I've noticed that lemmy as a whole is much more leftist than reddit (outside of political servers of course)
I've noticed that lemmy as a whole is much more leftist than reddit (outside of political servers of course)
I can't really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by "both" sides of the spectrum. It's just something I find interesting.
You're viewing part of a thread.
https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/
ML states are the only successful socialist states in history to hold out for a significant amount of time against the United States empire. I'm not super attached to the vanguard model myself, but can you show me a single other successful model? I think this quote is quite relevant here:
"This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated." - Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
Authoritarianism under the banner of socialism isn’t success. It’s just a different kind of failure.
Can you define what you mean by "authoritarian" in a way that doesn't include actions the US does ? What is authority in your mind?
Why would I do that when I think the US is authoritarian, too?
Alright but like, which states aren't then?
Like, if none of them aren't which I assume is your take (I was an anarchist myself until the climate crisis started hitting hard so I have some sympathy for anti statism myself) and you can see that socialist states provide a better quality of life than capitalist states when compared at an equal level of development, surely you can admit that one is a lesser evil than the other? But that's not what the people shouting about "authoritarian states" functionally do with their rhetoric, functionally they defend capitalist states and uphold the status quo by forming part of the opposition to the end of capitalist states and the formation of socialist ones.
None, afaik. We need to do better. I don’t oppose ending capitalist states and forming socialist ones. I oppose violations of human rights by both corporations and governments. If we can’t set the bar above “marginally better for most people than late stage capitalism, but we’ll disappear you if you speak out against us,” we’ve already lost.
What exactly do you think happens to people that actually threaten capitalism?
The issue isn't "speaking out" about problems. The issue is people attempting to overthrow the socialist system. Capitalism disappears and murders those of us that attempt to overthrow it just the same. You're allowed to speak about problems so long as you are not actively trying to overthrow governments while doing so (and being effective at it). If you're effective you end up like everyone in The Jakarta Method, like Allende, or like Assange. The US operates hundreds of blacksites all over the world and yet people pretend that people aren't disappeared for being a threat to it. The lack of self awareness is perplexing.
I’m not saying the US doesn’t disappear people. It absolutely does. The threshold’s just usually a bit higher than in, say, China. China’s better at meeting basic needs for people at the bottom, and the US will usually only throw you in a black site if you actually foment revolution, rather than simply criticizing the government. It’s amazing how many people assume you have to pick an existing model to root for here. I repeat, I think everyone are bastards, and that we can and must do better.
I think you've really got a warped perspective on this. China has more protests than every other nation. And they don't just disappear people for criticism. That is reserved for those actively fomenting revolution just as you say it does in the west. This site is obviously intended to be anti-China propaganda but I have a quite different take on it, what you're seeing in this data is actually the real quantity of protests that China perfectly allows. In the last 12 months 1196 protests have occurred and I assure you the hundreds of thousands of protesters involved in those events aren't "disappeared". It would be utterly absurd. In just a few years you'd have nobody fucking left in the country. So this data is, in my opinion, useful to demonstrate the quantity of allowed demonstration rather than the quantity that is prevented. It's shit like the hong kong attempt at literally overthrowing the government with shady western support that get real murky.
Is it better to be too “authoritarian” and protect your revolution, or just let reactionary states destroy your newly formed socialist state, carve up the remains and enjoy the spoils while people suffer?
If you’re authoritarian, who are you protecting? It’s not for the people or the workers, so it’s not a revolttion worth protecting.
How do you personally determine whether a revolution is for the people?
Are we talking about a revolution or a government, here? If you believe the revolution is ever-ongoing, fine, substitute your own words for the taking-power part and the governing part. If the taking-power part, I’m not sure we can know. Look at the Iranian Revolution. There were leftists involved with the taking-power part, but not so much with the governing part. As far as a government for the people, there are probably many different ways it can turn out, but the essence is fulfilling people’s basic needs while also respecting their human rights. No one’s gotten it right yet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.
No one’s gotten it right yet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.
I used to think this way, but does this not seem the height of arrogance to you? That all the past attempts were dumb and stupid, but we are the true socialists and will get it right this time! I urge you to read this article, western socialists have a really bad problem with this kind thinking
I could show you a lot of stats from past and current socialist experiments that show how much the quality of life changed for the better for the average citizen (if you would even accept those), but I think a bigger hangup for many people is human rights.
I pose the same question I asked someone else earlier, is it better to go overboard and be too “authoritarian” in trying to protect your socialist project, or be too kind and see it torn up by the reactionary forces of the world?
No, I don’t think it’s arrogance. I’m not saying we have the answers, I’m saying we need to keep trying, because our past attempts were insufficient. It’s not arrogant to try to learn from one’s mistakes. And it’s not arrogant to assume that a movement’s chances of success can be altered by changing material conditions.
I’m well aware that in many cases, authoritarian socialism/communism has improved material conditions for many people. But I also notice that not a lot of Westerners defending these governments attempt to move there. All our current systems are fucked, and acknowledging that is awareness, not hubris.
In answer to your question of “which is better,” it probably depends heavily on the preexisting local circumstances. But I’m from the US, so I’m sick of being forced to choose between two shitty options in a false dichotomy. Neither. Neither is better, and we need to stop pretending what exists now is the end of political and economic philosophy. It’s not. We need to do better.
My point is that all of this is really easy to say when you don’t actually have to control and wield power and defend your gains for the working class against reactionaries. I don’t really understand what your hangup is here, every socialist strives to learn from the mistakes of past experiments, but I would never say they weren’t legitimate attempts, which is what it seems like you’ve been implying?
The latter.
Good to know you hate working class people
Even in the United States after the revolution they implemented authoritarian measures to ensure the security of their revolution. They sized the land of Loyalists and effectively drove them out if the country. They killed Loyalists, who were their fellow colonists, for their opposition to the revolution. They attempted tirelessly for peaceful transition to independence but the Monarchy refused them and ignored them until they were left with no choice but to begin violent armed revolution. All revolutions are authoritarian in their nature. The American revolutionaries were seizing their power by force and imposing their self actualized authority over the colonies in pursuit of their own economic and social freedoms.
The United States is authoritarian and many of the same ways that socialist states are authoritarian. If you don't believe me, look at the history of the socialist movement in America. Look at what the state was and still is willing to do to its own citizens for criticizing and organizing against the capitalist and imperialist system that the state runs on.
Are you here to tell me that McCarthyism and the red scare were democratic in their execution? That they were in line with the Free Speech and Free Expression ethos the United States projects? They were not times of political democratic freedom. Even in recent times you have leaders of movements critical of the state being killed for their political positions. Students killed during the anti-war movement in the 60s and 70s. Anti-War activists driven out of their employment and careers over their opposition to the state and it's actions in Vietnam.
So what do you call authoritarianism under capitalism then? Democracy??
When did I say the US wasn’t authoritarian? It’s possible for every side to be dickheads.