NationStates

Just a fair warning, if you think the equal distribution of goods is the greatest evil imaginable, you might want to stop reading and find another thread.

Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people, and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked. However, between the Red scare and Stalin's power grab, the idea of a worker's paradise has been gasping for air until finally dying in the late 80's with American blockades against Vietnam and Cuba and the attempted Serbian conquest of Yugoslavia. At the end of it all, the bourgeois stands tall with his boot planted down on the working class. So here's the question, where do we go from here?

The issue is that while communes are still complete possible, years of red scare propaganda turned the public perception of Socialist liberation into a Stalinist nightmare. Short of forming an independent country on moon no one is ever going to accept a communist state of any meaningful size in the near future. But we can't just watch the world go to hell either.

Like I stated earlier I think our next move should be to pick up the pieces and form small scale communes in areas with low population. Any other ideas on cleaning up after Socialism's death?

I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Yes Im Biop wrote:I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Best way to ruin everything, maybe.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Yes Im Biop wrote:I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Best way to ruin everything, maybe.

Perhaps, but it would get the ball rolling on something interesting

I think we can all agree that if socialism is going to be a serious political movement in western nations or the US, it has to improve its image. The socialist idea of "Kill the upper class" leads to bad press, and in the future, people turning away from the ideology. The way is to move up within the democratic process and attempt to implement changes that way. Not to mention, revolution is getting excessively hard without military coup, and that's not going to happen as long as money politics goes on.

Yes Im Biop wrote:I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Tried that, Stalin happened (and then Mao for good measure). It might've worked in Vietnam but I think that time Vietnam was lucky that there wasn't a Stalin to replace Ho Chi Minh. The Cuban revolution ended with just exiling the bourgeois and in Yugoslavia Tito united the different ethnic groups to drive out the fascists. While seeing Wall Street up in flames would be cathartic, I don't think it would help our case.

Yes Im Biop wrote:I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

I've heard that running over protesters with tanks is the best option.

Tokora wrote:

Yes Im Biop wrote:I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Tried that, Stalin happened (and then Mao for good measure). It might've worked in Vietnam but I think that time Vietnam was lucky that there wasn't a Stalin to replace Ho Chi Minh. The Cuban revolution ended with just exiling the bourgeois and in Yugoslavia Tito united the different ethnic groups to drive out the fascists. While seeing Wall Street up in flames would be cathartic, I don't think it would help our case.

You are right, but damn would it be a pretty pyre

The next thing for Socialism to do is end itself

Embrace an insurrectionary approach: direct action, permanent class conflict, expropriation, affinity based (informal) organization. Stop putting all our eggs in one basket, whether that's a revolutionary vanguard, a parliamentary party or a union. Understand that these organizations can easily become self-serving, and not even with malicious intent. Just keeping these organizations afloat is difficult at times. This doesn't mean don't have them at all, but understand their limitations and why the historical revolutions built on these organizations failed.

Learn from Greece's anarchists.

Yes Im Biop wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Best way to ruin everything, maybe.

Perhaps, but it would get the ball rolling on something interesting

The Black Death was 'interesting'.

I think there should be a more equal distribution of income, based on labor rather than ownership; however, I don't think the workers should actually control the economy; technocrats should do that.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Snip

I don't think any form of revolution is possible at this point in time (though I guess it could happen in a third world country but even then it's a coin toss on whether we get a Tito or a Stalin). The biggest obstacle to that approach it that the only modern "Communist" country with any kind of power is China and they are the exact opposite of Communist. If a revolution somehow happened despite a century of Anti-Socialist propaganda and it threatens either trade or a company's market everyone including the Chinese would try to tear it down.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I think there should be a more equal distribution of income, based on labor rather than ownership; however, I don't think the workers should actually control the economy; technocrats should do that.

I agree (though it did work for Tito so I'm not completely opposed self-management either) but the problem is getting there now that Socialism has been murdered by both the bourgeois and those who usurped it for their own power.

Genivaria wrote:

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Perhaps, but it would get the ball rolling on something interesting

The Black Death was 'interesting'.

The Fire in London eradicated it.

Tokora wrote:Just a fair warning, if you think the equal distribution of goods is the greatest evil imaginable, you might want to stop reading and find another thread.

Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people, and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked. However, between the Red scare and Stalin's power grab, the idea of a worker's paradise has been gasping for air until finally dying in the late 80's with American blockades against Vietnam and Cuba and the attempted Serbian conquest of Yugoslavia. At the end of it all, the bourgeois stands tall with his boot planted down on the working class. So here's the question, where do we go from here?

The issue is that while communes are still complete possible, years of red scare propaganda turned the public perception of Socialist liberation into a Stalinist nightmare. Short of forming an independent country on moon no one is ever going to accept a communist state of any meaningful size in the near future. But we can't just watch the world go to hell either.

Like I stated earlier I think our next move should be to pick up the pieces and form small scale communes in areas with low population. Any other ideas on cleaning up after Socialism's death?

Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic and utopian fantasies and that is the primary reason nobody likes socialism or communism because the ideologies require a world where people act like robots and run on a series of logic instead of the basic emotions and instincts people actually act on?

Look, the only way socialism or communism could ever truly effectively work the way it's intended to is if it was enforced on people, but you can't enforce a way of life on someone in a system in which the state is nonexistent and state or not it's still tyrannical. Your ideology is, simply put, stupid. It works better for machines than people, because it ignores the fact that greed and selfishness are part of human nature. You can't kill human nature, and so if you really think socialism or communism can work with human beings then you're clearly unfamiliar with how people work. People can be complete scum, there will always be scummy people, and for that reason alone socialism will never work long-term without tyranny and corruption and communism will never be achieved on a global scale without falling into total anarchy.

It'd be nice if they could work, but they don't. Most people understand this and that is why most people have aversion for them, not because some guy in the 50s said they were evil. McCarthyism isn't as popular as you might think it is these days, people just realized the ideologies suck hard. Capitalism might be flawed, but it's less likely to result in complete tyranny or total anarchy and as far as most people are concerned, if it keeps society from collapsing but also keeps from becoming an Orwellian nightmare, then it's fine by them.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

Tokora wrote:Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people

*kills 2/3 of your country*
Yeah, now we're getting there.

Tokora wrote:and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked.

1. Cuba is a failed country. Urban landscape is rusted, living standards are like those of US in 1900 and something plus their lovely government which manipulates most of their published database.
2. Vietnam only started to thrive once they abandoned socialism and started to apply liberalism on their economy. It's working, check it out.
3. Yugoslavia had what we can call a grand finale: a massive hyperinflation, above 1,000,000%. This sure did improve the life quality of the citizens.

Tokora wrote:Any other ideas on cleaning up after Socialism's death?

Wanna really improve the quality of life from the workers and population as a whole? End cronyism. Expand economic freedom. Balance the budget. Get a serious, strong (and stable, I quote May) government, while being small at the same time.

Newsflash: not all rich people are eviiiiiiil . They don't deserve to be bloodletted or exiled.

Great Minarchistan wrote:Yugoslavia had what we can call a grand finale: a massive hyperinflation, above 1,000,000%. This sure did improve the life quality of the citizens.

But, but, but,... but YOU COULD SLEEP ON BENCHES ;; (( !!

And FACTORIES WERE BUILT EVRIWHERE!!!

Oldenfranck wrote:Newsflash: not all rich people are eviiiiiiil . They don't deserve to be bloodletted or exiled.

Bourgeoisie spy detected. Go straight to Gulag.

Workers' ownership over the means of production doesn't presuppose "equal distribution of goods." That just became a main selling point because self-proclaimed socialist movements happened to take place in countries with feudalism-tier levels of inequality.

It's not in my best interest to live in a society where harder or more skilled work doesn't give me better "pay."

Gloriana Americana wrote:Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic and utopian fantasies and that is the primary reason nobody likes socialism or communism because the ideologies require a world where people act like robots and run on a series of logic instead of the basic emotions and instincts people actually act on?

Sounds like literally any class on classical economics.

Gloriana Americana wrote:Look, the only way socialism or communism could ever truly effectively work the way it's intended to is if it was enforced on people,but you can't enforce a way of life on someone in a system in which the state is nonexistent and state or not it's still tyrannical.

how so?

Gloriana Americana wrote:Your ideology is, simply put, stupid. It works better for machines than people, because it ignores the fact that greed and selfishness are part of human nature. You can't kill human nature, and so if you really think socialism or communism can work with human beings then you're clearly unfamiliar with how people work.

You're ignoring the fact that the entire premise of socialism is that the working class should act in its own self-interest.

Gloriana Americana wrote:People can be complete scum, there will always be scummy people, and for that reason alone socialism will never work long-term without tyranny and corruption and communism will never be achieved on a global scale without falling into total anarchy.

Since nobody would have the decisive economic upper-hand and exploitation is impossible, selfishness would end up benefitting everyone, actually. In that sense it's what many capitalists want society to be like.

Gloriana Americana wrote:It'd be nice if they could work, but they don't. Most people understand this and that is why most people have aversion for them, not because some guy in the 50s said they were evil. McCarthyism isn't as popular as you might think it is these days, people just realized the ideologies suck hard.

As someone who says people are complete scum, you're putting an awful lot of faith in what the government and media tell the public.

Gloriana Americana wrote:
Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic

Please take a second and think about what you just typed.

Impaled Nazarene wrote:

Gloriana Americana wrote:
Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic

Please take a second and think about what you just typed.

He's not wrong.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Impaled Nazarene wrote:Please take a second and think about what you just typed.

He's not wrong.

Maybe you don't understand the whole ideology/philosophy concept. Please take a second to think about what he typed as well.

Vymar wrote:I think we can all agree that if socialism is going to be a serious political movement in western nations or the US, it has to improve its image. The socialist idea of "Kill the upper class" leads to bad press, and in the future, people turning away from the ideology. The way is to move up within the democratic process and attempt to implement changes that way. Not to mention, revolution is getting excessively hard without military coup, and that's not going to happen as long as money politics goes on.

Literally no socialist wants to kill capitalists.
"But the USSR"
The USSR is state capitalist.

Liberalter wrote:

Vymar wrote:I think we can all agree that if socialism is going to be a serious political movement in western nations or the US, it has to improve its image. The socialist idea of "Kill the upper class" leads to bad press, and in the future, people turning away from the ideology. The way is to move up within the democratic process and attempt to implement changes that way. Not to mention, revolution is getting excessively hard without military coup, and that's not going to happen as long as money politics goes on.

Literally no socialist wants to kill capitalists.
"But the USSR"
The USSR is state capitalist.

>the USSR was state capitalist meme
No; this requires both a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, as well as a misunderstanding of how the Soviet economy worked.