Sure, I more just meant that you don't particularly seem to think that "planning" is the way to bring about sweeping change
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Hello, comrades. Hopefully, there's room for one more in the Revolution.
I'm actually a social democrat but socialism is appealing to me.
I'm only wary of it because I've never seen a country actually get to socialism yet and not stop at a corrupt state capitalist society.
If I'm wrong please let me know of any examples so I can research it.
I'm actually a social democrat but socialism is appealing to me.
I'm only wary of it because I've never seen a country actually get to socialism yet and not stop at a corrupt state capitalist society.
If I'm wrong please let me know of any examples so I can research it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of your initial positions in this thread then, but based on this:
My impression was that you don't think its useful to engage in attempts to pre-plan or pre-prepare "the party" or organize in the manner that modern self-identified socialists do, because when the workers finally and suddenly mobilize it won't be because any of us were putting in footwork to set things up
Or, to put it another way, if the overthrow of the state will be planned, and it won't be planned by any of us, then who will it be planned by and why won't they be us?
Socialism as a Mode of Production isn't something that can be planned. There is no "End of History" implementation of it. There is no guide to destroying the State and material conditions and necessities will change dynamically. The issue with "planning" is that it sets an ideal and to reach that ideal you must set things in motion in a specific way. No one can predict the requirements and their fulfillment.
I don't think it's useful to "pre-plan" or "pre-prepare" a party. Do you? Especially given that parties like the DSA, SAlt, Red Guards, anarchists groups etc all envision themselves as the vanguards of the Revolution and yet all have a vastly different theoretical basis, member makeup, and end goal in mind. All of these parties are significantly smaller than the proletariat at large and the proletariat is able to come to meaningful democratic decisions without the formalization of a party. These decisions may contradict the plans of a formal party, they may come in active opposition.
Further "self identified Socialists" can "self identify" all the want, but the character of a man trumps what one calls themselves. Further, socialism isn't an identity. It is a historical epoch. Socialists do not matter to Socialism, nor do Identities, only the Proletariat and only Class.
OP
OP
Welcome to the thread. You're not wrong - every attempt at socialism thus far has been either subverted, crushed, or corrupted into something else. The question you have to ask is why this has been the case. Is it because there's something inherently wrong or unworkable about democrstic economies? I'd say no. Outside of the ruthlessness of capitalist countries in suppressing socialism from arising, the problem usually stems from material conditions - trying to leapfrog into an industrial socialist economy from a peasant agricultural economy, for example, without going through the capitalist phase that builds up capital and creates the class conflict that leads to socialism. Or relying on a particular party to force a revolution in accordance with this or that ideological basis, leading to the creation of a self-serving bureaucracy. These are massive blundsrs and failures on the part of socialists historically, but we can learn from them. That's the value of history.
Remember, for a thousand years the standard lesson to be taken from ancient Greek and Roman experiments with democracy was "democracy doesnt work, it just degenerates into mob rule and then a tyranny". That does not mean democracy is not worth striving for, just that we need to be able to look beyond historical examples as if they exemplify iron laws of history. We are entering a new era of computers and automation, and many of the conditions that held back socialism from being achieved no longer apply.
While Stalin was a thug and a dictator, it was Lenin who made it all possible. Essentially the Bolsheviks threw away democracy the moment they got in power.
Also I would like to say hello to all the other comrades in this thread. Nice to see that there are still quite a lot of people who believe in socialism even after the all the evil done in its name.
I wouldn't necessarily say so. The collapse of the Soviets was due to the dissolution of the proletariat as a class. The city workers returned to the countryside to become peasants. No proletariat, no Soviet.
But you are correct in that the decisions made in this situation basically lead down the wrong path.
Capitalism is a mode of production/exchange/etc. Being agrarian isn't incompatible with Capitalism. The Russian peasantry practiced capitalist relations. Once their own personal needs were satisfied via farming they took surplus produce and sold it directly on the market.
I disagree from both, maybe its not a perfect socialist society, but they were on the way.
Its hard to be democratic during a civil war against troops from all the world , but the structure of the soviet congress were Very democratic, If the purpose of It was corrupted during Lenin death, dont change its a good democratic form.
Lenin is not perfect btw, he made bad things, but i Will not buy the discourse to criminalize him.
Its hard to be democratic during a civil war against troops from all the world , but the structure of the soviet congress were Very democratic, If the purpose of It was corrupted during Lenin death, dont change its a good democratic form.
Lenin is not perfect btw, he made bad things, but i Will not buy the discourse to criminalize him.
It is true that the soviet was a democratic process in the beginning, but by the end they were not. While you can argue that desperate times takes desperate measures there is no excuse for the brutality that was used. The people of Russia revolted to be rid of the tzar, but they brought his methods with them. Lenin himself deemed it necessary and he should be held responsible for that.
What are people's opinions on Noam Chomsky? Namely I mean what are your opinions on what he has said about the US?
(Looks like I got post 666)
(Looks like I got post 666)
Last edited:
Mixed bag, but largely positive. Spot on about US violence deployed around the world but also one of the bigger voices using the phrase "American imperialism" which I find sort of a misleading phrase I wish people would stop using.
I think I ultimately find his critique of the US useful, even if I don't always agree with everything he says
He's sort of what first got me more interested in political discourse from a more left-wing perspective when I was much younger.
This in particular is what hooked me when I was a kid:
Anyone got any recommendations for left-wing intellectuals?
OP
OP
I believe that was in response to me saying that one of the things that resulted in corrupted attempts at socialism was trying to leapfrog capitalism from an agrarian base, in which case I was using the term primarily in the sense of a capitalist epoch/bourgeois dominance rather than the particulars of peasants utilizing markets.
And to answer that initial question then, I'm honestly not sure there would be a surefire solution. Judging by the totally unnecessary deaths that stemmed from collectivization with stuff like the murder od anyone trying to hide grain being waved away as purging kulaks (for example), I think it probably would have been better to follow the Socialist Revolutionary plan of land reallocation for the peasantry rather than land natonalization. The fact that the SRs were so popular with the peasants shows that they were willing to support socialist parties, so you work from there.
I mean, I get why the USSR did it - they wanted to massively industrialize on a quick scale so they needed tons of grain to feed the proletariat that they were rebuilding and they thought collectivization was the path forward, but it uh didn't work out as well as it could have to put it lightly. That happens when you're using state violence to try to compress a historical epoch worth of development into a couple decades.
It's not like the Bolsheviks were opposed to state control over ideologically unpalatable economic policies anyway, as the NEP shows.
Lenin was right to take kerensky out of the Power, kerensky was unable to attend the demands, and wanted to create a capitalist society in Russia and to extinguish the socialists. The people supported Lenin. Lenin didnt killed nobody in this coup, what follows next was the civil war against the bolsheviks were the us, England, France, Italy, Czech, Greece the white army etc fought against Lenin. They were at war, he survived an attack, he had to Control the country, he started to fight, pursued people against him, that's normal in civil war.
If you want to Judge If he exceed in the war or repression Thats ok, i Will say nothing, but you see this talk in any other war or period? The morality that exists in this period Specialy to USSR, you Will not find in any other, bunch of countries doing horrible shit at this period, the czars the white army made horrible shit but Lenin is the only Devil.
The problem is not that Lenin killed during this period to the western world, the problem is that he's a communist that's why everyone hates him and he must be demonized.
Last edited:
Dude was defending the Khmer Rouge when even arch Stalinists wouldn't go there.
Marcuse (and Gramsci) is the source for some of the more "metaphysical" theories we have today.
Bordiga for classic Leninism sans Stalinism.
Giles Dauve for modern Socialist thought.
Well you really can't go wrong with Chomsky. Aby Martin is pretty good too.
Chris Hedges and Cornel West are also great from the Christian Left.
I'd recommend Zizek, but I'd be wary to take him too seriously. He is a bit of a clown and his expertise is philosophy - his political views are all over the place.
Besides building a proletariat you'd also need a means of production to seize. If there's not much there to seize you'd have to accumulate it yourself. Put simply, productive capacity can be allocated to producing consumption and capital. Producing more capital allows you produce more in the future, at the expense of current consumption. So consumption is cut to accelerate the accumulation of capital, and sure you've changed who owns what around a bit, but this is maybe not what people were looking for out of a socialist revolution.
I'd like to recommend The Majority Report, hosted by Sam Seder. They have all sorts of leftist guests on there: Abby Martin, Jodi Dean, Bhaskar Sunkara, and David Harvey have all been on (some of them multiple times). It's a really good news and commentary channel.
I am in no way excusing what the other powers did during this period. In fact I agree with what you say there. There is no doubt that they benefited from the civil war in Russia. And my anger towards Lenin is based on the fact that I think the violence used during this period is was started the whole totalitarian regime it eventually became.
Yeah i understand you, and share your sentiment about stalin.
Something to laugh a little:
The Proletariat is built. It is the majority class by miles and has been so for hundreds of years.
The rest of your post doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.
OP
OP
Thought this was a pretty interesting interview about Soviet hippies, which is a subculture I never really thought about existing before. It's funny but logical how their counterculture revolved around idealization of the West and free markets to some extent.
https://jacobinmag.com/2017/11/soviet-hippies-antiwar-film
https://jacobinmag.com/2017/11/soviet-hippies-antiwar-film
http://edition.cnn.com/style/article/asgardia-satellite-launch/index.html
Real life Elysium or Bioshock in space
I found interesting that there's the same old " we shouldnt talk about capitalism or communism, we should do something New"
I always Think in what these people want, feudalism, tribalism?
And its Sad that you got this Idea of New world on space that replicates the old
Also the Name Gave me chills, sounds like space nazis.
Real life Elysium or Bioshock in space
I found interesting that there's the same old " we shouldnt talk about capitalism or communism, we should do something New"
I always Think in what these people want, feudalism, tribalism?
And its Sad that you got this Idea of New world on space that replicates the old
Also the Name Gave me chills, sounds like space nazis.
The "try something new" people have always existed. The "third way" between Socialism and Capitalism has always been just more fancy managed Capitalism.
Transhumanism is just liberal idealism.
Transhumanism is just liberal idealism.
The Culture is by far the most interesting look at transhumanist communism IMO, because of the matter of fact way in which it casually depicts things we would consider ethical violations that cease to matter when literally everything can be supplied at a whim, including like five forms of immortality
OP
OP
I think if anything, the USSR as well as other communist states show that socialism can never work long-term. No matter what system you have, the fact is the biggest assholes/jackasses/greedy people will always end up prominently making up the top of whatever system you have. They will always, of course, put themselves and their interests above those below them. It always has and always will be that way to one extent or another. I'd even argue that most people that champion against the rich and powerful were they to become rich and powerful would end up turning into some horrible people that oppress and exploit others for personal gain. Power corrupts, and no one is immune to it, even those that will talk against it.
Isn't it obvious? Because people are in charge, everyone is very flawed to one extent or another. No matter what, the greedy and self-serving will always ultimately be the ones calling the shots; in business, in politics what have you.
I don't disagree with the very real threat that a handful of highly-self-motivated individuals pose to literally any form of social organization, and figuring out how we defend against this is what I consider to be basically the problem. But its also one I think we can actually solve. I think that we can develop new forms of democracy to robustly give us power to oust bad actors when they move into positions of power, and I think we can build infrastructure for the equitable distribution of common resources that is difficult to exploit. We don't need it to be perfect, we just need it to be strong enough that we have the response time to defend it
Clearly this proves that capitalism is the only system that can work.
Well, it's been the only system that's lasted. It's a complete fairy tale to believe that there could ever be a system where there is no corruption, no greedy people, everyone has everything they need etc. As good as it looks a Star Trek Utopia is completely incapable of ever happening due to the nature of man.
Without wanting to put words in people's mouth.
I don't think anyone in here is seriously trying to advocate such a thing.
So then, what is there to discuss? It's something we'll always have, best just to work hard within the system you live in instead of expecting the government to give you stuff. Just like JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", words to live by.
So if you cant have perfect, we should just continue with a system that gives 3,5 billion people together 1% of all wealth on earth?
Sorry this argument is just silly. You are basically arguing that we shouldn't strive to create a better society or envision that a another society is possible. But yet under modern capitalism there is a increasing wealth divide between the haves and have-nots and ecological destruction through Capitalism complete failure to posit solutions to the environment question. If we have to accept this is the best we've got then we're screwed.
So what is your attitude to the everyday situation of a boss cutting it's workers wages by 40%? Do we have to accept that as the natural way of things or do we stand up, organise our fellow workers and fight back against such injustice? As a socialist I'll live and die by always opting for the latter, whereas the practical fruit that politics brings forth is just accepting the status quo. Which quite frankly I don't think is good enough.