When I first joined Lemmygrad, I had the peace of knowing that everyone here is participating in good faith, unlike on reddit, which is full of liberals who will comment on everything just to get a reaction or a chauvinistic boner. The good faith here was a very welcoming thing, that even when I made a mistake users corrected me and gave me a second chance to rethink what I said, because they knew I wasn't here to troll and perhaps I was misguided or uneducated on a subject.
After the reddit refugee thing, you'd usually see them on communities that used to be popular on reddit that exist on Lemmygrad's instance (latestagecapitalism) or posts that got too popular, but now they shove themselves on every community here, even if its name was "LENINFANGIRLSCLUB1917" and had a picture of Lenin on every inch of it.
But now, since there's so many clueless liberals that came from reddit and don't know how to act, devaluate constructive discussions on for example if a theocratic force like Hamas should be supported against the Zionist entity or not, into arguments about whether the Zionist entity is a colony or not. nowadays if someone comments some shit like "communism doesn't work because of human nature." I legit wouldn't know if it's sarcastic or actual believers of that.
I feel this has a major negative impact on us and the community, it is harder for anyone old or new to participate here without being downvoted (idgaf about downvotes) or argue on whether Jeff Bezos eats children or not, and any new participants is instantly greeted with a death stare if they can't recite Das Kapital backwards in Hausi.
Anyhow, that was my rant, I personally believe that what we're seeing right now is just a wave caused by reddit, and liberals will either learn how to use Lemmy properly, or leave the site all together because they can't give comments gold awards. With all that I've said, I'm looking forward to the Hexbear federation horizon where we'll hopefully be dunking on losers together. <3
As an outsider (also non-US), it seems obvious enough to me that US society and subsequently US politics is pretty screwed up and big changes there are unlikely. Lowly US workers would seem to have a slightly better chance of a secure life if the US democrats could get and maintain a majority, and it would be an opportunity for more meaningful change.
Once again as an outsider, I see some traditional northern-EU models as better - social democracies, with capitalism's extremes largely reigned in, with attempts to find a balance between workers and large employers. I also see how the EU has prioritised capitalism and we risk a race to the bottom. I don't see capitalism as evil, but it is obviously a successful model that has largely taken over the world. I wonder if there are viable alternatives that don't involve pitchforks, along with a transitional path to them.
I can imagine other forms of socially-minded corporate governance, competing and sometimes winning against for-profit global corps, with the appropriate legal forms/framework in place, and initial government support. I guess that in some ways, public service/institutions are already this for some.
I can't imagine a wholesale abandonment of the current capitalist system, a big revolution, and any kind of stable or fair system coming from it. That whole human nature thing, I guess.
So what could be an alternative with a chance of peaceful success, which could sustain itself in this globalist world?
You would be better off making a thread in [email protected]
I'll just say for now that no, social democracies are not the path forward, it's the moderate wing of fascism for a reason. If you want actual explanations, you're more likely to get better and fairer answers there, not here in a thread ranting about liberals
Like what @ImOnADiet said, it's better to ask these questions at !communism101. But for the sake of answering your question:
Wall of Text Incoming
Unfortunately the Democrats won't do anything meaningful that can't simply be undone by the Republicans. They also had many chances to make a better change already, and yet they didn't do that either. On top of that, while their rhetoric may be different, a lot of their policies are actually really similar, if not the same. Did Biden ever free those who were imprisoned by the US-Mexico Border under Trump? What about Obama and his 500+ drone strikes on civilians? Is he any different from Bush?
Yes and no; While yes, Capitalism was a necessary step in overthrowing and replacing Feudalism, it has also come with the exploitation of the Proletariat (Working Class) via the extraction of surplus value, as well as the worker's lack of ownership over the Means of Production. Capitalism in its late stage (which we live in nowadays) has also lead to the destruction of the environment, the alienation of humanity from society (via excessive and unhealthy individualism) and nature, and even the decreasing quality of products (due to a thing called "planned obsolescence)
Capitalism is successful in a sense that it allows the Bourgeoisie (Ultra-Wealthy Ruling Class) to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the masses.
As great as a peaceful transfer of power would be, it is pure ~~schniff~~ idealism, unfortunately. The Bourgeoisie have, historically, employed force to suppress workers' movements. You can't simply talk them into giving up their power. Hence, revolution is necessary to establish Socialism. (or at least its transitional stage)
We also acknowledge that a sudden change from global capitalism into global communism is improbable and extremely impractical. We are not Trotskyists. This is why AES (Already Existing Socialist) Countries still have capitalist elements in them, (i.e. China and Vietnam operate using market economies and have their own private enterprises.) although these capitalist elements will gradually fade away.
As for the "Human nature" argument, while yes, we are quite a selfish species, we are also a social and altruistic species. What parts of our nature get emphasized are the results of our upbringing, socioeconomic conditions, etc., and what matters is that we build those conditions needed for altruism and egalitarianism to flourish. It is only Socialism/Communism, not Capitalism, that can build those conditions.
Thanks for the reply!
Isn't China ploughing forward with its own form of capitalist exploitation from year to year? Large companies are run by those who tow the party line and stay friendly with the right factions. Politicians and business leaders live in luxury, while the working class is exploited. Is Vietnam doing any better?
Efficient and robust (both in good measure) markets seem like a key to a competitive society. Free markets and capitalism are oft touted as a way to get this (ignoring the rescue-the-rich bailouts, cough). I wonder whether some future AI/ML tech may offer a non-violent path forward here. Any large scale viable alternative will have to hold its own against capitalist/other competition and deal with lots of spanners being thrown in the works. I suspect there'll be an element of evolution/survival of the fittest, if it goes this way.
To answer your questions on China. it's long, but you can just put it on in the background and listen. There is a lot of good content on the subject in this video alone.
These are great questions to ask in communism101. As a very good introductory article on the PRC, I can recommend this one:
The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
And more here.
It's important to keep in mind that these countries were semi-feudal, mostly agrarian, and with little industrialization prior to their revolutions. Transitioning to mixed economies allowed them to participate in global trade in order to grow their productive forces more effectively. China plans to achieve socialism by 2050.
This is just not true. The USSR had a planned economy. With this, they eliminated inflation, the boom and bust cycle of market economies, unemployment, and were still able to grow at a rate faster than that of the USA during most of its existence.
Interesting! If they can swing it, especially peacefully, it could be a game changer. The potential is there.
On the USSR, I'm not convinced they hit the mark. Repression, black markets & corruption, mass starvation, eventual collapse etc. I'd be interested to learn more about their planned economy regardless.
I haven't read anything specifically on their planned economy, but if you'd like to analyze the various factors that led to the collapse of the USSR, Socialism Betrayed by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny is a very insightful read.
Another Joe
A regular Joe who asked a serious Q. Some might see it as an opportunity.
Maybe a full-on capitalist society in which we have a purge of the 1% every 100 years or so would be sustainable.