this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
1901 points (97.6% liked)

memes

10567 readers
5072 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

guillotine oligarchs yes, UBI yes

That’s called center left now? I thought that was far left.

Center left is what we used to have after WWII.

Far left is what we worked for during the labour movement. Or so I thought.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you aren't working towards the establishment of Socialism, you can hardly be called "far left."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Getting rid of the oligarchs and implementing UBI would be the first step before you nationalize key industries and introduce worker co-ops.

Imo both above is what I call far left without the whole flip the game board and starting again, in my experience saying that really scares people.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Capitalists can't be ousted by asking nicely, that happens with revolutionary pressure. Since you can't do step 1, UBI would only come alongside austerity measures as a way to "simplify government" and erode social programs. You also can't translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.

Secondly, revolution isn't "flipping the gane board and starting again," it's a wresting of control from Capitalists and establishing a new state owned and run by the working class, in its interests. Industry must be preserved and carried forward, and that doesn't include immediately siezing all industry but doing so with respect to the degree that sectors and entities have developed and established effective internal planning, making markets less efficient vectors for growth and public ownership and central planning superceding it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You also can't translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.

I don’t agree with this. Worker coops exists in many places in Europe, and in said continent, some key industries are heavily controlled by the government.

In my country, Canada, we socialized healthcare without any revolution.

Down south, they had the labour movement that gave us the 40 hour week, the weekend and labour laws all throughout unionization and putting pressure on the capitalist class without “revolutionary pressure”, unless unionization is what you mean by revolutionary pressure. If so, then I agree.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're ignoring that these advancements in labor movements came as concessions from the bourgeoisie in the context of trying to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Canada and the US.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think we are splitting hairs.

I’m saying it’s possible within the confines of the system. In the US and Canada it was done by the confides of the system.

I’m good with having a revolution as the last resort, just not the first resort.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm saying there is no actual basis for it being possible within the system, though, unless there is revolutionary pressure, and even then this is only temporary and still requires revolution. That's why FDR's safety nets are vestigial at this point.

Revolution isn't the goal, but it remains the only proven tool.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well I guess that’s where we fundamentally disagree.

I just want us to do more of what we did with the 1930s because that helped give us the prosperity we saw past WWII.

I want that because I know it works, not saying a revolution can’t work, but why risk things in these polarizing times?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Then you need

  1. A millitant, organized working class movement
  2. A large, strong example of a recent Communist revolution, and
  3. A fearful bourgeoisie
[–] deafboy 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The recent strong example of a communist revolution gave us the anti-communist revolution. It took us 30 fucking years though. And the cost of this little detour can still be felt today. We're at least 2 generations of progress behind, compared to our western peers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

The recent strong example of a Communist Revolution created the conditions for FDR and other Social Democrats to greatly expand protections for workers via concessions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes, whereas we actually don’t know what we need for a proper revolution.

So imo that still a far safer bet because it has happened successfully before.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What do you mean by "we don't know what we need for a proper revolution?" Can we not look to the centuries of successful revolutions, and see how their conditions are similar and different from our own? Moreover, where are you hoping will be the next required large country to have a Communist revolution, and why can't it be your country?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well, I meant a socialist revolution.

Also, a lot of revolutions don’t go the way they intended.

centuries of successful revolutions

You know, the first French Revolution gave France napoleon, who was a dictator and only because he was constantly at war that he was unable to hold on to power.

Not every revolution accomplishes its goals so calling all of them successful is a stretch.

Idk if we need new examples, there has been so many example already.

But again I would like to reiterate, imo socialist revolution can work, but it’s the brute force, bloody and inefficient method that would never be my first pick if I have options.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Genuinely, what is the practical distinction between a Communist or Socialist revolution in the context of an international example for the domestic working class?

Furthermore, the French Revolution ultimately toppled the monarchy. It was not sunshine and roses, but succeeded in transitioning from feudalism to Capitalism. Additionally, I did not say every revolution was successful, but instead that we have many examples of successful revolutions.

Moreover, you have not established that you have options. You have no examples of Social Democracy existing in a manner that isn't temporary, and wasn't given rise to by the example of a much larger revolution like the Russian Revolution the working class could have followed in the footsteps of had the bourgeoisie not made concessions. This historical context is crucial to understanding what does and does not work!

[–] Dkarma 7 points 6 days ago

You're thinking eu not us. Overton window shifts in the us

[–] eatCasserole 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There's a funny hodgepodge of ideology here... "Guillotine oligarchs" sounds pretty cool, invokes the French Revolution, which was radical left, at the time. But then the unwillingness to abolish private property is either an erroneous conflation of "private" and "personal" or an unwillingness to actually change the system that produces the oligarchs.

It's like bailing out the boat but when someone says "patch the hole" your like "but we need the hole!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, it’s more like I know we are not ready to have the patch the hole conversation.

I rather bail out the boat and during that time, when people slowly realize that these solutions work and have merit, and when people stop being scared of the word socialism, then it would be pragmatic to talk about patching the hole.

Before that, talking about patching the hole might actually be counter productive as most people don’t have critical thinking and would be turned off by “radical” solutions.

The biggest issue with implementing socialism today imo is people not realizing the solutions can be beneficial. I rather focus on socialists solutions that are “low hanging fruit” so people warm up to the idea.

[–] eatCasserole 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes you have to consider who you're talking to but I think a lot of us are ready to talk about patching the hole.

As a radical leftist I'm certainly not against bailing the boat, I just acknowledge that this is a temporary solution. Like, minimum wage needs to be high enough that people can work a reasonable number of hours, afford rent, and still have time to read Marx.

The minimum wage hike is still important, it's just not the end game. If you're saying you're not interested in patching the hole, that sounds like a problem. If you're saying "this hole won't be patched for a while, but some day we'll get there. In the meantime, bail like hell." then, we are comrades.