this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45724 readers
64 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All strains of Socialism are democratic, it's a bit redundant to include unless you're trying to emphasize the democratic factor as opposed to our current system.
Democratic centralism is generally anti-democratic. The most charitable view is it's technocratic, but mostly it just involves power politics.
Democratic Centralism just means the decisions democratically made are binding, it's still democratic.
Democratic socialism (DemSoc) is a specific term (not to be confused with SocDem). Unless your point was that DemSoc is a bad term?
DemSoc itself is a bad term. It either is used to refer to Reformist Socialism (which is an impossibility and thus akin to astrology) or to pretend Marxist Socialism isn't democratic, advocating for factionalism and other possibilities of Socialism itself being destroyed by international moneyed interests and domestic wreckers.
Are you some kind of maximalist?
In what manner?
Yes this is what I believe as well but to many people Socialism is synonymous with authoritarianism. Many of those people are amenable to Socialist ideas if not able to be won over completely as you and I have been.
Also, (not to begin the debate about AES) but I think its fair to say that where many socialist projects have failed is in the arena of democracy. Maybe its just a feature of the tradition I come from, but to me that commitment to democracy has to be constantly renewed. Not bourgeois democracy but worker democracy. The working class has to learn real democracy in order to engage in political struggle in preparation to overthrow the ruling class.
Lenin was constantly stressing and renewing his commitment to democratic process, which was one of the reasons he was able to create the revolutionary party after 1905 that was able to seize power in 1917. And while he had no illusions about the limitations of democratic process within his historical moment, he always "bent the stick" in that direction which in my opinion was one of the things that made him such an effective leader prior to and up through the civil war period ending in 1921.
So I will always stress the importance of democracy, not only for the historic necessity and precedent but also because it is not enough to be good materialists (and there certainly has been a history of bad ones) but also good dialectitians, which means contextualizing our project through unificatiokn of the subjective and objective; and to fail to do so is to fail to be dialectical Marxists. If I have to work and debate with some Harringtonites in the process well that is just a necessity of the historical moment.
That's fair, but can backfire and delay radicalization, giving rise to "left" anticommunists that ultimately help contribute to antisocialism more than they do to pro-socialism, as their anticommunist views are magnified by bourgeois media. Chomsky, for example, is guilty of this.
This is where idealism and practical realism need to reach a balance. Unfortunately, in the face of international Capitalist and Imperialist dominance has forced stronger measures.
Yep, but Lenin also banned factionalism. He tried to combine worker participation and democracy with unity. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, of course, I just want to stress that even Lenin made concessions, and had to.
I understand, I just want to stress that you risk playing into anti-Marxist hands, which is the entire reason for DemSocs.
Honestly I find this comment irritating, as you're basically accusing me of being a crypto-reformist, when I explicitly call for an end of capitalism. As if I'm not constantly educating myself, And others to guard against this tendency of anti-marxism. Because I used the term "democratic socialism", regardless of the fact that I acknowledge the wrongheadedness of the reformist strains, still you say I might fall into anti Marxism. If that happens it won't be because I acknowledge democracy; and the fact that you think so little of my actual irl work because of my use of this term is insulting.
I'm going to refrain from criticizing you point by point, as you pedantically have done to me, and insist that I'm actually a good comrade, and hope you'll come to the realization that the movement needs us both. Otherwise we are just going to in-fight, which if I wanted to do that I would debate within the org that I work with, where I might be seen as a human, rather than online where the medium itself encourages back-biting, factionalism and elitism by design.
In other words, cut me a break comrade.
I didn't say you were anti-Marxist, just that the term "Democratic Socialism" carries the notion of Reformist Socialism, so some may interpret it that way. I was pointing it out because I believe you're well intentioned, comrade, not to pick a fight. I apologize if it came off in that manner.
I appreciate the clarification and good will, comrade.
In theory yes. In reality all socialist systems had surprisingly few changes of leadership after one guy rose to power of the "socialist" movement or party. And they don't really seem to trust their citizens to be socialist without a lot of fear, censorship, spying, silencing critics...
It's almost as if the majority of humans reject socialism. Which is weird but true.
There are numerous reasons for this. Stability in protecting revolution and genuine popular support are among the larger and more important reasons.
Neither are Capitalist states, and neither was Marx. Combatting international Capitalist influence was and is key for retaining Socialism.
Not true at all, actually. Those controlling the media want you to think it though.
I agree with a lot you are saying. No state can stay stable without some form of control and censorship as soon as it starts threatening the stability of the system. Capitalism does this as well. And they have a very effective propaganda machine.
I feel like capitalist propaganda is so effective because it resonates so well with the basic human instincts and the part of humans that wants to be better than others and is greedy. The monkey brain is competitive and hierarchical. Socialism requires a level of empathy and intelligence a lot of people don't have. They not only reject it because of media but also because they wanna climb that social ladder. No fun, if it doesn't exist.
The leaders of most socialist countries though, seemed to not stop at the anti socialist critics. Even other socialist voices that they didn't agree with got silenced (Mao, Pol Port, Xi Jing Ping making all his ministers disappear).
Also please don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing against socialism. I am trying to find a form of socialist society that relies on as few authority and violence as possible. I always wondered why the socialist countries struggle so much with keeping their people in, while most refugees try to get into the capitalist societies.
This is a massive confusion. Capitalism doesn't "appeal to human nature," aspects like greed are more expressed under it as they form the superstructure that reinforces the base. The base is the Mode of Production, which creates and reinforces aspects like ideology, politics, art, culture, etc which reinforce the Mode of Production in turn. Capitalism isn't natural, humans don't have an inherent draw to hierarchy, and Socialism doesn't requore empathy nor intelligence to implement.
Pol Pot explicitly rejected Marxism, and was stopped by Vietnamese Communists. Your ideas surrounding Mao and Xi Jinping are also unsupported.
You've already found them, it's AES countries. They use what they need to survive in a world currently dominated by Capitalism. Over time, the state will wither away more and more, but there's a reason that there are very, very few largish scale Anarchist projects.
Have you ever visited any of the AES Countries? They have a few rich and powerful families running everything and sucking up to daddy china. I have visited Laos and Vietnam and talked to the working people. They are suffering, barely making ends meed and are fed up with the people in power taking everything for themselves and living in luxury. And if they talk too much about it they get "visitors". These people in power over there are not working class. There is also absolutely no basic healthcare. If you get sick you die. I am sorry but for me a socialist country does not have an elite living on luxury and it doesn't have people dying of poverty and lack of healthcare.
Look at trendlines. This is a figure for the USSR, which often also gets slandered as you have done.
Vietnam and Laos are Socialist, and remain to be so. Socialism isn't defined as "everyone is pleased," it's a transitional state to Communism. Look at metrics over time, don't analyze immediate snapshots.
What are you trying to say with this graph? That distribution of wealth is better when it is distributed amongst less than 1% of the population of they call themselves proletarian? Or that it is somehow better if standard of living goes down for everyone just because the then nonexistent ressources are shared equally?
In a perfect world a whole cake is shared equally by all 8 people. But if you smash half the cake, give a quarter to one person and the remaining quarter to the remaining 7 it is not better than 2 ppl having half a cake and letting the other 6 have the other half. Maybe not the best example but I hope you get my point.
If not having equal but good standard of living, what is it we are strivong for?
I suggest this link as a good read. Because I think just strictly defending the existing socialist countries is actually hindering progress towards a both fair and high quality of life society.
https://queer-bolshevik.medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now-a8666de371da
You haven't interpreted the graphs correctly. That the share of the top 1% got reduced during USSR times is what the graph is showing, and it was much greater before and it's much greater after. The remaining population had a bigger share of the total wealth of the country during socialism than they did before or than they do after. Please re-read the graphs.
But that's not what happened, and you would know if you had read about the topic before making claims out of your ass. The wealth of the USSR and its citizens grew MASSIVELY during its existence. The country went from a preindustrial, almost feudal backwater, with 80+% of population being farmers working the fields with manual labor, to the second world power. The gains in living quality for citizens were absolutely massive. Free healthcare, education and public retirement pensions for everyone, millions of living units were built yearly, and were rented to families for an average of 3-5% of their income making homeless disappear, everyone was guaranteed to have a job available if they wanted to work with the average time to finding a job being 2 weeks, real consumption rose, during the worst years, at a rate of 3% per year... If you really want to study the evolution of soviet quality of life, I recommend you the book "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", by Albert Szymanski. Please, refrain from making false claims about the material living conditions in other countries that you patiently haven't made any effort to inform yourself about.
Where on Earth did you get those ideas? I am saying AES countries have dramatically reduced wealth inequality and have been very progressive forces. Read the graph.
You're right, that isn't the best example, because it's entirely non-applicable and horrible for representing the reality of AES states. Even then, the idea that resources should be shared equally is anti-Marxist, Marx specifically wanted resources distributed by needs in upper stage Communism, which is an extremely advanced form of Socialism. You're fighting ghosts.
We are striving for continued improvements for the Proletariat. Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
This link is left-anticommunist nonsense that is utter idealism.
You're coming off as an ulraleftist that doesn't understand Historical and Dialectical Materialism, I have no idea what you're advocating for nor how you plan on achieving it.
Funny how you just disregard the information without actually going into it at all.
Coming off as someone blindly following another form of oppression by a bourgeoise elite claiming to be proletarian.
I was hoping for some actual insights.
Nothing you said had any substance. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "another bourgeois elite claiming to be proletarian?" What do you believe makes someone bourgeoisie? You have no analysis and lack critical understanding.
China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world and they are tied to "state owned companies". And you try to tell me it's a socialist country. Billionaires should not exist in a socialist country. If the economic gains of labour land in the hands of a few billionaires, this makes them bourgeoisie. Even though they claim to be socialist. But you seem to be as blinded by their propaganda as you claim the western people to be of capitalist propaganda because you can't seem to grasp what's wrong with these so called socialist countries.
"State Owned Enterprises" is the term. Anyway, is this actually true? My impression was that the billionaires had private companies (Alibaba, etc.) and SOEs did not produce them.
Read China Has Billionaires. The fact that the PRC has a bourgeoisie class does not mean it is not Socialist.
"Q: Will it be possible for Private Property to be abolished at one stroke?
A: No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."
-Engels, The Principles of Communism
Why not? I agree that wealth disparity is a bad thing, and can be dangerous if it is allowed to alter the course of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but you need to actually make a claim for why. Socialism isn't good because it follows an arbitrary condition of ideals to meet definitions, but because it elevates the proletariat as its focus.
Not necessarily, nor is this true of what the distribution of production looks like in the PRC. The PRC does have a bourgeoisie, but this does not mean it isn't Socialist. By your logic, the US is Socialist because the Post Office is state run.
I am bombarded by western propaganda every single day, the idea that eastern propaganda, of which I am exposed to very little, is the driving factor of my analysis is absurd.
Read theory.
Glances nervously at the ultra-nationalist strains
Some are more democratic than others, certainly.
It is exhausting to hear people smuggly denounce AES states as dysfunctional, by citing their trend towards nationalizarion of capital and popularization of policy. Particularly when the same folks will scream bloody murder if you don't continue to mechanically endorse their brand of corporate liberalism.
I genuinely am not really sure what you're getting at, here. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I am stating that AES is democratic as is Marxism in general, and am saying that liberals often use the nebulous, ill-defined term of "Democratic Socialism" as an AES cudgel.
I see liberals try to equate any kind of public sector combined with a national election system as Democratic Socialism. Which gets you the Nordic Model - a collection of petrostates with an egalitarian veneer and a white supremacist underbelly - labeled "Democratic Socialism" on paper.
Meanwhile, actual social democracies in Latin America, Africa, and East Asia are denounced as authoritarian every time the Neoliberal (or outright reactionary) local politician loses an election.
Marxism is Democratic in theory. Leninism is more popular than democratic, as Leninists aren't wedded to electoralism like their liberal peers.
But the critique I see most often among liberals is that markets are democratic. And therefore every AES state that fails to sufficiently privatize the economy is definitely facto authoritarian.
That's the real definitional divide between Marxists and Liberal Democrats.