this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1359 points (96.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5575 readers
3098 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:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Successful ones? Which country is currently a socialist one? Where do the workers control the means of production?
The PRC, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and a few others are currently Socialist and run along Marxist lines.
The workers do not control the means of production in any of those nations. You're just lying now.
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?
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...
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:
Marx describes the process of private industry forming monopolist syndicates ripe for public planning in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
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.
Yes. In the private sectors of Socialist States, this indeed happens.
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.
Your whole argument was that they were successful socialist revolutions and now you're like, "yeah well capitalism exists in socialism, so..."
Hilarious.
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?
It's Flying Squid, I don't recommend engaging.
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.
To be fair, it is working really well.
It did last time as well, in my opinion. I'll likely never convince Flying Squid, but indirectly they will help me convince others.
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?
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?
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.
Faster if you help!
That's not an answer. Will it take more than 5 years to end the use of fossil fuels through this revolution?
I can't see it happening under Capitalism, that's for sure!
Still not an answer.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
You can't answer because you know it won't. You aren't ignorant. You know it isn't even possible to end fossil fuel dependence in five years. Not without reducing the world to living like it's the middle ages.
It's certainly doable, but it would require Socialism, and revolution within the West. Difficult, yes, but easier than returning to monkey.
I see. “Socialism” will be able to replace all fossil fuel-powered vehicles: cars, trucks, planes, ships AND replace all of the world’s fossil fuel power plants in the world in five years. I guess by “socialism,” you mean “magic.”
Having supremacy over Capital allows you to work against market pressures.
I have no idea what you're doing here, are you arguing for anarcho-primitivism, or are you using me as an outlet for your frustrations?
If you are just talking about coal-fired power plants and nothing else, you are talking about 2500 power plants.
Socialism cannot replace 2500 power plants in 5 years. It has nothing to do with supremacy over capital. It's like saying socialism could have built the Great Pyramid in 5 years. No it couldn't. You can't magically speed up processes that take a set amount of time, require people with a certain skill level, etc.
I get that you think that somehow we will be in a socialist utopia in five years, but we won't. And as the Earth heats up and the storms get worse and the wildfires choke the atmosphere, you will still be talking about the glorious revolution that will be happening any day now and save us all as the desperate climate refugees storm your home to take your food.
I'm not arguing for anything. You are. And what you are arguing for will not save humanity in the time frame that is needed. Because nothing will.
You don't need to replace everything, you can replace as necessary and shut down everything else. It absolutely has to do with supremacy over Capital. However, you already gave yourself away:
You're just arguing as a personal outlet, that's not healthy. I can't tell if you're a nihilist doomer, or just going through a rough time, but this isn't healthy.
As necessary?
It's necessary to replace all of them.
Are you some sort of climate change denier?
Also, this pop psychoanalysis of yours is tiresome, Dr. Freud.
It is not necessary to replace all of them, we can downsize consumption. Consumerism is an aspect of Capitalism, we can downsize production and energy consumption off pure renewables, if at significant cost of quality of life.
Again, though, you clearly are looking for an outlet, you don't care about logic but simply arguing to argue. I recommend you log out for a while, talk to someone IRL that cares about you. I'm saying this out of concern.
Again, Dr. Freud, your pop psychology is tiresome.
And yeah, you're clearly a climate change denier. Only a climate change denier thinks it's okay to keep using fossil fuels.
I literally told you we could stop using fossil fuels and run on pure renewables now at great cost in quality of life, but only under Socialism. You just read right past that to insult me.
People care about you.
LOL! "We could make life sucky if we just accept socialism!" Great sales technique you have there.
And much like your "arguing in bad faith" hypocrisy, your complaining about insults hypocrisy is just as silly.
Also, I'm fully aware that people care about me. Unlike you, I know what my life is about.
Gotta love a self-proclaimed socialist who acts like they're some sort of superior being.
Better to have reduced quality of life than no life, are you saying you'd prefer the opposite? I don't see how I have been hypocritical either. Either way, it's good that you know people care about you, though I don't know what you mean by claiming I don't know what my life is about. As for Socialism, I do know more about Marxism than most people, though I don't think that makes me superior. Rather, we all have things we are good and bad at.
Do you have someone to talk to? You can DM me if you want to vent about something, or just chat non-confrontationally.
Probably not, but it will be able to prioritize things differently. Under socialism it doesn't matter if it is profitable to build high-speed rail, or profitable to run it thereafter, the point isn't to make money, the point is to transport people.
So we have time to switch to socialism and replace all fossil fuel transport with high speed rail in enough time to stop our civilization from collapsing due to climate change? Because I doubt it.
Maybe not. But we have to options: Socialism or Barbarism. Continuing with Capitalism is going to lead to a worse outcome, going with Socialism and working to halt climate change will result in a better outcome. Not a great one, not undoing everything in 5 years, but still a better outcome.
The chances of socialism over barbarism are quite slim given the long history of humanity.
On the other hand, the other guy thinks that you can replace coal plants "as needed," so at least you have a realistic outlook.