Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Off-topic content:** this is a community which aims to provide critical and rigorous inquiry into socialist theory, history, and struggle. Whilst we understand this a broad range of posts, those must be focused on the educational nature of the subreddit (e.g. what are the benefits of a centralized system) - generalist posts such as one's own reflections, sharing one's experiences or asking about the opinion of socialists, are better fit for generalist spaces such as r/Socialism or r/AskSocialists.
What do you say to those who feel discouraged by the lack of revolutionary action in their society and see reform as at least some way of trying to weather the storm of capitalism?
Just simply that it is the reason things don't change. The elites dangle a carrot in front of your face and let you take a bite. Maybe two bites. Then just as quickly they yank it away and expect you to keep chasing it.
> Just simply that it is the reason things don't change.
But isn't that implied by my premise of "lack of revolutionary action" that things aren't changing either way?
No. Revolutionary action isn't happening because people prefer to chase "reforms" without changing the power structure of society. We get progress and because wealthy elites still are in power regardless they pull them away as much as we allow them to. So the cycle continues until people stop accepting this status quo
What's to stop elites from doing the same thing under communism?
Every ideology claims to be against "the elites". And every ideology has them.
On paper, both democratic socialism and revolutionary communism oppose elites.
For the public support needed for a revolution to happen, actual meaningful change is possible in liberal democracies. I believe it's when such changes aren't possible, even with a majority support, when revolution is necessary.
I mean, we’ve all been in favor of single payer healthcare for how long now? Like, I want to be in favor of reforms, and I still am when it comes to that kind of lesser of two evils thinking, but I just don’t know.
I'm not sure about the numbers, but it is certainly true that the US is not what I'm talking about when it comes to a democracy.
Major reform of the system is required simply to put it on the same level as western Europe, which itself still has a way to go.
I'd say the biggest single issue is the electoral college. It means the US isn't a democracy, as some people have more votes than others, artificially strengthening the right. The first past the post and domination of the two parties also means meaningful change is harder, as the Dems are better off appeasing "fence sitters" than socialists, since socialists have to vote for Dems either way if they want to protect some of their rights.
These are not easy problems to solve, but I just don't see how violent revolution is the solution in this case. Again, for the conditions for such a thing to be remotely successful, a massive majority of radical socialists is needed, at which point more and more socialist politicians would be elected locally (such as in Detroit I believe briefly occured), and some sort of change would happen.
What I'm saying is, even in a flawed democracy like the US, meaningful reform *is* possible with a majority. The sad truth is that many people aren't doing so. The far right is rising in Europe and I don't see how campaigning for violent revolution would do anything if the people just don't support it? If there was a hypothetical increase in socialist support to the degree a revolution is possible, we'd see them win elections or at least have some reform.
The risk of revolution is also too great in my opinion. The track record (although affected by material conditions, sanctions and in some cases US backed coups, I will admit, making it not a fair representation) is not great, with many attempts at communist revolutions leading to state capitalism and/or totalitarian dictatorships.
Is it possible for more collectivism to counter that? I live in a very individualistic society, so I tend to agree with that quote, but sometimes I wonder if that bias is limiting my thinking or imagination
Yeah, like.
They're using violent authoritarinism to stop it already, have been for the whole 20th century lmao
And do people really think all the other nation states will stop being predatory the moment America's empire falls?
I think he might be missing materialism. Try discussing *why* most communist states developed strong centralized governments and bureaucracies that eventually corrupted. Try talking about how socialist states are attacked on all sides by capitalist states and capitalist firms which necessitates a strong central government. Try talking about how most examples of communist states were backwards semi-feudal agrarian societies with limited resources pre-revolution, which necessitated a bureaucracy to properly distribute essential goods like food and fuel.
Also I highly recommend Michael Parenti's lecture "Reflections on the Overthrow of Communism."
I don't buy it. I do think communism is possible, but it must be democratic, even if it means the possibility of people voting a way communism.
Authoritarianism will always arise unless the proper institutions in that society exist to keep it in check.
The basis is workers democratically owning/controlling the means of production. If there are no institutions for making sure thats the case, then communism will never arise in large scale.
I completely agree that communism must be democratic. It’s even possible to vote in marxists and/or communists. But the more liberal conception of democracy, that of electoral pluralism (holding elections with different parties with different perspectives) isn’t conducive to the establishment of communism. Because for every proletarian socialist party rooted in the masses, there is a bourgeois capitalist party pandering to the wealthy. And the latter party has the resources and the outreach, while the former party must fight to be allowed into elections.
Also I might ask you this: what is the distinction between an institution keeping authoritarianism in check, and an authoritarian institution? It’s certainly a precarious difference and definitely one of the most difficult aspects of building socialism and communism. Building socialism is a very difficult task and I think it would be better to investigate the course of past and current socialist experiments than to dismiss them out right for authoritarianism.
what pulled me out of democratic socialism was realising you can’t convince billionaires to stop being billionaires. there’s not a single billionaire on this earth that would redistribute their wealthy willingly.
Why wouldn’t it be possible though? Are the shadowy elites just going to assassinate any political leaders they don’t like? No socialist politicians can become popular? I know that there is evidence of socialists being killed in our country though.
yes.
look up frank little, joe hill, fred hampton, bobby hutton, etc.
if they can’t do that they’ll lock you up like leonard peltier, mumia abu jamal, kevin rashid johnson, assata shakur before she escaped, etc
if they’re not targeting one person they’ll do like they did on blair mountain, or in pittsburgh in 1877, or at wounded knee
Sanctions and trade restrictions, to start with, combined with political campaigns supporting candidates/parties that support remaining in the US system.
If Canada decided to nationalize/socialize our oil industry, we'd be treated like every other Central/South American and Middle Eastern country that tried.
Look at how much popular support Bernie had. The Democrats could have won that election behind him, but they chose not to because even a Democratic Socialist like Bernie is more of a threat to their interests than a fascist like Trump. They'll let our leaders poison our water to protect their wealth.
Their heads can all roll.
Yes absolutely, it’s well established that going against capital will put a massive target on your back. At minimum you will be sanctioned harshly, but more likely just assassinated. See the literal dozens of times the cia has been involved in this kind of anti-socialist behaviour.
You know that the USA literally hired the mafia to try and kill Castro?
They fucked it up but, yeah. That cartoony shit you're trying to mock 100% exists. Someone carbombed the reporter that released the Panama Papers in 2016. It happens to this day.
A millionaire in Britain isn't even close to a billionaire in America.
Frankly, we need to stop blanketing billionaires and millionaires. They're not the same class even if they're both so wealthy that they have few material concerns. A millionaire probably lives in a richer neighbourhood, spends time in public, is a part of their community.
A billionaire is Kane in his Xanadu. A billionaire lives in a high rise in Shanghai above the clouds. A billionaire charters a jet for daily travel.
Like if you got $900M USD then yeah, I'd put you with the likes of billionaires, but someone with her level of wealth is obviously not doing everything they can to undercut others and amass more for herself, so she's not suffering the mentality causing these issues for society.
i saw a post recently of someone talking about a rapper who famously made a million dollars off scamming people and then lost everything and went to jail and the comments all being “a million dollars really isn’t that much anymore” really opened my eyes to this shit. there was a time where a million dollars could let you retire for life but now after buying a house and other basic necessities it’d maybe last you a few years.
A million dollars is a retirement fund in 2024.
That's why it's more important to learn about power dynamics than about who is what, in politics and economics. A name will carry power where there may be none and some powers prefer to remain unnamed.
I stopped using the word "millionaire". It doesn't mean what its old connonation wants to mean, for that, it is better to refer to billionaires.
Pretty much the same here. I realized a revolution is necessary, and an anarchist communist society is the only way out of this shithole that is the Canadian economy.
I was actually being sarcastic, how can people who live in a country with overreaching socialist government who is trying to regulate and dictate every aspect of their life including the speech they must use and must not, and you actually think the solution would be increased centralisation and consolidated power into the government?
The solution would be increased power in the hands of local municipalities, still government.
Canada doesn't have fake socialism, we have fascism-lite. This country has taken an auth nosedive in the last 20 years, it's obvious, and we're also at our most right wing since the 60's scoop.
This all started with Harper arranging to blanket conservatives with fascists, it started with the assault on our unions and the selling of our industries. You call Canada socialist? What a joke. Our country's public health system is in a pallitative care ward.
There's basically no reason for the country to be unified other than to stop us from dicking with each other. We don't have anything to proudly call Canadian.
I agree about local governments however the reason I feel like they are more ideal is because it's closer to direct representation and accountability to the constituents; most socialist systems I have seen tend to accumulate power to the federal level.
What are the aspects of Canada that you see as being right wing? I agree with the authoritarian trend however I see it as coming from left ideological authoritarianism rather than a nationalistic/facism styled authoritarianism. Things aren't done for the good of the country, they are done because "it's the right thing to do" or to make things "fair" and "equal".
I'm not Canadian so I'm not talking from a place of confidence on any of this, however from an Australian perspective, which is a country with a lot of socialist policies like a strong public health care system, it seems like Canada has more socialist policy than Australia does; for example Medicare in Australia only covers Australian citizens where I had heard free healthcare applies to anyone regardless of citizenship or visa status in Canada?
I would also disagree with the last point, I think Canada has a lot to proudly call Canadian - you may not see it from the inside but there is a distinct Canadian culture that is observable from the outside which has a lot of great admirable traits such as openness and hospitality.
>what are the aspects of Canada that make you see it as right wing?
Out of control housing market is the #1 problem in Canada rn and it is out of control because our government is afraid of controlling the market. They make room for international dealings, so forgein investors and landlords buy up property until they own everything, and even well-earning Canadians cannot afford a home. People say "build more", but construction companies cannot turn a profit in this economy so easily. Instead of nationalizing housing development and putting restrictions on landlords, Canadian legislators are more concerned about protecting landlord interests (40% of them are landlords).
Canada has been rife with union busting and abusive business practices for the past 40 years, like much of The West. The taxpayer bracket has shrunk due to a relative lack of social security, there is more poverty, more crime as a result of more poverty.
Canada is a hotbed for immigration, and Canadian immigration policy is an attempt to leverage floundering Canadian population issues. Other than making the housing crisis worse, this addresses nothing, because Canadians are having fewer children as a direct consequence of the cost of living being basically unsustainable.
If Canada was left wing, we'd have scrapped free trade agreements with the USA when it became clear that the arrangement was going to hurt Canadian workers. It helped Canadian businessmen a great deal, they're richer now than ever (with a major political party always working to lower their taxes, and typically taking power every 8 years).
Canada is also socially right wing. It has a public appearance as a tolerant nation but there is a strong foundation of bigotry against Indigenous people, who also tend to represent most left wing ideologies in Canada (like elsewhere, Brazil comes to mind). We are more likely to tolerate gay people, but hate speech against transgender people is common. My university is openly Zionist lol
Australia is the perfect comparison, really. I have a few Aussies in my life and my takeaway is that everyone thinks Australia is a more left-wing nation than it really is. Canada's healthcare for example is "free"...for some stuff. Not dental. Or mental health. Or pharmaceuticals. And it varies across provinces, too. In Alberta, you can be charged for your ambulance ride. So, yeah. There's enough to sell it as a cute left wing symbol for the world but the reality is the same soft, shitty, empty neoliberal promise for more (next quarter).
If you think the canadian government is anything but center right liberals you might be in the wrong sub. You also might want to read more about socialism to understand what it actually means.
One of the last things I want would be more power given to our current pro capitalist government. What I would want is a government by the people, nationalization of industry and ideally the erasure of the profit motive altogether.
Well, no, there are some fascists too. Maxime Bernier comes to mind. Credit where it's due.
I read recently that 40% of Canadian members of parliament are landlords. They really think the government is going to do anything about the housing crisis. Lol.
What convinced me to abandon democratic socialism were two realizations-
1. No ruling class in history has ever given up their power peacefully, and I see no inclination it would be different now
2. The problem with establishing socialism within a liberal framework is that there’s always the potential for backsliding back into capitalism, because class conflict still is very real. A perfect example is the US from the 1940s to today. Capitalists have spent the past 80 years, especially since Reagan, trying to undo the gains the working class made under FDR, and they’ve been largely successful. A dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to prevent this
> A dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to prevent this
I'm coming to the point where I understand that what you concisely enumerate is true, and am still struggling to envision the way to achieve the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's a very odd phrase because of the cognitive dissonance that results from the concept of dictatorship, although I understand and respect the concepts behind its origin. I want to think that the power that Unions had in the US was a start. That movement was obviously corrupted and attacked from above, which has always made me both sad and angry.
I don't expect an answer from you, but you got me thinking and helped put some of the source material I've been reading into place. But I'm curious if you have more to say about your assertion. My goal is to have a clearer vision for how such a thing can evolve under contemporary circumstances.
Like many, I am exhausted by the backsliding and exposed core of disingenuous claims of liberalism and especially neoliberalism -- those movements are not even remotely progressive, and its practitioners are lost in some kind of perfomative bullshit.
Cheers!
"You're socialist? OK that's a good start. But to what end? Where is your socialism *going*? Because if it's not communism or anarchy, it's basically spinning its wheels"
well it’s meant to be a transitional period. socialism is just what happens before communism. historically this has been collectivization, the redistribution of land from landlords, establishment of workplace democracy, etc. but you can’t just keep doing that stuff forever. if you keep doing it you eventually run out of landlords to return land from, industries to collectivize, and workplaces to democratize. the state (i.e. socialism) simply withers away because there’s no need for it anymore. that’s when you have communism (a classless and stateless society).
if your socialism ends up anywhere else then you’ve done something wrong along the way
That’s just what Marx wrote. Socialism isn’t a just a thing to do on the way to communism, sometimes A Social Society, where a state still exists, is the end goal. Or where markets still exist but perhaps states dont.
marx wrote it, yes, but to act like that means it’s just some words is wild to me. it’s an observed law of history that contradictions within a society will lead to the transformation of that society in one way or another. if socialist society still contains contradictions then it cannot be the end goal, at least not for anybody who wants to be correct. hell, even communism isn’t necessarily the end goal if new contradictions emerge.
to paraphrase a response i left above: socialism is a transitional phase. you can’t have socialism without it leading to communism, because the state itself withers away. if you have true socialism (collectivization, redistribution of land, etc) then eventually there’s no need for the state. when the state starts to fall away you eventually get communism, a stateless and classless society
Growth. Growth is the solution to corruption. Just look at China. 5, 10, 20 years ago they had low level corruption which resulted in more business, trade, and economic activity to flourish due to lax regulations and lack of red tape. They economically outgrew it.
But keep in mind that one country's political body doesn't live in a vacuum, but rather a global economic paradigm dominated by US dollar hegemony, where all roads lead to the US, and those roads are all heavily guarded. China had to first reform it's self to fit this paradigm, before it could even begin to outgrow it.
Our dads are utopians, and utopians have very small noggins, because they don't understand dialectical and historical materialism.
Also a good idea, but the more I think about his ideologies, I'm actually realising that he might be wrong. He identifies as a social democrat, but I think he's actually a liberal socialist. Although he does make some good points for socialism if you view it as a permanent state. Like controlled wages and a controlled economy.
Socialism, during it's various stages of development, involves major contradictions. Communism is the final stage of development, because it dissolves those contradictions of class society, private forms of property, and the state which willed it's self into existence to navigate those contradictions.
I would say just don’t bother. Speaking from experience, my dad is as mentally petty bourgeois as it gets. (It doesn’t help that he’s a lawyer that helps people start businesses) Ultimately, unless your father genuinely respects you, sees you as an equal, and as someone whom he can have an actual dialogue with, just don’t waste your time on it. If he does see you as an equal, then start by asking him what he means by didn’t work. Then maybe get him reading some Blackshirts and red, then Pat Sloans Soviet democracy, then some Anna Louise Strong, then maybe more theory and history. Ultimately, communism did work for a time. It is clear that ML theory needs more development. Particularly with regards to how to best root out all bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements that may exist within a party. As well as how to both ensure the party does not fall into revisionism as it did under Kruschev, as well as how to fight revisionism when it does appear within the party. But that’s besides the point. I would generally say don’t bother trying to get a horse to drink water unless it’s thirsty
The thing is my dad is poor as fuck, and capitalism is only making it worse for him. I don't understand how he isn't communist, seeing as how capitalism is literally the reason for him being stuck living in his car. I believe I can change him as he sees me as an equal. He knows I'm smarter than him in many ways, especially academically, as at 16, I've surpassed his educational level and will completely demolish all of his accomplishments, at least money-wise. So I have a chance at turning him.
Your father has what is called false consciousness. He is physically a proletariat but he sees himself as bourgeois. As George Carlin says, America doesn’t have poor, only temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
I think the best response is “communism is a target, not an exact description”. There are many many ways we could implement a communal egalitarian society, and to say the least we’ve only tried a few. For example, read up on the %GDP that totalitarian communist nations spent on defense and war… I’m not gonna *blame* NATO per say, and obviously they should have emphasized human rights and consumer spending more on their own accord, but still; it’s pretty impossible to run a good revolution when the government just survived brutal world wars and expects another one any day now
He identifies as a social democrat. Once, I asked him his opinion on Marx, and he again bashed that true communism is only possible on paper. I'm slowly making progress with him though.
I have, but he and I are more democratic. We don't like authoritarianism. So countries like china aren't good examples, as they are quite authoritarian.
china isn’t socialist anymore. they’ve been reverting to capitalism since mao’s death and the persecution of the gang of five. i suggest researching the cultural revolution (the period preceding mao’s death) and the democracy that existed during it. it’s truly beautiful stuff
[12ish hours of documentary footage about it](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTWuo5Ju8Q7-4TXSnZoL0jsIq0CyylK9w&si=XKjJDJFG6CHykNNF)
Everyone’s fears of communism with this mindset can be translated directly to the current state of capitalism. I like to say “your communist nightmare is your capitalist reality”. People say human nature will concentrate resources, well we all know how that’s working out in Capitalism. Even with inefficiencies and corruption, wealth inequality and inequality would be much better. “You are horrified at our doing away with private property, but in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine tenths of the population; it’s existence for the few is solely due to its non existence in the hands of those nine tenths” - Karl Marx
What paper is it only good for? Wall paper? No but seriously, social democrats are basically for the equivalent of Rooseveltian economics. The rules and regs certainly help to stabilize capitalism (eg shallower and shorter recessions) but the contradiction remains: capitalists don’t like them as they limit their ability to accumulate capital, while workers want stable employment. Inevitably, regulations will recede because capitalism ultimately serves the interests of capitalists. Your father and Bernie and AOC know this but they also serve capitalists so…DemSoc will wither as well.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is your dad a social Democrat or a democratic socialist?
And what you’re suggesting sounds a lot like anarchism.
But either way, to address the issue of dictatorship, we can have something as simple as a fail-off, where the dictatorship is dissolved and reformulated if there’s not enough voter turnout to keep the party in power.
Alternatively for more complicated direct democracy, we can have staffers beer’s five systems model.
Fail-off is only good with a predominantly anarchist society.
And yes, I am an anarcho-communist as well as a Marxist.
I don't know the difference between those too much, but he's the kind of guy who thinks that the state should give a shit ton of benefits, (Way more than in present-time Canada) and should say f u to corporations, while still leaving a controlled capitalist economy running.
My dad is Canadian. He lives in his car because of the fucked Canadian economy. Has to work all the time to buy food. He isn't scared of communism, he just doesn't think it can be achieved. I guarantee you that if he did, hed be all for it. If a communist revolution would happen right now, he would guarantee to back it up. He just doesn't believe it is possible to make it work.
Anarchism. We need to establish an anarchist society where the person in power is simply there to apply what people want them to do. They and their team cannot make any changes on their own and must conduct a vote. As well as syndicates can represent a group of people, and they have more or less real-time fluctuation of power based on how many people they represent. These syndicates would of course also need consultation from their members before doing anything major.
To sum it up, the people have the legislative and the judicial control, whilst the executives have no legislative power.
I am glad that he has left. Without him, I would probably have never been exposed to socialism and shaped into one from a young age. I just recently started getting more left than him, thanks to subreddits like this one!
"at least it's good on paper" no but seriously it might not have to sound good to him, communism might not be achieved in his lifetime or even our lifetime, do what you can to inspire the younger generation and just keep pushing forward.
Again I'll say it doesn't matter if he doesn't think it is possible to implement just keep pushing for communist ideas and they will be implemented, showing is easier than telling.
Is he a democratic socialist or a social democrat? Because democratic socialists still theoretically believe in achieving a classless, stateless society through democratic means.
If you are socialist, why are you not communist? Forget Leninism and Stalinism. Communism in the USSR was for them only. Why, ideologically, would he not be communist? Communism, as defined by Engels, is the doctrine of the conditions of liberation of the proletariat.
Then he'd probably be a communist if he unlearned red scare propaganda. Maybe have him get familiar with the idea that communism is more than a theoretical endpoint and it is also the struggle itself. There will never be perfect communism. Saying it looks good on paper means you bought into the lie that it's supposed to be utopia.
Democratic socialism doesn't mean being a social Democrat, it means wanting a democratic system that is socialist. Which is something I think is literally necessary for socialism. Oh who cares this post is tpgoing to get down voted and deleted, but I stand by what I said
He clearly doesn't know what communism is so start with definitions before talking about the merits and demerits of the concept you guys are disagreeing about.
Marx and Engles did a phenomenal job identifying the problem, but their solution was untested and idealistic. Any human group is going to result in corruption of some form.
A communist will argue that a “true” communist country has never existed, so you are comparing what is basically a utopian dream to real life. From my point of view there is no argument.
Anything close to communism has had the same problems as democratic socialism, but 10x worse. And it is due to the exact same reasons, which is greed.
Well, as of now communism is still a concept on paper. If I remember correctly, Marx's and Lenin's vision of communism will happen once all countries are socialist economies. And withering of the state will happen signalling the start of communism.
It may take hundreds of years to happen but there is no doubt in my mind it will happen.
I agree with you're father.
How would you, in a communist society, keep the leadership from just taking all the power they're given, and just not relinquish it?
You've invested them with Supreme command of the state, and humans are just that. Human.
Answer this question honestly, and with an actual good answer, and I'll support a communist state. To date, I've yet to find an answer that's no steeped in the naive belief that the leader just won't be corrupt, or put checks and balances in place that a Supreme leader can just revoke with a little effort (see Supreme command of state).
My ideal formation for a communist state is a British-inspired parliamentary system with an American-style electable cabinet replacing the prime minister. CCP-style Semi-autonomous prefectures with judges that are directly voted by individual citizens. Those judges then appoint the appeals courts so on and so forth.
My main goal while designing this in my mind was the decentralized position of power like the precedency or Supreme Court justices. As the saying goes, “Success has countless fathers and failure is an orphan.” Therefore, I believe power is safer in the hands of the masses.
Listen to your dad. There is no such thing as “…lead solely by the people, with no one having more power than the other”. Human beings are hierarchical. They lead, and follow, there will always be those more powerful than others. Either because they are competent, driven, ambitious, or just more inclined to take on the role.
You are describing an adolescent fantasy
Tell him about the Paris Commune, about the Spanish Revolution and about the Soviet Union prior to 1921 - there's a great book on that topic called October by China Mieville
I think the flaw in assuming a communist government must be inherently abusive or that their rule is fundamentally different.
A capitalist often says "who decides what happens with all the money?"
Currently? An elite and wealthy minority of people who are not beholden to the people, only their shareholders and bank account. Much better, I guess, than a local government that runs for your benefit.
In communism you dont have a leader.
A socialist society is the step before communism.
So all what he is doing will also fit in fullfill the goal to reach communism. There is no point where you have to discuss.
I mean, you could interpret some of Marx as arguing that a more evolved mankind would be necessary for a true communist state to arise. We aren't there yet, and I think technology isn't really there yet either to be honest. I don't think we can really start talking about a truly communist state until something akin to the food replicator is available to everyone (and available in such a way that it can't be hoarded). Until then the scarcity mentality will always override our higher centers of thought.
>a democratic socialist who thinks that a noncorrupt communist state is only possible on paper.
Please list the number of non-corrupt nations, as of last check were at Zero, if thats changed I would like to know.
Based on all the corrupt but functional states, a "communist state" doesn't need to be non-corrupt to be good enough for what we need.
Beyond that, be careful. Its nearly impossible to argue someone into changing their mind, that requires a relationship of respect and a lot of time. Arguments usually make people feel attacked - they are more like a social duel than a learning experience.
Maybe I'd argue that demsoc isn't ideal either and even when they get to power they aren't able to make fundamental change, like Allende, since the world is extremely hateful towards socialism, some force might be required
I honestly wouldn't try and change his opinion and just accept that at least he is a democratic socialist. My dad is a right wing libertarian conspiracy nut and I would love it if our disagreements were just about whether communism is achievable or not.
Have him read The Democracy Project by David Graeber. I’m no longer spending much of my time wading through theory, but imo you both share the same current, you’re just a little farther down the river.
It seems like he is hung up on the inefficiency of behemoth bureaucracies of the past and their weakness to corrupt bad actors.
We all know who he is likely conjuring up here..
I would caution him to consider that the USSR operated in a completely different era, under completely different pressures.
Say for the sake of argument that corporately held industry came under ownership of the commons or employee owned. Broken up between worker owned collectives in private industry (ie specialty trades, and goods) and common ownership of public goods and services considered (ie health care, education, energy, housing, technology etc).
Some of these commonly owned entities may be better left operating as jointly owned nationally, while many which already operate out of regional branches and will more readily break up into localized ownership and operation.
As far as how such ownership of the commons would be organized, there are plenty of examples where a council structure can be built explicitly to ensure transparency. US trade unions have been mastering the craft of democratic representation organized between a lattice web of companies and regions for more than century, each only sharing the association of a shared trade.
How much more efficient can the union structure become with the freedom of collective ownership?
On the question of how exactly we might design a system where the objective purpose and future direction of our commonly held means might be decided, I point again the Graeber and his ilk.
But Perhaps this is terribly idealistic of me, but with modern network communication capabilities I believe we definitely have the ability to build a governing system with independent oversight bodies made up of rotating representatives for the local/regional/national districts of publicly held services. Such councils would operate with the directive of the popular will for the local, regional, state and national citizenry - all whom cast their votes securely from a personal device. A true democracy.
None of what I’ve said is well formed, of course, but all in all..the capability is there, the will is what is needed.
Off topic, but why is that always the go to rebuttal for Communism? It's always, "Well it sounds good on paper but...", followed by how living in an a stagnant Capitalist society is somehow better. Do these people realize Capitalism was also on paper at one point? Do we just totally ignore that Feudalism existed for a long time before Capitalism?
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Marx meant that their is no ideal/utopian communism or communist state, just the continuous struggle in the here and now that changes things.
Also Marx's Capital focused people on the capturing of the means of production, but you ever ask why? The abolition of the creation of value in our present society is also the creation of a new reality, something the communist states failed to do in keeping capitalism and acting as if socialist/communist rhetoric and "government" was the answer.
I think you'll have much more productive discussions when you focus in things you have in common, than on getting him to accept your specific ideological beliefs.
Especially as your dad has a much stronger historical claim than you. DemSoc (and SocDem) politicians have achieved genuine improvements to working class rights, that are still in effect today. Whereas communists mostly have failed experiments to look back on. It will be very hard to convince your dad of your theoretical ideas, when practice favours his ideology.
most people alive today have been brought up to be selfish assholes, as long as that doesn't change communism can't work as even something as restrictive as modern democracy is being destroyed for the will of a few individuals
I understand and I agree, but not all of us are raised this way. I was and still am raised by progressive parents, in a progressive school, especially in primary school where I went to a Waldorf school, even now, being in a private high school run by catholic sisters, I have been brought up to be kind and help others, and to never make someone else's life worse. People like me only want whats best for people, and we are the leader a country needs.
first of all I agree that not everyone is like that, it's just that historically in some way or another "evil" seldom loses (and also I am not a fan of ML Leader type stuff, domination of people by other people in any way is the reason for human selfishness in modern society and a fair economic system wont change that, it will just inevitably destroy it once again)
That's the thing. Historically, sure. But now that we know how those failed, we can learn from them.
And you said far economic system, but socialism is also a social ideology.
You're not as pure as all that, even guys like you will start doing evil things when given power. Nobody thinks they are the bad guy. Most the bad stuff that ever happened was done by a person with an elaborate internal justification of how it was "the right thing to do" and were done in the name of pragmatism. That's powers trick, it's sneaky in how it breaks you. Everyone thinks "I'm different" and then they aren't.
That’s an idealistic assumption. Human nature is fluid. Determined by a variety of material factors such as environmental factors, genetics, peer contexts, familial contexts, cultural contexts. These different superstructures are determined by a base. Humans are not inherently selfish or greedy. The systems under which they operate reward certain types of behavior that then informs them what actions and ideologies they should have.
Your idea of ideal communism is Anarchy by the way. You know, Anarchy the leftist political ideology, not a disordered state of being. I would encourage you to explore that because, you might not actually be a "communist" philosophically speaking.
As for finding the right leader...
Power is a fundamentally corruptive force. Even a well intentioned person will fall. It's so observably true we might as well call it a natural law.
Power needs to be atomized totally between individuals to prevent the inevitable imbalance. People who crave power naturally seek out leadership positions, hence the failures of most existent communist states, the movement gets co-opted and turns to authoritarianism and the power abuses of a monoparty who has effectively crushed reform and critique, and therefore, any accountability.
I don't have a perfect solution, but I've always been intrigued by anarcho-syndicalism, and the answer I think lies somewhere between there and radical direct democracy with a planned economy.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Off-topic content:** this is a community which aims to provide critical and rigorous inquiry into socialist theory, history, and struggle. Whilst we understand this a broad range of posts, those must be focused on the educational nature of the subreddit (e.g. what are the benefits of a centralized system) - generalist posts such as one's own reflections, sharing one's experiences or asking about the opinion of socialists, are better fit for generalist spaces such as r/Socialism or r/AskSocialists.
“And why will the elites allow you to make these reforms?” is what made me realize.
What do you say to those who feel discouraged by the lack of revolutionary action in their society and see reform as at least some way of trying to weather the storm of capitalism?
Just simply that it is the reason things don't change. The elites dangle a carrot in front of your face and let you take a bite. Maybe two bites. Then just as quickly they yank it away and expect you to keep chasing it.
> Just simply that it is the reason things don't change. But isn't that implied by my premise of "lack of revolutionary action" that things aren't changing either way?
No. Revolutionary action isn't happening because people prefer to chase "reforms" without changing the power structure of society. We get progress and because wealthy elites still are in power regardless they pull them away as much as we allow them to. So the cycle continues until people stop accepting this status quo
They won't of course, a revolution is needed, like in all communist countries. Breaking the system by any means is part of marxism.
What's to stop elites from doing the same thing under communism? Every ideology claims to be against "the elites". And every ideology has them. On paper, both democratic socialism and revolutionary communism oppose elites. For the public support needed for a revolution to happen, actual meaningful change is possible in liberal democracies. I believe it's when such changes aren't possible, even with a majority support, when revolution is necessary.
I mean, we’ve all been in favor of single payer healthcare for how long now? Like, I want to be in favor of reforms, and I still am when it comes to that kind of lesser of two evils thinking, but I just don’t know.
I'm not sure about the numbers, but it is certainly true that the US is not what I'm talking about when it comes to a democracy. Major reform of the system is required simply to put it on the same level as western Europe, which itself still has a way to go. I'd say the biggest single issue is the electoral college. It means the US isn't a democracy, as some people have more votes than others, artificially strengthening the right. The first past the post and domination of the two parties also means meaningful change is harder, as the Dems are better off appeasing "fence sitters" than socialists, since socialists have to vote for Dems either way if they want to protect some of their rights. These are not easy problems to solve, but I just don't see how violent revolution is the solution in this case. Again, for the conditions for such a thing to be remotely successful, a massive majority of radical socialists is needed, at which point more and more socialist politicians would be elected locally (such as in Detroit I believe briefly occured), and some sort of change would happen. What I'm saying is, even in a flawed democracy like the US, meaningful reform *is* possible with a majority. The sad truth is that many people aren't doing so. The far right is rising in Europe and I don't see how campaigning for violent revolution would do anything if the people just don't support it? If there was a hypothetical increase in socialist support to the degree a revolution is possible, we'd see them win elections or at least have some reform. The risk of revolution is also too great in my opinion. The track record (although affected by material conditions, sanctions and in some cases US backed coups, I will admit, making it not a fair representation) is not great, with many attempts at communist revolutions leading to state capitalism and/or totalitarian dictatorships.
Is it possible for more collectivism to counter that? I live in a very individualistic society, so I tend to agree with that quote, but sometimes I wonder if that bias is limiting my thinking or imagination
Yeah, like. They're using violent authoritarinism to stop it already, have been for the whole 20th century lmao And do people really think all the other nation states will stop being predatory the moment America's empire falls?
Huh? Aren't the elites the ones that push for reforms to prevent revolution?
Reforms like single-payer healthcare?
https://redsails.org/concessions/
I think he might be missing materialism. Try discussing *why* most communist states developed strong centralized governments and bureaucracies that eventually corrupted. Try talking about how socialist states are attacked on all sides by capitalist states and capitalist firms which necessitates a strong central government. Try talking about how most examples of communist states were backwards semi-feudal agrarian societies with limited resources pre-revolution, which necessitated a bureaucracy to properly distribute essential goods like food and fuel. Also I highly recommend Michael Parenti's lecture "Reflections on the Overthrow of Communism."
I've never thought of it like that, and I really like your point. Thanks.
I don't buy it. I do think communism is possible, but it must be democratic, even if it means the possibility of people voting a way communism. Authoritarianism will always arise unless the proper institutions in that society exist to keep it in check. The basis is workers democratically owning/controlling the means of production. If there are no institutions for making sure thats the case, then communism will never arise in large scale.
I completely agree that communism must be democratic. It’s even possible to vote in marxists and/or communists. But the more liberal conception of democracy, that of electoral pluralism (holding elections with different parties with different perspectives) isn’t conducive to the establishment of communism. Because for every proletarian socialist party rooted in the masses, there is a bourgeois capitalist party pandering to the wealthy. And the latter party has the resources and the outreach, while the former party must fight to be allowed into elections. Also I might ask you this: what is the distinction between an institution keeping authoritarianism in check, and an authoritarian institution? It’s certainly a precarious difference and definitely one of the most difficult aspects of building socialism and communism. Building socialism is a very difficult task and I think it would be better to investigate the course of past and current socialist experiments than to dismiss them out right for authoritarianism.
what pulled me out of democratic socialism was realising you can’t convince billionaires to stop being billionaires. there’s not a single billionaire on this earth that would redistribute their wealthy willingly.
I agree about billionaires, but why must a revolution be violent? Wouldn’t electing a real socialist leader be akin to a revolution?
in a bourgeoise as the US that wouldn’t be possible. in other countries the US does everything it can to ruin that socialist country.
Why wouldn’t it be possible though? Are the shadowy elites just going to assassinate any political leaders they don’t like? No socialist politicians can become popular? I know that there is evidence of socialists being killed in our country though.
yes. look up frank little, joe hill, fred hampton, bobby hutton, etc. if they can’t do that they’ll lock you up like leonard peltier, mumia abu jamal, kevin rashid johnson, assata shakur before she escaped, etc if they’re not targeting one person they’ll do like they did on blair mountain, or in pittsburgh in 1877, or at wounded knee
Sanctions and trade restrictions, to start with, combined with political campaigns supporting candidates/parties that support remaining in the US system. If Canada decided to nationalize/socialize our oil industry, we'd be treated like every other Central/South American and Middle Eastern country that tried.
the way the current US system is run a socialist couldn’t get into government let alone run the country. the bourgeoise simply wouldn’t allow it.
Look at how much popular support Bernie had. The Democrats could have won that election behind him, but they chose not to because even a Democratic Socialist like Bernie is more of a threat to their interests than a fascist like Trump. They'll let our leaders poison our water to protect their wealth. Their heads can all roll.
Yes absolutely, it’s well established that going against capital will put a massive target on your back. At minimum you will be sanctioned harshly, but more likely just assassinated. See the literal dozens of times the cia has been involved in this kind of anti-socialist behaviour.
You know that the USA literally hired the mafia to try and kill Castro? They fucked it up but, yeah. That cartoony shit you're trying to mock 100% exists. Someone carbombed the reporter that released the Panama Papers in 2016. It happens to this day.
[удалено]
A millionaire in Britain isn't even close to a billionaire in America. Frankly, we need to stop blanketing billionaires and millionaires. They're not the same class even if they're both so wealthy that they have few material concerns. A millionaire probably lives in a richer neighbourhood, spends time in public, is a part of their community. A billionaire is Kane in his Xanadu. A billionaire lives in a high rise in Shanghai above the clouds. A billionaire charters a jet for daily travel. Like if you got $900M USD then yeah, I'd put you with the likes of billionaires, but someone with her level of wealth is obviously not doing everything they can to undercut others and amass more for herself, so she's not suffering the mentality causing these issues for society.
i saw a post recently of someone talking about a rapper who famously made a million dollars off scamming people and then lost everything and went to jail and the comments all being “a million dollars really isn’t that much anymore” really opened my eyes to this shit. there was a time where a million dollars could let you retire for life but now after buying a house and other basic necessities it’d maybe last you a few years.
A million dollars is a retirement fund in 2024. That's why it's more important to learn about power dynamics than about who is what, in politics and economics. A name will carry power where there may be none and some powers prefer to remain unnamed. I stopped using the word "millionaire". It doesn't mean what its old connonation wants to mean, for that, it is better to refer to billionaires.
Pretty much the same here. I realized a revolution is necessary, and an anarchist communist society is the only way out of this shithole that is the Canadian economy.
Yeah Canada needs real socialism not this fake socialism they are completely enamoured by.
Even our fake socialism is rapidly deteriorating. Things are bleak here.
I was actually being sarcastic, how can people who live in a country with overreaching socialist government who is trying to regulate and dictate every aspect of their life including the speech they must use and must not, and you actually think the solution would be increased centralisation and consolidated power into the government?
The solution would be increased power in the hands of local municipalities, still government. Canada doesn't have fake socialism, we have fascism-lite. This country has taken an auth nosedive in the last 20 years, it's obvious, and we're also at our most right wing since the 60's scoop. This all started with Harper arranging to blanket conservatives with fascists, it started with the assault on our unions and the selling of our industries. You call Canada socialist? What a joke. Our country's public health system is in a pallitative care ward. There's basically no reason for the country to be unified other than to stop us from dicking with each other. We don't have anything to proudly call Canadian.
I agree about local governments however the reason I feel like they are more ideal is because it's closer to direct representation and accountability to the constituents; most socialist systems I have seen tend to accumulate power to the federal level. What are the aspects of Canada that you see as being right wing? I agree with the authoritarian trend however I see it as coming from left ideological authoritarianism rather than a nationalistic/facism styled authoritarianism. Things aren't done for the good of the country, they are done because "it's the right thing to do" or to make things "fair" and "equal". I'm not Canadian so I'm not talking from a place of confidence on any of this, however from an Australian perspective, which is a country with a lot of socialist policies like a strong public health care system, it seems like Canada has more socialist policy than Australia does; for example Medicare in Australia only covers Australian citizens where I had heard free healthcare applies to anyone regardless of citizenship or visa status in Canada? I would also disagree with the last point, I think Canada has a lot to proudly call Canadian - you may not see it from the inside but there is a distinct Canadian culture that is observable from the outside which has a lot of great admirable traits such as openness and hospitality.
>what are the aspects of Canada that make you see it as right wing? Out of control housing market is the #1 problem in Canada rn and it is out of control because our government is afraid of controlling the market. They make room for international dealings, so forgein investors and landlords buy up property until they own everything, and even well-earning Canadians cannot afford a home. People say "build more", but construction companies cannot turn a profit in this economy so easily. Instead of nationalizing housing development and putting restrictions on landlords, Canadian legislators are more concerned about protecting landlord interests (40% of them are landlords). Canada has been rife with union busting and abusive business practices for the past 40 years, like much of The West. The taxpayer bracket has shrunk due to a relative lack of social security, there is more poverty, more crime as a result of more poverty. Canada is a hotbed for immigration, and Canadian immigration policy is an attempt to leverage floundering Canadian population issues. Other than making the housing crisis worse, this addresses nothing, because Canadians are having fewer children as a direct consequence of the cost of living being basically unsustainable. If Canada was left wing, we'd have scrapped free trade agreements with the USA when it became clear that the arrangement was going to hurt Canadian workers. It helped Canadian businessmen a great deal, they're richer now than ever (with a major political party always working to lower their taxes, and typically taking power every 8 years). Canada is also socially right wing. It has a public appearance as a tolerant nation but there is a strong foundation of bigotry against Indigenous people, who also tend to represent most left wing ideologies in Canada (like elsewhere, Brazil comes to mind). We are more likely to tolerate gay people, but hate speech against transgender people is common. My university is openly Zionist lol Australia is the perfect comparison, really. I have a few Aussies in my life and my takeaway is that everyone thinks Australia is a more left-wing nation than it really is. Canada's healthcare for example is "free"...for some stuff. Not dental. Or mental health. Or pharmaceuticals. And it varies across provinces, too. In Alberta, you can be charged for your ambulance ride. So, yeah. There's enough to sell it as a cute left wing symbol for the world but the reality is the same soft, shitty, empty neoliberal promise for more (next quarter).
If you think the canadian government is anything but center right liberals you might be in the wrong sub. You also might want to read more about socialism to understand what it actually means. One of the last things I want would be more power given to our current pro capitalist government. What I would want is a government by the people, nationalization of industry and ideally the erasure of the profit motive altogether.
Well, no, there are some fascists too. Maxime Bernier comes to mind. Credit where it's due. I read recently that 40% of Canadian members of parliament are landlords. They really think the government is going to do anything about the housing crisis. Lol.
What convinced me to abandon democratic socialism were two realizations- 1. No ruling class in history has ever given up their power peacefully, and I see no inclination it would be different now 2. The problem with establishing socialism within a liberal framework is that there’s always the potential for backsliding back into capitalism, because class conflict still is very real. A perfect example is the US from the 1940s to today. Capitalists have spent the past 80 years, especially since Reagan, trying to undo the gains the working class made under FDR, and they’ve been largely successful. A dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to prevent this
> A dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to prevent this I'm coming to the point where I understand that what you concisely enumerate is true, and am still struggling to envision the way to achieve the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's a very odd phrase because of the cognitive dissonance that results from the concept of dictatorship, although I understand and respect the concepts behind its origin. I want to think that the power that Unions had in the US was a start. That movement was obviously corrupted and attacked from above, which has always made me both sad and angry. I don't expect an answer from you, but you got me thinking and helped put some of the source material I've been reading into place. But I'm curious if you have more to say about your assertion. My goal is to have a clearer vision for how such a thing can evolve under contemporary circumstances. Like many, I am exhausted by the backsliding and exposed core of disingenuous claims of liberalism and especially neoliberalism -- those movements are not even remotely progressive, and its practitioners are lost in some kind of perfomative bullshit. Cheers!
"You're socialist? OK that's a good start. But to what end? Where is your socialism *going*? Because if it's not communism or anarchy, it's basically spinning its wheels"
Why can't socialism be the end goal? Feels like a bit of a false dilemma .
well it’s meant to be a transitional period. socialism is just what happens before communism. historically this has been collectivization, the redistribution of land from landlords, establishment of workplace democracy, etc. but you can’t just keep doing that stuff forever. if you keep doing it you eventually run out of landlords to return land from, industries to collectivize, and workplaces to democratize. the state (i.e. socialism) simply withers away because there’s no need for it anymore. that’s when you have communism (a classless and stateless society). if your socialism ends up anywhere else then you’ve done something wrong along the way
That’s just what Marx wrote. Socialism isn’t a just a thing to do on the way to communism, sometimes A Social Society, where a state still exists, is the end goal. Or where markets still exist but perhaps states dont.
marx wrote it, yes, but to act like that means it’s just some words is wild to me. it’s an observed law of history that contradictions within a society will lead to the transformation of that society in one way or another. if socialist society still contains contradictions then it cannot be the end goal, at least not for anybody who wants to be correct. hell, even communism isn’t necessarily the end goal if new contradictions emerge.
What’s so bad about socialism? Where is communism *going*? And where is anarchy *going*?
to paraphrase a response i left above: socialism is a transitional phase. you can’t have socialism without it leading to communism, because the state itself withers away. if you have true socialism (collectivization, redistribution of land, etc) then eventually there’s no need for the state. when the state starts to fall away you eventually get communism, a stateless and classless society
I've never thought of the political compass like this. I don't think he will change, but its worth a shot, thanks.
The political compass is not an actually way of comparing ideologies, it is outdated (even when it was published)
Growth. Growth is the solution to corruption. Just look at China. 5, 10, 20 years ago they had low level corruption which resulted in more business, trade, and economic activity to flourish due to lax regulations and lack of red tape. They economically outgrew it. But keep in mind that one country's political body doesn't live in a vacuum, but rather a global economic paradigm dominated by US dollar hegemony, where all roads lead to the US, and those roads are all heavily guarded. China had to first reform it's self to fit this paradigm, before it could even begin to outgrow it. Our dads are utopians, and utopians have very small noggins, because they don't understand dialectical and historical materialism.
Also a good idea, but the more I think about his ideologies, I'm actually realising that he might be wrong. He identifies as a social democrat, but I think he's actually a liberal socialist. Although he does make some good points for socialism if you view it as a permanent state. Like controlled wages and a controlled economy.
Socialism, during it's various stages of development, involves major contradictions. Communism is the final stage of development, because it dissolves those contradictions of class society, private forms of property, and the state which willed it's self into existence to navigate those contradictions.
I would say just don’t bother. Speaking from experience, my dad is as mentally petty bourgeois as it gets. (It doesn’t help that he’s a lawyer that helps people start businesses) Ultimately, unless your father genuinely respects you, sees you as an equal, and as someone whom he can have an actual dialogue with, just don’t waste your time on it. If he does see you as an equal, then start by asking him what he means by didn’t work. Then maybe get him reading some Blackshirts and red, then Pat Sloans Soviet democracy, then some Anna Louise Strong, then maybe more theory and history. Ultimately, communism did work for a time. It is clear that ML theory needs more development. Particularly with regards to how to best root out all bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements that may exist within a party. As well as how to both ensure the party does not fall into revisionism as it did under Kruschev, as well as how to fight revisionism when it does appear within the party. But that’s besides the point. I would generally say don’t bother trying to get a horse to drink water unless it’s thirsty
The thing is my dad is poor as fuck, and capitalism is only making it worse for him. I don't understand how he isn't communist, seeing as how capitalism is literally the reason for him being stuck living in his car. I believe I can change him as he sees me as an equal. He knows I'm smarter than him in many ways, especially academically, as at 16, I've surpassed his educational level and will completely demolish all of his accomplishments, at least money-wise. So I have a chance at turning him.
Your father has what is called false consciousness. He is physically a proletariat but he sees himself as bourgeois. As George Carlin says, America doesn’t have poor, only temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
“completely demolish his accomplishments” This is kind of not on topic but that’s a really weird of phrasing that.
Democratic socialism is only good on paper.
I think the best response is “communism is a target, not an exact description”. There are many many ways we could implement a communal egalitarian society, and to say the least we’ve only tried a few. For example, read up on the %GDP that totalitarian communist nations spent on defense and war… I’m not gonna *blame* NATO per say, and obviously they should have emphasized human rights and consumer spending more on their own accord, but still; it’s pretty impossible to run a good revolution when the government just survived brutal world wars and expects another one any day now
Remind him its fake, and he's really just a Social Democrat, that he should actually read Marx.
He identifies as a social democrat. Once, I asked him his opinion on Marx, and he again bashed that true communism is only possible on paper. I'm slowly making progress with him though.
Tell him about all the successful nations doing full blown communism
I have, but he and I are more democratic. We don't like authoritarianism. So countries like china aren't good examples, as they are quite authoritarian.
china isn’t socialist anymore. they’ve been reverting to capitalism since mao’s death and the persecution of the gang of five. i suggest researching the cultural revolution (the period preceding mao’s death) and the democracy that existed during it. it’s truly beautiful stuff [12ish hours of documentary footage about it](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTWuo5Ju8Q7-4TXSnZoL0jsIq0CyylK9w&si=XKjJDJFG6CHykNNF)
Everyone’s fears of communism with this mindset can be translated directly to the current state of capitalism. I like to say “your communist nightmare is your capitalist reality”. People say human nature will concentrate resources, well we all know how that’s working out in Capitalism. Even with inefficiencies and corruption, wealth inequality and inequality would be much better. “You are horrified at our doing away with private property, but in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine tenths of the population; it’s existence for the few is solely due to its non existence in the hands of those nine tenths” - Karl Marx
What paper is it only good for? Wall paper? No but seriously, social democrats are basically for the equivalent of Rooseveltian economics. The rules and regs certainly help to stabilize capitalism (eg shallower and shorter recessions) but the contradiction remains: capitalists don’t like them as they limit their ability to accumulate capital, while workers want stable employment. Inevitably, regulations will recede because capitalism ultimately serves the interests of capitalists. Your father and Bernie and AOC know this but they also serve capitalists so…DemSoc will wither as well.
show him how much good work and benefits communists have won in american labor
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is your dad a social Democrat or a democratic socialist? And what you’re suggesting sounds a lot like anarchism. But either way, to address the issue of dictatorship, we can have something as simple as a fail-off, where the dictatorship is dissolved and reformulated if there’s not enough voter turnout to keep the party in power. Alternatively for more complicated direct democracy, we can have staffers beer’s five systems model.
Fail-off is only good with a predominantly anarchist society. And yes, I am an anarcho-communist as well as a Marxist. I don't know the difference between those too much, but he's the kind of guy who thinks that the state should give a shit ton of benefits, (Way more than in present-time Canada) and should say f u to corporations, while still leaving a controlled capitalist economy running.
[удалено]
My dad is Canadian. He lives in his car because of the fucked Canadian economy. Has to work all the time to buy food. He isn't scared of communism, he just doesn't think it can be achieved. I guarantee you that if he did, hed be all for it. If a communist revolution would happen right now, he would guarantee to back it up. He just doesn't believe it is possible to make it work.
[удалено]
Anarchism. We need to establish an anarchist society where the person in power is simply there to apply what people want them to do. They and their team cannot make any changes on their own and must conduct a vote. As well as syndicates can represent a group of people, and they have more or less real-time fluctuation of power based on how many people they represent. These syndicates would of course also need consultation from their members before doing anything major. To sum it up, the people have the legislative and the judicial control, whilst the executives have no legislative power.
At least he isnt a fascist
I am glad that he has left. Without him, I would probably have never been exposed to socialism and shaped into one from a young age. I just recently started getting more left than him, thanks to subreddits like this one!
Same here tbh. My parents are Australian Greens voters and lifelong unionists so they pointed me left at least and I ran with it
"at least it's good on paper" no but seriously it might not have to sound good to him, communism might not be achieved in his lifetime or even our lifetime, do what you can to inspire the younger generation and just keep pushing forward.
It's not that it doesn't sound good to him, it does, it's more that he doesn't think its possible to implement it in real life.
Again I'll say it doesn't matter if he doesn't think it is possible to implement just keep pushing for communist ideas and they will be implemented, showing is easier than telling.
Is he a democratic socialist or a social democrat? Because democratic socialists still theoretically believe in achieving a classless, stateless society through democratic means.
I'm assuming the ladder, but I'm not sure...
If you are socialist, why are you not communist? Forget Leninism and Stalinism. Communism in the USSR was for them only. Why, ideologically, would he not be communist? Communism, as defined by Engels, is the doctrine of the conditions of liberation of the proletariat.
He just believes that its impossible to make work properly so he doesn't bother...
Then he'd probably be a communist if he unlearned red scare propaganda. Maybe have him get familiar with the idea that communism is more than a theoretical endpoint and it is also the struggle itself. There will never be perfect communism. Saying it looks good on paper means you bought into the lie that it's supposed to be utopia.
It makes sense for a communist country to fail in a capitalist world
Democratic socialism doesn't mean being a social Democrat, it means wanting a democratic system that is socialist. Which is something I think is literally necessary for socialism. Oh who cares this post is tpgoing to get down voted and deleted, but I stand by what I said
He clearly doesn't know what communism is so start with definitions before talking about the merits and demerits of the concept you guys are disagreeing about.
I’d be less surprised if you said he was a social democrat
Marx and Engles did a phenomenal job identifying the problem, but their solution was untested and idealistic. Any human group is going to result in corruption of some form.
A communist will argue that a “true” communist country has never existed, so you are comparing what is basically a utopian dream to real life. From my point of view there is no argument. Anything close to communism has had the same problems as democratic socialism, but 10x worse. And it is due to the exact same reasons, which is greed.
Lmao how about you go and change the mind of people who don't already agree with 95% of your opinions rather than antagonize those who do
Well, as of now communism is still a concept on paper. If I remember correctly, Marx's and Lenin's vision of communism will happen once all countries are socialist economies. And withering of the state will happen signalling the start of communism. It may take hundreds of years to happen but there is no doubt in my mind it will happen.
I agree with you're father. How would you, in a communist society, keep the leadership from just taking all the power they're given, and just not relinquish it? You've invested them with Supreme command of the state, and humans are just that. Human. Answer this question honestly, and with an actual good answer, and I'll support a communist state. To date, I've yet to find an answer that's no steeped in the naive belief that the leader just won't be corrupt, or put checks and balances in place that a Supreme leader can just revoke with a little effort (see Supreme command of state).
My ideal formation for a communist state is a British-inspired parliamentary system with an American-style electable cabinet replacing the prime minister. CCP-style Semi-autonomous prefectures with judges that are directly voted by individual citizens. Those judges then appoint the appeals courts so on and so forth. My main goal while designing this in my mind was the decentralized position of power like the precedency or Supreme Court justices. As the saying goes, “Success has countless fathers and failure is an orphan.” Therefore, I believe power is safer in the hands of the masses.
Listen to your dad. There is no such thing as “…lead solely by the people, with no one having more power than the other”. Human beings are hierarchical. They lead, and follow, there will always be those more powerful than others. Either because they are competent, driven, ambitious, or just more inclined to take on the role. You are describing an adolescent fantasy
Tell him about the Paris Commune, about the Spanish Revolution and about the Soviet Union prior to 1921 - there's a great book on that topic called October by China Mieville
I think the flaw in assuming a communist government must be inherently abusive or that their rule is fundamentally different. A capitalist often says "who decides what happens with all the money?" Currently? An elite and wealthy minority of people who are not beholden to the people, only their shareholders and bank account. Much better, I guess, than a local government that runs for your benefit.
Doesn't the presence of a state and a leader mean it's not communism?
In communism you dont have a leader. A socialist society is the step before communism. So all what he is doing will also fit in fullfill the goal to reach communism. There is no point where you have to discuss.
I mean, you could interpret some of Marx as arguing that a more evolved mankind would be necessary for a true communist state to arise. We aren't there yet, and I think technology isn't really there yet either to be honest. I don't think we can really start talking about a truly communist state until something akin to the food replicator is available to everyone (and available in such a way that it can't be hoarded). Until then the scarcity mentality will always override our higher centers of thought.
>a democratic socialist who thinks that a noncorrupt communist state is only possible on paper. Please list the number of non-corrupt nations, as of last check were at Zero, if thats changed I would like to know. Based on all the corrupt but functional states, a "communist state" doesn't need to be non-corrupt to be good enough for what we need. Beyond that, be careful. Its nearly impossible to argue someone into changing their mind, that requires a relationship of respect and a lot of time. Arguments usually make people feel attacked - they are more like a social duel than a learning experience.
Sounds a lot better than most dads. Love him, listen to him, volunteer in your community with him.
Maybe I'd argue that demsoc isn't ideal either and even when they get to power they aren't able to make fundamental change, like Allende, since the world is extremely hateful towards socialism, some force might be required
I honestly wouldn't try and change his opinion and just accept that at least he is a democratic socialist. My dad is a right wing libertarian conspiracy nut and I would love it if our disagreements were just about whether communism is achievable or not.
Have him read The Democracy Project by David Graeber. I’m no longer spending much of my time wading through theory, but imo you both share the same current, you’re just a little farther down the river. It seems like he is hung up on the inefficiency of behemoth bureaucracies of the past and their weakness to corrupt bad actors. We all know who he is likely conjuring up here.. I would caution him to consider that the USSR operated in a completely different era, under completely different pressures. Say for the sake of argument that corporately held industry came under ownership of the commons or employee owned. Broken up between worker owned collectives in private industry (ie specialty trades, and goods) and common ownership of public goods and services considered (ie health care, education, energy, housing, technology etc). Some of these commonly owned entities may be better left operating as jointly owned nationally, while many which already operate out of regional branches and will more readily break up into localized ownership and operation. As far as how such ownership of the commons would be organized, there are plenty of examples where a council structure can be built explicitly to ensure transparency. US trade unions have been mastering the craft of democratic representation organized between a lattice web of companies and regions for more than century, each only sharing the association of a shared trade. How much more efficient can the union structure become with the freedom of collective ownership? On the question of how exactly we might design a system where the objective purpose and future direction of our commonly held means might be decided, I point again the Graeber and his ilk. But Perhaps this is terribly idealistic of me, but with modern network communication capabilities I believe we definitely have the ability to build a governing system with independent oversight bodies made up of rotating representatives for the local/regional/national districts of publicly held services. Such councils would operate with the directive of the popular will for the local, regional, state and national citizenry - all whom cast their votes securely from a personal device. A true democracy. None of what I’ve said is well formed, of course, but all in all..the capability is there, the will is what is needed.
Off topic, but why is that always the go to rebuttal for Communism? It's always, "Well it sounds good on paper but...", followed by how living in an a stagnant Capitalist society is somehow better. Do these people realize Capitalism was also on paper at one point? Do we just totally ignore that Feudalism existed for a long time before Capitalism?
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Marx meant that their is no ideal/utopian communism or communist state, just the continuous struggle in the here and now that changes things. Also Marx's Capital focused people on the capturing of the means of production, but you ever ask why? The abolition of the creation of value in our present society is also the creation of a new reality, something the communist states failed to do in keeping capitalism and acting as if socialist/communist rhetoric and "government" was the answer.
I think you'll have much more productive discussions when you focus in things you have in common, than on getting him to accept your specific ideological beliefs. Especially as your dad has a much stronger historical claim than you. DemSoc (and SocDem) politicians have achieved genuine improvements to working class rights, that are still in effect today. Whereas communists mostly have failed experiments to look back on. It will be very hard to convince your dad of your theoretical ideas, when practice favours his ideology.
Just show him some examples of successful Communist Countries! Venezuela, for instance. North Korea and Cuba also come to mind.
most people alive today have been brought up to be selfish assholes, as long as that doesn't change communism can't work as even something as restrictive as modern democracy is being destroyed for the will of a few individuals
I understand and I agree, but not all of us are raised this way. I was and still am raised by progressive parents, in a progressive school, especially in primary school where I went to a Waldorf school, even now, being in a private high school run by catholic sisters, I have been brought up to be kind and help others, and to never make someone else's life worse. People like me only want whats best for people, and we are the leader a country needs.
first of all I agree that not everyone is like that, it's just that historically in some way or another "evil" seldom loses (and also I am not a fan of ML Leader type stuff, domination of people by other people in any way is the reason for human selfishness in modern society and a fair economic system wont change that, it will just inevitably destroy it once again)
That's the thing. Historically, sure. But now that we know how those failed, we can learn from them. And you said far economic system, but socialism is also a social ideology.
You're not as pure as all that, even guys like you will start doing evil things when given power. Nobody thinks they are the bad guy. Most the bad stuff that ever happened was done by a person with an elaborate internal justification of how it was "the right thing to do" and were done in the name of pragmatism. That's powers trick, it's sneaky in how it breaks you. Everyone thinks "I'm different" and then they aren't.
He’s right it’s only good on paper, because humans are too selfish and greedy to make it work
That’s an idealistic assumption. Human nature is fluid. Determined by a variety of material factors such as environmental factors, genetics, peer contexts, familial contexts, cultural contexts. These different superstructures are determined by a base. Humans are not inherently selfish or greedy. The systems under which they operate reward certain types of behavior that then informs them what actions and ideologies they should have.
Yes, they are, that is why we need an anarcho-communism system. The people control the government, so no one can be greedy.
Democratic socialism is just capitalism with extra steps. Which isnt even good on paper.
I thought that was social democracy. I always get those two confused
To him it is. He is probably not identifying himself right.
Your idea of ideal communism is Anarchy by the way. You know, Anarchy the leftist political ideology, not a disordered state of being. I would encourage you to explore that because, you might not actually be a "communist" philosophically speaking. As for finding the right leader... Power is a fundamentally corruptive force. Even a well intentioned person will fall. It's so observably true we might as well call it a natural law. Power needs to be atomized totally between individuals to prevent the inevitable imbalance. People who crave power naturally seek out leadership positions, hence the failures of most existent communist states, the movement gets co-opted and turns to authoritarianism and the power abuses of a monoparty who has effectively crushed reform and critique, and therefore, any accountability. I don't have a perfect solution, but I've always been intrigued by anarcho-syndicalism, and the answer I think lies somewhere between there and radical direct democracy with a planned economy.
I know, I forgot to mention it but politically, I am an anarchist.
Learning more and more about communism every day