You're viewing a single thread.
Destroyed and replaced by?
People fail to realize that socialism isn't just an ideology but a process. It involves looking back at previous attempts and learning from their mistakes and improving.
Is every ideology also a process where people learn from their past attempts at achieving the ideology?
Correct, and the beneficiaries of capitalism have learned very well.
Sure, but this is the very core of socialism, or the whole concept of scientific marxism
I think it's important to distinguish socialism and Marxism here, since you're referring pretty specifically to Marxist theory.
That said, you're not wrong - Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight. The fall of the monarchy was the result of class struggle, but so was the fall of the Soviet union; the Bolsheviks had just replaced the ruling elite, walking on two legs in Orwells terms. In this sense, every revolution could be understood under the logic of Marxism, as "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".
But then we're speaking about a Marxist understanding of history, not a socialist ideal for society.
Hey, you cut it out with that education! How are people supposed to falsly believe that socialism is China or Russia or Vuvuzela if you go around explaining how it's not?
Vuvuzela, lol. Oterwise im not bashing ya nor your point just thought it sounded funny.
I am from Venezuela and it is indeed a socialist government shitshow
You are right that it's a political shit show, but that government is nowhere near socialist. Spending a bit of money on social programs whilst existing under a typical corrupted "democracy" that decided to go in to massive debt based on a single-resource export... isn't socialism. It's mismanagement.
That’s what capitalism is for😎
Another failed system
Versus doing nothing? Lemmy is fucking ass lately, shitting all over hyperbole while rolling over and letting capitalism and pessimism run your sorry, sad fucking lives.
I will ask the questions, comrade
Let's iterate!
Worker ownership over the means of production
(Not a huge fan of centralized planning since that tends to lead to authoritarianism)
Which is a fix, not possible to implement in the chaos after a revolution, and not remotely a replacement.
I'd argue the only reason it was possible to implement in the first place was the post-war context of having to rebuild everything from scratch; the power dynamics in place before the war were left in the rubble. The father of Norwegian social democracy spent the years before the war in and out of jail, the war years in a prison camp, and the post war years as prime minister.
They also had to contrast the USSR, which had a very good quality of life for most citizens. Without socdem, people would have seen the difference between the USSR and Europe as positive due to things like eliminating homelessness, a right to food, and guaranteed healthcare. In the ~30 years since the Soviet Union fell, the EU is slowly crawling back in line with the US.
you might want to speak with someone who lived in the USSR.
Even if you do, the past is a complicated thing. Plenty of people are nostalgic to the USSR, and many of them might very well have been better off under communism.
That said, in terms of standards of living, I think it's fair to say the Nordic countries were comparing themselves to the US way more than the Soviet Union in the postwar era. The Finns would rather be dead than associated with the Soviets, which many of them demonstrated quite forcefully during the war. As for the other Nordic countries, the Marshall Plan certainly didn't weaken the admiration of the US.
If anything, what made the Nordic model such a success was the decision to look away from the Soviets - the influence the Soviet Union had over European socialist parties somehow didn't catch on in the North. Marxist-Leninist parties existed (and still exist), but they were mostly sidelined (to a degree that is, in all fairness, problematic in its own right).
Maybe YOU should speak to someone who lived in the USSR. 75% of people from the former USSR polled want to live in the USSR again.
that poll is only of people currently living in russia.. none of the former soviet states and other parts of the world. and of course we all trust the moscow times. when you do speak with them they mention never having tried fresh fruit until the 1990s, standing in line hours for bread.. not being able to leave their apartments because strung out muggers took over the lobbies and always having to take the stairs, and not being able to control the temperature of their homes because the govt controlled the boilers, and having to use rugs as insulation against concrete, and all the drivers were terrible because the drivers tests were just a vodka buyoff, and the cars were constantly falling apart and the movies and music and artists in general were never allowed to criticize anything there, and the news didnt bother trying to be reality based etc
It definitely is just reforming capitalism tho. If you want it in America you don't have to overthrow any government, just vote them out of the white house
I can't think of any successful implementation of socialism following from voting alone. Unionising tends to be where the power comes from.
The historical success rate of overthrowing the government and replacing it with something more ideologically pure doesn't really inspire confidence either. Sometimes it might be a necessary step on the winding path of history, but in terms of making anything better in the short term the track record is a bit iffy at best.
Does public ownership and maintenance of infrastructure count as socialism? If so, that definitely happened.
I think by public here you mean "state" ownership. Socialists believe in workers owning the means of production.
So like, every co-op, worker-owned company, and software company is socialist since their workers own the means of production?
Also, couldn't you say that if the workers control the state, (i.e. through a democracy) that they own the "means of production"? Or does socialism have a requirement for more direct ownership?
Worker co-ops are probably the closest thing to a glimpse of a socialist workplace under capitalism, yes, but unfortunately these companies must exist in a capitalist economy. This means they still must compete against profit-driven companies and do things that are not in the interests of their workers in order to stay afloat. If you're interested in learning more about how this directly related to socialism, I recommend this article: https://monthlyreview.org/2015/02/01/cooperatives-on-the-path-to-socialism/.
To your other question, the answer is no. Under a capitalist framework, corporations (the ruling class in Marxist terms) own the means of production in that they are the primary owners of private propery (the factories, machines, offices, etc that produce goods and services). They take the profit that workers generate and keep it for themselves - it isn't distributed back to the workers. Just because the US is democratic does not mean the workers own this private property or have a say in how it is used.
Which countries do not have public ownership and maintenance of infrastructure?
And no that isn't socialism.
Then what is socialism? What does a socialist society look like?
Yep, just support and vote left for the next few decades. Take a page from the conservative handbook and mobilize a base that will actually turn out to vote. Conservatives have spent the last 50 years fine-tuning their messaging and tapping into a base that will get involved in politics down to a local level and it's working.
We have conservative schoolboards across the country deciding what will be taught, activist ideological judges waiting for Federalist Society-trained lawyers to bring the next case deregulating another corpo safeguard and religious fundamentalists regulating peoples genitals.
What left? There is no left in mainstream American politics (but that's what they want you to think so they can get your vote)
lol yeah the lib approach of “vote harder” - look at how that goes. the closest thing they had was Bernie sanders and he was railroaded by the dnc. you’re asking the wolf to watch the wolfs.
Bernie Sanders lost by 3 million votes, so yes "vote harder" would absolutely have changed that situation
Nothing.
Well, nothing where a human is in charge. I'd rather let Bing AI take the wheel. AI isn't greedy or ambitious for one so no need to go full totalitarian like every single revolution.
AI isn't greedy
yet. I heard AIs are trained with data from humans who are... whoops!
Well then I guess we should give up and just line up to suck off billionaires like a circus seal then 🤣