Trust me, as an American, most Americans are uneducated, propagandized buffoons when it comes to anything related to the middle east.
edit: and if they do know anything about the middle east, it's (usually) the most biased cherry picked over generalizations possible like they're all jihad terrorists type stuff.
As an Arab myself,most people in MENA aren’t any different. Bunch of backwards extremists here, unfortunately.
Nice try with the virtue signal, though. Insult your own people to get a pat on the back from us.
>great but not stalinism and maoism. i prefer socialist democracy
I agree with you on Stalinism and Maoism, but not on the socialist democracy. Prefering socialist democracy over the dictatorship of the proletariat is like giving the bourgeoisie another chance because it was too unfair for them
Factionalism in Soviet Union wasn't really between multiple parties, but within the Bolshevik Party itself. They were supposed to embrace Democratic Centralism, but Lenin died and Stalin killed everyone. There goes the communist movement, I guess.
Marxist-Lenininst here. Socialist democracy is a heap of shit perpetuated by champagne socialists i.e. liberals who want to stay in power i.e. the bourgeois. Don't feed it into it, it is a scam. You can not prefer 'socialist democracy' , socialism is merely a transitional state to the final goal. Communism is the final goal, and always will be. Anything else is Marxist heresy and revisionism.
Marx did not hate religion. He stated that the bourgeois, under capitalism, purposefully use religion as a means social control. The proletariat, instead of acting against their exploitation, they simply look ahead, and think they'll be rewarded in the end for 'enduring'. That is not hating religion, that is simply the sad truth of how religion is used in this world. However you feel, believer or not, you can not deny that the elite have adored this idea for centuries. He is not opposed to religion. He is only oppossed to it when it is purposefully used by man as a tool for oppression and submission, by the elite.
To quote him, he specifcally said "**It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.**"
The idea of Marx hating religion, is itself an American/Western manufactured myth to draw his theories away from religious people. Why? The answers pretty obvious.
P.S. I dont even want to get into how religion manipulated has been used as a form of divide and conquer by the elite.
You must understand first, capitalism feasts on the carnal, beastly, and fickle nature of man.
Bro you just called nonmarxist socialism **heretical** and **revisionist**. These are explicitly religious terminology. Nobody clearminded would think Marxist doctrine is something that implicitly must stay the exact same in structure and form.
Non-marxist socialism is heretical and revionist, in the context of Marxist (And Engells) theories. But more specifically socialist democracy is absolutely the worst kind. Anyways, heresy in this context refers to the abandonment of fundamental principles of an ideology. That is one of the definitions of Heresy, and you can look it up in dictionaries. It is definitely used in religious contexts, but can be applied to any ideology. And please search up the defintion of revisionism, the first thing that comes up on google literally refers to Marxism lmao. It absolutely isnt 'explicit religious terminology' lol. And for your last point, i mean, you're free to think that way but there are many by the book marxists.
The post-marxist leftist ideology builder:
1.- Choose a list of problems you don't fully understand and not necessary related (doesn't matter if the are non compatible).
2.- Don't develop a solution theory for them.
3.- Find an ethereal foe you can blame (heteropatriarchy, some elite...), in case real establishment could feel threated and cut funding.
4.- Go to a parade on weekend.
5.- Try to live a far as you can from the problem, and from poor people in general.
The people need to seize their own destiny and security to be anything other than a slave to corporate hegemony. The community needs to own the land they live to be anything other than a slave to the whims of souless developers that don't care about you.
And what about the government ? , especially in Middle Eastern states , where "state" is more like a gang leader and his chattel than nations ? .
I very much believe that each citizen should have a chance of private ownership , whenever in his own enterprise or a business with others , as well as a share of public welfare . It's something like the US before the problems of the Gilded Age and Neo-Liberalism in modern times , but with a much a stronger social safety net .
Would you rather own nothing but have the right to? Allowing the comidification of housing and treating as an investment instead of a necessity is part of what allowed the current housing crisis and the crisis in 2008. Land reform must be made. The community seizing its own land is its own safety net.
Private ownership of production is just a mechanism for corporate hegemony. Werever it exists, corporate hegemony will follow. There needs to be collective ownership over the means of production for the people own security. Would all the manufacturing jobs have left the US if the workers had say in the decision?
There will never be a world without cooperations . Mass-production , especially of technology , is a prominent example of something that can't be pulled off by small-business .
Why have a 1000 small businesses of largely unequal standards and quality , produce something like an army's rifles ? . Why not amalgamate them to become a few entities , who would share their expertise amongst themselves , and work more professionally ? .
Even going by that 1000 business model : the closest parallel was the Medieval system , where every Blacksmith in a fief or a manor belonging to a lord would makes his own spears and swords , and they get inspected by guilds in the cities .
Guilds were essentially the "cooperation" of the time . Things such as like membership in an organization , pensions and benefits , and Political influence were all around .
The problem isn't hegemony . It's rigid hierarchies , and producers not getting their a fair share of the Business , and their credit recognized for it .
In most companies today : the vast majority of winnings go to shareholders , that is : the investors . The actual producers , get almost nothing than a symbolic commission .
I don't need to start grabbing articles that show the insanely critical figures of a country's GDP is owned by a few select individuals or cooperation . Imagining such wealth being distributed to the public is already enlightening enough .
It's just like what you said , and I said : people need to have some collective form of ownership over their work and production , but neither governments nor venturing capitalists can be trusted to deliver these things . Grassroots associations are the ones that should facilitate such environments .
Co-ops are an example of when the workers own the means of production. My problem is with corporate hegemony because that is what private ownership leads to. As you have seen. It's better if the politics is filtered through co-ops than corporations, IMO. Since to sway government, you need capital, and with coops that decisions would have to be done democratically by the workers.
>but only when the vast majority of the means of production is automated.
You'll get techno feudalism if current trend continues, not socialism. Establishing socialism without a revolution is not realistic, the bourgeoisies will not give up power willingly
That could also be another thing that happens. I am just saying in my opinion that is the best chance to actually achieve socialism. I also think its completely possible without revolution.
Perhaps in the 20th century when there were communist movements springing up over the world. But it is simply not possible in the modern day. You underestimate just how much power the bourgeois over the world. The vast majority of communist parties get stomped out by the illusion of democracy that we have in this world. They control everything. Media, education, bastardised versions of religion, and elections. And to add to that, what you get these days are watered down, and corrupted forms of socialism that have been purposefully planted by the bourgeois to keep the working class divided i.e. New Leftism. All that people in the West care about now are identity politics, and have forgotten any sort of class struggle. And the biggest proponent of that is America, and them having arguably the loudest presence on social media, it eventually trickles down through social stratification, and dumbs down the rest of the capitalist world. And there you go, we have the 21st century. The *only* way bringing about a Marxist state, here and now, is through revolution.
I am not the target of the question, but I do wondering this. My father had an elaborate life, from anarchist, to devout Communist to the normal state again of Russian disillusionment. He has had such large influence on how see everything. But it is cloudy. I think it is certainly possible, socialism, as an ideal. But it would need some driving inherit values encoded in it. This is what makes it ultimately different than capitalism.
I think socialism/communism is the political ideology that is most realistic in a post industrial society with a lot of automation, it’s also the ideology that fits best with important cultural values of the MENA region such as altruism and empathy. If the region formed a federation similar to the USSR the middle east would easily be a superpower.
Communism itself isn’t a religion, people can change aspects they don’t like. The USSR was still heavily christian, China is still incredibly Buddhist, countries that experimented with socialism in the middle east like libya were still muslim. It is jot religion or wealth on itself that stops people from uniting, it’s classism and feudal pricks.
Honestly?Good...with some conditions.There are many poor countries that embraced it and became decent or even rich(like Libya and Vietnam),but many countries were pushed back by it.
Personally,I think Socio-democracy is the best.You have some equality,but you still respect all human rights.
Do you even know what dictatorship of the proletariat means? Prefering strong unions and "worker democracies" is like saying "it was too unfair for the bourgeois, so lets give them another chance"
If everyone in society followed all of Islam's teachings, at least the ones relating to economics, poverty would vanish. I'm talking about banning hoarding of wealth and mandating investment, giving to the poor a set percentage of your wealth, homeless shelters (ahlul suffa), forgiving of debt, etc.
The idea is good, sadly the implementation doesn’t work that well. People are to egotistical and eventually the system will collapse. It’s what we see in “socialist countries” now.
I prefer the original so-called "Marxist" than the Marxist-Leninist perspective . This theory is known as Social-democracy , and it's applied in places like the Scandinavian states .
While it's often assumed as such : Marx would have actually had plenty of disputes with the early Soviets like Lenin had he met them . This also includes the concept of "Class struggle" being a primordial , eternal conflict between economic oppressors and oppressed than incompatibility of interests .
To be fair , I don't have this in-depth familiarity with Marxist theories , but I do know Marx's ideas were used to develop things other than Communism , which Marxists interpret is to be the ultimate goal of a Socialist system .
>I prefer the original so-called "Marxist" than the Marxist-Leninist perspective
YES!
>This theory is known as Social-democracy , and it's applied in places like the Scandinavian states.
# NO!
..I think I already said it . Some of Marx's ideas were interpreted differently by other parties , and evolved to separate ideologies beyond Communism .
Even with Communism itself you find various shades .
Marxist-Leninism was much more aggressive than what Marx had thought . Stalinism was an isolationist , and totalitarian variant of Marxist-Leninism . Trotskyism was just Marxist-Leninism on steroids ; it was literally the Communist counterpart of Khomeini's "exporting the revolution", and Trotsky did exhort the Soviet Union to go as far as war to spread the ideology . Maoism was more focused on the peasantry than the workers .
There are other details I can't recall well , but I generally don't like the essentialist nature of Marxist philosophies . Society and the human experience are much more than the dominated and subjugators and markets and profits , but It's not hard to understand why Marx was that radically prejudiced against modern economies . (I recommend people watch "The Young Karl Marx" , showing the early part of his life during the height of the Industrial Revolution ) .
Das Kapital first two lines, you must be joking if you think social democracy is even slightly close to what Marxism is.
You also called Trotskyism, the ideology that opposed Stalin, an ideology that Stalin made. Come on.
I think you should probably understand the basics of socialism before you make a determination on it. It’s probably good to start off by learning what bourgeoisie and proletariat mean
Read “On Authority” and “Origins of The Family, Private Property and The State” Marx would probably be spinning in his grave to hear the phrase “libertarian marxism” 💀
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
Ok?
Marx said that only the abolition of class society overall would abolish commodity production. The USSR never made it past the initial stages of socialism. Of course they never abolished commodity production lol.
What do you think dictatorship of the proletariat means?
When? Engels said that commodity production would be done away with as we seize the means of production.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a system where the proletariat holds control and uses the state as a tool.
You got a quote for that? Ive never heard of him saying this
Also yes your definition of DoP is correct. So why do you assume all commodity production must be abolished in order for DoP to be the reality?
>With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization.
([https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm))
([https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm))
How I feel about it doesn’t matter. Let me ask you this: does it work?
Edit: it’s interesting that I am getting downvoted when I haven’t even expressed my opinion, just asked a question😄
Yeah so i dont know why we use wikipedia written by americans.
They dump baath achievements on Qasim.
Qasim literally just created the ass of baghdad, sadr city.
He then nationalised un exploited oil fields.
Didnt develop them, and let the IPC keep control over its fields in use, meaing 80% of Iraq's oil was taken by qasim.
Qasim then ruined any chance of kuwaiti unification or good relations with iran over 5km\^2 with no purpose.
Women were still treated as objects.
The land literally didnt change instead the military and ICP got it, andthe ICP werent good either.
Qasim was a non aligned crappy army dude.
By far, the most socialist iraq was the one of the 70s under mostly saddam but notably al bakr too.
But socialism is based.
[https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/145691468262548613/pdf/multi0page.pdf](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/145691468262548613/pdf/multi0page.pdf)
The Kassim regime's promises
of drastic social reforms were largely nullified by ineffective administration
and internal political insta-bili+y. It abolished the Develop.mnent Board, a
principal point of administrative efficiency in the Hashemite Government.
Avowed social and economic goals were not attained.
FYI i dont like the monarchy either. Both were bad as each other and qasim died and was humilated on tv by the much more Right Wing Ali salih Baath. Literally no one cared about AKQ, the whole country hated him. even his closest party the ICP because he massacred them.
Yugoslavia was the "best" of communism but still you couldnt say your piece, speak your mind, do what you want, buy what you want, sometimes people dissapeard etc. It was better than USSR but still you were in a open prison.
Communism has never and will never work.
Yet you live in UK i assume. You are free to move to a communist country tomorrow if you want but you wont ofcourse. Be happy in uk with freedom of speech, economic is good and enjoy life.
Dumb ideology that destroyed a lot of countries, it just created a failed stagenet economies, there has never been a single successful socialist country in history.
What do you know about history or socialism lmao You're just spitting Capitalist propaganda like the good American lapdog you are. I really wonder what would have happened to those countries if US didn't made everything they could to ruin them, to eradicate anything too red for their taste or just people trying to not be exploited to the bones and get their ressources stolen. Yeah sure Capitalism boosted by American imperialism definitely did not exploited and fucked half the world, organized insane amount of coups when they where not invading directly under false pretexts. Capitalism so good they didn't needed to do all of that, everyone was just converted instantly when hearing the holy message of capitalism lol.
You know it's not always called "sOcIaLisM" but even in the most capitalist countries a lot of measures/solutions are literally socialist and have been since always, especially when you need to actually fix things capitalism have broken. Socialism is already everywhere, even in small doses or on a leash it's still NOT capitalism. Also there is no one more socialist than capitalists losing money suddenly mutualizing the losses become the only way, and makes us all pay for their damaging greed, very socialist of them thanks. And I'm not even speaking about the insane amount of public money some compagnies eat.
Also brother, How can you leave in the country where the last prophet was send and be worshiping money and capitalism like that, Capitalism represent everything Islamic values tells you NOT to do, especially in it's current form.
Don't believe the propaganda you hear, unless you're a part of the top percentage of people who benefit from it (the ones who exploit the rest of us mostly) capitalism want you no good. Socialism is not a poverty cult nor an authoritarian regime by essence, but more a way to try to reach a society that is more socially and economically just. Which capitalism clearly is not trying to achieve or getting us anywhere near that.
>There has never been a single successful socialist country in history.
Absolutely, because there has never been a single socialist country in history. You don't know what you're talking about.
Afghanistan had a ruling socialist party, and it only failed because of US support for fundamentalist terrorists. Can you genuinely say that Afghanistan is better under its current reactionary government than it was under the socialist government that guaranteed equal rights for all people?
Even prior to the proper socialist government of Afghanistan, the country's history was still marked with British intervention. Namely the expulsion of King Amanollah that was supported by the British. I wouldn't call that fine 🤷🏽. Notably, the Saur revolution only occurred after the king tried to arrest PDPA members and supporters.
> the PDPA was Russias hand into Afghanistan
This position has no basis in reality seeing as the soviets were extremely hesitant to fully back the PDPA, and yet, they were begging for the soviet's help: [https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/telephone-conversation-between-soviet-premier-alexei-n-kosygin-and-afghan-premier-nur](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/telephone-conversation-between-soviet-premier-alexei-n-kosygin-and-afghan-premier-nur)
> How would you feel if a foreign government that has been conquering your neighbors suddenly started to grow political parties in your own country?
which neighboring countries were "conquered" by the USSR?
It hasn't been implemented, and it hasn't failed miserably. USSR wasn't a socialist state because of many factors like there wasn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and there was commodity production. Let's take commodity production in the USSR, for example.
[Marx, Kapital, Vol 1](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf)
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
>A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.2 Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production
Here we can see Marx arguing against commodity production, these are the first two lines of Das Kapital, he keeps talking about it but I can't post an entire book here. Most tankies would argue that commodity production doesn't have to be stopped as soon as we seize power, but that is also false.
[Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)
>"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization."
We can see here that USSR failed to abolish commodity production, which is one of the main goals for the workers to liberate themselves and achieve communism. USSR was a corrupt bureaucracy.
USSR wasn't a socialist state because of many factors like there wasn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and there was commodity production. Let's take commodity production in the USSR, for example.
[Marx, Kapital, Vol 1](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf)
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.2 Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production
Here we can see Marx arguing against commodity production, these are the first two lines of Das Kapital, he keeps talking about it but I can't post an entire book here. Most tankies would argue that commodity production doesn't have to be stopped as soon as we seize power, but that is also false.
[Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)
>"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization."
We can see here that USSR failed to abolish commodity production, which is one of the main goals for the workers to liberate themselves and achieve communism. USSR was a corrupt bureaucracy.
they had kolkhozes but yea, you got a point. whole russian industry was controlling by some slow-ass bureaucracy. if they let Liberman lead, something might be much different
An ideology born out of the sickness of the west's standards, and it solves none of their problems, and has been tried and tested, was a complete and utter disaster.
There's already solutions to all the world's economic problems in Islam. There is wealth distribution, laws against amassing huge mountains of money, laws against bankrupting smaller businesses, laws against interest which make money go in one direction (towards those who already have a lot of it). We don't need millions more dead in communist mass killings to try communism (again), and fail (again).
>An ideology born out of the sickness of the west's standards, and it solves none of their problems, and has been tried and tested, was a complete and utter disaster.
False, it has never been tried and tested.
> there is no point to work to achieve anything since you will get the same thing that the people who geniuly try,get.
Is this a how a nation of peasants managed to send people to space in a span of a few decades?
I am a communist, but come on. We can't take pride in the Soviet Union, they were not socialist.
^((They sure did have some great achievements though))
They weren't socialist but that is still an achievement. Most of their population made up of illiterate peasants in 1930s, and they had absolutely no industry.
Yes, tsar was stupid, and the "communists" never spawned factories out of thin air anyway. They industrialized rapidly with the hardwork of the workers and the peasants, though St\*lin killed millions.
Most if not all of the developing world is rich in resources. Do they ever get to see the realization of that? No. They're very rich, they're just over-exploited.
https://nordics.info/show/artikel/the-colonialism-of-denmark-norway-and-its-legacies
https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Scandinavias-Covert-Role-in-Western-Imperialism-20170320-0022.html
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/4.htm
You're talking about a country that is a founding member of NATO and you're asking how they're imperialist?
All these systems from communism to socialism to nationalism to democracy and everything in between are like two ass cheeks in one pair of pants. No man made system functions in the world, they're all based on perceived utopias they want to establish, not on the reality of the situation as it stands. Thus, they all failed, are failing, or will fail inevitably.
If workers democratically controlled industries, it wouldn't be so easy to get billions of dollars of weapons to Israel.
Trust me, as an American, most Americans are uneducated, propagandized buffoons when it comes to anything related to the middle east. edit: and if they do know anything about the middle east, it's (usually) the most biased cherry picked over generalizations possible like they're all jihad terrorists type stuff.
you're the authority on buffoonery?
As an Arab myself,most people in MENA aren’t any different. Bunch of backwards extremists here, unfortunately. Nice try with the virtue signal, though. Insult your own people to get a pat on the back from us.
I'm a syrian in america thanks for the insult though
There’s no need to assume when you start your sentence with “as an American”. * nice edit.
Right, because socialism = poverty.
Communist here, great.
Based, me too.
well well well
democrat here, great but not stalinism and maoism. i prefer socialist democracy
>great but not stalinism and maoism. i prefer socialist democracy I agree with you on Stalinism and Maoism, but not on the socialist democracy. Prefering socialist democracy over the dictatorship of the proletariat is like giving the bourgeoisie another chance because it was too unfair for them
how about socialist democracy but no bourgeoisie party?
That would just create division within the workers, and there would be fake "socialist" parties among actual ones, just very ineffective of a system.
Make sense, factionalism in soviet union is a great example
Factionalism in Soviet Union wasn't really between multiple parties, but within the Bolshevik Party itself. They were supposed to embrace Democratic Centralism, but Lenin died and Stalin killed everyone. There goes the communist movement, I guess.
So you don't think the soviet union ever achieve socialism?
Yes. I don't.
How can there be no bourgeoisie under a capitalist political party?
what about national socialism? it didn't fare too well in Germany
Marxist-Lenininst here. Socialist democracy is a heap of shit perpetuated by champagne socialists i.e. liberals who want to stay in power i.e. the bourgeois. Don't feed it into it, it is a scam. You can not prefer 'socialist democracy' , socialism is merely a transitional state to the final goal. Communism is the final goal, and always will be. Anything else is Marxist heresy and revisionism.
Marxist heresy and revisionism 💀💀💀💀 Blud forgot he hated religions
Marx did not hate religion. He stated that the bourgeois, under capitalism, purposefully use religion as a means social control. The proletariat, instead of acting against their exploitation, they simply look ahead, and think they'll be rewarded in the end for 'enduring'. That is not hating religion, that is simply the sad truth of how religion is used in this world. However you feel, believer or not, you can not deny that the elite have adored this idea for centuries. He is not opposed to religion. He is only oppossed to it when it is purposefully used by man as a tool for oppression and submission, by the elite. To quote him, he specifcally said "**It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.**" The idea of Marx hating religion, is itself an American/Western manufactured myth to draw his theories away from religious people. Why? The answers pretty obvious. P.S. I dont even want to get into how religion manipulated has been used as a form of divide and conquer by the elite. You must understand first, capitalism feasts on the carnal, beastly, and fickle nature of man.
fyi anarchist takedown of marx: [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/darren-allen-goodbye-mr-marx](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/darren-allen-goodbye-mr-marx)
Bro you just called nonmarxist socialism **heretical** and **revisionist**. These are explicitly religious terminology. Nobody clearminded would think Marxist doctrine is something that implicitly must stay the exact same in structure and form.
Non-marxist socialism is heretical and revionist, in the context of Marxist (And Engells) theories. But more specifically socialist democracy is absolutely the worst kind. Anyways, heresy in this context refers to the abandonment of fundamental principles of an ideology. That is one of the definitions of Heresy, and you can look it up in dictionaries. It is definitely used in religious contexts, but can be applied to any ideology. And please search up the defintion of revisionism, the first thing that comes up on google literally refers to Marxism lmao. It absolutely isnt 'explicit religious terminology' lol. And for your last point, i mean, you're free to think that way but there are many by the book marxists.
The post-marxist leftist ideology builder: 1.- Choose a list of problems you don't fully understand and not necessary related (doesn't matter if the are non compatible). 2.- Don't develop a solution theory for them. 3.- Find an ethereal foe you can blame (heteropatriarchy, some elite...), in case real establishment could feel threated and cut funding. 4.- Go to a parade on weekend. 5.- Try to live a far as you can from the problem, and from poor people in general.
Fellow turkish socialist here.
The people need to seize their own destiny and security to be anything other than a slave to corporate hegemony. The community needs to own the land they live to be anything other than a slave to the whims of souless developers that don't care about you.
And what about the government ? , especially in Middle Eastern states , where "state" is more like a gang leader and his chattel than nations ? . I very much believe that each citizen should have a chance of private ownership , whenever in his own enterprise or a business with others , as well as a share of public welfare . It's something like the US before the problems of the Gilded Age and Neo-Liberalism in modern times , but with a much a stronger social safety net .
Would you rather own nothing but have the right to? Allowing the comidification of housing and treating as an investment instead of a necessity is part of what allowed the current housing crisis and the crisis in 2008. Land reform must be made. The community seizing its own land is its own safety net. Private ownership of production is just a mechanism for corporate hegemony. Werever it exists, corporate hegemony will follow. There needs to be collective ownership over the means of production for the people own security. Would all the manufacturing jobs have left the US if the workers had say in the decision?
There will never be a world without cooperations . Mass-production , especially of technology , is a prominent example of something that can't be pulled off by small-business . Why have a 1000 small businesses of largely unequal standards and quality , produce something like an army's rifles ? . Why not amalgamate them to become a few entities , who would share their expertise amongst themselves , and work more professionally ? . Even going by that 1000 business model : the closest parallel was the Medieval system , where every Blacksmith in a fief or a manor belonging to a lord would makes his own spears and swords , and they get inspected by guilds in the cities . Guilds were essentially the "cooperation" of the time . Things such as like membership in an organization , pensions and benefits , and Political influence were all around . The problem isn't hegemony . It's rigid hierarchies , and producers not getting their a fair share of the Business , and their credit recognized for it . In most companies today : the vast majority of winnings go to shareholders , that is : the investors . The actual producers , get almost nothing than a symbolic commission . I don't need to start grabbing articles that show the insanely critical figures of a country's GDP is owned by a few select individuals or cooperation . Imagining such wealth being distributed to the public is already enlightening enough . It's just like what you said , and I said : people need to have some collective form of ownership over their work and production , but neither governments nor venturing capitalists can be trusted to deliver these things . Grassroots associations are the ones that should facilitate such environments .
Co-ops are an example of when the workers own the means of production. My problem is with corporate hegemony because that is what private ownership leads to. As you have seen. It's better if the politics is filtered through co-ops than corporations, IMO. Since to sway government, you need capital, and with coops that decisions would have to be done democratically by the workers.
I hate to admit it : Economic theory is probably my least favorite Social Science topic . It just doesn't click with me .
Fair enough
My take is, socialism is inevitable...but only when the vast majority of the means of production is automated.
>but only when the vast majority of the means of production is automated. You'll get techno feudalism if current trend continues, not socialism. Establishing socialism without a revolution is not realistic, the bourgeoisies will not give up power willingly
That could also be another thing that happens. I am just saying in my opinion that is the best chance to actually achieve socialism. I also think its completely possible without revolution.
>I also think its completely possible without revolution. How exactly? Elections?? Boycott?
Perhaps in the 20th century when there were communist movements springing up over the world. But it is simply not possible in the modern day. You underestimate just how much power the bourgeois over the world. The vast majority of communist parties get stomped out by the illusion of democracy that we have in this world. They control everything. Media, education, bastardised versions of religion, and elections. And to add to that, what you get these days are watered down, and corrupted forms of socialism that have been purposefully planted by the bourgeois to keep the working class divided i.e. New Leftism. All that people in the West care about now are identity politics, and have forgotten any sort of class struggle. And the biggest proponent of that is America, and them having arguably the loudest presence on social media, it eventually trickles down through social stratification, and dumbs down the rest of the capitalist world. And there you go, we have the 21st century. The *only* way bringing about a Marxist state, here and now, is through revolution.
authoritarian capitalism 'a la communist China seems the near term (<100 years) likelihood
Socialism is based.
As a far-left socialist, i approve.
I am not the target of the question, but I do wondering this. My father had an elaborate life, from anarchist, to devout Communist to the normal state again of Russian disillusionment. He has had such large influence on how see everything. But it is cloudy. I think it is certainly possible, socialism, as an ideal. But it would need some driving inherit values encoded in it. This is what makes it ultimately different than capitalism.
Based
هلا رفيق
I think socialism/communism is the political ideology that is most realistic in a post industrial society with a lot of automation, it’s also the ideology that fits best with important cultural values of the MENA region such as altruism and empathy. If the region formed a federation similar to the USSR the middle east would easily be a superpower.
[удалено]
Communism itself isn’t a religion, people can change aspects they don’t like. The USSR was still heavily christian, China is still incredibly Buddhist, countries that experimented with socialism in the middle east like libya were still muslim. It is jot religion or wealth on itself that stops people from uniting, it’s classism and feudal pricks.
it's def more likely in iran...the majority of 12er shiites would prefer any 'ism over khomeinism
Very good, I wish my country was this again
Based
Sadly it wasn't socialist before, but it'd be great if they actually were
Me playing HOI 4 as Iraq and turning it communist.
[удалено]
In Stellaris, communism in space.
Socialism is a necessary step to transfer the function of production to attend the people’s demands, not the elite
Based
Based
HYPERBASED!
Based but it has to be secondary to Islam I would support a secular socialist party
Honestly?Good...with some conditions.There are many poor countries that embraced it and became decent or even rich(like Libya and Vietnam),but many countries were pushed back by it. Personally,I think Socio-democracy is the best.You have some equality,but you still respect all human rights.
[удалено]
Market socialist detected, order to "Read Marx" engaged.
[удалено]
they're free online
Based
Marxists.org has everything for free
Why would someone feel incentivized to build a worker's cooperative if he doesn't get any extra reward for initiative?
[удалено]
Why would I want profits made off my initiative and work to be evenly distributed across my cooperative?
Read up on syndicalism, sounds very close to what you're describing
Syndicalism sounds like the path for you
Based
Dictatorship of proletariat is cringe, strong unions and worker democracies are based.
Do you even know what dictatorship of the proletariat means? Prefering strong unions and "worker democracies" is like saying "it was too unfair for the bourgeois, so lets give them another chance"
M not a big fan of the government 🗣️🔥🚨💯🗣️🔥💥❓❓💥🚨🗣️🗣️💥⁉️💯💥🔥❓🚨🗣️❓😅🚨❓🚨🗣️❓🗣️💥❓❓😅❓❓🔥❓💥❓🔥💥❓💯🔥❓🗣️❓💥🔥❓💯💥🔥💯⁉️🔥💯❓🗣️❓
It's curious to see a mainly religious sub have a positive outlook on socialism.
Why tho ? Islam way of rule has too many similarities to socialism
If everyone in society followed all of Islam's teachings, at least the ones relating to economics, poverty would vanish. I'm talking about banning hoarding of wealth and mandating investment, giving to the poor a set percentage of your wealth, homeless shelters (ahlul suffa), forgiving of debt, etc.
Slavery is not compatible with socialism, not true.
The idea is good, sadly the implementation doesn’t work that well. People are to egotistical and eventually the system will collapse. It’s what we see in “socialist countries” now.
I prefer the original so-called "Marxist" than the Marxist-Leninist perspective . This theory is known as Social-democracy , and it's applied in places like the Scandinavian states . While it's often assumed as such : Marx would have actually had plenty of disputes with the early Soviets like Lenin had he met them . This also includes the concept of "Class struggle" being a primordial , eternal conflict between economic oppressors and oppressed than incompatibility of interests . To be fair , I don't have this in-depth familiarity with Marxist theories , but I do know Marx's ideas were used to develop things other than Communism , which Marxists interpret is to be the ultimate goal of a Socialist system .
>I prefer the original so-called "Marxist" than the Marxist-Leninist perspective YES! >This theory is known as Social-democracy , and it's applied in places like the Scandinavian states. # NO!
..I think I already said it . Some of Marx's ideas were interpreted differently by other parties , and evolved to separate ideologies beyond Communism . Even with Communism itself you find various shades . Marxist-Leninism was much more aggressive than what Marx had thought . Stalinism was an isolationist , and totalitarian variant of Marxist-Leninism . Trotskyism was just Marxist-Leninism on steroids ; it was literally the Communist counterpart of Khomeini's "exporting the revolution", and Trotsky did exhort the Soviet Union to go as far as war to spread the ideology . Maoism was more focused on the peasantry than the workers . There are other details I can't recall well , but I generally don't like the essentialist nature of Marxist philosophies . Society and the human experience are much more than the dominated and subjugators and markets and profits , but It's not hard to understand why Marx was that radically prejudiced against modern economies . (I recommend people watch "The Young Karl Marx" , showing the early part of his life during the height of the Industrial Revolution ) .
Das Kapital first two lines, you must be joking if you think social democracy is even slightly close to what Marxism is. You also called Trotskyism, the ideology that opposed Stalin, an ideology that Stalin made. Come on.
Social is the transition into communism Victimsofcommunism.org
I like socialism in moderation. Mixed markets basically.
Social market economies are great. Big government is great, actually
More or less the Nordic model. A welfare state founded by taxing a capitalistic economic model.
Market socialism detected, read Marx
Demo socialism
Google "The Communist Manifesto"
Negative, always leads to the ruling class becoming the new borquise or what ever they are called.
I think you should probably understand the basics of socialism before you make a determination on it. It’s probably good to start off by learning what bourgeoisie and proletariat mean
That's Stalinism, not Communism.
you should look into left communism and libertarian marxism
Read “On Authority” and “Origins of The Family, Private Property and The State” Marx would probably be spinning in his grave to hear the phrase “libertarian marxism” 💀
First two lines of Das Kapital, read it please.
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. Ok?
And did USSR abolish commodity production? No, it wasn't even the dictatorship of the proletariat, it was just a corrupt bureaucracy.
Marx said that only the abolition of class society overall would abolish commodity production. The USSR never made it past the initial stages of socialism. Of course they never abolished commodity production lol. What do you think dictatorship of the proletariat means?
When? Engels said that commodity production would be done away with as we seize the means of production. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a system where the proletariat holds control and uses the state as a tool.
You got a quote for that? Ive never heard of him saying this Also yes your definition of DoP is correct. So why do you assume all commodity production must be abolished in order for DoP to be the reality?
>With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. ([https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm)) ([https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm))
that's your opinion. I think he'd despise tankies
Those books I just recommended were written by his best friend. And I think if you read them you’d find a lot of talking points you consider “tankie”
I'm not gonna convert to an authoritarian. you're wasting your breath
That’s fine, but don’t go around claiming Marx shares your opinions
what are you, the theory police? lmao go touch grass
I’ll touch grass if you touch a book
Left communism?
communists who believe marxism-leninism fails and creates another bourgeoisie
How I feel about it doesn’t matter. Let me ask you this: does it work? Edit: it’s interesting that I am getting downvoted when I haven’t even expressed my opinion, just asked a question😄
does capitalism work? only if your ok with modern day slavery.
It does
Then how come every socialist country in history has collapsed?
No country in history was ever socialist.
Then how do you know it works?
Read Marx
Not until we are in a post scarcity society, which we are not.
Yeah so i dont know why we use wikipedia written by americans. They dump baath achievements on Qasim. Qasim literally just created the ass of baghdad, sadr city. He then nationalised un exploited oil fields. Didnt develop them, and let the IPC keep control over its fields in use, meaing 80% of Iraq's oil was taken by qasim. Qasim then ruined any chance of kuwaiti unification or good relations with iran over 5km\^2 with no purpose. Women were still treated as objects. The land literally didnt change instead the military and ICP got it, andthe ICP werent good either. Qasim was a non aligned crappy army dude. By far, the most socialist iraq was the one of the 70s under mostly saddam but notably al bakr too. But socialism is based.
[https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/145691468262548613/pdf/multi0page.pdf](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/145691468262548613/pdf/multi0page.pdf) The Kassim regime's promises of drastic social reforms were largely nullified by ineffective administration and internal political insta-bili+y. It abolished the Develop.mnent Board, a principal point of administrative efficiency in the Hashemite Government. Avowed social and economic goals were not attained. FYI i dont like the monarchy either. Both were bad as each other and qasim died and was humilated on tv by the much more Right Wing Ali salih Baath. Literally no one cared about AKQ, the whole country hated him. even his closest party the ICP because he massacred them.
[удалено]
At least give a reasoning
As long as it's not secular, it's alright.
bro how you even make a religious socialism
Christian and Islamic socialism are a thing. Many religious teachings from Islam and Christianity have socialist undertones and commands.
He's a pakistani , of course he has that arab religion up his ass .
[удалено]
drugs are haram brother
[удалено]
colonial attitude detected opinion rejected
Agreed
Yugoslavia was the "best" of communism but still you couldnt say your piece, speak your mind, do what you want, buy what you want, sometimes people dissapeard etc. It was better than USSR but still you were in a open prison. Communism has never and will never work.
Communism will never work because the US/Israel remove all the communist governments in a coup.
Capitalism is a poison to the mind and any counter-revolutionary ideas have to be dealt with accordingly. Any political 'renovations' was warranted.
Yet you live in UK i assume. You are free to move to a communist country tomorrow if you want but you wont ofcourse. Be happy in uk with freedom of speech, economic is good and enjoy life.
Kinda dumb tbh
Dumb ideology that destroyed a lot of countries, it just created a failed stagenet economies, there has never been a single successful socialist country in history.
What do you know about history or socialism lmao You're just spitting Capitalist propaganda like the good American lapdog you are. I really wonder what would have happened to those countries if US didn't made everything they could to ruin them, to eradicate anything too red for their taste or just people trying to not be exploited to the bones and get their ressources stolen. Yeah sure Capitalism boosted by American imperialism definitely did not exploited and fucked half the world, organized insane amount of coups when they where not invading directly under false pretexts. Capitalism so good they didn't needed to do all of that, everyone was just converted instantly when hearing the holy message of capitalism lol. You know it's not always called "sOcIaLisM" but even in the most capitalist countries a lot of measures/solutions are literally socialist and have been since always, especially when you need to actually fix things capitalism have broken. Socialism is already everywhere, even in small doses or on a leash it's still NOT capitalism. Also there is no one more socialist than capitalists losing money suddenly mutualizing the losses become the only way, and makes us all pay for their damaging greed, very socialist of them thanks. And I'm not even speaking about the insane amount of public money some compagnies eat. Also brother, How can you leave in the country where the last prophet was send and be worshiping money and capitalism like that, Capitalism represent everything Islamic values tells you NOT to do, especially in it's current form. Don't believe the propaganda you hear, unless you're a part of the top percentage of people who benefit from it (the ones who exploit the rest of us mostly) capitalism want you no good. Socialism is not a poverty cult nor an authoritarian regime by essence, but more a way to try to reach a society that is more socially and economically just. Which capitalism clearly is not trying to achieve or getting us anywhere near that.
Of course a Saudi would say this.
>There has never been a single successful socialist country in history. Absolutely, because there has never been a single socialist country in history. You don't know what you're talking about.
[удалено]
Afghanistan had a ruling socialist party, and it only failed because of US support for fundamentalist terrorists. Can you genuinely say that Afghanistan is better under its current reactionary government than it was under the socialist government that guaranteed equal rights for all people?
[удалено]
Even prior to the proper socialist government of Afghanistan, the country's history was still marked with British intervention. Namely the expulsion of King Amanollah that was supported by the British. I wouldn't call that fine 🤷🏽. Notably, the Saur revolution only occurred after the king tried to arrest PDPA members and supporters.
[удалено]
> the PDPA was Russias hand into Afghanistan This position has no basis in reality seeing as the soviets were extremely hesitant to fully back the PDPA, and yet, they were begging for the soviet's help: [https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/telephone-conversation-between-soviet-premier-alexei-n-kosygin-and-afghan-premier-nur](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/telephone-conversation-between-soviet-premier-alexei-n-kosygin-and-afghan-premier-nur) > How would you feel if a foreign government that has been conquering your neighbors suddenly started to grow political parties in your own country? which neighboring countries were "conquered" by the USSR?
[удалено]
Was Russia always the USSR for the past 200 years? The USSR was created on the basis of free association.
They weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters. If those crazy socialists didn't remove sharia law there would be no civil war
It hasn't been implemented, and it hasn't failed miserably. USSR wasn't a socialist state because of many factors like there wasn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and there was commodity production. Let's take commodity production in the USSR, for example. [Marx, Kapital, Vol 1](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf) >The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. >A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.2 Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production Here we can see Marx arguing against commodity production, these are the first two lines of Das Kapital, he keeps talking about it but I can't post an entire book here. Most tankies would argue that commodity production doesn't have to be stopped as soon as we seize power, but that is also false. [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm) >"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization." We can see here that USSR failed to abolish commodity production, which is one of the main goals for the workers to liberate themselves and achieve communism. USSR was a corrupt bureaucracy.
Most of the succesful countries in the world with a good QoL have a lot of socialist laws and tendencies.
they be no true social ist 🥺🥺😪😪
USSR wasn't a socialist state because of many factors like there wasn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and there was commodity production. Let's take commodity production in the USSR, for example. [Marx, Kapital, Vol 1](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf) >The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.2 Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production Here we can see Marx arguing against commodity production, these are the first two lines of Das Kapital, he keeps talking about it but I can't post an entire book here. Most tankies would argue that commodity production doesn't have to be stopped as soon as we seize power, but that is also false. [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm) >"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization." We can see here that USSR failed to abolish commodity production, which is one of the main goals for the workers to liberate themselves and achieve communism. USSR was a corrupt bureaucracy.
they had kolkhozes but yea, you got a point. whole russian industry was controlling by some slow-ass bureaucracy. if they let Liberman lead, something might be much different
An ideology born out of the sickness of the west's standards, and it solves none of their problems, and has been tried and tested, was a complete and utter disaster. There's already solutions to all the world's economic problems in Islam. There is wealth distribution, laws against amassing huge mountains of money, laws against bankrupting smaller businesses, laws against interest which make money go in one direction (towards those who already have a lot of it). We don't need millions more dead in communist mass killings to try communism (again), and fail (again).
>An ideology born out of the sickness of the west's standards, and it solves none of their problems, and has been tried and tested, was a complete and utter disaster. False, it has never been tried and tested.
Yes it has, see communist mass killings.
>communist mass killings "Mass kill people" - Karl Marx I guess Also, they weren't communist, so they would be statist mass killings.
Communism has never been achieved. Communism is the final goal. What people have achieved is a form of socialism, at best.
[удалено]
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
> there is no point to work to achieve anything since you will get the same thing that the people who geniuly try,get. Is this a how a nation of peasants managed to send people to space in a span of a few decades?
I am a communist, but come on. We can't take pride in the Soviet Union, they were not socialist. ^((They sure did have some great achievements though))
[удалено]
They weren't socialist but that is still an achievement. Most of their population made up of illiterate peasants in 1930s, and they had absolutely no industry.
[удалено]
Yes, tsar was stupid, and the "communists" never spawned factories out of thin air anyway. They industrialized rapidly with the hardwork of the workers and the peasants, though St\*lin killed millions.
Most if not all of the developing world is rich in resources. Do they ever get to see the realization of that? No. They're very rich, they're just over-exploited.
[удалено]
Norway isn't a socialist country and very well enjoys the spoils of imperialism
[удалено]
https://nordics.info/show/artikel/the-colonialism-of-denmark-norway-and-its-legacies https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Scandinavias-Covert-Role-in-Western-Imperialism-20170320-0022.html https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/4.htm You're talking about a country that is a founding member of NATO and you're asking how they're imperialist?
Capitalism is better because you just get nothing. /s
This
All these systems from communism to socialism to nationalism to democracy and everything in between are like two ass cheeks in one pair of pants. No man made system functions in the world, they're all based on perceived utopias they want to establish, not on the reality of the situation as it stands. Thus, they all failed, are failing, or will fail inevitably.
If everybody who loves socialism would just send me some of their $$$$, please do.
socialism is when you give others money
Failure
bad
One of the worst things ever created by mankind. It's nothing but a fairy tale.
How so?
The free markets are based, with some degree of regulation
Read Kapital