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.
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.
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 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.
Personally I don’t think cooperativists would have any push back at all in socdem circles. Germany and France are socdem and they are basically national-unionist as it is, basically having labor boards which act as unions in all companies everywhere, and which guarentee co-determination.
From my study of history the only problem that socdems actually have is they tend to get lazy, and don’t defend their gains or keep pushing reform. Socialists do this too they just wont admit it, look at Cuba and the USSR and how many children wanted to emmigrate to capitalist countries.
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.
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.
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 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.
Personally I don’t think cooperativists would have any push back at all in socdem circles. Germany and France are socdem and they are basically national-unionist as it is, basically having labor boards which act as unions in all companies everywhere, and which guarentee co-determination.
From my study of history the only problem that socdems actually have is they tend to get lazy, and don’t defend their gains or keep pushing reform. Socialists do this too they just wont admit it, look at Cuba and the USSR and how many children wanted to emmigrate to capitalist countries.