this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1284 points (96.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5575 readers
2977 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

The answer is to join revolutionary orgs like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) or Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). Only through organization outside the electoral system does the Proletariat have any hope of steering the ship and seizing the reigns.

There is no electoral strategy to get to Socialism because it's nearly impossible, just like asking the board of directors to hand the reigns of the company to you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The answer is to join revolutionary org

Why? When is the revolution going to happen? Where and when are we supposed to gather?

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

I already answered the why. The where and when depends on organization, right now orgs aren't as strong as they need to be, hence the importance of joining. The where is wherever your local org gathers, the when is whenever they meet and based on what they need you to do.

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

These organizations have been around for decades, yes? Seems like there's never going to be a when.

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

That's the same logic as saying there's never going to be a cure for cancer because research has been done for decades.

As Capitalism gets older, it trends towards monopolization, increasingly complex production methods take increasing amounts of investment to compete, killing the ability of smaller competitors to exist. The Rate of Profit shrinks the less human labor is involved with production, which is only temporarily countered by consolidation, even further monopolization! Wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, Capitalism reaches a moribund stage.

What is undeniable is that this disparity is increasing further and further, and monopolization is increasing further and further. The revolutionary potential of the Proletariat is held at bay through further exploitation of the Global South, which appears to be weakening over time.

While nobody can name a date, I find it even harder to believe that someone could meaningfully believe that the trends I listed are going to reverse themselves and have Capitalism last forever.

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

Except lots of cancers now have cures, and there are vaccines for others, so no it isn't.

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

Yes, and there have been successful Socialist revolutions, you're only weakening your point.

Do you believe the remaining cancers will never be cured because they currently aren't?

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

Successful ones? Which country is currently a socialist one? Where do the workers control the means of production?

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

The PRC, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and a few others are currently Socialist and run along Marxist lines.

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

The workers do not control the means of production in any of those nations. You're just lying now.

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

What do you think Marxism is? When you say "workers controlling the Means of Production," what specific vision are you talking about, where majority publicly owned and planned economies are not Socialist?

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

Well for one thing, such countries don't have billionaires and and a stock exchange with private corporations like in Vietnam, China and, I am guessing if I looked, in the other countries you listed too.

If a handful of people or just one person owns a bunch of factories, a few individuals control the means of production. And do it to gain capital.

Someone remind me what an economy is called when there's an elite group of wealthy people who get rich off of their capital gains...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Well for one thing, such countries don't have billionaires and and a stock exchange with private corporations like in Vietnam, China and, I am guessing if I looked, in the other countries you listed too.

Marx never once said that Communism could be established through fiat, by decree instead of degree. Engels, in writing The Principles of Communism, makes it quite clear why this cannot be:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

Marx describes the process of private industry forming monopolist syndicates ripe for public planning in Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

Socialist states with minority private sectors are fully in line with Marxist analysis. As these private sectors monopolize and develop the productive forces through competition, they make themselves ripe for public planning. A good essay on the subject is Why Public Property? if you have need for further detail.

If a handful of people or just one person owns a bunch of factories, a few individuals control the means of production. And do it to gain capital.

Yes. In the private sectors of Socialist States, this indeed happens.

Someone remind me what an economy is called when there's an elite group of wealthy people who get rich off of their capital gains...

Depends on the overall composition of the economy, and what class is in control. Cuba has 77% of the economy in the public sector, for example. Hardly sounds Capitalist to me. The PRC had 50% in 2012, and roughly a tenth in the cooperative sector, and the Public sector has only grown since then, and state power over the Private Sector has only increased with time.

Is your argument that an economy that is not fully socialized cannot be considered Socialist? I think, for similar reasons that you wouldn't call the US Socialist for having the USPS, that that's a silly argument. Is your argument that not having a fully socialized economy is against Marxism? I think the quotations have helped hammer that Marxism is about progression to socialization, rather than forcing socialization without the necessary infrastructure. Is your argument that Marxism isn't Socialism? That's a hard sell as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Your whole argument was that they were successful socialist revolutions and now you're like, "yeah well capitalism exists in socialism, so..."

Hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 53 minutes ago (2 children)

Can you please respond in good-faith? My point is that market economies can exist within a broader Socialist economy, and that as the private sector develops into monopolist syndicates, it makes itself ready for public ownership and central planning, a strategy we can watch in real time in AES states.

Can you please explain your interpretation of Engels here?

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

It's Flying Squid, I don't recommend engaging.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 46 minutes ago (1 children)

I know, but it's useful for liberals to see someone so adamantly argue in clear bad-faith against someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Flying Squid normally gives up and walks off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 45 minutes ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago) (1 children)

someone so adamantly argue in clear bad-faith against someone who actually knows what they are talking about

To be fair, it is working really well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 43 minutes ago

It did last time as well, in my opinion. I'll likely never convince Flying Squid, but indirectly they will help me convince others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 52 minutes ago (1 children)

Market economies? The thing you said need to be gotten rid of, but not via democratic means?

So if a socialist revolution doesn't get rid of the problem of capitalism, what does?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

Market economies can be rid of by degree once a Socialist state is established. The Socialist revolution is the mechanism of this process.

Can you explain the Engels quote?

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

I don't really care about the Engels quote. I want to know exactly how long you expect this to take. Because Earth isn't getting any cooler, so if this takes any more than 4 or 5 years, it isn't going to matter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago (1 children)

That's not an answer. Will it take more than 5 years to end the use of fossil fuels through this revolution?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

I can't see it happening under Capitalism, that's for sure!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 27 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 minutes ago (1 children)

I really don't see what your point is with this, first you claimed Socialist states aren't Socialist because they are Marxist, but that you don't care about Marxism, and now you're asking for a guarantee of climate action within 5 years. You're all over the place. What's your goal?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 minutes ago (1 children)

This began with me asking you when and where the revolution would take place. You couldn't tell me. I explained to you that if it doesn't happen within the next five years, it won't matter and asked you if it will. You won't tell me.

You have given me zero good reasons to join these revolutionary groups that you have named to join, which have not achieved anything and apparently have no actual plans to stage a revolution.

The revolution had better both happen within the next five years and end our dependence on fossil fuels or it won't make a difference.

You don't seem to get that. You seem to think there's some sort of long-term future where capitalism slowly disappears and thus we slowly stop burning oil. That's not how civilization is going to go. It will collapse long, long before that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 minutes ago (1 children)

Are you a nihilist? I can't make a guarantee that we can establish Socialism and get rid of fossil fuels within 5 years. I can say that AES countries have been far better than average on meeting climate goals.

What exactly was the point of you claiming AES states aren't Socialist? Are you just looking to argue?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 minutes ago (1 children)

I didn't ask if we can. You know what I asked. I asked if it will happen.

Funny that you accuse me of arguing in bad faith and yet you won't answer a simple question. Instead, you answer a question that wasn't asked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 minute ago

Then the answer is that it can, and that I can't answer if it will or will not because I am not a fortune teller.

Are you doing alright?

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

You advocate for letting others chose the government while just sitting out and protesting and hoping the people formally being given power by the voting system you say not to meaningfully participate in would heed those protests?

Or are you saying that such groups shall go beyond their stated methods and go to violent revolution, in which scenario I'd ask for a single example of "socialism" achieved through such ends that didn't install a pretty terrible authitarian regime that merely took advantage of social unrest to seize power?

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

I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.

As for Socialism's historical record, I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds. Cuba, China, Russia, etc. all dramatically improved conditions for the people following revolution as compared to the fascist slaver Batista regime, the nationalist Kuomintang regime, and the brutal Tsarist regime.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.

That smells of voter suppression, like you are trying to talk people out of even trying to exercise their voice in the political system. The refusal to specifically spell out which described path you advocate for suggests you want violent insurrection, which is absurd, either doomed to be outgunned or doomed to be exploited by leaders with ulterior motives. If you can't get the votes to your position, then things are going to be very bad if you try to get your way.

None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees. The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix. China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors. While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

I specifically spelled out my call to action earlier in this very comment chain. Organizing with leftist parties like PSL and FRSO, revolutionary parties. Revolution is necessary, electoralism cannot work.

None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees.

Most of these refugees were historically land owning slavers, fascists, and Capitalists.

The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix.

Communism fixed a great deal of problems with Russia, why do you believe the USSR was dissolved?

China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors.

The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China’s economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.

While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.

Why are you comparing developing countries to the current Imperialist hegemon? Do you think if you adopt Socialism, everything is magically fixed overnight? Have I ever implied that?

A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.