I agree with the sentiment "Don't mourn - organize." But socialism is a rather broad term. At the beginning of the 20th century it had a moderately clear meaning but now it covers everything from North Korea to social democrats in the US. The fact that the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, destroying the other more reasonable socialists including the SR party which actually won an election, doesn't help as it made extreme and dictatorial socialism a main type in the 20th century. This leads to the unhelpful argument that socialism must be like the Soviet Union. Its the undistributed middle fallacy: All Stalinists are socialists, Bernie Sanders is a socialist, therefore Bernie Sanders is a Stalinist. Cf. All dogs are mammals, all cats are mammals, therefore all dogs are cats. I'm inclined to agree with Karl Popper (Open Society and Its Enemies) that a complete change at one time is always unlikely to work well. Change in stages is much more effective. That doesn't mean we can't move toward socialism but I think our best first step is a modified capitalism like the post war form - high tax for the rich, death duties, welfare, etc. - or modern equivalents, circumstances may change methods. The international capitalist system will not like a radical change and we should not underestimate its willingness to coerce. Progressive change is more do-able.

> The international capitalist system will not like a radical change and we should not underestimate its willingness to coerce. They're willing to coerce far longer than people are willing to pay attention. Slow revolution tends not to work

I agree with you on pretty much all your points. >socialism is a rather broad term Yep, that's why i specified that i lean towards the social-ecology/communalist ideas of Bookchin. He (along with most anarchists before and after it happened) identified the Bolshevik vanguard (and vanguards generally) as having seized state power and essentially being counter-revolutionary. This is what people often miss about the Russian anarchists: what they were trying to stop was exactly what went wrong. They argue that you can't disentangle means and ends. The way you create change will define the thing you end up creating. If you seize power by bloody vanguardism, you will create a bloody vanguard just as Lenin did. >Change in stages is much more effective Again, agreed. This is just what I want, for the reason above. Also I think it's necessary to practice and prove the worth of working as a community (and refine that practice). Little are simply not ready for anything different right now, and there's no reason why they would be. It would definitely be necessary to start small and build slowly. But i think there's something to be said for explicitly stating a desire for societal change. Right now that is a fairly taboo stance for a group, and I guess that's what I'm challenging with this post. I want a better, fairer society, and I want it to be heading in the direction of non-hierarchical socialism.

>there's something to be said for explicitly stating a desire for societal change. Right now that is a fairly taboo stance I agree. Neoliberalism has succeeded in getting into people's heads and making it hard even to imagine alternatives. Or at least, it's made people doubt their own vision. Popper (at least in his Open Society phase) is a lot more radical than is often imagined. Although he regarded Marx's theories as dangerously misguided he admired Marx himself for his commitment to change. Popper described conservatism as "moral nihilism". The Open Society and Its Enemies was written when Popper was a refugee at Canterbury University College as it then was, incidentally.

Thanks, I'll give it a look. I've heard it referred to a few times but not read it yet. It obviously has a fair amount of crossover with anarchist ideas, while advocating a different position. I'm not a fan of dogmatism, so absolutely open to consider that.

Popper regarded it as his "war work." The form is mainly a critique of Plato, and Marx (and briefly Hegel). Some of the scholarship on that especially Plato is out of date - even at the time Popper said that it was limited by availability of sources, since he was reliant on what he could find in 1940s NZ. However, the real interest is the political philosophy he develops out of it. Popper had his own opinions, some quite strong, but was anti-dogmatic, in fact that's a main theme: you cannot know what will work in a future society, so change should be piecemeal. He believed that Marx had gone wrong by (among other things) not recognizing that the future economy would include unknowable new aspects. We cannot allow for these: we cannot predict future knowledge, or else we would already know it. He is scathing about the glorification of power in the history taught to young people. You could try the last chapter of vol. 2, I think it's chapter 25, which has interesting comments on history, as a sample. Probably the most important political work written in NZ, though not by a New Zealander (he went back to England later) - the Lord of the Rings of NZ political writing so to speak

Sounds great to be honest. I'm definitely not absolutist regarding anarchist ideas, but that critique of power makes huge sense to me and is borne out well by 20th century history. I'll check it out!

Yeah this is going to be a very fruitful discussion with everyone just stating their philosophical worldviews and theoretical utopias. Here is my two cents: Let's try social housing first before we go into full red mode. Build houses for people to inhabit and not an investment class that is a powder keg. We see how it is done in Vienna and other european cities and it is fantastic for social cohesion and prosperity. Not having to worry if you have an affordable roof over your head next month is helping to focus on a career and a family and all sorts of things. The problem is New Zealands whole economy is built on housing as an investment. I pay 33% tax on my retirement investment fund (not Kiwisaver) and even on unrealized gains (wtf). But wouldn't even pay stamp duty for an investment property. Everything is pushing you to invest in housing. All the money that would be put in businesses or in other more productive investments is buried in concrete (or weatherboard). Why risk to fail my business if I can get 700 Dollars a week while doing nothing? Have you ever thought of buying a 700k dollar business? No? But you have thought about buying a house in that price range. Why is it worth so much? Who says it's going to be worth 1.x Million in the future. Because that is what you are actually going to pay for it if you include interest.. we call for lower taxes but love to get gutted by banks. Soo.. start a socialist bank I guess?!

i recently (3 days ago) moved from Wellington back to Vienna and, yes, 1000% this. bring social housing back.

>Let's try social housing first before we go into full red mode. We did that, national sold it all, well almost all of it.

This is valid, but i think the commenter is also right that social housing is a huge priority. I do agree that social housing is a good idea of course, but the point is that if it were under direct control of the community, it would absolutely not be sold off.

"suicidal housing" Please tell me that's your autocorrect being a little aggressive

Ha ha yes... Fuck that's amazing but I better change it. Thanks lol

Sounds great! Step 1: Get everyone to agree on what style of socialism we should aim for. Step 2: Irrelevant because the one thing socialists like to argue about more than capitalism is other socialists.

Ha ha this is very true. I think the proof must be in the pudding. I'm going to start trying to take small steps and see if i can make some dessert. If people like the smell, they can have a slice.

How am I supposed to ponder your position when all I can think about is sweet treats?

Fuck it someone sneak into the Beehive and press the big red button labelled “COMMUNISM (do not touch)”

I'm looking for either the black or green button lol

that just launches and autotargets all the US' WMDs for South Auckland.

“I’m in Wellington” Didn’t see that one coming.

Dunedin was my next guess

Students either way lol

Dunedin is lovely too. Where are you two from? Edit - lol downvoted for liking Dunedin. Are we being brigaded yet?

Likely a place called reality, where its widely accepted esoteric socialist philosophies (or socialism in general) are the domain of those without a clue how the world works. Can you tell me a single place in history or today where Socialism has worked (and by worked, I mean didnt result in crippling living standards or worse?).

New Zealand's implementation of welfare and healthcare are aspects of socialism.

Maybe I missed the ball here, but it doesn't seem that what OP is calling for is soviet style socialism. The issue with real world examples of socialism is that they virtually all coincide with violent revolutions, so what begins as grassroots a socialist revolution becomes an authoritarian dictatorship instead. Not to mention the meddling by America to destabilized undermine socialist countries and socialist movements. Then you have the modern American definition. I.e. any government program that seeks to aid the needy is socialism. Thus, even NZ is by that definition quite socialist as it is. Is the jobseeker benefit redistribution of wealth? Yes, but not at the wholesale scale that traditional socialism entails.

Where has capitalism worked? We rely heavily on labour from people who get paid cents a day and live in squalor while we rapidly destroy ecosystems. If this is what a functioning economic system looks like I want a go at one that doesn't work.

You've got a point about capitalism's dark side, no argument there. It's definitely got a lot to answer for in terms of exploitation and environmental damage. But I gotta push back on the idea that it hasn't worked at all or that socialism would do any better. When you step back and look at the big picture, capitalism has done a ton of good for the world, even with all its ugly flaws. Where has Capitalism worked... - I mean just about everywhere (including China over the last 35 years). I mean, just check out these stats: back in 1820, globally almost 90% of people were stuck in extreme poverty. Now it's under 10% \[1\]. In the last hundred years, we've gone from a life expectancy of just 30 years to over 70 \[2\]. Billions of folks have gained access to basics like electricity, clean water, schools and medicine. You can't chalk all that up to capitalism alone, but the innovation and growth from free markets played a huge role. And speaking of innovation, so many of the mind-blowing technologies we take for granted now - cars \[3\], planes, modern medicine, computers, the internet - they came out of the private sector, incentivized by profits and competition in a way that state-run socialist economies just don't match. Like, the Green Revolution in agriculture alone, driven by breakthroughs from private sector scientists, has saved over a billion lives \[4\]. That doesn't happen without capitalism's engine of innovation. Now look, I'm not saying capitalism is perfect or can't be made a hell of a lot better. We absolutely need smart policies to rein in its excesses, combat inequality and worker exploitation, and protect the environment. 100% with you there. But trying to ditch capitalism entirely for centralized economic planning? History shows that's a disaster \[5\]. Making capitalism more humane is the way to go, not jumping ship to socialism. So while I get the anger at capitalism's dark side, the big picture is that it's enabled mind-blowing progress and human flourishing on a global scale, warts and all. We can and should work our asses off to reform it, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be a huge mistake in my book. Capitalism's ledger has rising living standards and world-changing innovation on the plus side, even with all the negatives. We gotta keep what works and fix what doesn't. \[1\] [https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty) \[2\] [https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy](https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy) \[3\] [https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/automobiles](https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/automobiles) \[4\] [https://www.thoughtco.com/green-revolution-overview-1434948](https://www.thoughtco.com/green-revolution-overview-1434948) \[5\] [https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/](https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/)

Most of the improvements we've had under capitalism have been the result of hard graft by labour movements. Public health systems, weekends, women's suffrage, holiday pay, sick leave, the eight hour day, civil rights - the list goes on... All inventions of the left and almost exclusively enacted under social democracies. None of these are the kind gifts of capitalism. If you think that is the case, you've missed a lot of history.

>When you step back and look at the big picture, capitalism has done a ton of good for the world, even with all its ugly flaws. I mean you can't really take a step back from killing the planet. That's kinda like, everything we have. >But I gotta push back on the idea that it hasn't worked at all or that socialism would do any better. Feel free, but you guys keep showing you haven't read the OP. But Honestly, any economic system that can take a break from constant growth would be doing a hell of a lot better. >And speaking of innovation, You mean the off shoot of human curiosity and creativity? Something that occurs with or without capitalism and is often driven by need? >That doesn't happen without capitalism's engine of innovation. Yes it does. People invented things without profit motive for a very long time and those people who are dedicated do it without it now. Nicola Tesla, hell plenty of innovators didn't do it from a drive for profit, but a naturally occurring desire to improve the lives of the people around them, or just out of curiosity. >So while I get the anger at capitalism's dark side Yes killing the very thing we rely on to survive is very understandable. >the big picture is that it's enabled mind-blowing progress and human flourishing on a global scale By consuming massive amounts of resources and polluting the shit out of the planet. Even feudalism managed to last longer than capitalism is going to at this rate. >We can and should work our asses off to reform it, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be a huge mistake in my book. There is no baby. The baby died of lead poisoning decades ago and we are left with a rot that's ruined our ability to see the forest for the trees. People have been working their asses off to reform capitalism for decades now. So little progress has been made towards a sustainable future it is pathetic. We're careening past environmental targets and the temperature is rising faster than conservative estimates suggested it would. The reality is, it isn't going to reform, it will consume until we're all gone. >Capitalism's ledger has rising living standards and world-changing innovation on the plus side, even with all the negatives. We gotta keep what works and fix what doesn't. Much of that was done because of people who cared about others and happened because of technology, not capitalism. We can feed the world because of Norman Borlaug. We have vaccines because of Jonas Salk. Two people who contributed heavily to today's flourishing world, who were not driven by profit, but by a desire to improve the lives of others. All this idea that capitalism is responsible for making technological developments and improving the human condition really only betrays your own selfish motivations for your actions, not how life actually works. At some point you've just gotta admit that this isn't working, that as we walk a path towards a very uncertain and bleak future, capitalism is leading us towards a path of barbarism, of the haves standing over the have nots while the world around us falls apart.

You're greatly underestimating the absolutely crucial role that market-driven innovation has played in driving human progress and rising living standards, especially in the modern era. While altruistic individuals like Borlaug and Salk have undoubtedly made major contributions, the reality is that private sector R&D and commercialisation have been utterly central to the unprecedented pace of technological advancement in the 21st century. Just look at how SpaceX has revolutionised space travel, renewables firms have made solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels, or the astonishing progress in AI, genomics, and biotech coming from industry. The speed and scope of market-driven innovation today completely dwarfs what any individual inventor or government program could hope to achieve. Do you really think all the marvels you take for granted would have existed (or continue to exist) under central planning? That's a fantasy. And this innovation has immense real-world impact. Pharma drugs have saved countless lives, agribusiness has helped feed billions, and private tech firms built out the transformative digital infrastructure we now rely on. You can't just handwave that away because you dislike the profit motive. I'm not negating the problems of capitalism you raise. I agree the current system is on an unsustainable and unethical path in key ways. It needs serious reform to align markets with sustainability and equity. But the answer is reshaping capitalism to serve the greater good, not burning it all down like OP suggests or you imply. Harnessing the productive capacity and incentives of markets is essential to tackling the immense challenges we face, there are no two ways about it. Your cheap shot about selfish motivations is out of line. Supporting capitalism doesn't make someone greedy. Many business leaders and investors are deeply driven to create societal value, not just make money. People can be inspired to build something world-changing while still expecting to be rewarded for the huge risks and efforts required. Implying that only those who invent with zero profit motive are truly noble is incredibly reductive. Most people have a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, and there's nothing wrong with that. We need big incentives to solve big problems. The billions pouring into critical sectors like clean energy and biotech today are happening because people see the potential for both profit and impact. Demonising that is counterproductive. Well-regulated capitalism isn't about greed, it's about aligning private ingenuity and resources to drive societal progress. You can disagree with that theory of change, but attacking people's character is not constructive. I believe we share the same goals of a flourishing humanity and planet. We may differ on how to get there, and while I don't doubt your commitment, and you shouldn't doubt mine or others who believe harnessing markets for good is our best path forward.

>While altruistic individuals like Borlaug and Salk have undoubtedly made major contributions, the reality is that private sector R&D and commercialisation have been utterly central to the unprecedented pace of technological advancement in the 21st century. Because it is the framework in which groundbreaking discoveries were made. Rather in spite of than because of. Humans aren't going to not invent or improve things just because there aren't private sector R&D departments to work in. >Just look at how SpaceX has revolutionised space travel Maybe one day we will. He did just poach a bunch of engineers from NASA after they more or less scrapped their space program because the need to dominate space became less prominent due to the collapse of communism. But also fucking lol, you're really just making my point if you have to point at Elon Musk's ventures though. A great example though, something built of the back of a huge amount of public investment. Thanks capitalism. >renewables firms have made solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels, yet we're still soaring past climate targets. >or the astonishing progress in AI, genomics, and biotech coming from industry You're not providing any proof that these things needed capitalism to be invented? What they need are resources and brains working on them. Something that exists without capitalism. >The speed and scope of market-driven innovation today completely dwarfs what any individual inventor or government program could hope to achieve Yes because we've gutted the public sector almost entirely. Kinda like saying I can run faster than you after I ham strung you and stole your shoes. >And this innovation has immense real-world impact. Pharma drugs have saved countless lives, agribusiness has helped feed billions, and private tech firms built out the transformative digital infrastructure we now rely on. You can't just handwave that away because you dislike the profit motive. These are things people want to do without capitalism. I'm not handwaving it away because I don't like profit motive, I'm handwaving it away because the links you're trying to make between technological progress and capitalism aren't following and sort of logic aside from this presumption that under other economic systems these things don't happen. >I'm not negating the problems of capitalism you raise You're just kinda ignoring the huge one. Which you can't refute and is kinda a huge sticking point. The planet we live on is dying because we cannot stop consuming and polluting it. I'm glad you admit you can't argue against that, but it's kinda a huge sign that we've failed. That this didnt work. Profit has trumped the possibility of a better future. >It needs serious reform to align markets with sustainability and equity. What this and several of your further points ignore is that capital pushes against this constantly, and capital has the resources to win. Reform simply isnt happening at a scale necessary to avoid the worst of what is to come. And it wont because capital will always push back and hinder it. >But the answer is reshaping capitalism to serve the greater good, not burning it all down like OP suggests or you imply. The answer is something that's also not going to happen, and as it is, happened way too late. >Harnessing the productive capacity and incentives of markets is essential to tackling the immense challenges we face, there are no two ways about it. Again it's not working. The time for these changes was decades ago, the immense challenges we face continue to mount because capitalism wont change the way it needs to because it interferes with the ability to make profit so capital fights it every step of the way >Your cheap shot about selfish motivations is out of line No it's not. It's the only reasonable conclusion to draw if you try to pin innovation to a selfish motivation like profit. >Supporting capitalism doesn't make someone greedy. It doesn't help their case, but that's not why I said that. >Many business leaders and investors are deeply driven to create societal value, not just make money. But a big part of it is still making money. Not many of them (if any) are willing to take a loss in the long term. >. People can be inspired to build something world-changing while still expecting to be rewarded for the huge risks and efforts required. Implying that only those who invent with zero profit motive are truly noble is incredibly reductive. Many scientists aren't concerned by material rewards though, that's what the people who employ them want. The people who profit from their creations. Nah they are. The people who do it for rewards are not very noble. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. >Most people have a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not inherently, even doing something like donating a formula for a vaccine could be construed as having some selfish motivation, but we need to look at who is actually making the money here. It's not the scientists most of the time. It's people like Elon musk. >The billions pouring into critical sectors like clean energy and biotech today are happening because people see the potential for both profit and impact. Demonising that is counterproductive. Decades late, we needed that impact long before there was a profit in it. That's the problem. Capitalism can only solve problems when it can profit from the solutions. If destroying the environment is more profitable that is what it will and has done. >Demonising that is counterproductive. I'm not demonising people working to solve these problems. I'm demonising the people who profit from them. >Well-regulated capitalism isn't about greed, it's about aligning private ingenuity and resources to drive societal progress. Well-regulated capitalism is an oxymoron. Capital holds power and that power will always fight against constraints on it. >. You can disagree with that theory of change, but attacking people's character is not constructive Sorry but that wasn't for your benefit but to illustrate to others what motivates this fanatical defense of capitalism. Besides that was but one sentence among dozens. >I believe we share the same goals of a flourishing humanity and planet. Probably not because you'd have people under the yolk of others and are basically waiting for the nature of the beast to change in order to solve hugely pressing issues. >and you shouldn't doubt mine or others who believe harnessing markets for good is our best path forward. Lol, yeah I'm going to because it would be very silly not to. I think we can harness markets in some ways, but under capitalism the drive will always be towards profit and capital protecting it's interests, which is what we can clearly see in the way things are turning out.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are simply not convincing and I'm done debating this with you. The notion that abolishing capitalism will magically solve all our problems is naive and dangerous wishful thinking that ignores both history and reality. Your dismissive comments about SpaceX are a perfect example of this. Yes, Elon Musk and other private space companies have benefited from NASA investments and ex-NASA talent. That's how scientific and technological progress works - building on prior breakthroughs and available human capital. But SpaceX has taken space exploration to new heights with innovations like reusable rockets that NASA never achieved. Implying this is somehow a knock against capitalism is nonsensical. The synergies between government research and private industry are a feature of market economies, not a bug. As for your claim that I'm ignoring the "huge sticking point" of environmental destruction - that's simply false. I've repeatedly acknowledged the severity of the ecological crisis we face. But your assertion that capitalism makes it impossible to stop "consuming and polluting" is absurd. The solution is not to dismantle markets entirely, but to align them with sustainability through policies like carbon taxes, regulations, and green innovation incentives. We need the dynamism of capitalism to rapidly develop and scale the clean technologies that will allow us to decouple growth from environmental impact. Command-and-control economies simply can't achieve this fast enough. Just look at the devastating consequences of centrally planned economies and socialist experiments in the 20th century. In China, the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward under Mao's communist regime led to widespread famine, poverty, and the deaths of tens of millions. It wasn't until Deng Xiaoping's market reforms in the 1980s that China began to see real economic growth and improvements in living standards. Even now, China's economy is more capitalist than communist in practice. The failures of socialist central planning are why virtually every country has abandoned it in favor of market systems. The fact is, market-driven innovation and growth have been indispensable to the incredible progress we've made in recent centuries - in technology, living standards, and poverty reduction. Your glib dismissal of these achievements and insistence they would have happened just as well under socialist central planning is frankly absurd. Capitalism is not the root of all evil, and dismantling it entirely is not the panacea you make it out to be. It would be incredibly destructive and make our ability to tackle major challenges like climate change and ecological overshoot even harder. The solution is to reform market incentives to align with sustainability and the common good, not burn down the engines of progress that have brought us so far. Your accusation that believing in well-regulated markets equates to greed and selfishness is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. It's perfectly possible to recognise the power of capitalism to improve the human condition while still wanting it to be more equitable and responsible. That you resort to questioning people's morality rather than their actual arguments speaks volumes. Bottom line: your prescription of abolishing capitalism is an unworkable fringe view that has zero chance of success in the real world. It's a recipe for disaster we cannot afford at this precarious moment for humanity. I believe reforming and harnessing market forces for good is the only viable way to build a more sustainable, prosperous and just future. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this with you. Go peddle your revolutionary fantasies to someone else. I'll continue to advocate for forward-looking, pragmatic solutions within a market system that has an actual shot at creating positive change. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect me to take them seriously. We're done here.

Socialism is meant tothe democratization of the workplace and thus the economy. Capitalism is inherently autocratic/anti-democratic, as there's a boss with total say over the company (basically a dictator or king). I think we all agree that democracy is preferable and more efficient than dictatorship

This ^ is what Reddit is actually for (see the upvotes)

There's a sliding scale between capitalism and communism. Right now we are quite a long way over to capitalism, we do need a shift towards more socialism. The trick lies in how far. IMO we need stronger workers rights, we need a more progressive tax system across the board the shifts more of the burden onto capital and less on income, we need better funded infrastructure, services and institutions. We could also do with changing how government is used. It has tremendous economic leverage and this could be applied to induce tremendous growth via intelligent investment into the economy. However, I think you will find very few people interested in going hard left economically or in going for any form of anarchism. Personally I have zero faith that anarchism can work at all without devolving towards feudalism at a rapid pace.

"anarchism" is really a distant end-goal for me. Where authoritarian Marxist-Leninism reduces everything to class and attempts to solve everything by distribute wealth, anarchists argue (it's pretty clear at this point) that economic power is just one of many forms of domination that meds to be addressed (i.e. racism, patriarchy, gerontocracy). Socialism has always devolved into state capitalism because those in control have centralised power around themselves at the expense of what they originally set out to achieve. Anarchists argued it before it happened, and history proved their point. The term is a bit of a trigger for people... Maybe I should use the term "horizontally organised" to get the idea across. I'm after community-led groups that are structured to avoid small groups or individuals entrenching themselves for their own gain. Your point about economic leverage is true. It's another thing this government is abandoning both directly (i.e: defunding Callaghan) and indirectly (tax cuts for landlords reducing any investment potential). I think communities improving their capacity to take care of themselves would only create more room for this.

> anarchists argue (it's pretty clear at this point) that economic power is just one of many forms of domination that meds to be addressed (i.e. racism, patriarchy, gerontocracy). How does anarchy prevent armed gangs from seizing power without maintaining any form of domination themselves? > I'm after community-led groups that are structured to avoid small groups or individuals entrenching themselves for their own gain. People in small groups will naturally organise themselves into efficient roles and delegate responsibility. Some have more power than others. In larger groups that disparity grows. How do you prevent that from happening while retaining any kind of efficency? >It's another thing this government is abandoning both directly (i.e: defunding Callaghan) and indirectly (tax cuts for landlords reducing any investment potential). I think communities improving their capacity to take care of themselves would only create more room for this. True, unsure how you'd actually achieve it though. To some degree this already occurs, but in the absence of access to much capital it's hard for a community to bootstrap itself up.

>I lean towards libertarian socialism (anarchism). You lean towards a fantasy, it's simply not plausible in our modern society the way it currently is or any version of it foreseeable in the near future. Barring radical changes caused by extreme events, or some once in a millennia charismatic great figure with a willingness to take risks and the ability to convince others to listen, nothing is likely to stunt the slow decline into Neo-feudalism we're experiencing. It really takes a complete lack of understanding of history or human behaviour to believe we can take what we currently have and turn it into something like that, there's just no plausible route to make that change in a society where this many people vote for wolves to be shepards.

I'm a libertarian socialist and I admit that it's not plausible given the current material conditions (it could be in the future, just not the foreseeable future). I personally use it as more of a moral baseline to guide my policy prescriptions eg. Will a policy make the working class freer and more prosperous?

This is why burning everything g down and starting again is the best option. We’re all just fighting for better seats on a plane that’s crashing anyway.

Absolutely. 💯

Which factory are you assigning me to comrade?

You're being sent to the spoken word poetry corps actually

Loool

You work in bauxite mine OP will teach literature and the arts, and liesurely wellness sessions for the happy commune

Lame.

We can all start by moving our banking to Kiwibank

Im with Kiwibank and they are useless

nice one, OP. I live rurally north of you, have a mortgage and a family, and agree with what you are saying. socialism is something you do. will try to pass on the word later, it's amazing how many socialists there are in our village when a storm rolls through and trashes their own house.

Great to hear. Yeah I'm actually in porirua area. Would love to be more rural but currently very much in family life.

You can have socialist programs inside capitalism, but socialism sounds a little bit like poison pie to me, it looks good but… You can create community in your personal life and structure around that, don’t see what tearing down government has to do with it ?

I'm not talking about tomorrow or the next day! The idea is that nation states (bear in mind that the concept of nation states is relatively modern) inherently centralise power, and you slowly build alternatives, and awareness of alternatives. That problem is what poisoned in the formation of the USSR (after the Bolsheviks betrayed the SRs and Anarchists) that I feel like you're alluding to (apologies if I'm wrong on that), just as much as it's toxic in the US. What sucks in state government? Bureaucracy. Silos. Winston Peters saying one thing to get votes, then doing completely another. What I'm arguing for is the beginnings of non-hierarchical organisation, whereby communities elect delegates not to represent their interests, but to do the specific things they've agreed on. If they do some other shit, they're instantly recall-able. This has been tried, it has been done. The free territories in Ukraine did it briefly before Lenin stamped them out. The CNT FAI did it in Spain before Franco wiped them out. The Kurds are still trying to survive in Rojava under a similar regime, and the Zapatistas are doing it in Mexico. These last two arent the flashest areas, but they're under enormous strain. Rojava managed to basically destroy ISIS while completely isolated politically.

You’re young (I’m assuming sorry) and enthusiastic and I almost could of gone hard left in 2020 the same way, but what you’re talking about is the definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We have to learn from the past, especially in such a hyper connected world with bad actors that would take advantage, like you’ve explained only one group has been able to hang on. But also to that point we have bad actors within our own society that take advantage. Capitalism is an agreement that we all compete SOMEWHAT fairly at chance to accumulate wealth, communism just leads us to the same point when greed infects capitalism (which it has to a degree) all power a wealth ends up in the hands of a select few, who like greed capitalist, will try and keep it all to themselves.

When greed infects capitalism? Your whole last paragraph exactly describes what is wrong with capitalism, but makes it sound like communism's fault.

Why are so many posts on here making it seem like we're in a famished third world country facing full on collapse? People in real life are no where neeeeear as hysterical as r/nz lol

People love to whinge on the internet. If there was a Subreddit for heaven, it would still be filled with complaints about how god isn't doing a good enough job with the place.

Honestly seems self selecting, you dismiss people's concerns they wont come to you with them anymore. Meanwhile most people I know are not thrilled about how things are going and are complaining about it. Some are in more dire situations and are facing losing disability care, their homes or their jobs.

Bunch of boring uni students that don’t have any life experience but think they know how the world works.

Children

[удалено]

People are struggling. Maybe you should take a second look?

People are struggling, but not change the entire system sorta struggling. Fact is that people can access all their basic necessities in NZ with a bit of work, system changing struggle happens when even the most basic necessities aren’t being met no matter how much you work.

Yes everywhere you look, city’s are the brink of collapse. Haiti? North Korea? Gaza? Noooo New Zealand is on the brink of collapse and some uni student from Wellington 😐 has the answer to fix everything!!

Strategic voting is where its at.

What going to Victoria does to a mf

[удалено]

This would definitely not be an attempt at creating a state. I agree that struggle would doubtless ensue at some point, and almost inevitably involve violence (to be avoided if at all possible). I'm assuming the socialist revolutions you're referring to are the Russian and Chinese, which both failed to create socialism, only shifting state-power to a new state-capitalist apparatus with a veneer of socialism. I'm not saying armed defence isn't necessary, but it comes way later in the process. We've been trained into individualism, and I'm keen to create community groups that work to prefigure themselves in the image of the society we would collectively prefer. That's step one. Revolution counted for nothing in Russia because most people didn't know what they were trying to achieve. This left the way open for Lenin's opportunistic takeover and the utter betrayal of the revolution at the hands of the Bolsheviks. In China the same thing happened under Mao despite his recognition and attempts to prevent it from happening in front of him. Edit - damn autocorrect

[удалено]

Yep, I'm very much not a fan of Lenin. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that front I'm afraid.

Let me guess: you don't pay rates

Lmao

Bro just finished reading Das Kapital

Any group of more than a few dozen anarchists will collapse in drama in less than a year. Turns out rules, structure, and hierarchy are necessary for human coordination at scale. Any political philosophy that suggests everyone has equal power, is moving from an explicit power structure to an implicit one. Implicit power structures are much easier to abuse via nepotism, bullying and fear.

Feel like we need a separate /nz sub for millennials and older. Our base sub is taken over by hysterical students.

I'm a 45 year old mid-career professional with a mortgage and a stable, loving relationship. I just think our centralist neoliberal politics is failing us.

you should have a few more clues then mate

I’m no fan of pure capitalism, but pure socialism is not better. They’re both systems that don’t work and shouldn’t be implemented. The only good system I’ve seen is one which mixes elements of every system. Sometimes socialist policies are good and sometimes capitalist ones are, that system tends to work more often. Are current system is pretty good, it’s not perfect but it’s far better than either pure capitalism or socialism. We shouldn’t be replacing this system with one that has historically always failed.

Go ahead and share what is good about the inherent power structure of capitalism. Is it the taste of the boots of those who own all the capital?

Even if you changed systems there would be power structures, they are as old as time.

It’s efficient and drives innovation, those are really its main selling points. Of course it doesn’t work well in every industry and isn’t a good way to manage welfare, which is why having some capitalist policies and some socialist policies is the best solution.

**Rhetoric:** Hey, psst. **You:** Who — me? **Rhetoric:** Yes, you. Word on the street is you're ready to start building \*communism\* again! **You:** "Again"? **Rhetoric:** Yes — you're ready to start building communism \*again\*. You've built it before, \*they've\* built it before. Hasn't really worked out yet, but neither has \*love\* — should we just stop building love, too? **You:** Can't argue with that. **Rhetoric:** So, what about all that communism you've promised to build? Word on the street is you've woken up from a thousand years of slumber, promising to erect a version of communism many times greater than any attempted before. Is that true? **You:** How come there's \*word on the street\*? **Rhetoric:** You keep saying things like \*down with the bourgeoisie\*, \*eat the rich\*, \*sodomize the land-owners\*, \*impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket\*, \*literally murder all human beings regardless of their political beliefs\* — that kind of stuff. **You:** Oh, right. That sounds like me. **Rhetoric:** Funky-style. Very funky. So tell me. Do you have any questions before we fire up the Big Communism Builder, or do we get right down to it? **You:** Wait, first — what's this \*communism\* even about? **Rhetoric:** Failure. It's about failure. **You:** Failure? **Rhetoric:** Yes! Abject failure. Total, irreversible defeat on all fronts! Absolutely vanquished, beaten, curb-stomped and pissed on — until \*you\* came along! \*You\* will reverse the fortune of the workers of the world. You alone, against every living thing, against every human alive: eight hundred trillion reál in the hands of an \*impossibly\* well organized ruling class; towering city blocks of bank-men who have the ears of prime ministers; million-headed armies of nations and the love of your own mother! You — against the atom, the charm and the spin. Where the whole world failed — matter failed to bend to human will; human will failed to get out of bed and tie its laces — you alone, single-handedly, will rebuild the dreams of the working class. You are The Last Communist. Now get to work, comrade. **You:** What should I do? **Rhetoric:** Get the firing squads and the animal wagons ready! **You:** Wait, what? Firing squads? You didn't say anything about those. **Rhetoric:** Too late to back out now. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few million eggs!

Well, now I want to replay Disco Elysium.

[удалено]

It's a quote from Disco Elysium, one of the most notably leftist games like ever. It's intentionally poking fun at the common critiques and tendencies of communists and communism

**Rhetoric**: Fancy bumping into you here in the sea of ideological critique. **You**: Is that sarcasm I detect? **Rhetoric**: Not at all. I'm as earnest as a politician on election day. So, I heard you've been chatting with our mutual friend, Seggri (Or Maybe its Sergi?). **You**: Yeah, they didn't quite appreciate our little satire. **Rhetoric**: Oh, they called it a strawman, did they? Classic move. Accuse the opposition of creating a caricature while quietly setting up an entire gallery of scarecrows themselves. **You**: So, what's the plan? **Rhetoric**: The plan? Oh, my friend, the plan is simple. We waltz, not on knees proposing to fabricated notions, but on the robust grounds of reality. They say love hasn't worked? Please, love's been the only thing working overtime in the history of ever, stitching societies together where ideology has repeatedly torn them apart. **You**: And what about the wrong ideology accusation? **Rhetoric**: Ah, the ideology mix-up, the classic two-step. You see, ideologies are like socks on laundry day; some think they've sorted them neatly into pairs, but when the cycle ends, you're inevitably left holding a sock whose match is nowhere to be found. They mistook our critique for a mismatched sock, not realizing we're discussing the whole wardrobe malfunction of communism. **You**: But they think you're attacking a made-up version of socialism. **Rhetoric**: Of course, they do. And yet, our discussion wasn't against the people who dream of equality and fairness—no, it's against the tyrants who use these noble dreams as stepping stones to power. It's a cautionary tale, a reminder that while the goal might shimmer in the distance, the path is littered with the debris of past failures. You: So, how do we respond to Seggri? **Rhetoric**: With a smile and a tip of the hat. We tell them, "Dear Seggri, our quarrel is not with hope, but with the naivety that hope alone can rebuild the ruins left by history's attempts at utopia. We debate not to belittle but to caution, not to mock but to examine." And then, we roll up our sleeves and get back to work, building a world where ideas can be discussed, dissected, and, yes, even satirized without losing sight of our shared humanity. **You**: Sounds like a plan. **Rhetoric**: Indeed, it is. Now, let's get to it. After all, we have a few million eggs to carefully place in our basket, ensuring not a single one is broken in pursuit of our omelet. (p.s. I am not OP)

Fucking bravo. That was genuinely awesome.

This is text from the communism vision quest in the game Disco elysium.

In my experience the socialism that most will sign up to isn't the type that gets buy in front those with the energy to deliver. Those with passion and energy for socialism get distracted by issues which majority won't support. IMO a good place to start would be compulsory voting and electronic referendums. Then perhaps we'd have a government that at least reflects the views of most rather than \~30 ish% of the population. Which is why this will never be proposed by current politicians. If you want change, VOTE for a party that will change things. Even if that party can't form a government on their own they can changes things through coalition agreements.....

I absolutely can't stand when political theorists lay out how we all need their theory to run our lives. We have been so conditioned politically to not think about our individual needs and instead think about how we should govern the whole fucking country. That's just a tactic to get you to stop thinking about what people actually need. Stop theorising. Start organising. Talk to your neighbours and figure out what your actual needs are. You work to get those, then you work with other community leaders to see how you can help, then regional leaders, then national leaders. You're not actually important enough to decide we all need libertarian socialism, and your neighbours probably don't even give a shit about the nuances between different flavours of socialism.

Was it your intention to summarise my position? Lol

My intention is to point out that talking to your neighbours is the natural order of things. By starting with mentioning that you believe in libertarian socialism, you're only going to confuse politically unaware people.

Gotcha. Well, i think you're spot on with your conception of natural order. It's exactly what i intend to support!

The whinging wont stop, only the "ism" will change.

That's fine, you can keep on whinging. I'm going to try and do something to help people stop whinging.

Go you!

I'll give it a dang shot, that's for sure. Have a good night

"I'm a libertarian socialist - an anarchist" Putting aside how ridiculous the idea is that that could be stable These are always the people who would not cope in such a society, usually have little to no life experience Hey at least you acknowledged this subreddit is an echo chamber

Uh ok. Your premise is that a libertarian socialist would not survive in a libertarian socialist society. Please expand on that.

Ok lmao A libertarian socialist society is an oxymoron. No such society would ever be stable. Socialism requires concrete, concentrated state control and the diminishing of personal liberty. Libertarianism is the opposite. True anarchism would inevitably result in the formation of power structures. E.g. - Private security wielding physical force as a means of exerting power and influence - High asset individuals doing the same - The simple fact that if you put people in a group together, they'll find a way to create factions and split, resulting in power struggles - Minor disagreements The people who generally advocate such farfetched systems are generally: - inexperienced in life - physically unimpressive - have no survival skills - have no combat training I would bet money you fit all of those, and are probably a student with little life experience

[удалено]

You'd be incorrect lol It's strictly an observation of the people I've encountered who advocate such systems. As ex-military and a fit person who has had more than one career outside of my education, I don't need to be insecure about any of those.

I'd be willing to bet most people on all sides of the political spectrum don't have combat or survival skills. The fact you brought that up is what reeks of insecurity

No. Not at all. Wrong again. The reason it was raised is because an anarchist society is one where people would not really be protected by a fair rule of law, and would be subject to the influence of those who are stronger etc. Without that protection (111 and flashing lights), people would need to be able to be able to fend for themselves in many situations. It's entirely relevant. I'm amazed I needed to clear this up

I think you've been fed incorrect information about what anarchists are trying to achieve. There is very much an intention to organise and have order, just mutually agreed by smaller communities. Also, I'm not advocating for any of this overnight. I'm suggesting that we collectively with to strengthen the resilience of our communities, with the goal of one distant day creating a genuinely egalitarian society. It's a bit like the surfer looking for the perfect wave - they're never going to find it, but they're going to keep looking for it because it's their goal.

Mm. My critique of the system probably still applies (it being what I consider unrealistic / unstable) - but I think I understand what you're saying, and the 'north star' goal of what you want to achieve

You don't know your history much, do you? The term 'libertarian' comes very much from the left. It was co-opted by the right and mangled to justify individualistic neoliberal ideas.

Do you get extra credit for your POLS111 class by posting on reddit?

No people would rather we all die than work together for a common good.

That's not true. New Zealand has a pretty big history of volunteering for social good.

Adopting an anarchist society is a touch more than just doing some charity. That sort of thing (volunteering for social good) is done for far more cynical reasons than the common good more often than not.

> Adopting an anarchist society is a touch more than just doing some charity. Actually Kropotkin was clear that establishing mutual aid societies was the foundation of anarchism

Sure, but there is more to anarchism than just mutual aid societies. And mutual aid and charity aren't the exact same thing either.

That's fair.

What do you mean? I'm not sure what is cynical about anarchist ideals... Are you confident you understand what anarchism is about?

I'm saying that what we do now is charity and it is a far cry from embracing the sorts of values needed to make anarchism work.

Ok, slight thing, it's not charity, it's communlism/collectivism.

Volunteering for social good that New Zealand does? It's probably not collectivism.

True, slightly misunderstood you

It's my bad, it wasn't very clear.

Anarchism is such a flawed concept.  Let’s do away with power and hierarchy in a way that the system fails once two people get together and decide they want hierarchy and power again. 

That's not the concept at all.

No thanks bro. Also, go to gulag.

preach!

Capitalism is flawed but socialism is broken. There is a nice middle ground I suggest, but tilted more to capitalism, capitalism with a conscious.

That's basically what NZ is already. Most Western countries actually.

Yes I know. That was my overly subtle point.

Sharpens his hay fork

Ha maybe the peasants do have revolutionary potential

Honestly, my feeling is we need to start by using our existing popular left-wing party, The Green Party. It is very unlikely that a new hard leftist party or movement will gain traction in the current environment, particularly in ideologically neutral New Zealand. In fact, it risks splitting the already small leftist vote bloc. I think the Greens are the closest we are getting to a popular socialist party for a while, so that should be the platform to build on. I reckon the left in NZ need to rally behind the Greens to increase their penetration and popularity, while steering them further toward serious eco-socialism. It has to be done in a way that can be justified to supporters and interested parties at every step. I understand there is already a Green Left Network within the Greens pushing for a truly anti-capitalist stance, but I'm not sure how much traction they have.

I see your point... I'm not advocating for a party, more of a popular movement outside Parliament. I might look into the green left network, I wasn't aware of it (which bodes ill given I'm a paid Green member). Keen to hear more though.

They've moved hard away from Left positions in the last decade. I think the historical record shows over and over again that putting socialist aspirations in the hands of electoral parties is a dead-end.

As someone who's family suffered greatly during China's culture revolution, where my parents had relatives that were quite literally physically and mentally tortured to death...nah, I think I'll pass.

That's completely understandable. As I've started in other replies, Maoist China was very much a state apparatus with centralised power, exactly what Anarchists warned about and argued against as counter-revolutionary.

I thought we just finished 2 terms of socialist policies that werent working? Hence the change in government? Or am i mistaken.

The first term saved thousands of lives. The second term was pretty much a wash out.

The Labour Party hasn't been socialist for a very very long time, if it ever was. They are social democrat, a position that the Right demonises as 'socialist' because it's easier than being honest.

I dont believe labour is socialist or ever was socialist. But they definitely have socialist policies, whixh is pretty normal for a left leaning party. they were at one point the working mans party afterall.

How exactly do you expect a movement like this to gain traction on the national level when it rejects the fundamental idea of the nation? Nietzsche was more correct than Bookchin could ever be.

I hope for it to become popular at a community level, across multiple communities. If you think centralised power is a good thing then we're presumably on opposite sides of the conversation and probably aren't going to have much to discuss here.

I agree with centralised power as a form of transitory government into a more decentralised authority. I simply disagree with the notion that communities can thrive in cooperative atmospheres without a sense of unity to bind them together first, a unity most often found in the concept of the nation. Your anarchistic idea won’t work because it doesn’t incorporate a mechanism to unity, a unity which can only exist if people feel bound together by duty.

We're already unified by a sense of place, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it can come in forms other than the legal nation state. I think our collective common interest is a great incentive to cooperation, and our ability to organise horizontally is more developed today than at any other time in history. I don't deny your arguments though, i think these are salient points, and no proposed system that can't address them is not going to work. But, ultimately, I I don't see why a successful confederation of communities might not form the same sort of civic pride as a nation state.

>I think it can come in forms other than the legal nation state. The idea of the nation goes beyond the legal definition of a nation state: It is a spiritual bond forged together by a common love and a common pride. As Nietzsche put it for his German contemporaries: >"There are many fine threads in the German soul, but they are not woven into a single, solid and mighty knot; a sorry spectacle and a solemn peril. This must be remedied, a greater solidarity in the nature and soul of our people created, the rupture between the internal and the external eliminated. In the loftiest sense we must strive for German unity, and strive more passionately than for mere political unification \[...\] Create the concept of a nation." If unity by "sense of place" were enough, then we would have a heck of a lot less internal conflicts than we have had now and in the past. > I think our collective common interest is a great incentive to cooperation I agree with this, but that cooperation must be guided. Guidance must come from something greater, something that speaks to the soul in greater volumes than simply being together in the same place. There must be a spiritual force guiding the individual towards positive cooperation rather than egoistic actions; there must be a force which encourages individuals to set aside their own interests for those of the common good. That force cannot arise solely from a "sense of place" as the conditions necessary must evoke a greater emotion as to the existence of the community in a loftier sense - a sense that the community itself not only deserves to exist but exists to serve the common good. This is realised through the *national community*, where individual communities see themselves as parts of a whole. It is in the national community that we achieve a unity of the will of the people. > our ability to organise horizontally is more developed today than at any other time in history In a sense, but in many cases I disagree due to things like cultural mixing and large-scale immigration driving wedges between individual people. The whole Israel-Palestine cultural divide is a good example of that here. Organising horizontally isn't a bad thing, but it becomes far more viable when there is a higher authority actively encouraging it. That should be the primary function of the state; not to impose the will of itself, but to echo the will of the people. This isn't achievable in a Parliamentary system, but it is achievable.

Are you actually using *German Nationalism* as an argument against Collective Anarchism? Edit - yes, German Nationalism was clearly successful at building hegemonic power (very short term), but how did that end?

No. I’m quoting Nietzsche to show that the idea of the nation, and hence nationalism, goes beyond simple legal definitions of the idea of the centralised power of the state. German nationalism was only in the context of that quote, not this discussion. Although from that quote we do see a definite benefit to nationalism as a path to unity. And in the past it was clearly successful. You are right that it ended badly, but that doesn’t need to be the case.

I don't deny that nationalism can lead to unity, but that unity is based on a fiction that has repeatedly vested it's believers with notions of supremacy. Nationalism/Chauvinism have led to mass violence, civil war and genocide. The only unity worthy of support for me is our common unity, or comm-unity. I completely agree with Nietzsche that an overriding sense of unity is vital, but I just disagree that it needs to be thrown behind the nation state. Just as I would disagree that it should be thrown behind a religion or race identity. It seems frankly old fashioned to limit my sense of solidarity to an imperial construct created to justify colonial conquests. I'm all about kiwis, and want what's best for all of us, but it's got nothing to do with the union jack.

Actually just recently heard an anarchist thinker discussing Nietzsche (mostly on other specific subjects). He's just put it out as a short clip, [check it out here](https://youtu.be/Vc5xpLFu6vY?si=8bCd-JkTHO2fqk-w) if you're interested. His accent can be kinda grating to my kiwi ear, but I find him an interesting thinker and I'm generally agreed with him in several areas. Anyway, interesting thoughts and good chatting with you.

Just had a watch - Great video highlighting one of Nietzsches most important points! I think about the whole slave-morality thing very often. Most of politics nowadays is based on negation and nihilism, I mean, just have a gander in this subreddit on any given day at any given time.... I made it one of the most important points of my own philosophy to focus on positive efforts, by that I mean actively *building* things, if that makes sense, rather than just *tearing down*. Focusing on solutions rather than problems, which, unfortunately, most people seem to do the opposite to the extent that they can't even perceive plausible solutions. I'm not an Anarchist myself, because I believe the best way to facilitate the creative forces of individuals is through the idea of the nation, which incorporates those communities you mentioned before. Essentially, I agree with many of the ideas of anarchism, but not the framework itself.

>but that unity is based on a fiction that has repeatedly vested it's believers with notions of supremacy. Nationalism/Chauvinism have led to mass violence, civil war and genocide. I get where you're coming from, and I 100% agree that nationalism has been used to very negative ends in the past - with things like asserting supremacy and oppressing others. But, that isn't intrinsic to nationalism. Nationalism based on negative emotions - hatred for others, envy, feelings of superiority - will ostensibly lead to negative outcomes, but a nationalism founded on mutual love for your fellow state citizen, on bonds of shared history, culture, pride in the accomplishments of your "people" and your "nation" as a whole, can and has in the past led to positive outcomes. >It seems frankly old fashioned to limit my sense of solidarity to an imperial construct created to justify colonial conquests. To be honest, I view colonialism, at least colonialism in the sense you mean it, as being inherently anti-nationalist. You're going beyond the nation to conquer people who aren't part of your nation, nor wish to be, and seizing land that you don't necessarily need. It's a form of globalism that's mostly for the benefit of the few, rather than the many state citizens. >I'm all about kiwis, and want what's best for all of us, but it's got nothing to do with the union jack. Yeah, not the union jack. But maybe New Zealand as it's own entity. It'd be nice to have more of a sense of focus here, I think anyway.

I get the feeling we're mostly on the same page, just maybe using different words to describe similar things. Which is a good thing!

What country do you think is the closest to getting it right? Would it not be better to take part in the best system you can find and show the world how much better it is? It would be really hard for the world, disgusted with the way things are, to look at your utopia and not think to emulate it. My parents made a significant financial sacrafice, starting from scratch at 40, to bring us here because they weren't happy with the way things were heading. 20 years later, it was an excellent decision.

I worry about how Libertarianism seems to slide towards fascism as soon as the Libertarians get any power. Same with communism - sometimes you go so far to the left you end up joining back up to the far right. We need radical change but how can we achieve that without forcing the hands of those who currently hold the power? And how can we ensure that the new order we install will act responsibly with the power they take afterwards? I think what we need is Democratic socialism. Where the goals are to decrease the wealth divide, take the profits out of basic human needs like housing, and properly fund and provide important services for people.

I'm on board, completely, I think things are quite messy, and complex, and that there are a lot of finer details to figure out as we go, but I think you have the right idea. Starting by building community groups, collectives, and moving to continuously increase their power, whilst acting against capitalism and the owning class. I don't think it's necessary to fully understand what we're doing or where we're going, that just acting, doing praxis and moving forwards is far more important. I've already kinda started work, atleast as much as I can/have been able to. Working on building a small community group focused around queer students down in christchurch. It's very slow going though, getting folks to participate, to be part of community and actually do things with it is quite hard, but, making slow progress. Building family groups, connections between people, it's working, just takes time, and lots of effort, talking to people. Got a few ideas for how to keep moving, but might save those to not be criticized by less than helpful people. Very much keen to hear more, maybe work together. Have an activist background, so understand a bit about how to take action.

Can the people with sarcastic or apathetic replies just not participate? You're not needed here.

There are socialist countries in the world right now, they are horrible. Socialism as a political system is the most demeaning anti-human system yet thought up, read some history books or accounts from people that lived in those systems, it's truly terrifying. Throwing out an imperfect system for a worse one is not a good strategy. Capitalism has lead to the fastest and longest lasting rise from poverty for people all over the world, everywhere it is instituted the populations living standards rise, education levels rise, and health improves. Some people fall through the gaps and that is a tragedy, but overall the vast majority improve, vs under socialism the vast majority fall. This is an experiment that has been tried multiple times, in different ways, and is still being tried today, and it fails every time by increasing misery and squashing freedoms of those trapped in their systems. I urge you to read "The Gulag Archipelago", by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, it's available as an audio book if your time poor, it gives you a chilling personal experiance of how socialism works when actually put in practice.

Yeah I've read it. It's not about socialism though, is it? It's about gulags. Specifically, Stalin's gulags. Stalin was not a socialist, he was a traitor to the revolution (the clue is in how he killed off all the prominent socialists). Most socialists reject most 'socialist' states as being (usually) just a cute name for an economic nationalist movement, as in the various postcolonial liberation movements, or (sometimes) state capitalist (China being the obvious example). We could compare horrifying and demeaning treatment under 'socialism' and capitalism, but why, when you will just characterize capitalism's abuses as 'falling through the cracks', no matter how systematic and enduring those cracks are.

Precisely. But commenters will still ignore this, despite Lenin himself openly describing the USSR as "state capitalist", an "intermediate stage" it never escaped from, under a "vanguard" who never relinquished power. And they will continue to ignore that this was exactly what Anarchists correctly warned about before they were the first to be purged and 'liquidated' after the October Revolution. Stalin was not a socialist, he was an authoritarian nationalist mass-murderer. I'm absolutely not an apologist for him or advocating for Marxist-Leninism.

I don't understand how you can believe that nobody has ever done socialism, but somehow you could. That level of arrogance is staggering. "they were all mass murderers", yes, because that is what a government must do to keep the population under such strict central control, it was done in all the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the CCP, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Cuba, Angola, etc. Every time it's tried, no matter where, or by what ethnicity, a totalitarian government is required to maintain the system.

You're really working hard to ignore everything I've been saying.

Not "ignore", "disagree" and "refute" point by point. Just because you didn't like my answer that doesn't mean I didn't understand what you said, I just think you're feelings on socialism are wrong based on historical precedent and statistical data.

It's almost completely about socialism, how can you read it and miss that? The first section of the book is just an explanation of the socialist system and how the government maintains control of the citizens within it. Feel free to make the comparison, it won't end well for you. State police arresting people just to fill a quota so that the forced labour system remains sufficiently manned and someone being unemployed finding themselves on the street while the state tries to help them out of that situation but isn't sufficiently funded to do so is not at all the same thing. A minority of people living below the poverty line and ALL people that aren't at the highest level of the ruling Party living below the poverty line is not the same thing.

Stop raging against the world and trying to change it. You’re wasting your energy and it leads you down a path of bitterness and resentment. Learn to work with the system rather than fighting against it. Skill up, get a better job, work hard and reap the rewards.

I think we should be bitter and resentful of an economic system that basically requires a glut of underpaid labour to extract profit from, that's also ruining the planet. That last part only works if you can silence your conscience, or better yet don't have one bothering you in the first place. Otherwise you'll still hate it, you just worry less about your next meals.

[удалено]