this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
357 points (94.1% liked)
Political Memes
7852 readers
5562 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
view the rest of the comments
But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism... while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn't do it well.
I don't know about Mao, but while Stalin being an evil dictator wasn't an accident, Lenin being an evil dictator was. The Russian revolution wasn't just the Bolsheviks; there were many different groups of which the Bolsheviks simply happened to come out on top because of a ton of coincidences and bad decisions by everyone else.
The Ukrainians did it until they were invaded by the Soviets, and Rojava's experiment seems to be mostly successful.
Socialism never promised to be able to survive an assault by a vastly superior military force, that's not how that works. It doesn't promise to spread global revolution either.
That's literally the thing though, and perhaps where the USSR went wrong. There is no magic bullet that would make a small nation able to survive a large attack, asside from strong allies with a ton of bigger nations, and sadly being different, and a possible threat to the status quo, doesn't help with that.
That's like saying being a serial killer helps survival over being a law abiding citizen that cares about others. Proof when I put a law abiding citizen and a serial killer in a locked room... the law abiding citizen doesn't live as long. Of course the reality is, being a serial killer is evolved as the exception rather than the rule in humans, because, with numbers not making enemies is a more succesful strategy than always making them.
Socialism without an underlying set of morals beyond socialism is doomed to fail. It invites end-justifies-means to implement socialism, which taints it beyond repair.
Then what were they?
Agree, but socialism doesn't have to be Marxist. Like, Rojava is pretty rad and that's, if anything, just the most modern iteration of libertarian socialism.
I know, but that's slowly changing. And I think that's more true among the most politically engaged people. But that's true of every group, if you go to in person conservative groups you'll only find the worst of the worst on the farthest right. I'm not convinced it's not the same phenomenon with socialists. But idk, I'm just talking out of my ass at this point honestly.
But that inherently means liberal, no? I was under the impression that social democrats supported private ownership of the means of production. If you believe that should be illegal doesn't that mean you can't be a social Democrat?
Fair enough, I guess I find myself in an awkward place between socdem and socialist then, but the more radical end of the reformist spectrum fits. Not sure what to call that, other than reformism vaguely inspired by more libertarian socialism and sub-municipalism.
There's also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.
I feel like "socialism and anarchsim always fail or lose to capitalists" isn't the flex you think it is.
The EZLN is still going. So is Rojava.
And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of "but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!"
Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can't change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.
I do think you could be right, but I also think it is a proper dilemma, that it is impossible to really know. An immature attempt at revolution can be impossible to tell apart from a proper revolutionary moment, and a genuinely well-advised conservative "let's not hastily break something" can be impossible to tell apart from useful idiots for reactionary movements, while living in the historical moment those things are happening. I think, to some degree at least, we just have to accept that uncertainty, and that the course of history is not simply determinable in the chaos of the lived reality.
Doesn't mean, that there is nothing at all to be analysed, no visions to be had, just that ultimately, every single historical movement will have to live with the reality of "crossing the Rubicon"-moments, where no amount of knowledge, no amount of theory, no amount of smug analysis can really tell the outcome.
I, personally, think advancements beyond social democracy should be possible already - I think the basic ideas laid out in the Gotha Critique (overcoming of monetary system through non-exchangeable production/distribution with a voucher-like system), in combination with advancements in Cybernetics already made within the 20th century (as well as computers to better implement the Cybernetics on top of that), could provide for a system, in which necessary labour can be jointly coordinated, with the aim of reducing work days and increasing value in everyday lives, along with a richer use of free time (think: education, makerspaces, creative hobbies like art and programming) beyond socially necessary labour.
But can I be certain? No. Do I think it is worth fighting for? Definitely.
Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.