So socialism

[Lohrenswald]

Would make RD but even after all these years I can't say anything intelligent

I used to want to believe a better world was possible and I saw socialism as the way.
I still Feel kind of disgusted by how things are, but I've not gotten enlightened in socialism really, and now I don't know.

The Soviet union was reprehensible. Same with all other supposed revolutions that have been taken out really. And in the west or whatever I see mainly ignorant fools yapper past eachother about things they don't understand. I was among them. I'm not much better now.

What's the merit of socialism. Is there any hope?

How would one learn?

 

[r16]

without the existantial threat of Socialism and whatnot you wouldn't be posting here . Unless born rich enough or noble or whatever .

 

[Gorbles]

I think one of the larger barriers in mainstream / conventional discourse is the fact that the USSR wasn't socialist. It arguably wasn't even communist, but that's another argument.

The success of the Red Scare on discourse in Western nations over the past few decades has done a lot of work in contributing to this barrier. It's hard to work out a way past it at scale.

 

[Joij21]

Would make RD but even after all these years I can't say anything intelligent

I used to want to believe a better world was possible and I saw socialism as the way.
I still Feel kind of disgusted by how things are, but I've not gotten enlightened in socialism really, and now I don't know.

The Soviet union was reprehensible. Same with all other supposed revolutions that have been taken out really. And in the west or whatever I see mainly ignorant fools yapper past eachother about things they don't understand. I was among them. I'm not much better now.

What's the merit of socialism. Is there any hope?

How would one learn?

There is an alternate timeline where Marxism succeeded revolting in post-WW1 Germany, France, or Britain. You know within an actual Western European, Industrialized, and Capitalistic society as Karl Marx predicted. Not the strange Frankenstein hybrid yet still feudalist land that Russia was (and arguably still kinda is again today).

But anyway Socialists are kinda dumb and are whiney and entitled little peoples. So Socialism can never work.

 

[Lohrenswald]

But anyway Socialists are kinda dumb and are whiney and entitled little peoples. So Socialism can never work.

I mean I'm not going to criticise you for thinking this but it's not the most intelligent take on the matter

I want to ask anyone who agrees to just like joij's post instead of repeating it

The success of the Red Scare on discourse in Western nations over the past few decades has done a lot of work in contributing to this barrier. It's hard to work out a way past it at scale.

I feel you know work's been done to turn that around, but it's not really helped

without the existantial threat of Socialism and whatnot you wouldn't be posting here

I still don't really understand the things you say

But anyway I won't be posting here much longer

 

[Kyriakos]

without the existantial threat of Socialism and whatnot you wouldn't be posting here . Unless born rich enough or noble or whatever .

Lohren is royalty.

As for socialism, I think the only chance of that is through a combination of breakthrough tech and massive world war. Both will happen sooner rather than later, but the outcome is uncertain. Hopefully consumerist society will end, but it's not a given what will replace it.

 

[amadeus]

It arguably wasn't even communist, but that's another argument.

To argue this last part first, it wasn’t: the Soviets themselves said this, Khrushchev saying that the USSR would reach communism in 20 years. Brezhnev said the Soviet Union was on the path and had reached “developed socialism” in the late 1970’s.

But on your other point: not socialist how? Capital was owned by the state and under the “control” of the workers. What did the USSR fail to do to impose socialist economic policy?

 

[schlaufuchs]

I mean I don’t really want to get into the weeds on this because I’m burned out on responding to the usual strawmen and the anti-communists on here are tedious.

But I would says that 1) the major communist figures - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Gramsci, Kropotkin, Du Bois, Turé, Davis, Robinson, Rodney, hooks, etc. have effectively been vindicated by subsequent events and advances in the fields of anthropology, sociology, etc. Their characterization of the course of history is basically correct, and their observations about the necessity for mass movements practicing direct action to effect any kind of material change are also more or less correct.

2) given that overall sociological and historical outlook, coupled with a study of fascist movements lead me to conclude that Luxembourg was right; it’s socialism or barbarism. Either we figure out how to build a mass, international, intersectional movement to overthrow the existing order of things, or we descend into an ecofascist hellscape that would make the police states of the present US and Israel blush

I am a communist not because I think we’ll win, necessarily - indeed we have a great deal riding against us - but because we’re all totally boned if we don’t.

 

[r16]

once there were aristocrats and the rest . Industrial Revolution created a need for a middle class that clamoured for increased power . The need to control the risks that entailed made it possible for Socialists to exist . They were indeed a threat to the Rich but they could be bought off . Without the Socialists and some 200 years of troubles they created you and ı would have to work far more than 40 hours a week . So that we wouldn't find time to play Civ . And we wouldn't come to CFC and we wouldn't be posting here .

all those funny silly Socialist trappings have forced stuff on the people who run this world . To drive all these outrageous stuff back those elites started a war , risking a nuclear exchange and more . And currently they have a pony show meant to convince the more idiotic sections of the global population that they are really shooting down alien flying saucers . Do not consider your hopeless struggle for doing something right and just as a waste . You might failed to change the world , on your own . But any teacher you might have had no clue him or herself and the butterfly that flaps its wings and sometime later causes a tornado in the Gulf of Mexico might have felt the very same dejection .

if still confusing , don't worry , there are hundreds of very smart men at this very moment without the slightest idea on what the hell am doing . Saw your classification by Kyriakos just about ı was going to post this . Well , imagine yourself as some random poor guy .

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Socialism is a good ideology, its just that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and a list of other villains ruined people's opinions on it.

 

[EvaDK]

The Soviet union was reprehensible. Same with all other supposed revolutions that have been taken out really. And in the west or whatever I see mainly ignorant fools yapper past eachother about things they don't understand. I was among them. I'm not much better now.

What's the merit of socialism. Is there any hope?

The Soviet Union never achieved true Socialism. Some will go further and argue the USSR never truly achieved the tenets of Communism either.

The USSR was a totalitarian police state with an empire and nukes. The workers of the USSR never enjoyed the privilegies afforded to them in a Socialist ideology; they never owned the means of production.
If you want an example of a present day nation emulating the worst aspects of the USSR under Stalin - and then some, look no further than North Korea.

 

[Kyriakos]

It wasn't the plan to have socialism in the first place. Furthermore, Russia wasn't industrialized enough to achieve it; it was a system theorized for specific western european countries.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I mean there are different ages when ideologies are needed:

Ancient technology - imperial system with parts of democracy
Medieval/Renaissance - merchantalism
Industrial to now - socialism
now onwards - ???

 

[schlaufuchs]

Once the German Revolution failed and the Western nations began coordinating invasions of Russia (and the American anarchist labor movement fizzled out during the 1st red scare), there wasn’t really a whole lot for it. The point is it has to be international, or you wind up with things that look like the Soviets under war communism and Stalin, or else contained, impoverished pariah states like Cuba or pre-reform Vietnam, or impotent paper Tiger Social Democracies like Weimar Germany, the Nordics, or the sewer socialists.

The Comintern really wound up sabotaging a great deal on their own too.

 

[Gorbles]

I feel you know work's been done to turn that around, but it's not really helped

I think online in left-leaning and related spaces? Absolutely.

But that's why I say "at scale". We're less than five years past the national broadcaster for the UK presenting an incredibly mildly socialist leader of the opposition against the backdrop of USSR red, on primetime TV. I hate optics-related arguments, but they're a good yardstick for what the current ruling class think they can get away with.

But on your other point: not socialist how? Capital was owned by the state and under the “control” of the workers.

When the state is overwhelmingly one dude, and "control" is (rightly) in quotes, you have your answer

 

[Caesar of Bread]

No they have never been vindicated. Such nonsense and based on 19th century pseudoscience.



Utter drivel! There are many ways we can work ourselves out of our current predicaments, it's not a simplistic and binary "socialism or barbarism". Such black and white thinking is what an immature child or someone with developmental issues would believe in.



Ah but it's true!

Marxists are mean spirited, hypocritical, have violent tempers, are unreasonable, non pragmatic, plus have daddy issues and one dimensional sexual identities which they base their entire personality on.

They are always looking for intersectionality in everything, shoot themselves constantly in the foot through their terroristic accelerationism, are indeed the actual ecofascists or are unwittingly pushing for it with said accelerationism, and quite frequently rat out on their own friends for not being "pure enough" however they define that. NO LOYALTY! AWFUL FRIENDS PERIOD!

Never do they forgive or move on. Are weirdos, cannibalistic vegans, and creeps.

P.S. Marxists smell bad too!

Having terrible monarchies and monopolies is something barbarians had. It's time we get rid of it and use socialism.
Says you, who is insulting everyone on the left. Do you know that on the right you guys have religious fanatics, Nazis, school shooters, and more? Also, you kinda said something that was homophobic/transphobic. It's their choice for sexual/gender identities.
Don't you capitalists believe in "survival of the fittest"? I mean some forms of capitalism were okay, but Darwinism is terrible! You are the ones excluding others. Even Charles Darwin was against the Social Darwinist practices attributed to him. Survival of the fittest means survival of the people who are kindest.
CANNIBALISTIC vegans. I am not vegan, but I don't think how you could some sort of oxymoron like that!
Geez, look who's talking. I put on deodorant every morning, brush my teeth 2 times a day, and take showers.

 

[Plains-Cow]

The all-knowing algorithm is the future. It shall dictate all of societal and economic growth from cradle to grave.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

There are people who will say something like "the Nazis were socialist, it's in their name," although the reason why it's in their name was to appeal to as many people as possible but that doesn't matter to these people.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Your 13, please!

Look I think monopolies and certain capitalistic excesses need to be reigned in so I'll tolerate some social democracy within reason.

But the Marxists, man they are a nasty accelerationist bunch. Always crafting Machiavellian conspiracies to ruin our education system and economy so they have an excuse to push their agenda to the brain dead masses. Masses which they made brain dead and expect to be useful for the creation of their post-revolutionary society! That why they always fail, they make them stupid for the revolution, then the stupid fails them when they attempt to create a functioning governance. That's why they always starve to death whenever they succeed!!!

Sir, are you okay? You sound like one of those crazy incels.

 

[amadeus]

When the state is overwhelmingly one dude, and "control" is (rightly) in quotes, you have your answer

Without getting into the minutiae of Soviet politics and history, I think we agree directionally in that there was little democratic control in the country. By minutiae I mean the more personalistic rule of Khrushchev versus the more consensus-oriented (in the politburo) Brezhnev, the latter framework being part of the instrument that ousted Khrushchev.

However, in the economic sphere I think it is fair to call them socialists because they believed in Marx, Lenin, and tried to implement policy based on those debates; I think the capitalist West had a much more results-driven policy than debating whether it was ideologically sound to allow private-plot farmers to sell onions for ten or fifteen kopecks. The Soviets and the Chinese did this, and I don’t think we were shackled by this miasma of “would Adam Smith do this?”