And if something did maybe happen, it’s the CIA’s fault

    • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I still don’t get how the far leftists (the types who think soc dems are basically the same as any flavor of lib, including libertarian, neolib, etc) are so convinced that socialism is the answer when there hasn’t been a country that even comes close to making it work. I guess China works for certain values of working, but it’s pretty capitalist these days, and you’ve got an overbearing government that goes along with it.

      Whereas countries like you see in Scandinavia, with strong soc dem policies under capitalism like high taxes on wealth and strong safety nets, seem to be doing pretty well. I get why socialism would be good in theory but implementing it is another story.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The short answer is that Socialism does work, and continues to work, and that SocDem countries like the Nordics depend on heavy exploitation of the Global South to fund their safety nets and still see shrinking worker power (a process Marxists call imperialism).

        The longer answer is that Marxists don’t believe Socialism is better than Capitalism for any moral reason, but because they are Dialectical and Historical Materialists. They track where Capitalism is necessarily heading, ie free competition gives way to monopolist syndicates with internal planning, socializing themselves and making them ripe for public ownership and central planning.

        A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The people who think .world is socialist also think socialism is when the government does things and that social democracy is a type of socialism and not a type of liberalism.

        This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            The CIA tried to kill Charles DeGaulle in 1961, but if the CIA isn’t trying to kill your leader, you’re not doing socialism.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.

          It’s funny that all the “AES” countries that are brought up are just authoritarian states, and sometimes, for that matter, authoritarian capitalist states. It’s almost like the people championing these supposedly socialist countries are just fascists painted red.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, basically. ‘Neoliberal’ and ‘lib’ are just snarl words many tankies use to mean “Anyone less fascist than Mao”.

        In general, .world is much less radical than many places on Lemmy. But they’re far from neoliberals. The average poster is slightly left of a Berniecrat, probably; that is to say, either a very strong SocDem or a very weak DemSoc.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Listen all I’m saying is that if we were so far left that Bernie was center right on policy the country would be a much better place for everyone.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Wouldn’t it be lovely? Unfortunately, we’ve got a lot of fighting on the ground to convince our fellow citizens to get their asses there instead of some weird 90s fantasy world.

            • shroomato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m theory, yes. In practice the idea of socialism has been hijacked and subverted by the same ruling class to serve their nefarious needs time and time again. Y’all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism. “Power to the people” my ass.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                No, it has not. Read Blackshirts and Reds, which I already linked. Communist movements served the Proletariat, not the Bourgeoisie. They also were by no means perfect “worker’s paradises.” Another good article is *Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” if you can only spare 20 minutes and not read a whole book.

                Y’all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism

                You should read On Authority, Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as “authoritarian” for advocating for central planning.

                • shroomato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don’t agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing “true” socialism.
                  I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can’t work. It’s simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of “socialism”.

                  Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as “authoritarian” for advocating for central planning.

                  Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don’t agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing “true” socialism.

                    There’s no such thing as “true socialism,” that’s part of the point of the article.

                    I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can’t work. It’s simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of “socialism”.

                    Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?

                    Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.

                    Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Eh, it’s a mixed bag. There’s a very high concentration of centrist, “vote blue, no matter who,” liberals in Political Memes. They’re not the whole instance, but they’ve made a nice little echo chamber that makes them a pretty loud minority.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world.

          Leftist messaging is increasingly popular as Capitalism decays, but that doesn’t mean everyone has read theory. Lemmy.world is largely populated by liberals sympathetic to an idealistic form of Socialism that is pure fantasy, and denounce AES as a betratal of Socialism. Blackshirts and Reds has an entire chapter dedicated to western “left” anticommunism.

          That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy?

          I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I believe Marxism to be correct and try to get others to read theory. I get deep satisfaction whenever someone changes their mind or reads theory because of what I comment and post.

          It’s not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution

          On what grounds do you say this? Revolution is happening all around the world every few years in different states, as Capitalism decays more people become sympathetic to leftism. It will likely happen latest in Imperialist countries like the US, where living standards are inflated by hyper-exploitation of the Global South, and happens all the time in the Global South. Trends exist, systems aren’t static, Capitalism cannot last forever. That would be like believing water could be continuously heated and never boil.

          At this point, it would just be Marxists “ackshually”-ing each other. I’m super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.

          To be clear, most Marxists don’t need to “ackshually” each other, just towards liberals. Liberals often have the same misconceptions, that doesn’t mean they aren’t changing their minds individually.