this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
735 points (90.2% liked)

Political Memes

9247 readers
2253 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (14 children)

Socialism can never be fully realized because it relies on giving the state total control over the entire means of production, and seizing that control through force.

So you either have democratic elections for the leaders of the State, and the common people are stupid and easily swayed by populism, which opens the door for leaders like Stalin or Mao to take power. Or you remove democracy and have it ruled by committee, which does the same thing.

But once you give the State absolute power, you’re fucked anyway.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (13 children)

Socialism doesn't rely on any state. The workers who actuallyedo labour in the means of production should own them. Because if "the state" (or rather:some bureaucrat) owns the means of production, you'd have the exact same property structure as in capitalism. More specifidally: state capitalism.

Stop believing that BS that the USSR was actually socialist after the Bolsheviks seized power. That was sirply state propaganda that both the Kremlin and Washington each used for their own narrative.

And there are more ways to have democracy than representative democracy. A decentralized democratic structure of communes with delegates instead of representatives would be way more democratic than any current "democracy" of the western world.

Socialism without a state should be the goal.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yes it 100% does. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental cornerstone of transitioning from a capitalist society to a communist society in Marxist philosophy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

It requires a revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the government and implementing a single party state rule with absolute power to forcibly seize the means of production, and firmly wield their monopoly on force to prevent counterrevolution.

There’s no arguing against that when talking about Marxist communism. It’s fundamentally integral to it.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You yourself explained why in reality it doesn't work that way. Bakunin was proven right by history. The state is a tool for pacifying class tensions with violence. That is Marx's own definition.

That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin. Even Marx himself disliked the vanguardist tendencies or the people calling themselves "Marxist".

Communism doesn't need Marx. A classless, moneyless society according to the paradime "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" (i.e.: communism) existed way before Marx, for example in indigenous American tribes. Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers' property relations mean squat.

Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can't be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin.

It's straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.

Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.

And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?

Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.

Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn't even make it through one year.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

It's straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.

Sure it is. /s

And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?

The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?

Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn't even make it through one year.

Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)