You're viewing a single thread.
Giving full economic power to the state does not make you less fascist. It actually makes it much worse.
Just a reminder to the true leftists who think they can force through their better society by giving society more power over the individual without changing the culture in the first place.
Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.
You know, all the things that actually matter in a society.
The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.
Certain strands of Socialism has evolved away from a completely centralised economy in the same way capitalism isn’t actually a free market.
The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.
Louder for those in the back!!!
I will never understand WHY people do this. And then higher life expectancy resulting in a growing older generation population preferring policies that actively harm young people
(Actual queation): Why would you say its in my self-interest to vote for a left party (which would generally mean paying even more that the current 45% income taxes)?
Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.
Sure, as long everything is implemented as insurances and not government services.
People with the need should be in control of how to satisfy that need, because politicians and bureaucrats DO NOT know better. Always remember, someone should come up losing something whenever a need is not met.
The politicians and bureaucrats don't know better, which is why people tell them what paths we should take as a society. Then when organizations are funded by public dollars they hire experts in the relevant fields. If the public were to take over healthcare for example, experts in healthcare policy would be hired to consult on how to overhaul the medical industry.
Why not both? That seems to be working in most European countries.
Ok, but only if and when you can trust your politicians. So... no.
For context: OP is on lemmy.world which blocks the tankie instances if I'm not mistaken. So they seem to refer to based leftist stuff I assume and isn't a redfash.
The true marxist based left is not woke. It never was. There's a reason that the western left turned liberal in the 50s and 60s and focused on reform. The CCP killed any thought that decentralized communes could be self-sufficient and centralization killed any concept of liberalism and a responsive command economy. If the majority can vote their way into resources, minorities suffer. With no opposition checking the ruling party, corruption sets in.
If you are referring to the American Democratic party, they are liberal and not left.
This is correct. They draw a distinction between economic left and social left. Mainly, US liberals are vaguely socialist and definitely not communist, but mainly, they embrace ID politics. People who call themselves leftists may hold the same opinions about equality, but consider the economic system and classes much more important.
Most statements I don't have qualms with, but from my understanding, "liberals embrace ID politics" seems way off. I could see an argument that there's some kind of split across people who'd identify as or match a typical understanding of a liberal, along the ID politics line, given that it's so divisive. Id say liberal as a concept existed way before ID politics, do when that became prominent, a lot of people got split along that line. I.e. Far right probably split 90:10, Conservatives probably split 75:25, Liberals probably split closer to 50:50, while social left split 25:75, far left split 10:90 and libertarians split 1:99.
There is a tradition of leftist critics of Marxism. I don't agree with each 100% but you can draw a line from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Weil to Orwell, ... each in opposition of Marx or Lenin or Stalin
Just a reminder, abolishing the state is cool.
I am sure that will protect minorities! That's definitely never resulted in genocide. It'll be fine this time around.
I've tried explaining to so many different people that giving ultimate power to a group of people that were raised in an environment that thinks "greed is good" is fucking dumb.
Maybe I just don't explain myself very well.
And yet thats the system we live in, giving a handful of boomer politicians the reigns while we beg for rights and basic amenities to live.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn't need the economic change anyways.
When did a stateless society commit genocide?
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn't speak too kindly to your narrative.
Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn't speak too kindly to your narrative.
Well, it speaks to my narrative that states are evil.
Bosnia, Rwanda
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't these nationalist movements on their way to build a state? Not the kind of stateless society Kropotkin imagined
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
When I'm talking about states, I'm especially referring to nation states, hence my focus on nationalists. Sure, you can use a very broad definition, but than "state" barely means anything.
Centralization is a core aspect of states, true. I don't see how "centralized education" is so inevitable for you? Why not a decentralized education system that focuses more on voluntariness and empowering that on enforcement?
Last but not least: Building systems in not the same as sates building. And human nature isn't as straight forward as it seems to be. You haven't seen any other system in your life I assume, and neither have I. So it's easy to think that's just how it is. The great David Graeber once said in an interview that anthropologists have an affinity to anarchism since they know it works.
Your first step is to educate literally everyone on how a stateless society works for it to work. Next you have to convince them it will work. I've known a lot more anarchists than you think. If you cannot convince literally everyone to play along, anarchy fails. You've already failed because you cannot convince me and likely will always fail for roughly 30% of the population about any topic. Counter culture will always exist. If your system does not allow for it, you have set yourself up for failure. You have set us all up for failure.
The USSR attempted to decentralize initially and it failed miserably by their own metrics. The CCP looked at what they became and said they didn't do it right because they centralized. They starved and then centralized planning. Now you are telling me that there's never been an attempt. I'm good thanks.
You are actively hurting people by sabotaging liberal systems that do work in favor of radical change towards a system that has absolutely literally been tried at scale. It fails and then becomes oppressive against minorities and inefficient due to not allowing dissent.
I'm perfectly happy in a liberal mixed system where capital is owned privately and profits are shared amongst those who buy in. If you want to start an organization that shares value equally, start a co-op. Unlike anarchist systems, liberal ones allow for you to do that. Just don't expect to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else.
How does a stateless society protect anyone?
Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.
Also: stateless doesn't mean no order at all, but it's about hierarchy free systems
Good luck keeping order without an entity for keeping order.
There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won't protect you.
Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.
Surprise: as soon as you form a community, the most dependable members become a governing core. What the fuck do you think a "village elder" is?
Also, what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don't deserve all of their land? There's no governing body to mediate, so village A simply attacks B.
the most dependable members become a governing core.
Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.
This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what's best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.
what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?
The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.
Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.
What happens when the governing core says no? For this system to work, you need an almost perfect level of education and reprogramming. That same level of education and reprogramming would also theoretically solve all problems in the current system and power structure. You have the same power to help people now as you magically would under your proposed system. You just refuse to play by the same rules because you think they are rigged against you when they aren't. You just refuse to play.
Ah yes unlike the lack of genocide from authoritarian states!
Local people need to be empowered, not politicians.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx' best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.
That’s not what fascist means. Fascism is specific a right wing ideology, because it involves close cooperation between the government and capitalist monopolies. Mussolini praised “capitalist production, captains of industries, modern entrepreneurs”. You seem to mean authoritarian.
I understand the definition of fascism. You are missing the portion by which corporations are not allowed to exist if they do not further the efforts of the state. Basically exactly the same as Marx advised towards the end of his writings. Nothing is allowed to exist in a socialist system if it is perceived to work against the needs of the people (state)
There is functionally no difference between corporations that do not control the means of production even if they are charged with running it and a state fully owning the means. It's just middle management.
A socialist system doesn't have to be state-based. Socialism can encompass anarchism, anarcho-communism and many other left ideologies besides state-communism.
Just like the Soviets and CCP attempted to do before they learned how poor decentralized planning was without incentives. The CCP literally complained about how the Soviet Union wasn't following the true path of decentralized communes as their people starved. This is literally history. You can argue all you want about how what the Soviet Union and CCP became wasn't true anarchism but they literally tried it initially and it failed miserably.
Even Karl Marx said that his intent was more of a direction than blueprints because he didn't have it all figured out. He also said that allowing opposition parties couldn't be allowed within any socialist system which cements the concentration of power and eventually consultation.
All this is why the Western left turned to liberal reform approaches in the 50s.
Okay, but that doesn't make a leftist system fascist. That's what authoritarian means in an economic sense. There are many other aspects of fascism.
If there is functionally no difference between the systems, it it's fascism. Call a duck a duck. Oppressed people don't care that the flag is red.
Fascism includes various types of oppression not present in other ideologies, such as sexism and manipulation/fear about minority groups as 'the enemy'.
That is a result of the perception that those groups work against the state, not a requirement for fascism. Communist systems have just as bad if not worse a track record in regards to minority oppression as fascist ones.
It's unfortunate as theoretically, communism is uniformly egalitarian while fascism is not.
I am sure that is why the Ukrainians starved during the Holodomor and the Russians did not. The tyranny of the majority still exists. It becomes far worse in a less efficient system with no economic outs for the state oppressed.
Communism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. It puts more power into the hands of those who control the government/decision making. There is nothing inherently less prejudiced about said government than any other but it does provide a documented incentive to oppress the opposition and the ultimate economic means to do so.
Theoretically, a liberal economic order with the only central government mandate being protections for equality and justice is the only truly egalitarian solution that is not fascism.
Sure, that's why I said theoretically and unfortunate. I was referring to oppression of minorities and women.
The examples I mentioned were minorities within their current societies. Socialism didn't prevent Stalin from banning abortion in 1939. Socialism is not inherently better for women's rights. It does provide more state power which means changes, good and bad can be more thoroughly implemented. This sometimes results in more thoroughly implemented social policy but often results in more effective genocide or no recourse for the oppressed at all.
The endless purity tests of what a true leftist is one of the main reasons they make no real change in the world.
The constant fighting over doctrinal purity consumes so much time, energy and mind space there is nothing left for actual change.
Laughable you’d level this as a criticism of the left considering MAGA republicans are waging all out war for control of the conservative party in America against more traditional republicans.
Why is it laughable? It seems pretty obvious that one of the main reasons why conservatives are still successful in the US is that they're able to unite much more than the left. I'm too lazy to go find sources, but there are multiple sociological studies that confirmed this - despite craziness like Trump and before that Tea party and other shit, the left has been considerably more fragmented the whole time.
If it were true that leftists could never organise to decide a course of action how do you explain the rampant success of workers unions?
I don’t doubt that conservatives are more likely to just ‘follow the leader’ (I’ve read similar as well) but to say the left is ineffectual because of internal divisions is laughable given the very public and concerning division in the Republican Party right now.
how do you explain the rampant success of workers unions?
Excuse me? The what?
You know that weekends didn’t exist until unions fought for and won them yeah?
And when was this, exactly?
I mean, you can just google it.
But if you’re American it was 1937.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/labor-unions-the-folks-wh_b_8101242/amp
But if you’re American it was 1937.
Right. So, 86 years ago? How does this explain the rampant success of workers unions?
The right might begin to become divided soon, but so far it definitely has not. Regarding worker unions (and the research I mentioned), I'm talking about the modern day, last 20-30 years or so, even though there's been a lot of fragmentation historically as well. There are no real leftist parties in my country with any success either because of the same thing, endless fragmentation, purity tests and ignoring the fact that actual workers are not socially progressive.
Neither of the two parties in the United States of America are actually left. Republicans are far right, Democrats are liberal and in the middle of the left/right spectrum.
It's as if the people who talk about it the most don't actually have the foggiest idea what a "ruling class" actually is or how it comes to be.
Everyone thinks they will be the ones in charge after the revolution.
What a moron.
You've been so scared of this communism boogeyman that you've allowed yourself to be convinced anything that supports your commu(nity) is bad and oppressive. Meanwhile you have absolutely no means of building yourself out of any issue that may arise further down the line.
"Derrrrr I'm so glad we don't have any oppressive Healthcare system built that can be controlled by them demon-crats! "
-guy who pays more taxes to their Healthcare system than almost any other country and receives NO benefits from it.
Government provided healthcare is not inherently communist or socialist. I'm not the moron here. You aren't even talking on close to the same level. Also, the American Democratic party is not left. Not even close.