3 ms·

Actual socialists had secret police. Every government has intelligence services. What do you think being a socialist means and what does that have to do with wo

Actual socialists had secret police. Every government has intelligence services. What do you think being a socialist means and what does that have to do with working for the CIA?

bitwize 5y ago
Working for the CIA means submitting to and supporting the existing power structure (unless you're doing a long-march-through-the-institutions, subversion-from-within thing, which, good luck against the CIA). Now once the socialist regime sets up secret police, it will be utterly benevolent and work solely toward emancipation of the working class.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  ...unless you're doing a long-march-through-the-institutions, subversion-from-within thing, which, good luck against the CIA... How can we be sure this hasn't happened already? Could anyone imagine a less effective, more hated organization? Could CIA provide poorer intelligence to the executive if they were actually trying to provide poor intelligence? Could their actions reflect more poorly on USA if they were actually trying to tarnish our reputation? [EDIT:] Perhaps this just proves your point. Continued existence of something like CIA in a putatively democratic society is a mystery. Perhaps they practice a sort of continuous self-disruption, defending themselves from the attentions of better people by always getting worse?
handrous 5y ago
Most folks throwing around "socialist" in a positive light in the US mean it like "social democracy", as in the Nordics or various European social-democratic parties. The socialist-socialists—having known a few—usually just say Marxist or communist to describe their position, in my experience. "Socialist" only means "like Venezuela or East Germany" when a Republican is saying it, not when people self-describe as socialist. [EDIT] and yes, to head it off, even Norway has intelligence services, sure—but they don't have Stasi.
- bitwize 5y ago
  Then there are the democratic socialists, who are actually socialist (unlike the social democrats) but who disavow Marxism-Leninism. Problem is, assuming you set up a democratic socialist regime, if you want to keep the democratic bit, you risk losing the socialist bit (and vice versa). A lot of demsocs don't realize this; many believe that democracy and socialism are completely coterminous with each other.
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    One counterpoint is that a lot of social programs are hard to get rid of. Even though the right campaigns against new social programs sometimes, there’s no way they can convince their electorate to get rid of existing social programs. For example, there would be very little political will to get rid of government-provided unemployment insurance, even though right-wing rhetoric is often against that sort of program.
    - bitwize 5y ago
      I'm not sure that social programs rise to the level of socialism (despite right-wing rhetoric that says they do). Socialism means no private business, no private ownership of the means of production. You can own things that you yourself might use, but as soon as you can produce more things, what you use to produce will be seized and collectively administered for the good of all. Not everybody will be convinced that this will lead to the promised paradise of maximal creative freedom and abundance for all, so not everybody in a democratic system will vote to continue socialism and there's a risk that a majority will not! Well, that is, until the kulak purges begin.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > "Socialist" only means "like Venezuela or East Germany" when a Republican is saying it, not when people self-describe as socialist. Republicans have a weird definition of socialism. They seem to conflate it with dictatorships. Super fucking hot take here, but the former president would be called a socialist by any Republican if he was the leader of any other country. He every hallmark trait of a dictator of a failed state: populist, authoritarian, self-serving, cult of personality, strong man, bribes supporters with state funds, uses police power to crush political opponents, etc, etc.

Actual socialists had secret police. Every government has intelligence services. What do you think being a socialist means and what does that have to do with working for the CIA?

bitwize 5y ago

Working for the CIA means submitting to and supporting the existing power structure (unless you're doing a long-march-through-the-institutions, subversion-from-within thing, which, good luck against the CIA). Now once the socialist regime sets up secret police, it will be utterly benevolent and work solely toward emancipation of the working class.

jessaustin 5y ago
...unless you're doing a long-march-through-the-institutions, subversion-from-within thing, which, good luck against the CIA... How can we be sure this hasn't happened already? Could anyone imagine a less effective, more hated organization? Could CIA provide poorer intelligence to the executive if they were actually trying to provide poor intelligence? Could their actions reflect more poorly on USA if they were actually trying to tarnish our reputation? [EDIT:] Perhaps this just proves your point. Continued existence of something like CIA in a putatively democratic society is a mystery. Perhaps they practice a sort of continuous self-disruption, defending themselves from the attentions of better people by always getting worse?

handrous 5y ago

Most folks throwing around "socialist" in a positive light in the US mean it like "social democracy", as in the Nordics or various European social-democratic parties. The socialist-socialists—having known a few—usually just say Marxist or communist to describe their position, in my experience. "Socialist" only means "like Venezuela or East Germany" when a Republican is saying it, not when people self-describe as socialist. [EDIT] and yes, to head it off, even Norway has intelligence services, sure—but they don't have Stasi.

bitwize 5y ago
Then there are the democratic socialists, who are actually socialist (unlike the social democrats) but who disavow Marxism-Leninism. Problem is, assuming you set up a democratic socialist regime, if you want to keep the democratic bit, you risk losing the socialist bit (and vice versa). A lot of demsocs don't realize this; many believe that democracy and socialism are completely coterminous with each other.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  One counterpoint is that a lot of social programs are hard to get rid of. Even though the right campaigns against new social programs sometimes, there’s no way they can convince their electorate to get rid of existing social programs. For example, there would be very little political will to get rid of government-provided unemployment insurance, even though right-wing rhetoric is often against that sort of program.
  - bitwize 5y ago
    I'm not sure that social programs rise to the level of socialism (despite right-wing rhetoric that says they do). Socialism means no private business, no private ownership of the means of production. You can own things that you yourself might use, but as soon as you can produce more things, what you use to produce will be seized and collectively administered for the good of all. Not everybody will be convinced that this will lead to the promised paradise of maximal creative freedom and abundance for all, so not everybody in a democratic system will vote to continue socialism and there's a risk that a majority will not! Well, that is, until the kulak purges begin.
mywittyname 5y ago
> "Socialist" only means "like Venezuela or East Germany" when a Republican is saying it, not when people self-describe as socialist. Republicans have a weird definition of socialism. They seem to conflate it with dictatorships. Super fucking hot take here, but the former president would be called a socialist by any Republican if he was the leader of any other country. He every hallmark trait of a dictator of a failed state: populist, authoritarian, self-serving, cult of personality, strong man, bribes supporters with state funds, uses police power to crush political opponents, etc, etc.