No, he was an authoritarian shit who betrayed the proleteriat.
Simply not true. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production such as bank and industry are owned by the dictatorship of the proletariat through a vanguard party. Soviet Russia and Mao’s china are just two of the many many examples of Socialism. I will however say that Communism has never been achieved as Communism has no Government.
Its sad when Arandomcapitalist off the street knows more about socialist history than a self proclaimed socialist.
Communist here, socialism and ethnic nationalism are not mutually exclusive. However people who believe in a right wing ideology like hard ethno nationalism usually end up betraying key philosophical principles. Socialists , especially marxists want to advance society to communism, that is the goal. That often entails abandoning previous societal structures like nation states due to them being mechanisms of the bourgeois to exert control . The article fails to mention how they actually betrayed socialism aside from themselves moving away from the name (a “Jewish state”). I suppose perhaps they lacked dictatorship of the proletariat due to their discrimination of other proles.
Were they socialist? Yes. Do they prove socialist suspicions of nationalism, especially hard ethnic nationalism? Yep.
The kibbutz we’re a wild mess of very conflicting ideologies, but regardless they had improved the standard of living of people living in them, were a key part of Israels defence for a long time, essentially laying the ground work for Israel and they up to the 70s had a higher standard of living then people living in Israel. Some of these groups still exist today and they largely ended due to the adoption and slow integration of capitalism by Israel. Internal and external pressures led to its collapse. Not some people being “lazy” (it’s a pretty shitty commune if you didn’t straighten shit like that out early on)
This is not a socialist question but many socialists do actually believe in communal raising of children. They viewed it as a necessity of emancipation for women so if they had kids they weren’t absolutely tied down to a family , rather the whole community raises the child. This type of raising was actually the norm in many places for a long time, and the socialists discussing it in question even viewed it as the natural state of things. Read Engels on family
If you mean socialism in country or area. It can’t. Capitalism has moved to were capital is no longer fixed into their nation states but truely global entities. Multi nats more powerful and richer then entire nations. Us soft and hard imperialism has made it so that any fully socialist state that emerges or even just a commune will not be traded with. The USA doesn’t even need to coup you anymore, a modern 21st century nation cannot exist without trade and the USA dominates world trade. It has been pushing free trade for decades (decoupling capital from its nation states). The introduction of free trade allowed capitalists to destroy workers rights and forced them against each other. If you demand to be treated like a human being say if you are in China they will simply move to somewhere were they can’t even protest out of sheer poverty.
Socialisms establishment will likely come about during unstable times in the next few decades, like the automation crisis. States are still pussy footing around the issue of UBI when we are already at a point we’re there are less jobs then people and that is worsening. If free trade which impacted only a relatively small number of workers produced sanders and Donald trump, automation will spawn a revolution
The USSR is complicated. A personality cult has developed around Stalin. At the beggining, the USSR was in a place in between capitalism and socialism. Then Stalin took over and it became a dictatorship by him. However, living in the USSR under Stalin was better than tsarist Russia. Quality of life was raised quite significantly under Lenin and later Stalin. However, because the USSR started in a place with not enough resources and not a lot of technological development, it was very hard for it. Not to mention, it was immediately attacked by the U.S and then right after that became involved in a war(ww2). Despite that, it still managed to raise the QOL of its citizens and make significant technological developments. However, Stalin was a dictator and crushed real socialism or chances for such in the USSR and was pretty imperialist and homophobic. Lots of people defend him because he pretended to be Socialist, but he really was not. Not that the US is/was better, but Stalin doesnt deserve to be revered. Just my two cents.
China: Was supposed to be Market Socialism but it became to capitalist in the early stages. Not Socialism
Might I ask which war you are referring to?
Such a drastic shift from when I first saw you on this site lmao
Maybe he isn’t talking about any wars, but rather political interference? Such as support fort he White Army (anti-Bolsheviks) or not recognizing the U.S.S.R. for over a decade after the revolution.
I think he means like the Cold War (though I’m sure he’s including those points in with his reasoning too)
I read Marx , Strange signal had invited me to a leftist hub where I spent months arguing and debating all sorts of factionries, I gave up on lolbiterianism when I had ran out of arguments , and my opponents were only beginning theirs. It didn’t take me long after that to end up one of them.
Socialism destroys the middle class and social mobility, up or down.
Usually the most effective nations try to maintain a middle class at a stable level 45% to 65%, as to not disturb the actual masses. Which is why Socialist and Communist states end up not being Socialist or Communist because at the end of the day people want to be able to move up the social structure, even if that attempt results in them falling down. This being good or bad is subjective.
To leave this, I think that as long as the middle class is sustained at a stable level, socialism won’t be achieved fully.
What he said.
People want to see themselves succeed in life, and class mobility is the generally agreed upon most fulfilling way for that to occur in our society.
In a socialist system, without that kind of incentive, nobody wants to work hard because nobody can succeed over their inferiors.
Laughable, China is not Capitalist and never has been. It was Socialism under Mao but is now devolved mix of the state and mega corporations.
Corporatism is what it is called.
Goly gee, it is almost as if capitalism allows capitalists to utilize the state as an apparatus to further their own interests via mass accumulation of capital. Who would’ve thought?
No that was one of the economic systems used in Italy when Mussolini ruled, it is a Fascist system.
It still reassembles almost every capitalist country today.
No, only China, which is bootleg capitalism.