The stupid part is that the third-way labor parties and social democrats are doing a much better job at socialism than any Leninist or Maoist tradition. But every leftist space on the internet seems to hate these “fake socialists” as much as anything else. That’s really all the evidence I need that these people are more interested in revolution fetish fan service than anything resembling actual statecraft.
The stupid part is that the third-way labor parties and social democrats are doing a much better job at socialism
Well… no, not really. It’s not that leftists hate social democrats… every anarchist I’ve ever spoken to appreciates the effort of people like Bernie and AOC - it’s just that we understand what they are allowed to do and what they aren’t. The political establishment will allow them to protect capitalism from itself by restraining it’s most obscene aspects it to a certain extent (and even such meagre self-protective measures are a bridge to far for the right-wing hivemind)… but that is all they could ever achieve.
Remember - no matter what the media hysterically screeches - the term socialism has a very hard and uncompromising meaning… a condition wherein the workers control the means of production. If it doesn’t measure up to that or only pretends to measure up to that, we can’t call it socialism with a straight face.
This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago. Social democrats are not swearing allegiance to capitalism. They are not meeting with billionaires in back rooms promising to not almost go far enough. This is naive, academically outdated, and exactly the kind of thing I am tired of explaining to people who read some pamphlets and think it represent a broad view of contemporary political science.
Third way socialism starts with an acknowledgement that capitalist forces arise from places other than malevolence by so-called capitalists, and a broad rejection of such modernist economic determinism. Rather, it acknowledges that capitalism is in part an inevitable product of scarcity and economic complexity which can be whittled away, while also being a tool which can be wielded by the state. But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
If the goal is keeping people dry and ships afloat, then just do those things, and push society forward iteratively until the conditions are correct that we can legitimately control the weather. Liberate people by creating conditions for liberation, not by calling their chains something different.
This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago.
No, no, no, wiseguy… you don’t get to pretend that socialism all of a sudden means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. If that’s what you want to do, perhaps you should be meeting in back-rooms with billionaires - because your drivel sure as shit don’t mean anything for us proles other than “more of the same.”
But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
In other words… there’s nothing socialist about it in any way whatsoever.
One doesn’t need to take centuries old writing as dogma to learn from it or expand upon it. Your narrow definition of socialism is outdated by contemporary standards. You don’t have to like it or agree, but don’t shoot the messenger.
The stupid part is that the third-way labor parties and social democrats are doing a much better job at socialism than any Leninist or Maoist tradition. But every leftist space on the internet seems to hate these “fake socialists” as much as anything else. That’s really all the evidence I need that these people are more interested in revolution fetish fan service than anything resembling actual statecraft.
Well… no, not really. It’s not that leftists hate social democrats… every anarchist I’ve ever spoken to appreciates the effort of people like Bernie and AOC - it’s just that we understand what they are allowed to do and what they aren’t. The political establishment will allow them to protect capitalism from itself by restraining it’s most obscene aspects it to a certain extent (and even such meagre self-protective measures are a bridge to far for the right-wing hivemind)… but that is all they could ever achieve.
Remember - no matter what the media hysterically screeches - the term socialism has a very hard and uncompromising meaning… a condition wherein the workers control the means of production. If it doesn’t measure up to that or only pretends to measure up to that, we can’t call it socialism with a straight face.
This is what socialism means if you restrict yourself to orthodoxy from 100 years ago. Social democrats are not swearing allegiance to capitalism. They are not meeting with billionaires in back rooms promising to not almost go far enough. This is naive, academically outdated, and exactly the kind of thing I am tired of explaining to people who read some pamphlets and think it represent a broad view of contemporary political science.
Third way socialism starts with an acknowledgement that capitalist forces arise from places other than malevolence by so-called capitalists, and a broad rejection of such modernist economic determinism. Rather, it acknowledges that capitalism is in part an inevitable product of scarcity and economic complexity which can be whittled away, while also being a tool which can be wielded by the state. But the imperative to eliminate it is as artificial as the imperative to eliminate rainy days or icebergs.
If the goal is keeping people dry and ships afloat, then just do those things, and push society forward iteratively until the conditions are correct that we can legitimately control the weather. Liberate people by creating conditions for liberation, not by calling their chains something different.
No, no, no, wiseguy… you don’t get to pretend that socialism all of a sudden means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. If that’s what you want to do, perhaps you should be meeting in back-rooms with billionaires - because your drivel sure as shit don’t mean anything for us proles other than “more of the same.”
In other words… there’s nothing socialist about it in any way whatsoever.
See? That wasn’t so difficult at all.
One doesn’t need to take centuries old writing as dogma to learn from it or expand upon it. Your narrow definition of socialism is outdated by contemporary standards. You don’t have to like it or agree, but don’t shoot the messenger.
No. It isn’t. You just wish it was.
No, I think we’ll just settle for debunking you… which would be no more difficult to do than with any other “enlightened centrist” claptrap.
Me: The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic.
You: Insufficient fan service
Isn’t that what they’ve been telling us we already have?
Really… try harder.
Me: exclusionary leftist orthodoxy is the most annoying part about lemmy.
You: but have you considered exclusionary leftist orthodoxy?