I'm not interested in any political system where I can't criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family's safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages...
This political system you made up sounds fascinating.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist, I'm against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.
But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of "leaders" who have no inherent right to do so in the name of "society" or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.
You let us all know when there's a successful anarchist experiment that lasts more than a week.
Now do the same for communism (the marxist type, not Leninism/stalinism/maoism.)
What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don't fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.
Not really successes at all if you've read your Marx.
All of them followed in Stalins 'leninistic' (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).
The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.
Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it's obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you're debating.
Doesn't north Korea's dynastic autocratic rule appear slightly monarchistic to you? Autocratic would be a better word than monarchistic in general.
But there isn't a single 'communist' state where the prolitariat do the ruling
It's pretty clear that the proletariat very much do the ruling in Vietnam, China, Cuba. Again, it's not some uptopian society, but it is one where the government represents the interests of the majority. This is clearly demonstrated by the differing outcomes from capitalist states where the governments serve the interests of the capital owning class. Even in case of DPRK, productive forces are still largely turned towards the interests of the people as opposed to enriching oligarchs through exploitation of the working class.
Core industry of the country being publicly owned is the first step towards communism, and that's what socialist states accomplish. The current fight is to overthrow global capitalism as the dominant system. Only once that's achieved will anything better be possible. It's not possible to get to some utopian society from where the world is today, and this is what Marxists realize. Change is a process, and we look for tangible material improvements in the conditions of the majority. Focusing on maximizing personal freedoms before basic needs are met is simply a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Well I think it depends on your interpretation. I personally think the post Stalin brands of communism are doing the movement a disservice as in my view they misrepresent the communist ideology.
For instance i don't see much immigration from people in capitalist nations to any of the countries you mentioned, even not people who embrace that brand of socialism. If there's any talk about migrating from capitalist countries to more socialist ones, is usually people from the states to (slightly more) socialist places like Germany or Scandinavia.
Therefore my opinion is that communist ideas are better propagated through that manner. Armed uprisings tend to leave the most ruthless competitor in charge to get corrupted by the power and not actually following through with the communist plan and devise a brand of socialism in which them being in charge is also communist.
But i think we fundamentally disagree on that. That's not bad, though. I can see some reason to some of the brand of socialism that is general on lemmygrad. The only thing I fail to comprehend is the support of the current Russian leadership as they don't even pretend to have anything to do with socialist ideology.
Until somebody shows how to do better, I'll go with what actually works. Meanwhile, immigration argument is not sound because people who would immigrate to these countries don't have the means to do so. People with the means to immigrate are the ones largely benefiting from the exploitation happening under capitalism.
I'd also say that it's also incorrect to call places like Germany or Scandinavia socialist in a Marxist sense. These are capitalist countries with a social safety net. In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism where the proletariat holds power, but capitalist relations have not been fully abolished. This is clearly not the case in these countries.
Finally, I don't think anybody would argue that Russia today is socialist in any sense. It's a capitalist country with an oligarchy ruling over it much as we see in the west. However, Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world. This is a necessary step in order for socialism to flourish anywhere. I also see Russia falling into Chinese sphere of influence as a net positive. Majority of older people in Russia still have fond memories of USSR, and young people are now increasingly looking at Chinese model as the way forward. Putin won't be around forever, and once he is gone there will be opportunity for positive change.
Of the countries in discussion, I've only ever been to Cuba. Well it seems like a posterchild for succesful socialism and even a non-dynastic ruler. There are two currencies, one that you can use in basic shops and one for tourists (KUK). The thing is that everyone is trying their damdest to get their hands on the KUK's as you can only use that to buy luxury products. It's not even weird if you see what you can buy in the governement stores. It doesnt keep capitalism out, it fetishises it.
I did call European countries slightly more socialist, from an American pov, which is undeniable. There were and are 'socialist' regimes where they had trouble keeping their own people from leaving their country, just for w whiff of the sweet soma of capitalism. The priority, I think, is to first build a state where people are longing to live. And considering global migration the majority of economic refugees seeks capitalis countries. The power of money seems the driving problem, because it gets people what they want. You have to find a system that works better than money, that is the hard nut to crack, because it works harder the more of it you own.
Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world
Aha, that's the angle I missed, that makes sense in a way, thanks. I really woudn't underestimate the ability of unfettered captitalism and cronyism to break US domination on it's own. China seems to step up to the plate quite forcefully, not through arms, but through, quite literally, owning the means of production. I do only fear their power of surveillance, and I do not condone it, too orwellian for me.
Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn't been successful before or people don't see how to make it work doesn't justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn't a thing. That didn't justify continuing that system though.
There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.
Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.
It's not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it's actually possible to do.
Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.
Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don't translate into systemic change in society.
I'm not interested in any political system where I can't criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family's safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages...
This political system you made up sounds fascinating.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist, I'm against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.
But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of "leaders" who have no inherent right to do so in the name of "society" or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.
You let us all know when there's a successful anarchist experiment that lasts more than a week.
Now do the same for communism (the marxist type, not Leninism/stalinism/maoism.)
What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don't fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.
Not really successes at all if you've read your Marx.
All of them followed in Stalins 'leninistic' (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).
The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.
Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it's obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you're debating.
Doesn't north Korea's dynastic autocratic rule appear slightly monarchistic to you? Autocratic would be a better word than monarchistic in general.
But there isn't a single 'communist' state where the prolitariat do the ruling
It's pretty clear that the proletariat very much do the ruling in Vietnam, China, Cuba. Again, it's not some uptopian society, but it is one where the government represents the interests of the majority. This is clearly demonstrated by the differing outcomes from capitalist states where the governments serve the interests of the capital owning class. Even in case of DPRK, productive forces are still largely turned towards the interests of the people as opposed to enriching oligarchs through exploitation of the working class.
Core industry of the country being publicly owned is the first step towards communism, and that's what socialist states accomplish. The current fight is to overthrow global capitalism as the dominant system. Only once that's achieved will anything better be possible. It's not possible to get to some utopian society from where the world is today, and this is what Marxists realize. Change is a process, and we look for tangible material improvements in the conditions of the majority. Focusing on maximizing personal freedoms before basic needs are met is simply a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Well I think it depends on your interpretation. I personally think the post Stalin brands of communism are doing the movement a disservice as in my view they misrepresent the communist ideology.
For instance i don't see much immigration from people in capitalist nations to any of the countries you mentioned, even not people who embrace that brand of socialism. If there's any talk about migrating from capitalist countries to more socialist ones, is usually people from the states to (slightly more) socialist places like Germany or Scandinavia.
Therefore my opinion is that communist ideas are better propagated through that manner. Armed uprisings tend to leave the most ruthless competitor in charge to get corrupted by the power and not actually following through with the communist plan and devise a brand of socialism in which them being in charge is also communist.
But i think we fundamentally disagree on that. That's not bad, though. I can see some reason to some of the brand of socialism that is general on lemmygrad. The only thing I fail to comprehend is the support of the current Russian leadership as they don't even pretend to have anything to do with socialist ideology.
Until somebody shows how to do better, I'll go with what actually works. Meanwhile, immigration argument is not sound because people who would immigrate to these countries don't have the means to do so. People with the means to immigrate are the ones largely benefiting from the exploitation happening under capitalism.
I'd also say that it's also incorrect to call places like Germany or Scandinavia socialist in a Marxist sense. These are capitalist countries with a social safety net. In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism where the proletariat holds power, but capitalist relations have not been fully abolished. This is clearly not the case in these countries.
Finally, I don't think anybody would argue that Russia today is socialist in any sense. It's a capitalist country with an oligarchy ruling over it much as we see in the west. However, Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world. This is a necessary step in order for socialism to flourish anywhere. I also see Russia falling into Chinese sphere of influence as a net positive. Majority of older people in Russia still have fond memories of USSR, and young people are now increasingly looking at Chinese model as the way forward. Putin won't be around forever, and once he is gone there will be opportunity for positive change.
Of the countries in discussion, I've only ever been to Cuba. Well it seems like a posterchild for succesful socialism and even a non-dynastic ruler. There are two currencies, one that you can use in basic shops and one for tourists (KUK). The thing is that everyone is trying their damdest to get their hands on the KUK's as you can only use that to buy luxury products. It's not even weird if you see what you can buy in the governement stores. It doesnt keep capitalism out, it fetishises it.
I did call European countries slightly more socialist, from an American pov, which is undeniable. There were and are 'socialist' regimes where they had trouble keeping their own people from leaving their country, just for w whiff of the sweet soma of capitalism. The priority, I think, is to first build a state where people are longing to live. And considering global migration the majority of economic refugees seeks capitalis countries. The power of money seems the driving problem, because it gets people what they want. You have to find a system that works better than money, that is the hard nut to crack, because it works harder the more of it you own.
Aha, that's the angle I missed, that makes sense in a way, thanks. I really woudn't underestimate the ability of unfettered captitalism and cronyism to break US domination on it's own. China seems to step up to the plate quite forcefully, not through arms, but through, quite literally, owning the means of production. I do only fear their power of surveillance, and I do not condone it, too orwellian for me.
--
Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn't been successful before or people don't see how to make it work doesn't justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn't a thing. That didn't justify continuing that system though.
There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.
Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.
It's not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it's actually possible to do.
Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.
Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don't translate into systemic change in society.