Curious about socialism : socialism

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

First off, it's fantastic to see that you're willing to learn! That's great, it's really commendable. Consider making an account on Lemmy.ml, Hexbear.net, Lemmygrad.ml, or even Lemm.ee, so you can see more of what the so-called "tankies" are actually saying, rather than having them blocked from view on Lemmy.world.

As for answering your questions, I want to speak on Norway first. Norway, and the western countries in general, are "Imperialist" by Marxist standards. Norway essentially bribes its proletariat with a portion of the spoils it reaps from hyper-exploiting the Global South, through methods such as IMF loans and outsourcing production. Norway keeps Capitalism temporarily in check simply for its own workers, but acts parasitically towards the Global South.

Of course, the United States, despite being worse for its workers, is by far the largest and worst Empire, it's just that the spoils of Imperialism are divied up even more lopsided, where the 1% earn unfathomable sums off of it.

When looking at Socialism and how it functions, look to "AES" countries, or "Actually Existing Socialism." These include Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, Laos, DPRK, the former USSR, etc. Right off the bat, alarm bells are probably ringing for you, but keep 2 things in mind:

You are not immune to propaganda. The Red Scare and Anticommunism in the West is deeply penatrating, and likely clouds much of how you see these countries.
A system being Socialist does not make it a wonderland Utopia, they still exist in the real world and face real problems, both internal and external.

In Marxist terms, Socialism is where Public Ownership is the Principle aspect of the economy. Large firms and key industries being publicly owned means that the Public Sector is the one with power over the economy. The PRC, for example, has its large firms and key industries overwhelmingly publicly owned, while the private sector is dominated by cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is because Marx believed you had to develop out of small ownership, not simply make it illegal, hence why you'll see Socialists talk about the Productive Forces all the time. Norway, as an example, has the large firms in the Private Sector, and the Public Sector is in service of the Private.

That's a quick overview! I skipped over so much because it's really a vast topic that unfortunately does require reading. I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List I designed to be easy to get into and not be quite so dry. This is the best path to get a firm understanding of theory, and is what @[email protected] tagged me here for (thanks, comrade!).

Alternatively, I will recommend reading just the first section for now, made up of Principles of Communism, followed by Blackshirts and Reds, and Dr. Michael Parenti's 1986 Lecture. Afterwards, Blowback is an excellent podcast talking about US Imperialism, and frequently touches on sympathetic portrayals of Socialist movements. You won't be a theory expert, but those will help drive interest in theory in general. I'd also read Dessalines' Crash Course Socialism if you go this route!

Feel free to ask me any questions if you have any about Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, etc, and I'll do my best! 🫡

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You are right about the alarm bells. I am skeptical about PRC actually being socialist, I have seen it as a authoritarian capitalist country with a veneer of communism with close to no freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of the party / government.

I know that my views are biased due to my upbringing and the culture I live in.

However, you did say that it can be socialist and still face real issues.

I am critical of the censorship, surveillance, and treatment of the Uyghurs.

But I will try to keep an open mind, and get to know China more. I think that is a good country for me to learn more about. I think the view on publicly owned large firms is interesting. In Norway some of our largest firms are mainly or heavily owned by the government or smaller regions of Norway. For instance Equinor is about 70% publicly owned.

I'll read about the other countries as well, and I'll try to remember your point about it not being perfect wonderland, even if socialist.

To anyone reading this, please don't do a whataboutism here. I can both be critical of the treatment of Uyghurs and the censorship of Tiananmen square massacre AND Guantanamo Bay, US prisoners being treated as slave workers, human rights abuses, immigrants being sent to CECOT, warcrimes, Palestine genocide etc. just so that there is no confusion here.

When it comes to Norway, I agree that it benefits from current capitalist world order, and think your arguments here is valid.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate your openness.

For starters, if the PRC appears to you to be a "Capitalist country," then what do you believe its economy is structured as, and what would it instead have to look like in order for it to be Socialist, in your mind? I believe the China that exists in your head likely isn't really what it looks like in real life, and your idea of Socialism likely isn't the same as Marx's. That's not really a personal failing on your part, just what I believe is a lack of investigation on the subjects, ie with time and clear intention you'll better be able to understand what Marxists are talking about when we talk about China.

I'll address your claims about China, in order.

Censorship - it is indeed true that the government controls the speech of Capitalists and maintains that control. This is something Marx also advocated for. The truth is that the Proletariat quote frequently does criticize government decisions, and the government will frequently concede, such as during the major COVID years where widespread backlash led the CPC to relax control, despite it leading to an increase in cases. The fact is, without control of the speech of Capitalists, Capitalists flood media with messaging friendly to them with their power over media.
Surveilance - generally overplayed in western media, and western surveilance is often worse.
The Uyghurs - complicated subject. I recommend starting with the UN report, along with China's response. Then, read The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz to learn more about why Western Media focuses so heavily on this issue and distorts it. There's also this extensive list of resources debunking common mythologizations of the treatment of Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang.
Tian'anmen, or the "June 4th Incident" - The CPC's stance, and most Marxists in general, on Tian'anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC's official stance on what it calls the "June 4th incident". This is a rejection of the commonly reported story in western media, such as BBC, of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat's cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.

I reiterate, the CPC's stance isn't that the massacre didn't happen, but that Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don't frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan's dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian'anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:

In a disputed cable sent in the aftermath of the events at Tiananmen, British Ambassador Alan Donald initially claimed, based on information from a "good friend" in the State Council of China, that a minimum of 10,000 civilians died,[237] claims which were repeated in a speech by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke,[238] but which is an estimated number much higher than other sources provided.[239][240] After the declassification, former student protest leader Feng Congde pointed out that Donald later revised his estimate to 2,700–3,400 deaths, a number closer to, but still much higher than, other estimates.[241]

You mention that the CPC censors events like these that report on a clearly mythologized version of events. Quite right, they do, because they don't want foreign governments trying to destabilize China so that they can take advantage and plunder their industry freely. The alternative is to just let western media do as it likes, and be subject to yet another US-sponsered coup.

All in all, though, I applaud you for being open. Norway has a public sector, indeed, but unlike China the Public Sector supports the Private, and controls key industries. Norway in general essentially hitches a ride on NATO and takes advantage of the situation while worker rights backslide and safety nets erode.

Any questions, feel free to let me know!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh, I have so many questions 😄 This is super interesting.

It seems to me upon further reading that PRC is a market socialist country, is that a correct assumption?

I read about Huawei and was surprised that it is at least supposedly owned by its 167 000 employees. Considering the size of that company that is really interesting.

There is other stuff I'd like to know more about.

The situation with Taiwan (My opinion: Taiwan has the right to decide their own future)
Democratic processes / elections
President Xi seems to be the president for life now, is that the case?
Supression of speech that criticizes the party or makes fun of, satirizes etc. Winnie the Pooh would be one such example.

Without being able to openly speak about systemic problems I can't see that PRC has found a solution that I see as good enough. To me an ideal situation would both be socialist/communist and democratically governed.

I realize that I have enormous gaps of knowledge about PRC and how the country works. But I really appreciate the time you are taking to explain this stuff to me. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The PRC is sometimes described as a Socialist Market Economy. Rather than Market Socialism, which is made up of competing worker cooperatives, a Socialist Market Economy has markets to a degree but is more traditionally Marxist in that it focuses on public ownership of large firms, and lets the smaller ones compete into the size ripe for public ownership. Huawei is a part of the cooperative sector, which makes up a minority of the economy.

Time for your questions!

Taiwan is ruled by the remnants of the Nationalists that governed China during the Civil War. It's a bit like if the Confederacy ran to Cuba and maintained itself as the legitimate ruler of the US, all while being propped up by, say, Britain millitarily. I recommend this resource if you want to check out an explicitly pro-PRC stance on it. For what it's worth, polling in Taiwan largely favors the status quo, not independence nor folding into the PRC.
A big topic. I recommend checking this FAQ, in particular this essay is quite informative. I also recommend this Chinese State Media on the national makeup of the NPC, broken down by various metrics like age and ethnicity.
Term limits are removed, primarily so that Xi Jinping can continue to lead the CPC. This is spun as anti-democratic, but Xi could be deposed if it was democratically demanded, in reality he's still the leader because he's overwhelmingly popular. Especially because under him, the PRC has seen growth in the public sector and cooperative sector, and vast poverty elimination campaigns. I recommend reading The Metamorphosis of Yuangudui to see what poverty elimination looks like in reality.
The Winnie the Pooh bits are more popular in the West, as they are racially targeted. Ever wonder why Westerners find it funny to depict a Chinese man as a yellow bear? Hate speech isn't protected as much in China. There is legitimate criticism of Xi and the party, and there is stuff overblown by Western Media in order to undermine the character of the government.

Overall, it's worth noting that over 95% of Chinese citizens approve their government. The study itself even acknowledged censorship and propaganda, yet found that the dramatic uplifting in material conditions was the real driver of public opinion. In reality, China is democratic, just in a different model from Western Countries, and in a manner Western Media takes advantage of to portray China as an outright dictatorship despite more Chinese Citizens feeling they have democratic control than US citizens.

I'll leave you with 2 graphics on why Chinese citizens overwhelmingly support their government (and then I have to go to sleep, haha}:

Let me know if you have any more questions, but at this point I recommend digging into the stuff I recommended earlier (like my Marxist-Leninist reading list ), as it will make a lot of these articles make more sense as they assume to some degree familiarity with Marxism-Leninism (the CPC's guiding ideology). Thanks for listening!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks, @[email protected] for the usual thorough and detailed answers! Your effort to educate really is deserving of admiration.

As a fellow Norwegian, @[email protected], I would also point out (not implying that you are in any way unaware) some of the mechanics of how the public sectors in Norway serve the private, and in turn how this undermines the social programs over time.

In particular we are at a pivotal point with respect to our public healthcare system, where we have over time seen a rise in private clinics, culiminating in the somewhat recent "fritt behandlingsvalg". In reality, the private healthcare providers serve to siphon resources from the public sector, while to a large degree giving less back to fewer people.

In the propaganda of the bourgeoisie, private healthcare is good and necessary for dealing with increasing waiting times for treatments. In reality, they are one of the main causes of it. This is why we need to analyze the situation in terms of productive forces.

We are educating doctors and nurses at a steep cost (I think one million kroner a year for each student of medicine per year amounting to six million for a degree).
We have a shortage of people in key sectors such as the public "fastlegeordningen", with near critical failure looming as the work load increases to a point where no one wants to be a part of this system anymore, due to the personal expense. This is further propagated by the alternative of fewer hours at a greater pay in private alternatives.
The private sector can (over) charge both wealthy people for largely unnecessary treatments as well as hospitals that need to buy their services due to the increased load on the remaining people in the public sector. This answers how they can offer greater pay at fewer hours, by the way.
The private sector only provide treatments that are comparatively simple, leaving the lengthy expensive ones to the public. Additionally, the public sector have to step in whenever complications with regards to a procedure happens, for which the public hospitals take all the cost. See the second point with respect to unnecessary treatments for rich people such as plastic surgery and the recent news for real context.

All in all, my point was to demonstrate how the private healthcare providers prey on the public ones. This gives them an economical advantage that they in turn can use to increase their own surplus by taking and reducing (buying up) the publicly owned resources that were painstakingly developed by the state for public use.

I could mention other stuff as well, but what is really, to me, interesting is how the overall production of health services declines due to increasing privatization. At the same time we put in more money from the public, from which the private firms extract the surplus value by design.

All the while this is happening, the talking points in the political sphere is that private healthcare providers are the solution to the problem of deficient resources (productive forces that is, although it is not said aloud). In my view, this portrays some of the importance on why we need to educate ourselves and learn to analyze the mode of production from a materialist point of view. The how I think @[email protected] already have answered perfectly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thank you so much for your input regarding Norway specifically! I'm in the US, so it's super helpful to have someone that is more intimately familiar with Norway's particular struggles in Capitalism weigh in. Great job!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thanks! I felt inspired by your elaborate thread so I wanted to see if I could make an attempt at providing some complimentary analysis 🫡

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

You did a great job! 🫡

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

@[email protected] keeps a pretty extensive reading list for the curious! tagging them to see if they can drop some resources for you to check out 👍

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago

🫡

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

tankie triad

Anybody who uses the term "tankie" can safely be ignored and blocked.

but social democracy has been a good way of keeping capitalism in-check in Norway

Even though some of these concessions have been rolled back? Also, Norway, etc were able to offer these concessions by exploiting other countries.

What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism. More about the differences. Preferably from less dry sources than The Capital from Marx. Where can I learn more? Preferably a bit entertaining.

A podcast called Actually Existing Socialism is really good!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Tankie is a perjorative word, but it refers to those who support authoritarian communism. For instance by denying documented historical events, or support or defend repression from authoritarian regimes.

Why should I ignore their opinions and block those that use the word? Is it that negatively charged?

I believe Norway still has a lot of good systems to take care of its citizens.

We have free healthcare, free education, very cheap kindergartens (highly subsidized), lots of vacation, retirement is guaranteed, if you get disabled you are guaranteed an income for life, etc.

I'll check out the podcast!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The reason Marxists take issue with "tankie" is that it's just the "pinko" or "commie" of the 21st century. The purpose of it is just to be an anticommunist pejorative in a manner that pretends there is a group of "good" Marxists and "bad" Marxists, the good Marxists of course being the same as the Ubisoft portrayal of Marx in Assassin's Creed.

The reality is that the Red Scare factually exists, and that it has shaped what is considered mainstream history in Western Countries despite lack of hard evidence. The Marxists that push back against some of the more egregious myths from the Red Scare (which never ended, I might add) are not doing so in order to lie to people, or defend repression, but to get an accurate look at Socialism as it exists in the real world so it can be judged accurately.

In short, "tankie" is just a way for anti-communists to pretend to only oppose a fictional caricature of Communists while supporting "true Communists," who are free from sin and pure. The reality is that it just serves to distort and silence the real, reasonable and rational claims from Marxists, and demonize them, as the people genuinely fitting the term "tankie" do not exist.

Consider reading Nia Frome's "Tankies."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Thanks, that makes sense

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

No problem!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It is a word that discredits the intention of the one using it. Somewhat like "libtard".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It's a meaningless word that liberals and anti-communists use to try and down-punch and discredit us.

https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco

I believe Norway still has a lot of good systems to take care of its citizens.

Sure, I'm not saying welfare programs are bad, but the system is still Capitalist. We're already seeing policies being rolled back as the pendulum swings. Norway is able to afford its citizens these luxuries because of its historical exploitation and wealth. That, and because of the proximity to the Soviet Union; they feared uprising similar to what was going on there, so concessions were made. It's always concessions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Besides @[email protected]'s excellent resources, I maintain a Crash Course Socialism doc, as well as an ordered Marxist Study plan, and an FAQ.

Here are some resources on the nordic model specifically, and why it's not a real solution:

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

by "check out" I meant click on it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Check out bullet #2

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Based on your criteria, I highly recommend the podcast series "Blowback". They tackle (some of) the USA's imperial wars from a socialist perspective. Each episode has the sources listed in the show notes.

I think you should know that here on Lemmy there are at least 3 political factions having an ongoing debate:

Liberals (often from lemmy.world)
Anarchists (often from lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Marxist-Lenninists (often from lemmy.ml)

The latter two factions have been excluded from corporate social media and so are especially strong here.

The Liberals are more accustomed to their debates with the Right/Reactionary faction but they are all but absent here. (They are in the so called "free speech" (hate speech) corner of the fediverse and are defederated from the conversation)

Each faction has their own ideas about what socialism is and what it could be

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Seconding Blowback, it's incredible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'll third it. Still on season 2 but I've already learned an incredible amount

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Yep! Season 2 is my favorite so far as its the most hopeful, the rest is just heartbreaking.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

it's lemmy.dbzer0.com

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Fixed, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

What Cowbee wrote, but you do really need to read Capital eventually in order to truly understand how capitalism works.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

100% agreed, Capital is certainly necessary. I'm about a third of the way through Volume 1 right now and it really fleshes out what is only implied or briefly touched on in Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price, and Profit.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I highly recommend you check out all the other stuff people have recommended, but I would like to add two books:

The first one, which I really like, This Soviet World by Anna L. Strong, talks about life in the Soviet Union. Secondly, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, which while being more focused on it's name sake, soviet democracy, does talk about life and society and is interesting.

A somewhat nerdy book Russian Justice, Mary S. Callcott, describes the justice system and prisons. Finally I have begun reading Red medicine: socialized health in Soviet Russia (Arthur Newsholme & John A. Kingsbury, 1933), but since I haven't finished it I won't recommend it, simply just mentioning it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The Srsly Wrong podcast mixes and explains ideas about socialism (from a number of sources) in a lighthearted way. Use the suggestions in the "Start Here" sidebar on their site.

Anark is an anarchist youtuber, with clear explanations of ideas, strategies, and concepts for anarchist and libertarian-socialist (not at all like right wing "libertarians") forms of socialism. He disagrees heavily with authoritarian socialists (who are apparently a big part of lemmy.ml).

Zoe Baker is a youtuber who is a PhD-level scholar of anarchism, who also has a lot of videos about Marx's thought.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

As an old Anarchist, I really appreciate your list.

Will need to go through it, but nice to have something to point to, when forced to have the always same discussion...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Haha I sympathize. Glad to help!

There's also this mega list that overall leans libertarian-socialist, but contains authors from many perspectives

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism.

Keep in mind that any hypothetical or actual example of a socialist project or society must account for the fact that it will be built in essentially wartime conditions in direct confrontation with capitalism/imperialism from its very beginnings. Therefore, much of how it functions will inevitably be intertwined with the question of how to defend itself from covert sabotage and overt violent destruction from capitalist/imperialist reaction. We should look at history and at ongoing modern attempts at constructing socialist societies and projects, as well as all projects/societies which confront imperialism, in order to have a more comprehensive view of the actual outcomes and possibilities under various conditions. For these reasons, someone new to socialism generally should also be studying history along with learning theoretical concepts.

I second the recommendations of the Blowback podcast as a way to learn some history about the worldwide confrontation with imperialism. You may also be interested in the videos and articles of Geopolitical Economy Report, he mainly covers current events but he does cover historical events as well. I also recommend ProleWiki, which will give you a fairly standard Marxist-Leninist view on a variety of topics and you can also look at the various cited sources for jumping off points of your own research. You may be interested in the book Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners by Roland Boer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Did you read the Communist Manifesto yet? It's pretty short and a good starting point. Definitely more digestible than The Capital. It establishes and explains most well-known Marxist terminology, so you can put it into context if you stumble upon it elsewhere. You can find it on the internet pretty easily.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago

Here's the Manifesto, though I prefer Principles of Communism for absolute beginners, personally!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism. More about the differences. Preferably from less dry sources than The Capital from Marx

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

For entertaining information, I can recommend a few YouTube channels that usually cover every question you might have.

Second Thought - has well produced videos on past and current events with the socialist perspective that is in my opinion based.

Overzealot - is pretty new and mostly covers the south American history with socialism very well.

Hakim - while having very interesting historical facts, seems a bit extreme sometimes and you need a lot of prior knowledge to follow him.

Gus - The german version of second thought, just less quality.

Climate Town - while not promoting socialism, is great at showing the insanity of the current system, with good humor.

And why is the norway model not great, because it still relies on 50% oil exports and like any capitalistic system can eventually deteriorate the social system, through lobbies and such, while at the same time still supporting exploitation of either the environment or people (also abroad).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Welcome.

I understand how capitalism works, and I have doubts that it is a sustainable system for society long term,

You are 100% right

What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism

First, socialism and communism are different. Socialism only aims to socialise production, meanwhile communism aims to socialise both production and consumption.

Secondly, how society would operate and function under socialism depends on what kind of socialism the society embraces. Socialism isn't just one kind. There is market socialism, socialism with planned economy, and socialism with mix of market and planned economy.

Meanwhile how society would operate and function under communism usually follows the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin.

Edit:

Adding "Meanwhile how society will operate and function under communism usually follows the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin."
Change "how society will operate and function under socialism" and "how society will operate and function under communism" to "how society would operate and function under socialism" and "how society would operate and function under communism"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

If you want to get some understanding of socialism from an anarchist perspective I can't recommend enough either Anark for videos, or An Anarchist FAQ for text. Both of these also include a lot of explanation of where anarchism fundamentally differs from Authoritarian Socialists (AKA Marxist-Leninists) and Libertarian Capitalists (AKA "Anarcho"-Capitalists)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

One big thing I'll say here is that while many people will insist they have the one true way to be socialist, they don't agree with each other. Because the fact is we've got a lot of ideas running around. We're largely a goal oriented philosophy rather than a philosophy focused on a specific path to that goal

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I think the Tankie Triad term is more about linking certain people with support for authoritarian policy, rather than socialism as a whole. There are a ton of people across Lemmy instances that think of themselves as socialist and reject authoritarianism. They might use the term "tankies" to distinguish between themselves and those socialists who might support "using tanks" to suppress dissent. So the distinction you see some draw could be more about that instead of socialists vs non-socialists. People on one side tend to paint socialists as liberals, and people in the other side tend to paint socialists as tankies. Reactionary comments are easy to make and aren't useful but people make them anyway for a myriad of understandable reasons so that's that. 🥹

That's my understanding on this part of the issue so far.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

The biggest thing with the label of "authoritarian Socialism" is that "authoritarian" is ill-defined and meaningless, and is applied arbitrarily towards Marxists as a holdover from Red Scare accusations from the US. Authoritarian is a sliding target that can just apply to anything with a government, it's an emotionally charged word used more as a thought-terminating cliché than anything else.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I've come around to the idea that ultimately socialist countries live under constant pressure from capitalists to collapse, from birth. Thinking about the history of the USSR in particular, it went from counterrevolution, to WW2/Nazi invasion to open US backed sabotage with very little breathing room.

The birth of liberal nations was also messy. The US started with probably the largest genocide, that of native Americans, in known history. Revolutionary France was no picnic either.

On the other side of the coin, lib socialists/anarchists have unfortunately been crushed by their neighbours repeatedly. Thinking about the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia, etc. I think we would all love to live in a world of nothing but love and peace, but there are bad, selfish guys out there who will smoosh your utopia in a heartbeat.

This ends up necessitating some degree of authoritarianism as a self-defense mechanism.

We are now being presented with the reality: that it was never a choice between peaceful exploitation under capitalism and idealistic but authoritarian socialism, just that the capitalists were biding their time and building support for just long enough to make it seem like a viable driver of increased living standards. The capitalists are done with worker power and are bringing down the hammer. They are bored and want us to war again.

The Soviets were accused of creating Potemkin villages, the capitalists created entire Potemkin "service economies" that barely produce anything, funded/enabled by historical imperial wealth and power dynamics.

We are then presented with a choice, do we want working people to be in charge? Or do we want to let the wealthy treat us like their property?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think we would all love to live in a world of nothing but love and peace, but there are bad, selfish guys out there who will smoosh your utopia in a heartbeat.

I had a complementary thought about this recently. I think it's less so about bad, selfish guys, than the capitalist system fighting for survival. The capitalist economy produces a small number of grand winners of power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. The one unavoidable thing that persistently threatens the winners is the working class organizing and taking away that power and/or wealth. And if the working class does that, it effectively undoes the capitalist system. Well if that's a persistent threat, and there's a country in the world that's gone through this process and survived, then that could serve as a guiding example for the working class in any capitalist country, wouldn't it. All of a sudden, people can not only imagine an alternative but see one where people have it alright. And so the mere existence of a successful socialist country increases the threat of working classes overthrowing their capitalists.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

You're 100% correct about this, which is why the formation of the USSR in the early 20th century led to Capitalist countries adopting sweeping social programs, to bribe the proletariat from seeing it as an example. I recommend reading Concessions.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

One small observation - everything I know about socialism I learned years and years before the term "tankies" existed, so I'm pretty sure they aren't fundamental to socialism.

Secondly, we don't live in a binary world. Countries that are primarily capitalist still do many things collectively - fire departments for example. The argument is always over which aspects of life to socialize and which to leave in private hands.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

All economies have a mix of public and private sectors, true, but the importance is on which sector controls the economy, ie which one holds the majority of large firms and industries. A publicly owned rubber factory has leverage over the private rubber ball factory, for example, and large firms work better with public ownership and planning.

That drives the real distinction between Socialism and Capitalism, all systems contain contradictions, but the contradictions do not define the system as much as the principle aspects and trajectories do.