this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1182 points (95.0% liked)
Political Memes
5524 readers
1828 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Critique of Capitalism was just one of Marx's 3 major pillars, the other two being Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Socialism.
If you think Marx simply ignored the process of what to do, then you aren't understanding why he didn't fully. Marx believed that every country would have unique circumstances, and that there is no one size fits all solution. That being said, he also did believe these would have Socialism in common, as well as revolutionary means.
If you want to see Marx give his thoughts on how to get to Socialism and then Communism, Critique of the Gotha Programme is a good place to reference. Marx talks about a weak Socialist program, and what they ought to do instead. As for Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels goes over past failures of Socialism, and how Marxism and Marxian philosophy solves these issues.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions "weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws" is just plain silly. There's tons of coherent thought in how to achieve Socialism, and why. Analysis of Capitalism was Marx's focus because everything else hinged on it, and is why he devoted so much time and energy to Capital.
There is no viable plan or solution for full-blown socialism to replace our economical or political system. It’s been pretty much unanimously agreed to be a bad idea.
The only people that seem to be suggesting it as a viable option are college kids and washed up economists that no one takes seriously.
America adopting pure socialism is a dream many have that will never happen.
Vibes and mysticism, lol. Do you have an actual point? None of what you said here is true or backed up by anything.
Definitely not true, and again not a real point, nor is it backed up by anything.
Back to vibes and mysticicm.
Can you explain the why or how of any of what you just said? It's all vibes.
ROFL… so, you accue me of “vibes and mysticism” for saying that socialism is a failed experiment- which is pretty much accepted as fact if you take 30 seconds to look, yet offer no proof that it could work aside from some shit paragraphs worshipping an antisemite’s theories on how to achieve a perfect system?
Nope. That’s not how this is going to work. You have to provide your own nonsense and let me attack the sources and poke it full of holes with long drawn out nonsensical rebuttals and paragraphs of quotes from my long dead theorists before I let you do the same….
Yes, you are operating on vibes and mysticism. You keep saying phrases like "pretty much accepted as fact" without referencing anything factual to point to. Additionally, as discussed in another comment, Marx was of Jewish descent and advocated for the liberation of Jewish people, and wrote a hit piece on the writer of The Jewish Question, which was one of the most antisemetic works of his time.
I have listed sources previously in this thread that I recommend you read. Since I doubt that will actually happen, I'll have to ask you what you genuinely mean by "Socialism doesn't work," because clearly you don't care about metrics like Life Expectancy, Literacy Rates, Housing Rates, median hours worked, and more.
Okay dude. I said I’m not arguing this with to. And I said there are no VIABLE working models that show socialism working in America.
And if anyone reason along wants to know what a pure socialist system will do to America, just look at what happened in Bulgaria
What is a "viable model of Socialism working in America?" Are you asking for a think-tank to model Socialism for you, or are you just saying Socialism can't work because you say it can't, despite historically working?
Why look at Bulgaria, specifically? What does Bulgaria share in common with the US that you would pick it over any of the other AES countries? Why do you think these presumed similarities mean the same events in Bulgaria would happen in America?
Do you have anything coherent to say?
Not arguing this. Socialism has never worked anywhere that is even remotely comparable to America. This is a fact.
I don’t argue against people that dispute facts. The facts do that themselves.
It has, mind explaining what you mean when you say it hasn't? Does improving life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, scientific progress, reducing poverty, and more not count as success?
What facts have you presented? So far you've been sharing your opinion.
Yeah. I do mind. As I’ve said, I’m not engaging with you on this. Your bad faith false equivalence rhetoric is not worthy of discussion because you have NO MODELS to compare against America.
So your life expectancy,” your “literacy rates,” your “housing rates,” your scientific progress” and your “poverty reduction” are irrelevant things to compare with.
You HAVE to know this.
Again, there is NO WORKING MODEL that can show pure socialism working in America. And you cannot provide one.
How have I been bad faith? What part has been false-equivalence? What do you mean by a Model, are you referring to another country with similar material conditions? There can't be, as America is history's most developed and exploitative empire, and no former empire has become Socialist straight from said Empire.
So improving conditions is irrelevant, got it. Is your point that you want these to lower, like what happened in the Russian Federation?
I'm sure I could if you ever once explained what you meant by this.
american socialist enclaves: the swamp maroons, the anabaptists
What?
they were haranguing you for proof socialism works in the USA. I have the answer
We’re done here bud. You can’t provide evidence that socialism will work- your point is entirely irrelevant.
What do you mean? I have already provided evidence.
Done, bud.
Thinking that we'll take down capitalism with some revolution and then go through a temporary period of single-party state socialism and then eventually move to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that'll never wind up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.
Why do you believe it is weak ass and half-thought out? Have you read the texts I linked? I'm not even asking you to read every Marxist text by every major Marxist who ever lived, I just think currently you have very little idea of what you're actually trying to talk about and would be better off getting some idea of what the source material actually states and see how it has panned out in context would be better than just resorting to ad-hominem and dodging.
Because it predictably goes the same way it always goes. You start with your "temporary period of single-party state socialism" after a half decade of bloodshed, and then the party never wants to give up power. So again you're just following what some stupid asshole / dear leader wants to do and that's never the real actual communism™.
You get "~~Socialism~~Communism with Chinese characteristics" (aka fascism with a different name and aesthetic).
EDIT: It's communism that supposedly has the chinese characteristics of being actually capitalism with an emperor...my apologies to the CCP.
This right there is why I recommended you read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
It's not that there's a secret cabal that never wants to give up power, but that government cannot simply dissolve and become Communism. Marx was no Anarchist! There has never been a point in time that the entire world has been made up of Socialist Republics, free from Capitalist interests, and thus trying to say that every single Socialist state should have simply collapsed themselves into magical Communism is nothing but idealism and speaks nothing of the Material Conditions of society.
That doesn't happen either. You get "Communism with Chinese characteristics". You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as "presidents". It's all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
I don't like capitalism either, and I think Marx's critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn't have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
I'll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I'll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
EDIT: I think the actual prescription is labor unions, worker protections, state administered social welfare and safety nets, etc...monopoly busting...all the new deal stuff basically. At least we have a historical example to point to of that shit working.
So 1. You get drastic improvements on material conditions for the vast majority of people as opposed to life under the nationalist KMT
You get a doubling of life expectancy, massive increases in literacy rates, housing rates, free education, and consistent growth in a Socialist economy until it liberalized and collapsed
You get a functioning country doing the best it can for its people despite a brutal blockade designed to punish the people for throwing off their fascist dictator and slave society
Not sure what your point is here.
He does, did, and I linked the sources. The fact that you're ignoring this directly in spite of said sources is incredibly dishonest.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be. If you don't want to read theory that is your personal choice to make, but that also makes all of your opinions of said theory worthless.
You're right, he does have a prescription...it's just one that doesn't work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Also, don't bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
It does and has worked. What do you believe is sufficient to decide if something does or does not work?
Socialist countries do in fact have elections, voting, and so forth.
Why not? Why do you say Socialist countries aren't democratic?
What countries are you counting?
The former USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and on and on do not hold elections.
The northern European (and other socialist-lite countries) that are closer to what I would want for America didn't abolish capitalism... So...
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, and DPRK all hold elections and practice(ed) some form of democracy.
They were not structured like Capitalist elections, but nonetheless had and have elections.
Social Democracy depends on Imperialism and Capitalism in the global north, is inherently unsustainable, and sees sliding of worker protections and rights over time, just like what happened following the New Deal in America. Reading theory makes it clear why.
Lol, alrighty we're done here. 😆
Edit: The only time tankies believe in voting is when they're on lemmy hitting the downvote icon on the deep posts. 😜
Not even checking the links? It's wikipedia, lol
They're sham elections. You telling me that fucking haircut in the DPRK is God emperor of North Korea because he has some mandate from the masses? He's atop the throne because he's the son of the last blowhard.
Lmao
George W. Bush was elected.
When's the last time haircut doofus had an actual election that he didn't somehow manage 106% of the vote in?
2019, I believe. Wikipedia has the results.
He's not even pretending anymore because he knows he's God Emperor for life.
You do realize you've moved the goal posts over time, right? Flawed democracy is still democracy, and if you're going to pretend it isn't then we have to agree that the US isn't a democracy either.
Not voting at all for your leadership isn't democracy.
It has nothing to do with flaws, of course countries have flaws.
If Trump manages to turn the country into full on dictatorship I'd acknowledge that as what it is, instead of pretending that it's a flourishing democracy.
Besides all of this, China hasn't even gotten rid of capitalism anyway. So they're not only a dictatorship but they're also practically a fascist one with worker aesthetics.
Half of the shit we buy in America is made in China by wage slaves who cannot advocate for themselves under threat of being carried off to jail or executed.
They do, though.
China has elections, so not sure why you're calling "fascist," it's closer to a Social Democracy.
Mind finding some sources of this happening?
All in all, you're deeply goofy. It's like you believe everything the US state department says.
Try watching a video of two guys going to North Korea to get a haircut.
Nah I'm good on pyong yang propaganda. You're fucking goofy. Touch grass you dumb bootlicker.
Yes, pyongyang propaganda from a pair of aussies touching grass.
I think you need to take your own advice and stop watching Joe Rogan.
I'm out touching grass right now and Joe Rogan can eat a dick along with your favorites fucking pooh bear and the tiny penis moron who looks like he accidentally walked into a hedge cutter.
Also Australia sucks y'all are a bunch of American wannabes.
✌️
Homophobia, racism, ableism, and more racism, lmao.
Guess Joe Rogan is too progressive for you, maybe Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes is more your speed?
Not even Australian myself lol