this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
367 points (81.6% liked)

Memes

49326 readers
1227 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rubpoll@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

“The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.”

― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

[–] Tvkan@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago

western teenagers praising capitalism

the children sewing their clothes, harvesting their food, mining their metals, ...

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

There is no such thing as pure capitalism.

[–] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 7 months ago

To be honest, I've been using Lemmy for a week now, and I'm kind of concerned with all the communism stuff around here.

[–] Gray@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to "socialism"? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say "well that wasn't true x". And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here. I've been mostly telling people I'm a "social democrat" or that I support "capitalism with heavy regulations". But even those words can get picked apart and don't really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

[–] salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

IMHO, by this point those labels are nothing but thought-terminating clichés.

[–] Gray@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah. Like saying you believe that companies beyond a certain size should be legally required to seek a vote from their employees before implementing certain types of changes is a real policy to argue about. Call it democratizing business or whatever you want. And then that's an actual concrete issue we can argue about. Or if you believe in the government buying out businesses beyond a certain size, that's a specific conversation we can have and we can discuss the hypothetical implementation of that. Call it business seizure or whatever. Just saying "I believe in socialism" doesn't dig enough into the details of how you perceive socialism or how you would implement it. And frankly, I think it hurts the socialists or communists or whoever is trying to persuade the current culture away from what we have more than anybody else. Ideas grow when you make real, concrete proposals. These exceedingly large scale labels usually end up killing a conversation rather than feeding it. Someone gets mad at a label and then everything shuts down on that sticking point.

[–] shufflerofrocks@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

I find this arguing over labels more and more as I browse online, and it is sooo exhausting. I have noticed so many instances of arguing and discourse where both sides have similar ideals and want the same things, but argue with each other over stereotypes of labels on the other side, and point to the faults of the vocal rabid minority on the other side as if to prove a point. Sigh.

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

The label changes to socialism on the same day that the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced.

Socialism is the transitionary stage of society between capitalism and communism. Its defining feature is that it is a society run by the proletariat as the ruling class instead of the bourgeoisie. Everything else about it can be in some state of flux based on the conditions, because it is transitional. Socialism is a process, not a magic button.

Social democracy is not socialism. You are just a capitalist that likes welfare. Your ideology has absolutely no desire to change the ruling class or overturn the system that is currently burning the world and leading us to destruction.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Designate6361@lemmy.letthewookiee.win 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I wish i had the balls the size of the OP's. This is quality thread by someone not afraid of the consequences.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›