We are a deeply unserious joke of a nation.
Change my mind.
Oh no, it’s very serious, like end of the world serious.
end of the world serious
Sorry guys!! ❤️❤️
- US Citizen
That one time when that one dude uhhhhhh 🤔. Nahhh you right!!!
No
Its so obvious when progressive candidates are starting to get momentum. We immediately get back to the red scare except this time with a nice helping of Islamophobia sprinkled on. The playbook is exhausting…
Seems like that is the end state of any kind of system. Has to be torn down every once in awhile.
how far the line are you drawing that choppy? are you chopping the head off the piss boy? i think he got sold into servitude. you only get one point choppy.
The french revolution was a failure tho.
Always gotta keep an eye on those popular generals
Not really, it just got out of hand later but it did make demonstratsble change in the system, even if it was under napoleon. The revution did its base job or removing the original ruleing base.
Last time choppy chopped mostly commoner’s heads off. Is this what you are suggesting!?
Yeah I’ve been saying this for a while, I think like a lot of other animal species we have a certain way we like to arrange ourselves as a group and we pretty much always stick to that, just with different names. Essentially, we just naturally seem to end up with a figurehead leader and a little group of powerful people surrounding them, while everyone else just does their best under whatever system them impose.
Democracy = a president/prime minister and a senate/parliament.
Monarchy = A king/queen, and a bunch of lords.
Dictatorship = A dictator, usually with a small group (often a military junta or something similar) surrounding them.
Communism = A chairman and the party heads.
The Vatican = A pope/cardinals.
Businesses = A CEO and then the rest of the C-suite people/a group of shareholders.
Army = General/Sergeants or whatever
Even families tend to often have a kind of matriarch/patriarch figure, and sort of arrange themselves in the same way.
It’s not a complicated system and it makes sense why we do it, I just think it’s kind of interesting that we pretty much always arrange ourselves in the same pattern without even really thinking about it. It might also explain why some things like anarchism don’t often tend to work out in the longer term, they don’t really fit the pattern.
Even things like the internet, which started out with most websites having a more-or-less equal footing, we’ve gradually arranged it over time so that there’s usually one big ‘main website’ for each thing, with a bunch of slightly less powerful but similar sites orbiting them.
communism isnt a structure of government like these
The Republicans seem to be stumbling around helplessly trying to explain why they should get votes, but they keep using descriptions that could be turned around on them.
I’m thinking of Vance’s comment at President Pedo’s, circle-jerk-a-thon:
“The contrast in this election, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not about this or that policy. It’s about the party of common sense vs the party of the crazies.”
He’s 100% correct there.
It’s horrific, but also amusing in its own way: So many people in the USA think socialism and communism are the same thing and use them interchangeably. It’s also amusing that the administration and party that’s “fighting” so hard to drum up another communism scare because of the DSA and a push for single-payer healthcare is also promising everyone a $5,000 check … just because – free money!
I think that Trump promise $5,000 to everyone due he is not gonna make It
Helen Cox Richardson notes that accusation of socialism have been levied by the owner class as far back is the antebellum plantations, arguing the working class are not stakeholders and even basic infrastructure such as roads, schools and libraries were blasphemous.
The red scare started as early as Wilson, as soon as the Red Army beat the White. Wilson petitioned the league of nations to embargo the USSR simply because the ideology was a threat to capital driven industry.
I think the US public needs to deliberate if our intention is to be a public-serving government that holds everyone equal under law and values human rights over property rights. Or, if our intentions are for something else.
Right now the federal government is captured by a movement that does the opposite, with a propaganda machine propping up pro-business (anti-person) ideology, using socialism and communism as scare words.
We’re seeing the end result of this as corporations have captured regulatory bodies, they are left to govern themselves as top-down feifdoms, and the working class is left choking on data center fumes, monitored by mass surveillance and unable to afford fuel and food at the same time.
(We’re also seeing the US state, representing the US public to the international community, getting played by its national rivals, and our military misused and abused.)
Even when it benefits businesses to support the working class (and increase productivity, therefore profitability) businesses fall down, driven by the owner class’ pure resentment of their own workforce. (This is what drives the AI dream of full automation.) To business, the economy is for them, and if they can shut out the workforce to languish on their own and starve, no sleep will be lost over the tragedy.
So the people of the US, if they don’t want this outcome, need to consciously and deliberately choose to create a society that serves the people unconditionally in favor of the businesses. The public-serving infrastructure, the social safety nets, the investment into education and liberal arts, the clear establishment and enforcement of civil rights, the regulatory institutions that protect workers and consumers from the neglect and antagonism of the owner class, all follow naturally.
And that said, it means we are going to have to take business influence on government and excess hoarding of wealth extremely seriously.
And the end result may look a lot like socialism or communism, whether or not we’re working towards adopting either specific ideology.
Our intentions are for something else, but we will use the propaganda of liberty, freedom, and representation to try and convince people otherwise.
The intentions of the corporate class, the (captured) government class, and the plutocratic class are all about world domination while, yes, including notions of liberty, freedom and representation in their propaganda rhetoric. (Or at least using them as buzzwords. I’m not sure if the typical MAGA knows what liberty or freedom is.)
But this is the reason we need to organize at the grassroots level. The goal I suggest in the US is organizing twelve million Americans under a common manifesto. It’s tricky: we’d need some legal and government scholars to write it up and make it accessible to the public (and annotate it so that they understand it).
The thing is, the US seemed to (more or less) be trying to do this in the postwar economy (that is, post WWII), in which business was tightly regulated, unions were strong, the owner class was taxed heavily, and antitrust enforcement was robust. It started deteriorating in the 1970s (right around when we went off the gold standard, and Lewis Powell wrote his (now notorious) memorandum. Jerry Falwell discovered the single-issue voter, the southern strategy became full on dog-whistle racism, and Reagan won in a landslide (with a little help from Iran). The economy went K-shaped, and corruption in government increased exponentially from there.
I think most Americans want the US to be a pluralistic liberal democracy. Some people might be so sheltered as to believe it already is. (Looking at you, Kavanaugh.) But maybe we need to commit to the notion that is is what we want, but isn’t there right now, and is in stark jeopardy of never being able to become it ever again (without the US turning into another thing, another iteration of society).
How to make it happen is well beyond my pay grade, but I might be able to find language that is effective for a mission statement.
I like what you have to say and I do think there is a way forward. We have to convince the wealthy to relent by offering them something worthwhile to trade for their wealth for. Perhaps social status or some scheme that works for them on a basic psychological level.
There are going to be winners and losers in every policy decision, the trick is making it palatable for the loserss. This is ultimately what must be decided for the current wealthy class. Ideally it should be mostly voluntary with minimal coercion. It will require new thinking outside our current common paradigms.
I love how God is verified on X.
And then you wonder why Trump won…
I’m curious as to why you think he won.
He won because his promises were better aligned with voter demands. In short: Dems neglected large part of voters and he simply targeted that neglected population.
You can be cynical and say he was a better liar. Which is fair, but truth doesn’t really matter in this race. It’s all about promises and appearences.
He targeted stupid hateful people with stupid hateful bullshit. No matter how you look at it, that he won once nevermind twice is an absolutely damning indictment of the average US Americans ignorance and belligerence.
Avg American isn’t much smarter or dumber than European or Asian. Have you considered that there might be some other factors?
Are you seriously suggesting the American education system is remotely on par with the rest of the developed world? If you’re US American you’re proving my point.
Yes, we are highly regarded in the dumbass competition that is called the human race.
Are you suggesting right wing parties are not making gains electorally in europe?
He won because they cheated. You can look at the results of Rockland county election where a democratic majority voter demographic did not report one single vote for Harris. “The anomalies in the presidential race include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but where zero voters selected the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris…” (smartelections.us)
In addition- “Plaintiffs additionally presented the Board with the first in a series of inquiries including questions about modem, Wi-Fi, or cellular connections to Rockland County’s election systems; whether the county was using either Starlink’s Direct to Cell service, or a program known as Ballotproof[1]; and if any irregularities in the 2024 election were reported or investigated.” (smartelections.us)
It’s statistically impossible and hundreds of voters from the district indicated voting for Harris. The case went to the State Supreme court and is currently on appeal. Should have been a front page story post election, relegated to the bone yard to all but those who saw it for what it was. Nevada elections (and most swings states) had similar anomalies.
Get rid of machines and hand count no matter the cost or time.
I don’t think it’s being reported for a few reasons one of which is trump poised that well with his 2020 election fraud. Now I think there are too many people that are scared they are going to sound just as crazy as trump when they bring up 2024.
He won because they cheated.
If cheating the elections is even remotely possible then you have much bigger problem than Trump. But there’s a due process to ensure elections are fair, right?
The voting machines can be accessed via wifi so it is possible (likely not the first time). Due process would be great if the Supreme Court wasn’t completely compromised. Thus far (if you read the articles) the NY state Supreme Court case is on appeal. It seems that the judge doesn’t want to touch it given its volatility. How does one explain, in a county of democrats, votes for the US Democratic senator but not a single vote for Harris?
Jesus using machines is dumb from the start. Why is US doing it? There’s really robust framework developed in other countries, where you show your ID and sign yourself on the list to recieve your ballot. Everything in presence of multiple people. Unless entire commission is conspiring to falsify countless votes this is bullet proof and transparent.
I think it goes deeper than that. We have a problem with hierachical thinking in general. We expect our kids to follow their leaders, without question, there is little room for kids to participate in society in a meaningful way.There is no way for them to change anything.
Than they get to an abitrary age and we expect them to suddenly transition to involved voters.
I don’t believe that people raised to question why a system works how it works, who were allowed to argue , whos curiousity got rewarded, who simply had a real voice in their upbringing, would have fallen for him.
They would have learned that things are more complicated and they would trust themselves more to be able to change society than they would trust authority to fix things for them.
If people were dumb enough to believe him there’s not much anyone can do about it other than hope they figure out they were duped.
How about this revolutionary idea: They aren’t all dumb.
Yes, most of them are hateful too. Especially the ones that aren’t both.
You’re trying to tell me that half of all American voters all are hateful morons?
I’d say hateful AND/OR morons. Some are just hateful. Some are just morons. Some are both.
And it wouldn’t be the first time in history a massive segment of a population was and/or. Propaganda and shitty culture are a hell of a drug.
I mean the proof is in the pudding. Half of voting Americans voted for a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, lifelong conman, and probable pedophile who instigated an insurrection and utterly failed at his previous term as president. What else would you consider them other than hateful and/or morons?
Voterparticipation was 64% So more like 30%.
People can be hateful AND other things. They aren’t raging monsters but for one reason or another when making one of the most important desicions they let themselves be guided by hate, doesn’t mean they don’t love their dog or hug their kids.
You slso don’t need to put all the blame on them, propaganda is a powerful tool,they might very well have turned out fairly decent without it. They aren’t born like that but it doesn’t change what they have become.
No I’d say it’s most of the voters, but yeah a solid half the full population sounds about accurate.
The only people that voted for him that aren’t dumb are the abnormally wealthy who knew they could benefit financially. And they represent such a small percentage of the whole that it’s reasonable to simply state all Trump supporters are fucking idiots.
And you could even call that small percentage stupid because they’re shitting where they eat. If you live in a country you are actively voting to make worse for the vast majority…well, that’s bad business in the big picture. They’re focused on short term gains.
When you artificially limit the number of political parties to two, people are forced into voting against things, rather then for them.
Also it limits heavily the competition in the electoral system, which leads to incredibly weak leadership and a stagnation of new ideas and people.
Replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative voting system would give voters the freedom to transfer their vote if their preference doesn’t win. No spoiler effect
This keeps the feet of larger political parties in the fire, lest they are replaced with more representative political parties.
But this was all stuff that should have happened decades ago. The horses have escaped the stable and the barn is on fire. None the less, this is all something to keep in mind when new countries are formed out of the ashes of what was.
Strap up and stay frosty out there strangers. Peace.
My guess is your intimating that trump and musk rigged the election? Because I don’t think it’s that far fetched of a theory.
I’m not saying they did, but I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
Not being suspicious of a man who is notorious for cheating, lying, stealing, etc… try not to cheat, lie and steal an election that puts him in a very powerful position, I feel is lazy and dangerous.
especially when every accusation they make is basically confession.
A fatal mix of bigotry and stupidity.
I don’t like communism. I don’t like capitalism. I don’t give a fuck about your petty squabbles and philisophical debates.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
This is an issue related to the political and economical system that you said you don’t care about
You don’t understand.
80% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for communism.
60% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for capitalism.
90% of people will agree with you if you tell them the growing power of elites and the gap between the rich and the poor is a problem.
If you’re trying to convince people that communism is a great idea, you’re fighting a lost cause. If you use either the word communism or capitalism, you have already lost the argument and people’s attention. On the other hand, if you address actual problems, people will support you. Language matters!
(Btw, I pulled these numbers out of my ass. But you get the idea.)
The majority of people a century ago though you are stupid if you support women voting. It is a shame that most people has no principle anymore and abondon easily when something is too hard
Under Communism, Man exploits Man, but under Capitalism it’s the other way around!
(Sorry, I’ll return this joke to the museum now)
It’s two sides of the same coin.
Anarchism is the best solution for everyone but i think this is only feasible in a planet where everyone shares the same values, customs and norms. To allow mutual trust and respect not to pilfer and attack each other. The best example is in Dune with the Fremens. Each communities still have local quirks and there is slight cultural differences between the Northerners and Southerners but they all aid each other and identify as one people. The threat is from outside Arakkis. So, even anarchist values would have to extend universal wide for anarchism proper to work.
anarchism is idealist bullshit debunked by engles himself in 1st communist internationale. Cry
Ahh yes, the workers should have just subjugated themselves to the authority of the steam engine.
deleted by creator
Why do you take the word of someone whose ideology collapsed under its own weight? Cope.
“collapsed under its own weight”
JFC go read history blud.
Cope
amrikkkans and europeans after invading, bombing and overthrowing every single socialist experiment:
See socialism doesnt work
dumbfuck
Russkies after invading and bombing and overthrowing every small countries and then collapsing anyway.
See socialism indeed does not work.
Simperialist.
You hate everyone cos you lost. That’s why you invaded a country 1/5 your size and into day 1,664 of three day special operations. You enjoy being a cuck and that’s why you are letting Putin sell your kids and grandkids to CCP vassalage.
Old clown yells at clouds! 🤡🤡
guy who thinks communists support modern russia or russian invasion of ukraine
dumbfuck, russia is literally a liberal bougeosie state, it came into existence due to cooperation of western libs and russian nationalists lmao
Don’t most communists claim they want to eliminate class though? Capitalists enbrace it while communists pretend that their government gets rid of class, so this framing is misleading.
What happens is that authoritarians wrap their fake promises in “communism” because it’s what actually appeals to most people, only to drop their facade once in power.
Then idiots point and say Ha! See? Communism evil!Kinda an inevitably under communism though. If the people who run a communist government stops actually believing in communism after being a couple generations removed from the revolution, what is exactly going to oppose them when they absolute power over their citizens?
Thus why the communist governments we’ve seen end up being contradictory. You could argue that we try to achieve communism by establishing a stateless society like marx adovcated for, but then how is communism going to be enforced without a state? With a state though, they end up being the very upper class that communism seeks to eliminate but this time with a centralized force of power.
Yes that’s… what this post is about.
I dunno, it seemed like the post was arguing in favor of communism to me, but I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time I misintrepreted something and got everyone to turn on me, lol
Capitalist ideology sees class as unavoidable and so it strives to make it meritocratic and unstable. This was a radical idea in an era of nobility or castes, but ultimately resulted in the merchant class basically seizing control of society.
Communism strives to eliminate it entirely, but you wind up with some leaders being insincere or incapable of letting go of power. But you also have the fact that it’s difficult to completely eliminate class.
I stand against communism and socialism in general, but not remotely for the same reasons Republicans do.
The Republican and right-wing practice of using “socialism” the same way it was used as propaganda during the Red Scare of the 1950s has seriously run its course. Of course, the problem is that many of the people who continue to vote for these politicians still genuinely believe the United States is facing some kind of communist takeover. That is precisely why this rhetoric continues to work.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I oppose socialism and communism based on the principles and practical merits of those systems, not because someone told me to fear the word “socialism.” I fully support things such as social democracy and a democratic mixed economy. What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government. Historically, that combination has produced some very serious economic and political failures.
At the same time, I do not support using “socialism” as a political scare tactic to advance someone else’s agenda. Morally, I see little meaningful difference between Stalin using communist propaganda to serve his political objectives and a modern politician using distorted anti-socialist propaganda to serve theirs. Propaganda is reprehensible regardless of whether it is coming from the political left or right.
I can oppose an ideology on its merits without turning the word itself into a political weapon.
What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government.
You’re conflating a capitalism with market commerce. Markets long predate capitalism, markets function in socialist paradigms. Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
Communist government is itself an oxymoron because communism is, by definition, stateless.
I don’t think many people would, in good faith, support a transition to a centrally planned authoritarian state - but also no one would, in good faith, be able to call such an end goal socialism or communism.
Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
In fact capitalism as it currently exists is the antithesis of democracy. It takes control, in the form of money/capital, away from the people and into the hands of the few business owners.
I definitely understand how you could interpret the two as being antithetical, but I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system. Those are two separate things, and there are a tremendous number of combinations that can exist between the two.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world. And some of the countries that combine capitalism with the most extensive welfare states are the Nordic social democracies. They maintain market-based, capitalist economies while using taxation, regulation, labor protections, and extensive social programs to constrain some of capitalism’s more destructive effects. The OECD explicitly describes the Nordic model as demonstrating that a strong welfare state can coexist with strong economic growth.
That’s where I think democracy becomes particularly important. In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
This is the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. People who support capitalism are like that crazy guy who lived with bears. It doesn’t have a happy ending no matter how good it is to have cute bear pets.
For example, Glass Steagall was an important regulation that capitalism eventually removed from itself through the capture of the government by the 1%. This is not a solvable flaw. The best you can do is make end stage capitalism your child/grandchild’s problem. It isnt very nice of you to treat your future decendants like this IMO.
I agree. Capitalism isn’t a very good system it’s just the best one so far and what we have now, arguably, isn’t capitalism but a corporatocracy, which is much worse.
I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system
I am not. An economic system can also be democratic or non-democratic, same as a political system, depending on who it is primarily controlled by. Both are intertwined and influence each other. Capitalism is not a democratic economic system on its own (since “the people” definitionally do not control the economy), and it is also incompatible with a stable democratic political system.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world.
What you are describing is usually called a “liberal democracy”.
In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
This is precisely what Marxists call “contradictions of liberalism”.
The social tenets of liberalism preach equality before law, human rights, the rule of people, and consent of the governed. To be clear, all good concepts necessary for true democracy.
The economic tenets of liberalism (a.k.a capitalism) establish the primacy of private property, including private property over capital. (there are other tenets as well, such as a “free market” but they are not as important to this discussion)
The two are simply incompatible. Private property over the means of production definitionally gives control over economy to those who own that property. This is fundamentally antithetical to the social tenets of liberalism, and this contradiction can not be totally resolved within the framework of a liberal democracy. Even ignoring imperialism, “regulated capitalism” is an unstable equilibrium even within a closed society, a band-aid that will eventually have to be torn off one way or another; for as long as a society upholds private property as its economic model, those who control capital will be able to accumulate it exponentially, eventually being able to simply brute-force their way into politics through corruption or nepotism to remove whatever limits may be set on their power — even one slip-up can be enough to disturb the equilibrium and start the downward spiral into fascism, see the socio-political effects that Nixon had in the US.
Thus, for a society to achieve a stable political democracy, private property must be eschewed and relegated as a secondary mode of production, at least initially. Whatever that system would be, it would not be capitalism.
You’re essentially making a Marxist argument using many of the same premises Marx and later Marxists used. I actually had to do some research to respond to this because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding the argument. But I have to admit, I do wonder whether you actually wrote this yourself.
Normally, I would start by defining the terminology you’re using: liberalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. But I’m not going to do that here. I don’t think getting bogged down in definitions is going to resolve the fundamental disagreement, because I think we’re operating from completely different assumptions about how these systems actually function.
I could obviously be wrong. Maybe you’re an economics professor at Harvard and I’m completely out of my depth here. Somehow, I doubt it, though.
So instead, I’ll counter the broader argument with one word: history.
Marx and the other early socialist and communist theorists identified some very real problems with capitalism. Their criticisms of concentrated wealth, class power, exploitation, and the political influence of capital are not inherently irrational. In fact, many of those criticisms remain relevant. The problem is that the theoretical solution has repeatedly run into the same obstacle: human beings.
The historical record does not demonstrate that attempts to replace capitalism with comprehensive systems of collective ownership have produced the stable, classless societies Marx envisioned. Whatever the theoretical merits of the argument, the practical results have repeatedly been far more complicated.
Meanwhile, some of the world’s most prosperous democracies have developed in the opposite direction: capitalist economies combined with democratic institutions, extensive welfare states, strong labor protections, taxation, and significant regulation. The Nordic countries are probably the clearest examples. The OECD itself classifies the Nordic countries within the social-democratic welfare-state tradition, while still describing them as developed capitalist economies.
China is an interesting example from the other end of the spectrum, although I wouldn’t describe it simply as “socialism.” China officially describes its system as a socialist market economy, with substantial state and collective ownership alongside extensive private economic activity and legally protected private property.
So ultimately, I don’t actually disagree with the fundamental observation that there is a tension between concentrated economic power and democratic political equality. That’s a legitimate problem, and I think democratic institutions absolutely need mechanisms capable of preventing economic power from becoming political domination.
Where we disagree is what follows from that observation.
I think Marx’s critique identifies a real structural problem, but I don’t think the historical evidence demonstrates that abolishing private ownership of the means of production is the necessary solution. In practice, the systems that have proven most durable have generally been mixed systems: markets and private property combined with democratic government, regulation, redistribution, social insurance, and public institutions.
And perhaps the deeper problem with Marx’s theoretical framework is that it assumes we can fundamentally restructure the economic system without having to account for the behavior of the human beings operating it. Until scarcity itself is substantially reduced, I don’t see a realistic path toward the kind of society Marx envisioned.
But I have to admit, I do wonder whether you actually wrote this yourself.
I can assuage you that all text I post on here was written myself by typing on this keyboard. All stupidity is my own, none of that artificial stuff.
And I honestly want to say, kudos to you for looking into this.
I don’t think getting bogged down in definitions is going to resolve the fundamental disagreement, because I think we’re operating from completely different assumptions about how these systems actually function.
I don’t think we necessarily disagree on most fundamental things.
I think Marx’s critique identifies a real structural problem, but I don’t think the historical evidence demonstrates that abolishing private ownership of the means of production is the necessary solution. In practice, the systems that have proven most durable have generally been mixed systems: markets and private property combined with democratic government, regulation, redistribution, social insurance, and public institutions.
I agree that currently all non-failed states contain a component of capitalist mode of production. It seems unavoidable at the current level of development of productive forces and human society to use greed as a (limited) motivator. There are two questions to be answered: which component is primary for each state, and how does imperialism tie in to this.
Now on to where I think we will disagree:
The problem is that the theoretical solution has repeatedly run into the same obstacle: human beings.
The actual problem that most socialist states ran into was not the abstract “human beings” (all systems run into that one). It was imperialist aggression waged by capitalists to prevent a similar organization of workers in their respective states. This, together with internal mismanagement by bureaucrats, are the main contributing factors to the fall of USSR.
The historical record does not demonstrate that attempts to replace capitalism with comprehensive systems of collective ownership have produced the stable, classless societies Marx envisioned. Whatever the theoretical merits of the argument, the practical results have repeatedly been far more complicated.
I think it’s important to not underestimate the real achievements of socialist state, for all their failings they did move humanity forwards significantly, even if communism is still far away.
Early USSR was on the forefront of many social-progressive issues, from feminism to LGBT rights to ethnic equality. This was gradually worn down during Stalinism and stagnated in the later stages, but it is still impressive for a state to pick the right answer on so many controversial topics.
Early USSR was also on the forefront of worker’s rights and many human rights. USSR was the first country to introduce free universal healthcare. Wealth inequality dropped quickly. It industrialized with immense speed, and was the country that de-facto defeated nazism and fascism. Access to housing and food was made practically a guaranteed right for all.
It had a lot of issues, from the overly punitive prison system to deterioration of social justice and human rights under Stalin to the formation of a “bureaucratic class”, etc. All those are things that have been taken into consideration, to various degrees, by most currently existing socialist states.
(also I’d like to note that no currently existing communist party has a classless society as a short-term goal; since ML is a dominant ideology in socialist states, it is believed that a “dictatorship of proletariat” needs to be established, productive forces need to be sufficiently developed, and there need to be mass education and cultural changes before communism is possible)
Meanwhile, some of the world’s most prosperous democracies have developed in the opposite direction: capitalist economies combined with democratic institutions, extensive welfare states, strong labor protections, taxation, and significant regulation.
I don’t think those are opposite directions, actually. Today’s welfare states were all originally “inspired”, or at least significantly developed, by the ruling classes of their corresponding countries fearing a scenario similar to USSR, and placating the workers by providing them with similar benefits. Thus, the two systems developed in parallel directions, and with the fall of USSR you can see a (delayed) deterioration of welfare systems in many capitalist countries, since the fear motivator for the capital is reduced - this is also a parallel “development”, just in the opposite direction.
China is an interesting example from the other end of the spectrum, although I wouldn’t describe it simply as “socialism.” China officially describes its system as a socialist market economy, with substantial state and collective ownership alongside extensive private economic activity and legally protected private property.
This is where the concept of “dominant mode of production” comes in. China’s economy is centrally planned and managed, most critical industries are tightly controlled by the state, the state owns most big corporations and has significant influence in internal structure of others. Capitalist mode of production is allowed to exist, but it is secondary, thus preventing the worst excesses. This was actually also advocated by Lenin in his NEP program, and is consistent with the ML definition of socialism.
And perhaps the deeper problem with Marx’s theoretical framework is that it assumes we can fundamentally restructure the economic system without having to account for the behavior of the human beings operating it.
Marx does not assume this. In fact he specifically talked about the Base-Superstructure dialectic and “definite forms of social consciousness” (currently this is usually unified with the Superstructure), and this ties closely into the subject of our discussion. Human behavior will indeed need to change in order to achieve communism, however those changes are only likely to come once the base (the economic relations) surpasses the capitalist mode of production. Lenin postulated that to surpass capitalist mode of production, it is necessary to first achieve “dictatorship of proletariat” — a state in which the working class is the ruling class and exerts authority over all others — which is usually called socialism.
Until scarcity itself is substantially reduced, I don’t see a realistic path toward the kind of society Marx envisioned.
Scarcity is not the issue. Existing food and housing scarcity is almost entirely artificial, imposed by imperialists and capitalists to keep a more obedient labor force. There is an issue of greed; however, the capitalist superstructure supercharges the existing natural greed in humans to a horrifying degree.
Agreed.
But I am definitely not saying that capitalism equals democracy I’m simply saying that I would be opposed to replacing the system that we currently have with socialism as a market I specifically did say that I support social democracy and by extension Democratic socialism.
So not entirely sure what it is that I’m completing here.
It’s funny because no ideology will work if the people are corrupt, and no ideology will fail if the people have character.
They’re using divide and conquer to make us fight each other over concepts, when what we all really want is people in power with character and accountability - which is the one thing they won’t give us regardless of system.
I’ll take a good man with a bad ideology over a bad man with a good ideology any week in any era.
I think George Carlin said it best garbage in garbage out.
Yes, and fortunately in communist countries the “everybody else” is just the former bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements — a tiny fraction of the population.
Do not delude yourself into thinking the class divide in the US is as bad as in the east block countries.
Elon Musk has a trillion dollars. I’m pretty confident that the class divide has never been this bad ever.
Nah, because there are plenty of powerful middle class in between him and a homeless person.
What power do you think the middle class wields? Our paltry life savings can’t buy us a politician or a judge, but to the billionaire elites, it’s pocket change to do so.
There are only two classes in America. The Owner/Donor class, and everyone else. If you aren’t one of the upper echelon, any power you wield is illusory and can be revoked at any time as soon as it is no longer convenient for you to exercise it freely.
And you think this difference is on the level of the USSR
No, I don’t. Not sure where you pulled that strawman argument from but I never said anything like that.
former eastern bloc had way way way less class divide like its not even comparable, perhaps the least class divide ever since inception of class society
