I consider myself centre left, but ever since I started listening to the Revolutions podcast I've been feeling very... socialist curious. Will be watching this thread.
Depends on the person. I personally am not a big fan - I just like the memes - but I see the USSR as a grand failed project. I don't believe in Great Man theory; I don't believe the USSR was the living embodiment of the wills of Lenin and Stalin or whatever. It was an attempted democratic project of millions of people that failed due to the material conditions it evolved within. The democratic part got jettisoned pretty early, but even within the society that emerged there were still some elements of it that survived - for example, those 99% voting counts? Those actually happened, because the government was obsessed with showing its legitimacy, and the people knew that. They couldn't really freely pick who was on the ballot but they could abstain, or better yet threaten to abstain, which caused party members who had to organize the vote massive headaches which the people used to their advantage to get various local issues addressed. Quite clever.
The USSR helped fund anti-racist, anti-imperial, and anti-capitalist movements all over the globe. It made great strides in science. It provided for its people pretty well once they got through the initial horrors considering it wasn't following market logic. At the same time the civil war was horrendous, Stalin was a monster, and the subsequent leaders were pretty bog standard authoritarians, but no worse than what modern China does.
I guess I see it as a society striving to build itself according to new and higher principles that just kept subverting itself while also being sabotaged from the outside. There's a lot to take pride in and a lot to feel shame about. Not too different from the US.
One perspective I read that I liked was that after the revolution, the massacres, the famine, the show trials, and especially World War II the Soviet people felt that they had emerged from the crucible and, having survived, deserved their right to seek a new world. I'm just sad they failed to do it. But I'm still proud of the ones who genuinely tried.
Yep.Whatever one thinks of Socialism and its various guises in the past or present... The very probable near future of technology should have people giving the topic serious thought.
I agree - once automation kicks into high gear, it's either UBI or dystopian future...Yep.
That's why i'm a very strong believer in a Universal Guaranteed Income tied to inflation (i'd still keep the minimum wage) that starts when you hit 18
Yup, this is part of my motivation in terms of being borderline socialist.Whatever one thinks of Socialism and its various guises in the past or present... The very probable near future of technology should have people giving the topic serious thought.
The depressing thing is. Even without a greater degree of automation developing, it's still need.I agree - once automation kicks into high gear, it's either UBI or dystopian future...
Hi comrades
Are you hopeful about the future? Particularly I'm not, western democracies are designed to make people think that voting the rival bourgeois party of the ruling one will change things.
Are tankies a serious group in the modern world? Are they common in socialism circles?
They are vocal online but really they have no base in the movements apart from solidarity work around Syria which is heavily divided thanks to tankies. At least that's my experience in Australia.Are tankies a serious group in the modern world? Are they common in socialism circles?
We fought for the future destroyed the invaders. Well I mean not us literally, anyone from like the battle of berlin still alive? Anyway glad to be apart of the political ideology who's army led to Hitler's suicide.
A superb podcast. I can't wait till he catches up with the 20th century. The revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries provide so much context for those of the 20th. Invaluable listening.
Not much of a socialist (unless democratic socialism counts) but I'm glad to see my favorite comrade sphagnum made it over to Reset Era.
That's too fucking good for them. Just shoot those cunts and leave them in a ditch.
Yes. I think i can safely say, everyone here would love to see the Federation become a real thing.I'm proponent of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, does that count?
Hell yeah, comrade. We're all getting behind that.I'm proponent of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, does that count?
What are your favourite songs to listen to get into a revolutionary mood?
I seem to enjoy this one quite a bit.
BTW - Youtube embdeds, this place is so nice.
We are all striving to build a future where we can kick it in space and wear dope onesie uniforms and walk around like this with fellow comradesI'm proponent of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, does that count?
What are your favourite songs to listen to get into a revolutionary mood?
I seem to enjoy this one quite a bit.
BTW - Youtube embdeds, this place is so nice.
To Help you:It absolutely wàs during the NEP - I mean, Lenin even said so. It's hard for me to see how the Stalin era could be considered state capitalist when the standard process of capital accumulation had been tossed out and they were running fully on material balancing (I like Trotskys "degenerated workers state" but that also would imply it was a full workers state before he got expelled), but maybe the later eras could be described that way. It's kind of a fuzzy term.
I'll have to take care of that at some point. I just wish the old thread was still up to copy/paste.
It's only socialist in orientation if it is meant as part of a larger goal looking to collectivize ownership of the MOP. That said, it's still of interest to socialists to discuss.
This is correct.
It was both the right thing to do and also a massive power move to outflank Malenkov. His intentions weren't exactly pure but it got the country on the right track.
I can't speak for all parts of the world but yes they are common in many different left areas in Germany. There's many different socialist and communist groups that vary in ideology, we have anti-revisionist minor political parties for example. Here is such one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist–Leninist_Party_of_Germany
I don't believe the anti-racist and anti-imperial part. Lest we forget, the Soviets were an imperial power colonizing eastern europe, and were just as responsible as the US for ruining countries around the world.
For sure. It also had to be less about looking up to old regimes with all of their baggages, and it has to be left-libertarian rather than the authoritarian structures you usually see.Something we gotta keep in mind: if socialism/leftism in general is to win hearts and minds, it's gotta be intersectional as hell. More Chelsea Mannings and Keith Ellisons in the forefront, less Chapos.
Something we gotta keep in mind: if socialism/leftism in general is to win hearts and minds, it's gotta be intersectional as hell. More Chelsea Mannings and Keith Ellisons in the forefront, less Chapos.
Che - dope as hell
We can learn from them, but both were very problematic and shouldn't be looked up to.
So what's people's opinion on China? Its very much in the USSR camp for me, i.e "whatever this is, it isn't the working the way we would want functional socialism or communism to work" (also the Great Leap Forward was horrifying etc)
Was there a point at which China was on the right track to implement socialism though? Or has the entire thing basically been compromised from the start, regardless of what the party line was?Its an authoritarian state capitalist country. I was actually going to post about Xi Jinping Thought at some point today because they just enshrined it alongside Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Thought as part of their leading ideology, but it seems to me that XJT is Chinese imperialism/more authoritarian state capitalism disguising itself as a new phase of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". At least DXT had the NEP as a basis. However, Xi has promised to start focusing development in the overlooked western regions, so thats good, but I would think it will be mixed with Han nationalism.
Heres a quick overview of the main points of XJT:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/xi-jinping-thought-vs-deng-xiaoping-theory/
I would have liked to have seen what the New Left would have done if they had gotten into power over Xi.
Based on what I know and have sort of experienced, at least of where things are at right now but this might have always been sort of the plan, its a vision of...nationalist feudalism? The end goal seems to be a wealthy prosperous China in which nearly all (Han) citizens are prosperous, in a state controlled by an elite who control most of the actual wealth (and as controllers of the state, all of the land people own houses on). The wish for China to elevate the quality of life of (again, Han) citizens is legitimate, and just as legitimately coupled with a desire to make sure there's still the guys on the top. I mean someone can correct any part of that that I've gotten wrong but that's what it feels likeChe - Cool, pure revolutionary
Fidel - Cool in some aspects, horrible in many others
China its a weird thing, i'm sincere when i say i dont understand them completely, i think its a mistake to say they are a just another regular capitalist state, since that part of the country is in a socialist model. For me its a Frankenstein and i dont understand what China long term goal is, and i dont understand their New ideology of that chinese phillosopher.
Also the censorship sucks
Even liberals defended the use of force against opression and for revolutionary purposes, but since liberalism is in Power, to maintain the status quo, they demonize socialist revolutions and the use of violence for It. Imo.I've also struggled with my thoughts on the role that violence plays in these sorts of movements. As a personal pacifist, I can never bring myself to condone the use of force, but I also understand that violence is a tool that can be used effectively, even though it often isn't.
Honestly the use of violence doesn't bother me particularly, especially as it relates to a lot of current oppression going on in the world. My issue with "violent revolutions" is really more cynicism about the revolution part of that equation, particularly in AmericaI've also struggled with my thoughts on the role that violence plays in these sorts of movements. As a personal pacifist, I can never bring myself to condone the use of force, but I also understand that violence is a tool that can be used effectively, even though it often isn't.
Was there a point at which China was on the right track to implement socialism though? Or has the entire thing basically been compromised from the start, regardless of what the party line was?
Dialectic is the way i thinkWhat are your thoughts on the concept of a "Divine Answer" type scenario? Not theologically divine but where you conclude that yours is the only true answer. When you 'know' your movement is the only true answer and that any suppression of opposition is justified?
It's a concept that I've heard about a few months ago and has stuck with me ever since. It's led to the fall of many revolutionary movements including that of the Jacobins during the French revolution.
I ask because I think it would be hard to be able to remove one's self when in the movement. But something that must be faced for any successful movement. And it can ultimately leave some almost petrified at the prospect.
Hope what I'm trying to explain makes any sense.