So socialism

[innonimatu]

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 tale that "the USSR was bad" was the single greatest victory of capitalist propaganda against socialism. The USSR was not perfect but it was by far better than the present crap. There or here in the "west".

Socialism requires taking control of the means of production away from any rentiers. Ending private ownership of those beyond self-employment. This was a problem resolved in the USSR. The debates they had over where to limit private ownership remain relevant for any socialist today.

The big flaw of the USSR was lack of effective internal democracy. It was not economic or social flaws that led to its dissolution. It was a problem of political organization, of how to defend what they had against the greed of the people in decision-making positions. Remember that the USSR was dissolved in a coup led by Yeltsin. Against the will of the vast majority of its people in the referendums held months earlier. The vast majority of its people wanted to preserve it even despite the years of economic and political sabotage by Gorbachev's team.

As with all human societies, socialist societies are vulnerable to corruption. Especially when they exist side by side with different economic systems that vest material benefits on their own politicians and bureaucrats far beyond what those in the USSR allowed. The undertakers of the USSR were former ambassadors to western countries. Gorbachev listened to their advice and he himself spent as much time as he could traveling in capitalist countries. The USSR was disbanded not by a revolution of its people against the system but by a band of bureaucrats fascinated with the idea of personal enrichment like they saw in the west. First it was fake "cooperatives", then state appointed managers being allowed to steal materials and money from the state enterprises, then ties to western banking and allowances for sending money out. In just a few years the original oligarchs emerged from the "private sector" that the CPSU had allowed to grow there, and became Yeltsin's backers in his "radical privatization" (looting of public assets) programme. This itself was initially modeled on "privatization" done in western Europe from the mid 1980s since people like Mitterrand had betrayed socialism (social democracy, more accurately) there.

Three lessons from that era, to take into account for the next ones:
Profit begets corruption - beware "cooperatives" and other forms of large-scale private property of means of production.
Bad examples spread and induce greed.
Democracy must be extensive to guard against that, but bureaucratic or elitist.

 

[Joij21]

The tale that "the USSR was bad" was the single greatest victory of capitalist propaganda against socialism. The USSR was not perfect but it was by far better than the present crap. There or here in the "west".

Socialism requires taking control of the means of production away from any rentiers. Ending private ownership of those beyond self-employment. This was a problem resolved in the USSR. The debates they had over where to limit private ownership remain relevant for any socialist today.

The big flaw of the USSR was lack of effective internal democracy. It was not economic or social flaws that led to its dissolution. It was a problem of political organization, of how to defend what they had against the greed of the people in decision-making positions. Remember that the USSR was dissolved in a coup led by Yeltsin. Against the will of the vast majority of its people in the referendums held months earlier. The vast majority of its people wanted to preserve it even despite the years of economic and political sabotage by Gorbachev's team.

As with all human societies, socialist societies are vulnerable to corruption. Especially when they exist side by side with different economic systems that vest material benefits on their own politicians and bureaucrats far beyond what those in the USSR allowed. The undertakers of the USSR were former ambassadors to western countries. Gorbachev listened to their advice and he himself spent as much time as he could traveling in capitalist countries. The USSR was disbanded not by a revolution of its people against the system but by a band of bureaucrats fascinated with the idea of personal enrichment like they saw in the west. First it was fake "cooperatives", then state appointed managers being allowed to steal materials and money from the state enterprises, then ties to western banking and allowances for sending money out. In just a few years the original oligarchs emerged from the "private sector" that the CPSU had allowed to grow there, and became Yeltsin's backers in his "radical privatization" (looting of public assets) programme. This itself was initially modeled on "privatization" done in western Europe from the mid 1980s since people like Mitterrand had betrayed socialism (social democracy, more accurately) there.

Three lessons from that era, to take into account for the next ones:
Profit begets corruption - beware "cooperatives" and other forms of large-scale private property of means of production.
Bad examples spread and induce greed.
Democracy must be extensive to guard against that, but bureaucratic or elitist.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell it to your friend Putin!

He was raised under said Marxist system, as were all the other men you just mentioned. Vladimir is therefore a representative of the inevitable butt end final result of all Marxist systems. His war of aggression in Ukraine is a prime example of the imperialist degeneracy that Marxism always begets.

 

[innonimatu]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell it to your friend Putin!

He was raised under said Marxist system, as were all the other men you just mentioned. Vladimir is therefore a representative of the inevitable butt end final result of all Marxist systems. His war of aggression in Ukraine is a prime example of the imperialist degeneracy that Marxism always begets.

Putin is no marxist. He seem to be a russian nationalist.
But his war of demilitarization on NATO is breaking the international exploitation part of american capitalism. Which means that this capitalism will prey more intensely on americans. And the people of its remaining vassal states.

That kind of thing to destabilizes systems. There are thresholds to people's tolerance to be exploited. We will see what happens. Remember, no social system is stable. Capitalism enjoyed a 30 years run over the world after the end of the cold war. It's pool of available resources more than doubled. Now it's shrinking even if countries merely shun trade and go to national capitalism.
In the US you can expect more political repression and gradual impoverishment of the 99%. The logic of accumulation, absent foreigners to look, leads to that. Until something breaks. Hell even organs will get looted by the oligarchs.

More than to Putin, we have the geniuses in Washington and Brussels to thank for. Their idea of sanctioning left and right is breaking international capitalism. Good riddance!

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell it to your friend Putin!

He was raised under said Marxist system, as were all the other men you just mentioned. Vladimir is therefore a representative of the inevitable butt end final result of all Marxist systems. His war of aggression in Ukraine is a prime example of the imperialist degeneracy that Marxism always begets.

Putin and your orange dumpster pile of a friend Donald Trump are one and the same: capitalist, hypernationalist, fascist. the two are the same, always trying to spread their evil across the world

 

[amadeus]

In the US we are instead shackled by a miasma of "would Thomas Jefferson do this" which is arguably worse

I thought about this before I posted and I’m going to have a hard time articulating why I feel this is different.

One I feel is talking about, by invoking Jefferson’s name, an appeal to discuss the limits of constitutional government. The other is a kind of attempting to fulfill some historical prophecy, and I think that’s fair to differentiate the two because one is an ideology that seeks the world revolution, the revolution they see as an inevitability they ironically need to work to fulfill, rather than being confined to the borders of the United States.

 

[Joij21]

Putin and your orange dumpster pile of a friend Donald Trump are one and the same: capitalist, hypernationalist, fascist. the two are the same, always trying to spread their evil across the world

I never said I supported Donald Trump, Putin was a Marxist however. He was KGB, this is a fact.

Putin is no marxist. He seem to be a russian nationalist.
But his war of demilitarization on NATO is breaking the international exploitation part of american capitalism. Which means that this capitalism will prey more intensely on americans. And the people of its remaining vassal states.

That kind of thing to destabilizes systems. There are thresholds to people's tolerance to be exploited. We will see what happens. Remember, no social system is stable. Capitalism enjoyed a 30 years run over the world after the end of the cold war. It's pool of available resources more than doubled. Now it's shrinking even if countries merely shun trade and go to national capitalism.
In the US you can expect more political repression and gradual impoverishment of the 99%. The logic of accumulation, absent foreigners to look, leads to that. Until something breaks. Hell even organs will get looted by the oligarchs.

More than to Putin, we have the geniuses in Washington and Brussels to thank for. Their idea of sanctioning left and right is breaking international capitalism. Good riddance!

Again former KGB so Marxist through and through. Only later did he change his stance because he's such a huckster and the Russian people are dumb enough to believe whatever he says.

 

[Ajidica]

the Russian people are dumb enough to believe whatever he says

They did just endure a decade of a drunk collapsing the country, and early on Putin actually came across as respectable and competent.

Featuring the infamous Boris Yeltsin drunken roar!

 

[amadeus]

They did just endure a decade of a drunk collapsing the country,

I feel like Yeltsin has long been unfairly maligned.

To quote Admiral Donitz: Well they were hardly going to give me the job when everything was going really well.

 

[Zardnaar]

Something like the Scandincoubtries irvore 1984 is probably about the best we can achieve.

Mote more than that you'll probably have to resort to violence and then your socialist regime goes down the path of all the various autocratic kleptocracy.

 

[Lexicus]

I thought about this before I posted and I’m going to have a hard time articulating why I feel this is different.

I'm only joking, conservatives don't really give a hoot about what Thomas Jefferson thought or did.

 

[Kaitzilla]

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?

Well, just look for the one or two countries where socialism worked out great and learn how they succeeded.

 

[Yeekim]

The tale that "the USSR was bad" was the single greatest victory of capitalist propaganda against socialism. The USSR was not perfect but it was by far better than the present crap. There or here in the "west".

I see your spiral into full tankie has been successfully completed. My condolences.
As someone who, unlike yourself, has some first-hand knowledge of USSR, permit me to make a suggestion - never say anything like this in public anywhere on former Soviet territory. Total ridicule would be guaranteed, risk of physical harm entirely non-negligible.

EDIT: The single greatest victory of capitalist propaganda, at least in the US, seems to be making certain people believe that USSR is just an inch to the left of their dual-party playing field, while, in fact, there's most of the developed world within that gap with ample room to spare.

 

[Snowygerry]

[...]

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

How would one learn?

Certainly.

You need about equal measures of socialism and capitalism, they correlate to the two basic forms of human interaction, cooperation and competition, both are needed for successful social-economic model.

 

[Narz]

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

Hows that? They tried to collectivism everything, even trying to have the government rule the lives of far flung reindeer herders.

I see your spiral into full tankie has been successfully completed. My condolences.
As someone who, unlike yourself, has some first-hand knowledge of USSR, permit me to make a suggestion - never say anything like this in public anywhere on former Soviet territory. Total ridicule would be guaranteed, risk of physical harm entirely non-negligible.

EDIT: The single greatest victory of capitalist propaganda, at least in the US, seems to be making certain people believe that USSR is just an inch to the left of their dual-party playing field, while, in fact, there's most of the developed world within that gap with ample room to spare.

Whenever you see someone young arguing about how great the soviet block was its guaranteed they've never had an actual conversation with someone from there.

 

[Narz]

Socialism is a method. You can have democratic socialism which is the best of socialism (safety net, free healthcare, subsidization of many social goods) w democracy.

Neither socialism not free market capitalism will ever be taken to an extreme (the US is extremely good @ redistribution, mostly towards those already the most wealthy), likewise no one wants to live in a world where you can't start your own lil business without the teacher saying "no share w the whole class". Even in the most repressive eras of North Korea you'd always find little entrepreneurs (altho obviously they'd keep hush about it)

 

[Gorbles]

Hows that? They tried to collectivism everything, even trying to have the government rule the lives of far flung reindeer herders.

Collectivism with an increasingly autocratic leadership and a penchant for purges?

I'm simplifying things a bit, but to me the only reason people want to call the USSR socialist is so that they can then put socialism down.

 

[Narz]

Survival of the fittest means survival of the people who are kindest.

Not really. Most cooperative within their group and able to exploit/conquer/evade conquer of outgroups.

Collectivism with an increasingly autocratic leadership and a penchant for purges?

What do you expect when you try to collectivize something as large as ussr? No corruption?

Purges (or at least a mass exodus) seems to be the rule not some kind of surprising exception.

Can't have a cultural revolution without executing some anti-revolutionaries.

I'm simplifying things a bit, but to me the only reason people want to call the USSR socialist is so that they can then put socialism down.

I think some socialism is a good thing. People put down the ussr because it caused more human suffering to its own people than any other regime in history.

 

[Snowygerry]

Whenever you see someone young arguing about how great the soviet block was its guaranteed they've never had an actual conversation with someone from there.

Some years ago I discussed the issue with a fellow from Belorussia,

told me Belgium was more socialist than his homeland ever was - he liked it here a lot

 

[Kyriakos]

Belgium has to feature socialism, though; it's three countries held together with some duct-tape ^^

 

[Gorbles]

I think some socialism is a good thing. People put down the ussr because it caused more human suffering to its own people than any other regime in history.

The point is you can criticise the USSR and it wasn't socialist.