this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
450 points (94.6% liked)

solarpunk memes

4384 readers
17 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Most people know about the end states. How you get there is way more important. Gotta get to communism without becoming a dictatorial hell scape like ussr or China.

The two main avenues are slow change through existing means and violent revolution. The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don't already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I've ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

Look at Project 2025. That's a fascist takeover plot that has a plan for future government. No one really takes it seriously, unfortunately since it could happen. so even fewer will take other plans seriously.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

dictatorial hell scape like ussr or China

Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia is a great book that goes into this, a lot of the terror during that period was not Stalin personally going around and shooting every peasant who had more than 5 rubles to his name (during the rare moments he wasn't personally eating everyone's grain). Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

The book doesn't cover the period between 1917 and 1923, or the Hundred Flowers Campaign in China, but you can see similar sentiment in transcripts and letters when Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

At a very general level, we can infer any socialist country is more democratic after the revolution based on the fact that the government pursues the interests of the people more than it did before the revolution.

In Cuba for instance, their last constitutional referendum had a 90% approval rating. Do you think that happened by chance, or that you are simply unaware of/trained not to recognize how the people determine the actions of the state?

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

How was that allowed to happen? Did they build a system of oppression that was ripe for takeover by petty tyrants, some of whom became actual, fully fledged tyrants, whilst simultaneously shutting down the mechanisms by which workers could have power over their own lives?

This isn't about whether Stalin personally gets into heaven, plus the absurd strawman that people think he did anything personally shows a complete lack of systemic thinking, which was ironically one of Marx's great contributions to political thought. It is about whether the systems we build are liberatory or oppressive.

The State is Counterrevolutionary

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago

this is why i like syndicalism, it's sort of a hybrid of the two resulting in a fairly fast soft and nonviolent revolution if enough people join in.

unionize, have the unions take over the businesses, stop running things for profit, bish bash bosh socialist state.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The two main avenues are slow change through existing means and violent revolution. The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don’t already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I’ve ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.


Applied in practice it means that the period of the actual revolution, the so-called transitory stage, must be the introduction, the prelude to the new social conditions. (...)

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone. Witness the tragic condition of Russia. (...)

It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that revolution is in vain unless inspired by its ultimate ideal. Revolutionary methods must be in tune with revolutionary aims. The means used to further the revolution must harmonize with its purposes. In short, the ethical values which the revolution is to establish in the new society must be initiated with the revolutionary activities of the so-called transitional period. The latter can serve as a real and dependable bridge to the better life only if built of the same material as the life to be achieved. Revolution is the mirror of the coming day; it is the child that is to be the Man of To-morrow.

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

That's brilliant. I'm going to save this.

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

prefigurative politics!

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don’t already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I’ve ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

The expectation that revolutionaries aiming for a future without hierarchy, states, or class should have a plan for exactly those ready to go is how you actually get the autocratic takeover - because you're maintaining the existing systems of power for the sake of taking comfort in the familiar (or worse - as a deliberate ploy by those presenting themselves as "in charge" to grab power).

The whole point of a revolution, from an an-com point of view anyway, is to start building something new from the bottom up, horizontally, abolishing hierarchy and power structures, not just replace the existing ones with our own.

The fact that people can't even begin to imagine a different way of living, even though our existence under kings and masters has only been a blink in human existence and civilisation, just goes to show how well the indoctrination works, but better is possible once you start unlearning constructs you've come to accept as facts.

the anarchist faq

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

am open to social democrat processes that have provided many EU countries with worker rights, health care, education etc.

not really liking the tankie / biden genocide / climate indifferent takes.

these things are not the same.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

A few things to address:

  1. There is plenty of room between "Social Democrat" and "Tankie"; and social democracy is still capitalism. I don't know exactly what idea you have of Europe, but we're not free from corporations.

  2. I don't know if that is what you are implying, but accusing Biden of supporting genocide does not make someone a tankie. Plenty of countries have condemned Israel and accused Israel of genocide or "committing genocidal actions", are all of them "tankies"?

  3. Republicans are (for the most part) Liberal Conservatives, the Dems (for the most part) are Liberal Progressives. They are all capitalists. Biden vs Trump has nothing to do with this conversation.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah don't try to shoehorn some dictatorial bullshit into the democratic process and we can talk.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Problem is that any regulation proposed to rein in the slide towards capitalist dystopia is suddenly labeled as anti-democratic commie socialist dictators trying to crush the free market.

Make no mistake, corporations are dictatorships. They do need to be held in check.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›