Anonymous xi.jinping 3w

Almost certainly not. The DNC even sabotages members of the party whom have rhetoric that is slightly too left-sounding

11

Anonymous #1 3w

Exactly. I don’t really hate democratic socialists, I just think the defining point of the ideology is pretty naïve. I don’t see how these people aren’t instantly turned into either Marxists or Anarcho-communists simply by reckoning with this objective fact

8

Anonymous xi.jinping 3w

Historically most major social reforms in Western democracies have happened electorally like labor rights, social security, civil rights, etc. The system is imperfect and influenced by money, but it’s not static. The real question is whether incremental reform or revolutionary change actually produces better outcomes

5

Anonymous OP 3w

I would say revolutionary change. Incremental reforms almost always get walked back when the profits of the rich are threatened. Just look at Western Europe right now

10

Anonymous OP 3w

I think the objection most communists have is that incremental reforms are ultimately concessions granted by the bourgeoisie in order to maintain the status quo of the capitalist-proletarian relationship. It’s quite literally about who ultimately holds the power over the other. Granted, most communist movements thus far have in some way failed, becoming capitalist themselves. I think it is debated whether these movements were simply too early or if the execution of each was flawed in some way.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 3w

Incremental reforms can get rolled back, sure. But revolutions historically tend to centralize power so much that the public loses the ability to push for change at all. At least democratic systems allow reforms to be contested again

3

Anonymous OP 3w

The thing is, if the systems aren’t moving towards socialism, the backslide always trends towards fascism, resulting in the centralization of power in the hands of the rich. I also don’t really think that it’s true that all Marxist revolutions have centralized power into the hands of the few. Countries like China and Vietnam are organized from the neighborhood up

3

Anonymous xi.jinping 3w

If the only two outcomes are socialism or fascism, that seems like a false dilemma. Liberal democracies have existed for decades without becoming either. Also I’m not sure China is the best example of decentralized power. It’s one of the most centralized political systems in the world

6

Anonymous OP 2w

I wish it was a false dilemma but I don’t perceive it to be. Liberal democracy/capitalism cannot continue forever, even if it can indeed last a long time, because of the fact capitalism requires infinite growth on a planet that has finite resources. Socialism would come from the concentration of power in proletarian hands, while fascism is the opposite.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I also don’t personally see an issue with centralization of power into a mass organization run by a particular social class (the proletariat), wouldn’t having multiple competing factions weaken the cause for socialism anyway?

-1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Two things there. First, economic growth doesn’t necessarily mean infinite resource consumption. A lot of modern growth comes from productivity, services, and technology rather than raw material use. Second, concentrating power in a single organization or class is historically where things tend to go wrong. Without competing factions or institutions, there’s very little mechanism to check abuses of power

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Well, that tech that’s required to do this sort of thing does require real resources that are finite, such as gold, silver, cobalt, and tantalum. Increasing the growth of the economy would still indeed require increasing amounts of these finite materials, and I’m not sure if it’s a good long-term resource management strategy to put them towards things that aren’t really considered the “real economy.” In addition, you will still need to extract this stuff, and a lot of it comes from the (1/2)

4

Anonymous OP 2w

(2/2) global south, which would further entrench extractative colonial economic relations. I also think abuses of power can still come with competing factions, this isn’t a foolproof method of stopping those. There are also a lot of advantages that come with a one party intraparty democratic system, where the one party is made directly accountable to people on the local level.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You also still need a real economy to [in broad terms] feed people and make stuff, and capitalism just isn’t the smartest choice to operate such a thing long term

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

No one said it’s full proof the claim would be it’s less likely.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Fair point actually, I missed that. I just, since it seemed as if we were discussing power concentration, I actually have a question for OP so I can see where they’re coming from.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Assuming you were seeking, as a democratic socialist, to develop socialism, which is working-class ownership over the means of production, what sort of competing factions would you want to see accomplishing that goal together, and would or wouldn’t it include factions that include the bourgeoisie? And why either way? I don’t mean this as a gotcha question. I’m genuinely curious about your response

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Maintaining pluralism and institutional checks is key, even if the goal is expanding worker ownership. That would mean allowing multiple political factions like labor groups, social democrats, liberals, and even pro-market parties to compete. Concentrating power in a single organization, even in the name of the working class, removes the accountability needed to correct mistakes or prevent abuses.

7

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

The global south is doing better under capitalism extreme poverty in Africa has been steadily declining.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

But if your goal is to expand worker ownership to the point where they are truly the owners of the means of production, which from what I understand would mean the working class collectively owns everything about it, what sort of checks would exist that prevent abuses of human rights while also firmly keeping society on a path that is the process of building socialism? Wouldn’t participation with bourgeois parties such as Social Democrats, Liberals, etc. pose as obstacles to that goal? (1/2)

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Also, where would you draw the line as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t in terms of reactionary forces? (2/2)

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

So much of this isn’t that responsive. None of this changes the fact you don’t inherently need more resource extraction for economic growth. Also we’re kinda assuming a lot of things in this back and forth. 1. We can theoretically think of other ways to organize an economy outside of socialism or capitalism 2. I don’t see a lot of evidence that socialism stops resource extraction or environmental harm. Look at China’s CO2 emissions or the Soviet Union’s treatment of the Aral Sea.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

I’ve seen countries this has worked for like Botswana, but in most of African countries, it hasn’t. In socialist-oriented societies like Burkina Faso under Sankara and Mozambique (before the civil war with RENAMO), the increase in quality of life was a lot faster-paced.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Ig we can say that’s not socialism or the ideal form of it etc, but I feel like there aren’t any concrete examples you can point to.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Checks shouldn’t come from enforcing a specific economic model. They come from institutions that protect rights regardless of who holds power. That means independent courts, free elections, free media, and competing parties. If protecting socialism requires restricting political competition, then the system loses the very mechanisms that prevent abuses in the first place

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

China is in very early stages of building socialism, and also has the world’s largest population. The country has recently made major strides towards investing in green and renewable energy, it also indeed has helped facilitate economic extraction in other parts of the global south. The way it does it is different than western colonialism, but there is a lot of rights violations, in my opinion, particularly when it comes to coltan extraction in the DRC.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

That’s fine I think redistributing some wealth is part of ending poverty but if I had to guess all of the examples you listed were still engaging in markets and capitalism. Yeah that’s not surprising that places that had power centralized had a lot of conflict then their economy went to shit.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Converting a country of nearly 1.5 billion people to an energy grid that is low-carbon emissions no doubt would take a long time regardless of economic system. I think a socialist oriented society (or any society) naturally should seek to embrace renewable solutions to non-renewable problems. On the topic of the Aral Sea, Soviet agricultural policy under Lysenko REALLY pisses me off as a horticulturist

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Marxist countries all engage with capitalism because it has always been the dominant world economic system. At this moment, while we’re transitioning from American unipolar hegemony to a more multipolar world system that looks like 1895, there are alternatives forming to American hegemony but not to capitalism as a system.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

I’m not sure if that’s true it hasn’t worked in most places. Holistically for all of sub Sahara it has decreased the total percentage. Places where it hasn’t worked have been places with perpetual conflict to my knowledge.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Sure I think that’s fair but like I said you don’t really have any concrete examples then.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

This conflict is what happens when your continent gets Berlin Conference’d and then the colonizers just leave (or independence wars break out), and also, particularly throughout the Cold War, dominated by factional struggles backed by other superpowers (USA/Western Europe/South Africa) and the USSR

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Burkina Faso was couped by France, Angola was ravaged by Apartheid South Africa, Mozambique was sabotaged by Rhodesia, the USA, and South Africa.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Sure I don’t know how this is contradicting anything I said. I think French neo colonialism is cringe and they should stop.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

My point is, the reason it didn’t work in those situations is because of interference from outside forces.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

If your system can’t withstand outside interference i wouldn’t prescribe that system.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

It has resisted capitulation though, usually with a bit of struggle, because of sabotage attempts and geopolitical reality. There has been failed attempts at democratic revolution against monarchies, too, even though we both know who was in the right with what they were fighting for

1

Anonymous blue__wave 2w

Also, I want to note that, after thinking, a lot of capitalist African countries (as we’ve been using them as examples) have been interfered with under capitalism. Just look at the DRC, its history is riddled with foreign interference, from European colonialism to invasion and exploitation by Rwanda and Uganda. I think they really deserve domestic independence and national self-determination, but capitalism has never served them well. They are the richest nation on the planet resource wise

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

I don’t think just bc you’re fighting against some status quo means you’re good. Trump is fighting against the “status quo” I wouldn’t compare him to early enlightenment liberal people though.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Yeah I don’t think capitalism by itself is good I think you need strong institutions to come with it. Otherwise you have a drc situation where you’re in constant conflict.

1