4 ms·

Sadly your first TLDR offended bunch of folks still believing in socialism and you've got downvoted. Meanwhile - all (and I mean ALL) countries which adopted s

Sadly your first TLDR offended bunch of folks still believing in socialism and you've got downvoted. Meanwhile - all (and I mean ALL) countries which adopted socialism - all of them plunged into poverty, corruption and in some cases civil war and dissolution. One can think it should teach a lesson... but some people just want to believe.

hnarn 9y ago
Social democracy is objectively a form of socialism and it has been implemented in practice in large parts of Northern Europe for around a century. You're free to have whatever opinions you wish but when your claims simply are wrong you are just being ignorant and unwilling to learn.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Northern Europe contains no "social democracies". They existed for a time, but were superseded by liberal democracies for practical reasons. There are remnants of attempts at socialism, but that is not the direction they are taking.
  - hnarn 9y ago
    Please explain the difference and how they were superseded.
danharaj 9y ago
Every socialist revolution back to the Paris commune has been met with violence from the capitalist powers of the world. You can visit wikipedia and count how many countries participated in the Russian civil war on the side of the whites. Try to count how many times the United States tried to assassinate Castro while you're at it. Since all socialist revolutions are met with the full ferocity of the capitalist states, it's not clear how they can win militarily without becoming a dictatorship. A military is perhaps the social organization least amenable to democracy and most amenable to dictatorship. It's no surprise that socialist revolutions which succeed via military dictatorship and never demobilize (because they can't, because they are constantly under threats real and perceived) begin to reflect military dictatorship in their social structure. No socialist revolution has succeeded in an industrialized nation. They have all taken place in the periphery, either in colonies of imperial powers or extremely weak states like tsarist Russia. None of those successful revolutions managed to industrialize without devolving into centralized, dictatorial rule. Socialist thinkers back to Marx thought that socialism is enabled by industrialization; not something that can be implemented beforehand. This sounds entirely consistent with history. Note that the State had a crucial role to play in the development of capitalism. You can't pretend that capitalism isn't born of and sustained by violence when it has been instrumental in every development that led to capitalism's ascent, from forcible enclosure of the commons, to imperialist plundering of non-industrialized nations, to strikes broken by national militaries, and so forth. If it doesn't seem so violent now, maybe it's because resistance to it has been thoroughly purged from your milieu and the violence that remains has been pushed slightly out of your perspective. Nothing to see. There's no possible way capitalist nations were responsible for, say, the world's largest ever cholera outbreak in Yemen. Socialism is the democratic control of the means of production. All attempted socialist revolutions devolved into a system of bureaucratic control by a centralized government. It sounds like socialism hasn't ever been achieved. > One can think it should teach a lesson... but some people just want to believe. Most socialists think that an alternative system is necessary because capitalism with all its contradictions are untenable. Treating socialists as shallow thinkers just makes you look shallow. But it is quite a fashionable look these days.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > extremely weak states like tsarist Russia This is unwarranted, it has almost managed to win WW1 (which was unwinnable anyway, hence "almost" counts)
  - danharaj 9y ago
    The hardships of the war were one of the factors that led to the revolution. As well as they could do militarily the war compromised the state's ability to govern more severely than anyone expected.
- gandhium 9y ago
  > how many countries participated in the Russian civil war on the side of the whites. All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will be crushed in a week or so. > Since all socialist revolutions are met with the full ferocity of the capitalist states, it's not clear how they can win militarily without becoming a dictatorship. Yes, sure. "I'm not guilty, they've made me do it" - looks like favourite mantra for wrongdoers all over the world. > No socialist revolution has succeeded in an industrialized nation. They have all taken place in the periphery. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Many "peripheral" countries didn't have socialist revolutions and there were few attempts in industrialized nations. For example, Poland and Finland, having even lower industrialized level than Russian Empire - they were spared from socialist revolutions. Not that Bolsheviks didn't tried to instigate them. > It sounds like socialism hasn't ever been achieved. Ok, why you're still calling USSR, Venezuela, Cuba etc socialist countries then?
  - danharaj 9y ago
    > All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will be crushed in a week or so. Just because they didn't fully mobilize to crush the revolution doesn't mean they didn't participate. You're splitting hairs over definitions. "Protecting assets" with military action is... military action. > Yes, sure. "I'm not guilty, they've made me do it" - looks like favourite mantra for wrongdoers all over the world. I never said they're not guilty. I think they all fucked up. You're arguing against a strawman of your own devising. > Ok, why you're still calling USSR, Venezuela, Cuba etc socialist countries then? You'll note that I never mentioned a socialist state, but a socialist revolution. A revolution is socialist if it aims to achieve socialism. A revolution succeeds if the forces that attempt it seize power. All successful socialist revolutions have failed to achieve socialism after they seize power. It's a very simple argument. I've given a hypothesis for why that's the case: All the successful ones were achieved by military means and never demobilized. Their structures after the revolution grew to reflect the autocracy that is intrinsic to all known forms of effective military organization. Some tried more democratic military organization-- it failed spectacularly. Is it reasonable to conclude that socialism can't be achieved through violent confrontation? It's plausible. Honestly, you're being so combative that you have to resort to pedantry and strawmen. Who are you trying to convince with such a hostile uncharitable attitude?

hnarn 9y ago

Social democracy is objectively a form of socialism and it has been implemented in practice in large parts of Northern Europe for around a century. You're free to have whatever opinions you wish but when your claims simply are wrong you are just being ignorant and unwilling to learn.

microcolonel 9y ago
Northern Europe contains no "social democracies". They existed for a time, but were superseded by liberal democracies for practical reasons. There are remnants of attempts at socialism, but that is not the direction they are taking.
- hnarn 9y ago
  Please explain the difference and how they were superseded.

danharaj 9y ago

Every socialist revolution back to the Paris commune has been met with violence from the capitalist powers of the world. You can visit wikipedia and count how many countries participated in the Russian civil war on the side of the whites. Try to count how many times the United States tried to assassinate Castro while you're at it. Since all socialist revolutions are met with the full ferocity of the capitalist states, it's not clear how they can win militarily without becoming a dictatorship. A military is perhaps the social organization least amenable to democracy and most amenable to dictatorship. It's no surprise that socialist revolutions which succeed via military dictatorship and never demobilize (because they can't, because they are constantly under threats real and perceived) begin to reflect military dictatorship in their social structure. No socialist revolution has succeeded in an industrialized nation. They have all taken place in the periphery, either in colonies of imperial powers or extremely weak states like tsarist Russia. None of those successful revolutions managed to industrialize without devolving into centralized, dictatorial rule. Socialist thinkers back to Marx thought that socialism is enabled by industrialization; not something that can be implemented beforehand. This sounds entirely consistent with history. Note that the State had a crucial role to play in the development of capitalism. You can't pretend that capitalism isn't born of and sustained by violence when it has been instrumental in every development that led to capitalism's ascent, from forcible enclosure of the commons, to imperialist plundering of non-industrialized nations, to strikes broken by national militaries, and so forth. If it doesn't seem so violent now, maybe it's because resistance to it has been thoroughly purged from your milieu and the violence that remains has been pushed slightly out of your perspective. Nothing to see. There's no possible way capitalist nations were responsible for, say, the world's largest ever cholera outbreak in Yemen. Socialism is the democratic control of the means of production. All attempted socialist revolutions devolved into a system of bureaucratic control by a centralized government. It sounds like socialism hasn't ever been achieved. > One can think it should teach a lesson... but some people just want to believe. Most socialists think that an alternative system is necessary because capitalism with all its contradictions are untenable. Treating socialists as shallow thinkers just makes you look shallow. But it is quite a fashionable look these days.

thriftwy 9y ago
> extremely weak states like tsarist Russia This is unwarranted, it has almost managed to win WW1 (which was unwinnable anyway, hence "almost" counts)
- danharaj 9y ago
  The hardships of the war were one of the factors that led to the revolution. As well as they could do militarily the war compromised the state's ability to govern more severely than anyone expected.
gandhium 9y ago
> how many countries participated in the Russian civil war on the side of the whites. All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will be crushed in a week or so. > Since all socialist revolutions are met with the full ferocity of the capitalist states, it's not clear how they can win militarily without becoming a dictatorship. Yes, sure. "I'm not guilty, they've made me do it" - looks like favourite mantra for wrongdoers all over the world. > No socialist revolution has succeeded in an industrialized nation. They have all taken place in the periphery. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Many "peripheral" countries didn't have socialist revolutions and there were few attempts in industrialized nations. For example, Poland and Finland, having even lower industrialized level than Russian Empire - they were spared from socialist revolutions. Not that Bolsheviks didn't tried to instigate them. > It sounds like socialism hasn't ever been achieved. Ok, why you're still calling USSR, Venezuela, Cuba etc socialist countries then?
- danharaj 9y ago
  > All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will be crushed in a week or so. Just because they didn't fully mobilize to crush the revolution doesn't mean they didn't participate. You're splitting hairs over definitions. "Protecting assets" with military action is... military action. > Yes, sure. "I'm not guilty, they've made me do it" - looks like favourite mantra for wrongdoers all over the world. I never said they're not guilty. I think they all fucked up. You're arguing against a strawman of your own devising. > Ok, why you're still calling USSR, Venezuela, Cuba etc socialist countries then? You'll note that I never mentioned a socialist state, but a socialist revolution. A revolution is socialist if it aims to achieve socialism. A revolution succeeds if the forces that attempt it seize power. All successful socialist revolutions have failed to achieve socialism after they seize power. It's a very simple argument. I've given a hypothesis for why that's the case: All the successful ones were achieved by military means and never demobilized. Their structures after the revolution grew to reflect the autocracy that is intrinsic to all known forms of effective military organization. Some tried more democratic military organization-- it failed spectacularly. Is it reasonable to conclude that socialism can't be achieved through violent confrontation? It's plausible. Honestly, you're being so combative that you have to resort to pedantry and strawmen. Who are you trying to convince with such a hostile uncharitable attitude?