Autocracy?! That’s not what that word means. Tsarism was autocracy, Chiang Kai-shek was basically an autocrat.
What you are talking about is a revisionist degenerated workers state (or bourgeois state of a new type in the case of contemporary China) in which the bureaucracy grew too strong to a quasi caste-like status above the rest of the population. There were attempts to correct this in both the USSR (workers/left/united opposition) and in the PRC (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) but both were crushed
So it’s definitely smth we should learn from, to not repeat those mistakes. But that does not mean turning to the snake oil that is social democracy/democratic socialism which believe that somehow we can magically convince the ruling classes of systemic change and that they will give up power voluntarily. (And even if you manage somehow to wrestle significant concessions, they will either be rolled back after 30yrs or you’ll get the bullet in a fascist coup)
EDIT: Even under bureaucratic state socialism, there still was collective rule. Yes cults of personality were established around key figures (e.g. Stalin and Mao) but you can look up CIA documents where they dismiss that Stalin had abolished collective leadership (though ofc he still was the figurehead of the bureaucracy and the dominant force). Mao had an even stronger cult of personality, but a far “weaker” position than Stalin and the leadership was far more collective (just an fyi: this is why Mao called for a cultural revolution, which was a grassroots movement btw. The capitalist roaders (party bureaucrats who wanted to get back to capitalism but keep their privileged party posts) where gaining more and more power and he was not in a dictatorial position to stop them at will. So he had to organize a mass students and youth movement. Ofc there were excesses and errors there as well)
And despite the corrupt character AES brought forth massive progress in all fields of society. Free education up to university for everyone who didn’t slack at school. Millions of emancipated people learned to read for the first time ever. Massive scientific progress. Access to culture for millions. Making things like theatre, operas, ballet, cinema and chess accessible (and affordable !) for the masses. Making sure everyone had a place to work, sleep, smth to eat and clean water. Giving women the right to work, vote, choose whom or even if to marry, to go through life unveiled and just generally choose their own lives.(but this is one of the errors again. Patriarchal social structures were still kept and social conservatism took hold, which is why women rarely if ever had the rly high positions and were barred from the military f.e.) Making sure every child had a place at a crib or kindergarten. Making good quality healthcare accessible to all free of charge. Including vaccinating even the furthest regions, that had never even seen a doctor before.
This might not seem all that impressive to the priviliged liberal, but you have to look at the state the regions where in before: semi-feudalism at best (and/or bombed into the 3rd world after WW2)
Ofc there were excesses and mistakes, as already stated. But that does not negate their achievements.
TL;DR: dismissing state socialism as “something that didn’t work for the people” is disingenuous and disregards the fact that it did work and that, despite its flaws, it worked for hundreds of millions of people.
We should not demonize previous socialist experiments, neither should we glorify them, but constructively learn from their mistakes when striving for a class-, state-, and moneyless society (aka communism, which is materially possible in todays world and not an idealist utopia, but a historic necessity if humanity is to progress as a species and not devolve into barbarism/fascism)
good short clips of Parenti talking if anyone’s interested (he put it rly well imo)
You know ‘dictator’ has a different meaning in socialist rhetoric. The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is tongue-in-cheek, as in, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the reverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is the system we live under. A CIA document even mentioned the misconception of the Western world in regards to the USSR’s dictatorship.
The core issue is that it actually is impossible to maintain full democracy under capitalism. Even under perfect direct democracy with no lobbies and full representation those with the means to promote their voice louder will do so.
And if you have big money (which some will, because the more money you already have, the easier it becomes to hoard even more), you can fund projects that will have to promote you in return, skewing the voting process.
In reality though, political lobbying, corruption, etc. are omnipresent, and extremely hard to combat, because it’s in the logic of capitalism to accumulate wealth at all costs, legal or otherwise.
Now, I’m not saying socialist societies are totally devoid of corruption and self-interest, but they at least have mechanisms in place to curb it.
Capitalism is not aimed at increasing people’s wellbeing, it’s aimed at pursuing profit, and people’s wellbeing is fundamentally secondary. If putting people in worse conditions increases profits, this will eventually be done. Socialism, on the other hand, declares people’s equality and wellbeing as the core priorities. Resources should be spent in a way that benefits most people.
Cooking Mama has an ideal outcome - Great
Cooking Mama’s idea of getting there was whatever the fuck the USSR was doing… - Not Great
Just Tax the rich while maintaining a strong democracy, it’s not hard.
you don’t get to communism through “social democracy” XD
any concessions given by the rich in bourgeois “democracies” are funded by outsourcing some of the exploitation to the imperial periphery/global south
You definitely don’t get to a public owned means of production and redistribution of goods through Autocracy for vwry obvious reasons.
The rich need not make concessions when the poor can help write the laws.
1st of all, great whataboutism 👍
but I will indulge you:
Autocracy?! That’s not what that word means. Tsarism was autocracy, Chiang Kai-shek was basically an autocrat.
What you are talking about is a revisionist degenerated workers state (or bourgeois state of a new type in the case of contemporary China) in which the bureaucracy grew too strong to a quasi caste-like status above the rest of the population. There were attempts to correct this in both the USSR (workers/left/united opposition) and in the PRC (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) but both were crushed
So it’s definitely smth we should learn from, to not repeat those mistakes. But that does not mean turning to the snake oil that is social democracy/democratic socialism which believe that somehow we can magically convince the ruling classes of systemic change and that they will give up power voluntarily. (And even if you manage somehow to wrestle significant concessions, they will either be rolled back after 30yrs or you’ll get the bullet in a fascist coup)
EDIT: Even under bureaucratic state socialism, there still was collective rule. Yes cults of personality were established around key figures (e.g. Stalin and Mao) but you can look up CIA documents where they dismiss that Stalin had abolished collective leadership (though ofc he still was the figurehead of the bureaucracy and the dominant force). Mao had an even stronger cult of personality, but a far “weaker” position than Stalin and the leadership was far more collective (just an fyi: this is why Mao called for a cultural revolution, which was a grassroots movement btw. The capitalist roaders (party bureaucrats who wanted to get back to capitalism but keep their privileged party posts) where gaining more and more power and he was not in a dictatorial position to stop them at will. So he had to organize a mass students and youth movement. Ofc there were excesses and errors there as well)
And despite the corrupt character AES brought forth massive progress in all fields of society. Free education up to university for everyone who didn’t slack at school. Millions of emancipated people learned to read for the first time ever. Massive scientific progress. Access to culture for millions. Making things like theatre, operas, ballet, cinema and chess accessible (and affordable !) for the masses. Making sure everyone had a place to work, sleep, smth to eat and clean water. Giving women the right to work, vote, choose whom or even if to marry, to go through life unveiled and just generally choose their own lives.(but this is one of the errors again. Patriarchal social structures were still kept and social conservatism took hold, which is why women rarely if ever had the rly high positions and were barred from the military f.e.) Making sure every child had a place at a crib or kindergarten. Making good quality healthcare accessible to all free of charge. Including vaccinating even the furthest regions, that had never even seen a doctor before.
This might not seem all that impressive to the priviliged liberal, but you have to look at the state the regions where in before: semi-feudalism at best (and/or bombed into the 3rd world after WW2)
Ofc there were excesses and mistakes, as already stated. But that does not negate their achievements.
TL;DR: dismissing state socialism as “something that didn’t work for the people” is disingenuous and disregards the fact that it did work and that, despite its flaws, it worked for hundreds of millions of people. We should not demonize previous socialist experiments, neither should we glorify them, but constructively learn from their mistakes when striving for a class-, state-, and moneyless society (aka communism, which is materially possible in todays world and not an idealist utopia, but a historic necessity if humanity is to progress as a species and not devolve into barbarism/fascism)
good short clips of Parenti talking if anyone’s interested (he put it rly well imo)
https://youtu.be/JSpVB_XXXBQ?si=NdbBBRJfhglQo1ez
https://youtu.be/npkeecCErQc?si=oAh8jj_WYCAtoUKB
https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ?si=1obub_-e-vLi9ubG
and also a rly good Parentiwave edit https://youtu.be/3-PHYj1vb-w?si=0WTNxg43xIAdnFck
deleted by creator
Wow we get it, you would suck a dictator’s cock. Say more with less, dictator cocksucker.
You know ‘dictator’ has a different meaning in socialist rhetoric. The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is tongue-in-cheek, as in, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the reverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is the system we live under. A CIA document even mentioned the misconception of the Western world in regards to the USSR’s dictatorship.
👍
👋 bye, toxic and close-minded bad faith .world lib
apparently nuance is smth those ppl can’t fathom
ping bc of the edit I made in my previous comment
The core issue is that it actually is impossible to maintain full democracy under capitalism. Even under perfect direct democracy with no lobbies and full representation those with the means to promote their voice louder will do so.
And if you have big money (which some will, because the more money you already have, the easier it becomes to hoard even more), you can fund projects that will have to promote you in return, skewing the voting process.
In reality though, political lobbying, corruption, etc. are omnipresent, and extremely hard to combat, because it’s in the logic of capitalism to accumulate wealth at all costs, legal or otherwise.
Now, I’m not saying socialist societies are totally devoid of corruption and self-interest, but they at least have mechanisms in place to curb it.
Capitalism is not aimed at increasing people’s wellbeing, it’s aimed at pursuing profit, and people’s wellbeing is fundamentally secondary. If putting people in worse conditions increases profits, this will eventually be done. Socialism, on the other hand, declares people’s equality and wellbeing as the core priorities. Resources should be spent in a way that benefits most people.