You're viewing part of a thread.
So those people calling it neoliberal are fucking liars
Yeah, basically. 'Neoliberal' and 'lib' are just snarl words many tankies use to mean "Anyone less fascist than Mao".
In general, .world is much less radical than many places on Lemmy. But they're far from neoliberals. The average poster is slightly left of a Berniecrat, probably; that is to say, either a very strong SocDem or a very weak DemSoc.
Listen all I'm saying is that if we were so far left that Bernie was center right on policy the country would be a much better place for everyone.
Wouldn't it be lovely? Unfortunately, we've got a lot of fighting on the ground to convince our fellow citizens to get their asses there instead of some weird 90s fantasy world.
Thanks for calling tankies what they are: fascist.
Read Blackshirts and Reds, Socialism and Fascism are entirely incompatible and serve entirely different classes.
I'm theory, yes. In practice the idea of socialism has been hijacked and subverted by the same ruling class to serve their nefarious needs time and time again. Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism. "Power to the people" my ass.
No, it has not. Read Blackshirts and Reds, which I already linked. Communist movements served the Proletariat, not the Bourgeoisie. They also were by no means perfect "worker's paradises." Another good article is *Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" if you can only spare 20 minutes and not read a whole book.
Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism
You should read On Authority, Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as "authoritarian" for advocating for central planning.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as “authoritarian” for advocating for central planning.
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
There's no such thing as "true socialism," that's part of the point of the article.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
There’s no such thing as “true socialism,” that’s part of the point of the article.
Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it's only a part of the equation.
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Socialism can not care, as it's is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only "care" about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn't care about things like self-serving people.
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven't collapsed yet only because it's propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it's full blown capitalist and "communist" in name only?
Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it's only a part of the equation.
No, AES worked. It provided a reason why AES states weren't and aren't perfect paradises that only exist in imagination.
Socialism can not care, as it's is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only "care" about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn't care about things like self-serving people.
Socialism works, it just isn't a magical wonderland. That's the point.
Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven't collapsed yet only because it's propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it's full blown capitalist and "communist" in name only?
USSR did work. PRC does work as well, and is Socialist, not Capitalist. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism and Blackshirts and Reds Cuba works, Vietnam works, Laos works too.
Mao didn't "starve a bunch of people," Mao ended famines in one of the poorest countries in the world, something Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism proves.
No, AES worked
If it worked we'd still have Soviet Union today.
USSR did work. PRC does work as well, and is Socialist, not Capitalist. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism and Blackshirts and Reds Cuba works, Vietnam works, Laos works too.
We seem to have different definitions of what "working" means. What I've got from the article, which glosses over the inconvenient facts (like how much of China's success can be attributed to western capitalists moving all of their manufacturing to China), is that you can do whatever the fuck you want and still call it socialism. And your fans will believe you, because they don't care to look deeper beneath the label. The party line trumps all.
Mao didn’t “starve a bunch of people,” Mao ended famines in one of the poorest countries in the world
So what is the Great Chinese Famine then? Another inconvenient fact in the sea of inconvenient facts that you chose to close your eyes to? Do you think that lying to yourself and everyone else about historical facts like this one gives you a moral high ground over Nazi sympathizers who deny holocaust?
Eh, it's a mixed bag. There's a very high concentration of centrist, "vote blue, no matter who," liberals in Political Memes. They're not the whole instance, but they've made a nice little echo chamber that makes them a pretty loud minority.
The people who think .world is socialist also think socialism is when the government does things and that social democracy is a type of socialism and not a type of liberalism.
This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.
Socialism is when the CIA goes in and kills your leader right?
The CIA tried to kill Charles DeGaulle in 1961, but if the CIA isn't trying to kill your leader, you're not doing socialism.
This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.
It's funny that all the "AES" countries that are brought up are just authoritarian states, and sometimes, for that matter, authoritarian capitalist states. It's almost like the people championing these supposedly socialist countries are just fascists painted red.