But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
The corrupt leaders were inevitable under the ideologies they devised. I swear people think it’s somehow an accident that Stalin and Mao were evil dictators and if only they weren’t we’d have true socialism. No. The system of Leninism is the centralization of power into a vanguard which limits dissent. All Leninist countries are fundamentally dictatorships. Dictatorships transfer power over time via dynastic means, and you always eventually get a power hungry madman when you do that without any checks and balances or democratic recall. And no other Marxist groups can get power enough to actually implement their ideas. QED socialism fails.
I swear people think it’s somehow an accident that Stalin and Mao were evil dictators and if only they weren’t we’d have true socialism.
I don’t know about Mao, but while Stalin being an evil dictator wasn’t an accident, Lenin being an evil dictator was. The Russian revolution wasn’t just the Bolsheviks; there were many different groups of which the Bolsheviks simply happened to come out on top because of a ton of coincidences and bad decisions by everyone else.
And no other Marxist groups can get power enough to actually implement their ideas. QED socialism fails.
The Ukrainians did it until they were invaded by the Soviets, and Rojava’s experiment seems to be mostly successful.
That’s literally the thing though, and perhaps where the USSR went wrong. There is no magic bullet that would make a small nation able to survive a large attack, asside from strong allies with a ton of bigger nations, and sadly being different, and a possible threat to the status quo, doesn’t help with that.
That’s like saying being a serial killer helps survival over being a law abiding citizen that cares about others. Proof when I put a law abiding citizen and a serial killer in a locked room… the law abiding citizen doesn’t live as long. Of course the reality is, being a serial killer is evolved as the exception rather than the rule in humans, because, with numbers not making enemies is a more succesful strategy than always making them.
Socialism never promised to be able to survive an assault by a vastly superior military force, that’s not how that works. It doesn’t promise to spread global revolution either.
Hmmm, then what are all those socialist internationals still lying around…. Marx and Engels literally believe that socialism was the alternative to capitalism, and capitalism is global. Socialism is an international movement, and basically can not exist “in one country” like Stalin tried. It is an era of history not a thing you do in your backyard.
Yes socialist internationals literally tried to end things like WW1 and WW2. They wanted international worker movements to stand up to capitalist militaries at home and stop the fighting, take over all governments all at once, then aide revolutionary struggles around the world, until eventually socialism was achieved in place of capitalism. People like the DSA,PSL,etc and other international socialist participating groups still largely support this plan.
Socialism without an underlying set of morals beyond socialism is doomed to fail. It invites end-justifies-means to implement socialism, which taints it beyond repair.
Agree, but socialism doesn’t have to be Marxist. Like, Rojava is pretty rad and that’s, if anything, just the most modern iteration of libertarian socialism.
I mean it’s cool that this has become internet popular, but you go out into the world and socialist means Marxist. I did that, went to socialist groups, etc, socialist means Marxist. There are just lots of different kinds of Marxists.
I know, but that’s slowly changing. And I think that’s more true among the most politically engaged people. But that’s true of every group, if you go to in person conservative groups you’ll only find the worst of the worst on the farthest right. I’m not convinced it’s not the same phenomenon with socialists. But idk, I’m just talking out of my ass at this point honestly.
But that inherently means liberal, no? I was under the impression that social democrats supported private ownership of the means of production. If you believe that should be illegal doesn’t that mean you can’t be a social Democrat?
Sure but if you are a cooperativist you don’t think that’s illegal. You think private groups should be able to own the means of production. Shareholder capitalism just where workers are the shareholders.
The end of private property means there is only public property. It means the entire circle of all groups which call themselves socialists collectively vote on how work and distribution are accomplished. Note I didn’t say state, because “true socialism” is international.
It’s a big big BIG philosophy, not a minute change in how things are done relative to the status quo. If you believe in reformism, where you make one change to the status quo, like replacing companies with cooperatives, you likely have more in common with social democrats than socialists.
My only reason for doing all this debating is to try and tell all the “market socialists” on this page, who I used to agree with, to stop using the socialist label, BECAUSE you will go out in the world to socialist groups and find yourself in very radical spaces, not reformist spaces. You will be hanging out with people who want to violently upend the global economic order, not collaborating with others in an attempt to politically change nations.
Instead you want to go hang out with unionists and socdems and cooperativists.
Fair enough, I guess I find myself in an awkward place between socdem and socialist then, but the more radical end of the reformist spectrum fits. Not sure what to call that, other than reformism vaguely inspired by more libertarian socialism and sub-municipalism.
There’s also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.
But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of “but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!”
Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can’t change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.
That means we still have time to wait. Sure socialism is inevitable after full automation and ai which can manage an economy far better than any currency and which brings the value of labor to 0. But until that day social democracy is clearly materially the system of our technological era.
I do think you could be right, but I also think it is a proper dilemma, that it is impossible to really know. An immature attempt at revolution can be impossible to tell apart from a proper revolutionary moment, and a genuinely well-advised conservative “let’s not hastily break something” can be impossible to tell apart from useful idiots for reactionary movements, while living in the historical moment those things are happening. I think, to some degree at least, we just have to accept that uncertainty, and that the course of history is not simply determinable in the chaos of the lived reality.
Doesn’t mean, that there is nothing at all to be analysed, no visions to be had, just that ultimately, every single historical movement will have to live with the reality of “crossing the Rubicon”-moments, where no amount of knowledge, no amount of theory, no amount of smug analysis can really tell the outcome.
I, personally, think advancements beyond social democracy should be possible already - I think the basic ideas laid out in the Gotha Critique (overcoming of monetary system through non-exchangeable production/distribution with a voucher-like system), in combination with advancements in Cybernetics already made within the 20th century (as well as computers to better implement the Cybernetics on top of that), could provide for a system, in which necessary labour can be jointly coordinated, with the aim of reducing work days and increasing value in everyday lives, along with a richer use of free time (think: education, makerspaces, creative hobbies like art and programming) beyond socially necessary labour.
But can I be certain? No. Do I think it is worth fighting for? Definitely.
I actually did a really deep dive into cybernetics, like the actual math involved, which I’m qualified to analyze. It unfortunately would still require a lot of research to get right, and even at the levels of compute we have today it might not be enough. One simply needs to consider the number of types of screws which are necessary to actually fulfill the global demand, and their interchangeability depending on a thousand factors of production, to see the problem. Ultimately, reducing their value to a quantity and optimizing on that quantity based on supply and demand is really easy, compared to some kind of actual graph flow optimization problem based on final product use-demand. The level of democracy at the end would be incredibly complex too, and let’s face it, democracy is not very efficient nor does it even really well reflect the modal persons preferences in a society, let alone representing minority interests.
Ultimately you need a system that can interact with each individuals specific needs and wants (demand), interact with each individual’s abilities, interests, and capacity for labor (supply), even pushing them a bit (incentives), and then balance that interaction with all intermediate necessities to balance the equation, not simply aggregate the averages and expect it to normalize. And even then, think how manipulative, surveillance, and controlling that is.
Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.
But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
The corrupt leaders were inevitable under the ideologies they devised. I swear people think it’s somehow an accident that Stalin and Mao were evil dictators and if only they weren’t we’d have true socialism. No. The system of Leninism is the centralization of power into a vanguard which limits dissent. All Leninist countries are fundamentally dictatorships. Dictatorships transfer power over time via dynastic means, and you always eventually get a power hungry madman when you do that without any checks and balances or democratic recall. And no other Marxist groups can get power enough to actually implement their ideas. QED socialism fails.
I don’t know about Mao, but while Stalin being an evil dictator wasn’t an accident, Lenin being an evil dictator was. The Russian revolution wasn’t just the Bolsheviks; there were many different groups of which the Bolsheviks simply happened to come out on top because of a ton of coincidences and bad decisions by everyone else.
The Ukrainians did it until they were invaded by the Soviets, and Rojava’s experiment seems to be mostly successful.
The examples you gave were or aren’t strong enough to survive and spread global revolution, so they don’t count. Literally that’s the criteria.
That’s literally the thing though, and perhaps where the USSR went wrong. There is no magic bullet that would make a small nation able to survive a large attack, asside from strong allies with a ton of bigger nations, and sadly being different, and a possible threat to the status quo, doesn’t help with that.
That’s like saying being a serial killer helps survival over being a law abiding citizen that cares about others. Proof when I put a law abiding citizen and a serial killer in a locked room… the law abiding citizen doesn’t live as long. Of course the reality is, being a serial killer is evolved as the exception rather than the rule in humans, because, with numbers not making enemies is a more succesful strategy than always making them.
That’s why socialist internationals exist.
Socialism never promised to be able to survive an assault by a vastly superior military force, that’s not how that works. It doesn’t promise to spread global revolution either.
Hmmm, then what are all those socialist internationals still lying around…. Marx and Engels literally believe that socialism was the alternative to capitalism, and capitalism is global. Socialism is an international movement, and basically can not exist “in one country” like Stalin tried. It is an era of history not a thing you do in your backyard.
Yes socialist internationals literally tried to end things like WW1 and WW2. They wanted international worker movements to stand up to capitalist militaries at home and stop the fighting, take over all governments all at once, then aide revolutionary struggles around the world, until eventually socialism was achieved in place of capitalism. People like the DSA,PSL,etc and other international socialist participating groups still largely support this plan.
Socialism without an underlying set of morals beyond socialism is doomed to fail. It invites end-justifies-means to implement socialism, which taints it beyond repair.
deleted by creator
Then what were they?
Agree, but socialism doesn’t have to be Marxist. Like, Rojava is pretty rad and that’s, if anything, just the most modern iteration of libertarian socialism.
I mean it’s cool that this has become internet popular, but you go out into the world and socialist means Marxist. I did that, went to socialist groups, etc, socialist means Marxist. There are just lots of different kinds of Marxists.
I know, but that’s slowly changing. And I think that’s more true among the most politically engaged people. But that’s true of every group, if you go to in person conservative groups you’ll only find the worst of the worst on the farthest right. I’m not convinced it’s not the same phenomenon with socialists. But idk, I’m just talking out of my ass at this point honestly.
We need a new word for non Marxist socialists. Social democrats is that word.
But that inherently means liberal, no? I was under the impression that social democrats supported private ownership of the means of production. If you believe that should be illegal doesn’t that mean you can’t be a social Democrat?
Sure but if you are a cooperativist you don’t think that’s illegal. You think private groups should be able to own the means of production. Shareholder capitalism just where workers are the shareholders.
The end of private property means there is only public property. It means the entire circle of all groups which call themselves socialists collectively vote on how work and distribution are accomplished. Note I didn’t say state, because “true socialism” is international.
It’s a big big BIG philosophy, not a minute change in how things are done relative to the status quo. If you believe in reformism, where you make one change to the status quo, like replacing companies with cooperatives, you likely have more in common with social democrats than socialists.
My only reason for doing all this debating is to try and tell all the “market socialists” on this page, who I used to agree with, to stop using the socialist label, BECAUSE you will go out in the world to socialist groups and find yourself in very radical spaces, not reformist spaces. You will be hanging out with people who want to violently upend the global economic order, not collaborating with others in an attempt to politically change nations.
Instead you want to go hang out with unionists and socdems and cooperativists.
Fair enough, I guess I find myself in an awkward place between socdem and socialist then, but the more radical end of the reformist spectrum fits. Not sure what to call that, other than reformism vaguely inspired by more libertarian socialism and sub-municipalism.
There’s also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.
I feel like “socialism and anarchsim always fail or lose to capitalists” isn’t the flex you think it is.
The EZLN is still going. So is Rojava.
And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of “but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!”
Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can’t change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.
That means we still have time to wait. Sure socialism is inevitable after full automation and ai which can manage an economy far better than any currency and which brings the value of labor to 0. But until that day social democracy is clearly materially the system of our technological era.
I do think you could be right, but I also think it is a proper dilemma, that it is impossible to really know. An immature attempt at revolution can be impossible to tell apart from a proper revolutionary moment, and a genuinely well-advised conservative “let’s not hastily break something” can be impossible to tell apart from useful idiots for reactionary movements, while living in the historical moment those things are happening. I think, to some degree at least, we just have to accept that uncertainty, and that the course of history is not simply determinable in the chaos of the lived reality.
Doesn’t mean, that there is nothing at all to be analysed, no visions to be had, just that ultimately, every single historical movement will have to live with the reality of “crossing the Rubicon”-moments, where no amount of knowledge, no amount of theory, no amount of smug analysis can really tell the outcome.
I, personally, think advancements beyond social democracy should be possible already - I think the basic ideas laid out in the Gotha Critique (overcoming of monetary system through non-exchangeable production/distribution with a voucher-like system), in combination with advancements in Cybernetics already made within the 20th century (as well as computers to better implement the Cybernetics on top of that), could provide for a system, in which necessary labour can be jointly coordinated, with the aim of reducing work days and increasing value in everyday lives, along with a richer use of free time (think: education, makerspaces, creative hobbies like art and programming) beyond socially necessary labour.
But can I be certain? No. Do I think it is worth fighting for? Definitely.
I actually did a really deep dive into cybernetics, like the actual math involved, which I’m qualified to analyze. It unfortunately would still require a lot of research to get right, and even at the levels of compute we have today it might not be enough. One simply needs to consider the number of types of screws which are necessary to actually fulfill the global demand, and their interchangeability depending on a thousand factors of production, to see the problem. Ultimately, reducing their value to a quantity and optimizing on that quantity based on supply and demand is really easy, compared to some kind of actual graph flow optimization problem based on final product use-demand. The level of democracy at the end would be incredibly complex too, and let’s face it, democracy is not very efficient nor does it even really well reflect the modal persons preferences in a society, let alone representing minority interests.
Ultimately you need a system that can interact with each individuals specific needs and wants (demand), interact with each individual’s abilities, interests, and capacity for labor (supply), even pushing them a bit (incentives), and then balance that interaction with all intermediate necessities to balance the equation, not simply aggregate the averages and expect it to normalize. And even then, think how manipulative, surveillance, and controlling that is.
Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.