite a massive departure from the status quo, really.
K. Doesn't change my point.
It quite literally does, the operative word being "marginal"
It quite literally doesn't, remove the word marginal and the point remains the same.
Ok
Theres this concept, where the Capitalists are expropriated from and reproletarianized back into the working class whom in turn seize full control of the means of production and abolish the capitalist governments in order to build governments of/by/for the working class. Thats called building Socialism, and to do anything other than working towards the goal of liquidating the enemies of the working class is to do anything other than fighting for socialism.
Taking money from the rich and simply redistributing it a la your "profit sharing" does not solve the fundamental contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class as it does nothing to change the economic structure the two exist in opposition to each other. If nothing else. all you're advocating for is prolonging the existence of Capitalism and fighting against the interests of your own class by advocating for maintaining the cruel system of Capitalism but trying to disguise the worst visages it wears with smiley face emojis
Ok. But you have to agree it's a lot closer to socialism than the status quo.
No lol that's just welfare - something that can be done regardless of what economic system is in place. Now if you want a discussion on a contrastive analysis of the class dynamics of welfare under a Socialist and Capitalist system, that'd be an interesting topic to research into.
That does sound super interesting, any thoughts immediately spring to mind?
I think it's a whole field of research I'm not very familiar with. Personally, I'd start looking into the history of welfare in England a la the late feudal and emerging capitalist period of social welfare known as the "poor laws", seeing how they would develop into the more familiar contemporary welfare system of the UK, then delving into U.S history of welfare during the same period, and then examining the Tsarist Russian period and the Soviet period's welfare systems. But if you want to abbreviate that a bit then simply doing a contrasting analysis of social welfare of the U.S and the U.S.S.R in whatever period you desired to learn about.
Now in terms of what I know and can extrapolate off the top of my head, social welfare as broadly defined to include education, health, and social security under a socialist or capitalist system tend to wildly differ from one another in some aspects and in others - depending on states - appear similar.
On education, nearly all countries have some form of compulsory education that tend to be state funded to a certain ages with variations being dictated by their own national standards. An example of this could be how the U.S and R.O.K has free public school from the ages 5 to 19 with university being individually funded whereas Japan and the PRC has free public education from the ages 6 to 15 with high school onwards being individually funded. (Reasons why so will have to be researched in-depth). There's also other minor variations such as the subsidization of aspects of compulsory education. With the exception of Sweden, Finland, Estonia and India the entire world has do not have universal free school lunch in compulsory education as funded by their State. This means it is left to the prerogative to every level below the State from province, to the city, to the school, etc. on the question of free/paid school lunch in compulsory education. Similar stuff can be looked into for school supplies, mandatory uniforms, education materials, etc.
On health, it's also a mixed bag. The question of analysis can simply range from the availability of universal healthcare to the level of depth of funding for aspects of it depending on the standards desired by differing States. One can look at the ratio of doctors and other medical positions to the number of citizens, how healthcare is distributed, and so forth. This is more so outside my knowledge and probably needs someone more familiar with the field to examine and explain details on.
On social security, which may be broader than the first two, range from examining unemployment, senior citizen, housing, food, or a plethora more subjects as it's as broad in scope as the society it's directed towards. One can examine how differently houselessness is addressed in differing states as houselessness and combatting it tend to fall under multiple forms of social security. A simple barometer would be analyzing whether or not the state recognizes economic rights of its citizens and seeks to pursue those rights for its citizens. On this regard I can throw in this link called "China’s Employment Policies and Strategies" By Yan DI, Research fellow of the Chinese Academy of Labour and Social Security, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, P.R.China.
I'd primarily argue the main distinction of welfare under a socialist or capitalist system is in how each system performs its duties on social security and whether or not the economic rights of the worker are the primary concern of the State or not. From that point onwards it becomes the tedious task of administration of building the socio-economic structures to address the needs of social security.
Holy shit comrade, this fucking rocks! Favoriting this immediately so I can re-read this when I'm more sober
I guess in your universe there's no true socialism, eh?
Nope, the Soviet Union was Socialist. All other AES projects are also moving towards becoming socialist as well in their own distinctive manner.
It doesn't change you're a fucking liberal that thinks socialism is when you redistribute wealth without changing the existing economic system.
There are no pure economic systems that currently exist or have ever existed.
I wouldn't expect users from Hexbear to understand nuance.
thats because you're a dipshit idealist with your head
up your assin the clouds fantasizing about make-believe shit and denouncing everything that isn't as ephemeral and pure as a thought. Your entire ideology is that of theatrics that thinks nothing of concrete human beings, not the concrete workers of flesh and blood who are living and struggling in your country - or any country for that matter - but is an ideology devoid of materialist common sense.You're a liberal phrasemonger - Advocating for things and using phrases are Leftist, but in practice it turns out that they are aiding the enemies of the working class. You talk like you're on the Left but in actuality come out on the Right.
Ok this has been a lot of fun, thanks.
🌽
whataboutism
That's not whataboutism, that was the original argument.
You guys are the worst trolls in the fediverse.
I'm sorry you just did the fallacy-fallacy and your entire argument and opinion are now disregarded. Please return to the Rochester School of Rhetoric to obtain your speaking license.
you are now my queen
I love your name btw
Ok I'll keep that in mind.
A tankie is a hardline ML in your opinion yes? Did you know most "tankies" read theory to better understand the world and are definitely more knowledgeable than "socialists" (by which you mean libs who aren't actually socialist like yourself)
No, but one of the top posts in the "tankiverse" recently was saying that places like North Korea are the bastions of freedom.
More nuanced takes on communism, etc are done instances other than Hexbear and Lemmygrad.
Why does your opinion on the DPRK align with propaganda from a country that killed 20 percent of all Koreans to prevent a unified democratic Korea?
Why do you act like any one right of Karl Marx must be a dunce who blindly supports the global status quo?
You're acting like it when you repeat American attitudes about the dprk.
Sometimes it be that way.
Source that isnt aligned with US interests?
I'm not really in the business of sourcing things to users from an instance that is basically a Sealioning factory.
Ultimately, I will get told I don't understand economics until I've read all three volumes of Das Kapital. Ironically, it's no different that libertarians saying you don't understand economics unless you've read the works of Milton Friedman, or more importantly, Ayn Rand.
"When you make a contentious claim and someone asks for a source that's them doing a logical fallacy"
Okay, except as part of the background of growing up in the imperial core youre already exposed to their ideology so you don't need to read it. You're not really exposed to Marxism here and you need a background to understand it.
I agree capital isn't the best starting point but for some reason anti-communists love trying to argue economics when they know nothing about economics, so thats when capital generally gets brought up and its become a meme from that.
Have you considered not being or doing that?
Link me to a nuanced take please
What to you is a tankie. Are they in the room with us right now? Anyway I'm disengaging because you're clearly a debatebro (and lib) who can't argue in good faith. but I'll leave you a link to hexbears policy posting bulletins
A tankie is a supporter of an authoritarian country that either is, or presents itself as, a left wing.
Pretty unambiguous definition.
You need to define authoritarian in a way that doesn't include basically every country for that to be a reasonable definition.
Jails dissidents without a modicum of due process.
Yeah it's a problem in a lot of countries, welcome to the "status quo".
Thank you for acknowledging that it is basically useless because it is just a thing states do.
Also fascists and other reactionary dissidents should be repressed when they try to organize.
I agree. This is why I caution more nuanced takes on economics. A lot of people on Hexbear think a revolution occuring in the US is going to look like 1917, but really it's going to be more like 1923. Take a look at the closest we have been to a "revolution" since 1776.
The question is just how bad things are going to get before socialism happens. It might get to fascists killing people like me in the streets beforehand, but fascism will not resolve the contradictions of capitalism and will not prevent the inevitability of socialism.
This is a human problem that cannot seem to be fixed. It feels like a simulation how history is constantly stuck in the same power cycles without sustained improvement.
There are innocent people who have been conditioned to think the status quo is the best we have, who themselves are victims of misinformation. The only left-wing revolutions I've seen in history involves purging these people from society, which eventually creates the left wing gestapos, like the NKVD. These organizations persist to squash dissidents and millions of deaths later these countries revert to capitalism or quasi-capitalism due to a failed system.
I don't know what the best answer to it is, but there are no quick fixes.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
As someone who knew people who were in nazi concentration camps, Im done talking with you about this. You're wrong and you're being incredibly offensive.
Turns out you were serious. Perhaps you should log off the internet and open a history book, friend.
Maybe you should listen to the literal mainstream historical position instead of pop history.
The Gestapo and NKVD were both oppressive secret police organizations. Why is it controversial to say this?
I was genuinely trying to turn this into a good-faith debate and was going to note it as my first positive interaction with a Hexbear user.
One was opressing communists, ethnic and sexual minorities, one was opressing capitalists and other reactionaries
You equate the two...
Please look into the tolerance paradox
Coming from a German instance you should be more mindful
Both organizations participated in overwhelming amount of extrajudicial killings. Incidentally, both organizations also purged socialists.
Of who?
Arresting someone for a crime who happens to be a socialist is exactly the same as purging socialists for being socialists because you think they're secret agents of the Jews.
This is the laziest equivocation I've ever seen and you should eat a pile of leaves.
Again, coming from a German instance you should be more mindful. Equating a fascist regime and a socialist state is actually a fascist talking point disguised as centrism.
Extrajudicial killings are definitely not good when you just look at it in a vacuum/without context and noone argues in favor of that. Not on hexbear at least.
That said, looking at things without context is not dialectical aka lib. And the context here being WW2..
Yeah this is what I would say too if I didn't understand history.
Yeah this what I would say too if I only understood one version of history.
So all countries then.
So your definition of tankie is "a supporter of country that either is, or presents itself, as left wing."
I thought it was implied it meant socialist or communist.
What does?
The post you responded to...
Which part?
Ya know what, nevermind.
🌽
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.
You aren’t new you are in a tradition of 200 years of stepping onto rakes. Your face plant is not innovative
It's very far from new, and it has failed entirely to bring about socialism time and time again through history.
You will never achieve socialism if you just passively support the status quo while condemning all forms of AES for not being pure enough.
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.
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.
My sibling in Christ you mentioned Stalin, a leader of the USSR, and this entire thread is about socialist states
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.
Are you seriously not aware of what the US has been doing to crush left-wing movements around the world for the last 80 years?
What decade were you born in?
1993 every time. They always “know” what the USSR was like better than their tankie grandparents
Yup, it's shocking how consistent it is.
When and where did you live in a SSR?
Did an AI write this? You didn't actually respond to anything I said.
Neither did you.
I clearly did, but by all means, go with "no u" and see how convincing it is.
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.
Ok, so what is your new strategy then?
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.
Ok, that's all well and good, but nothing new, so what's the new strategy you mentioned?
The workers party we are forming will be domocratic with no strongman.
Ok, but what's the new strategy?
Hexbear users don't operate in good faith so no point in actually trying to engage them in good faith. They will wear you out if you do.
We engage in good faith only so long as we are met with good faith, if you aren't going to respect us we have no reason to respect you
Well as long as you have a sub dedicated to "dunking on libs" we both know that is not true.
Hey now, the dunk tank is also for chuds
Just stop being a lib and be a communist. It’s one quick trick hexbears don’t want you to know
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?
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.
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.
I am quoting Parenti. You'll need to read Blackshirts & Reds to get an answer -- that's where the quote is from -- or one of his other books.
Thanks for ignoring everything I said.
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 really appreciate this too. Thank you. I think as a direct expanding on what I'm talking about, this essay is very good:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary
It's available on video form too, but the video doesn't have citations.
Here's a good rebuttal of On Authority:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/london-anarchist-federation-the-problems-with-on-authority
A modern and a classical reading on how anarchists view authority and power:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-power
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority
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
Thank you for being willing to engage sanely in the first place. <3
There were like two times your revolutions were important enough to exist: Spain and Soviet Union. Both times you were a competitor that killed us just as much
Miss, fuck off. Everytime I try to be reasonable and charitable and try to actually have a conversation I just get mocked. None of you have any interest to learn or reach out, no matter how much nuance you claim to stand for. You just repeat the same quotes and memes implanted in your heads ad infinitum. You don't know anything of what you're talking about, you've just been told things that you keep repeating without ever bothering to actually look into it yourself. You give us no nuance, no benefit of the doubt, no "its complicated", just a very big middle finger. But then you turn around, expect us to do be charitable to you, and pretend like we're at fault when we aren't. Happens alllll the fucking time.
You're not even from lemmygrad! You're from the "left unity" one! I see now that it's the "almost entirely ML but anarchists that shut the fuck up are fine I guess" kind of "left unity".
I have very little time to care about your personal feelings on the matter. I mock everyone, from friend to foe. I'm a bitch.
Just because I'm a bitch who doesn't want to give your shit the time of day, doesn't mean thats the same for everyone else. You even have a very nice comrade giving you some nice conversation in this same reply chain!
I could say the same thing about you, but in this case it would be true. I have read quite a lot of theory, and done a lot of work in my community (primarily in environmental relief). Its really offensive to say that I just don't know what I'm talking about. Like, I know you know what you're talking about, I just don't care that you do. I have decided that Marxism Leninism is the best way to go about things, due to its usefulness, and will discard every other answer until I see Marxism Leninism as less useful.
Other comrades are better than me, I just really don't care. I will care more at some point, but I'm in a really shit place mentally, so im not going to try for this.
I regard your opinions as shit, not that of all anarchists, I debate their criticisms to myself every day (many are fair). I do not regard them with the same attitude as you. I respect them, you have not earned that.
ive been on lemmygrad for two years, baby. This is my hexbear alt. Get a grip and stop jumping to conclusions.
you seem to be the same thing as me, but in reverse. Don't try to take a moral high ground where you have none, its very infantile.