How to save socialism in the US (and other western countries

[Major-Tom]

We had a functioning anarcho-communist society, Catalonia (from 1936-1939) until they were attacked by Spain, Catholic backed forces, fascist groups, and the Soviet Union (who were mad that their communist society chose not to have a state that would ally with the Soviet Union).

Again, functioning is a loose term here. I might assume you've read Homage to Catalonia, as many anarchs-communists have, if you haven't, I recommend it (politics aside, it's a fascinating Orwell novel).

But if you have read it, you might remember that it wasn't perfect and that internal divisions amongst the leftists also played a significant factor in tearing apart the fabric of the anarcho-communist*** society (it was really a collection of trade and labour unions picking up the slack of a central government). And within that society, too, there were shortages, there were significant issues that weren't just caused by the malignant Francoists or malignant Soviets. It was because the model was built on thin ice.

[Atheris]

We had a functioning anarcho-communist society, Catalonia (from 1936-1939) until they were attacked by Spain, Catholic backed forces, fascist groups, and the Soviet Union (who were mad that their communist society chose not to have a state that would ally with the Soviet Union).

Calling Revolutionary Catalonia a "functioning anarcho-communist society" is assuming it wouldn't fall apart (which it was in 1938; the CNT and FAI were beginning to split apart, leading to a large schism within the anarchist faction); not to mention the vigilante killings and people's tribunals that ravaged the province.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's absolutely possible to achieve communism in practice, see my previous examples (especially the Zapatistas). It's fairly difficult since the U.S. will try to show up and murder everyone, but it is achievable.

I beg to differ.

It is in the nature of all sentient living beings to be greedy and power-hoarding; leaders of the pack, if you will. Beta wolves fight the alphas for dominance. Old lions are kicked out of the pride. Nowhere is this more able to be studied than in human history - the Sumerian Empire in Mesopotamia, conquering the Fertile Crescent; Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great in Rome, fighting over power and starting a civil war; Catherine the Great in Russia, overthrowing and potentially murdering her husband; Mussolini and Hitler in Italy and Germany, transforming democratic institutions into fascist dictatorships.

One person or group of people will always want to rise above the west; unless freedoms are specifically enshrined and/or ingrained, like in the United States's Constitution and culture, or Germany's history of power-hungry demagogues, then dictatorship is inevitable.

Only we lived in vague, leaderless hunter-gatherer groups for longer than civilization existed. The community would gather things according to their abilities, and distribute them according to the people's needs. Obviously we don't live in such a primitive world anymore, but hierarchies are not human nature. In fact, some people, such as the Zapatistas and parts of the Rojava, still operate according to many of these ancient principles.

[Mirjt]

We had a functioning anarcho-communist society, Catalonia (from 1936-1939) until they were attacked by Spain, Catholic backed forces, fascist groups, and the Soviet Union (who were mad that their communist society chose not to have a state that would ally with the Soviet Union).

Again, functioning is a loose term here. I might assume you've read Homage to Catalonia, as many anarchs-communists have, if you haven't, I recommend it (politics aside, it's a fascinating Orwell novel).

But if you have read it, you might remember that it wasn't perfect and that internal divisions amongst the leftists also played a significant factor in tearing apart the fabric of the anarcho-communist*** society (it was really a collection of trade and labour unions picking up the slack of a central government). And within that society, too, there were shortages, there were significant issues that weren't just caused by the malignant Francoists or malignant Soviets. It was because the model was built on thin ice.

I have not read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, but now I may (thank you for recommending it).

Also, I am not an anarcho-communist or an anarchist, I consider myself a general leftist and may best be described as a democratic socialist if I needed to place a label on it, however I do consider anarchists (except anarcho-capitalists who are not real anarchists) and other libertarian socialists to be allies and I support them and would rejoice in their success (I also find their theories and ideas to be overall good and useful and admirable).

[Major-Tom]

Again, functioning is a loose term here. I might assume you've read Homage to Catalonia, as many anarchs-communists have, if you haven't, I recommend it (politics aside, it's a fascinating Orwell novel).

But if you have read it, you might remember that it wasn't perfect and that internal divisions amongst the leftists also played a significant factor in tearing apart the fabric of the anarcho-communist*** society (it was really a collection of trade and labour unions picking up the slack of a central government). And within that society, too, there were shortages, there were significant issues that weren't just caused by the malignant Francoists or malignant Soviets. It was because the model was built on thin ice.

I have not read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, but now I may (thank you for recommending it).

Also, I am not an anarcho-communist or an anarchist, I consider myself a general leftist and may best be described as a democratic socialist if I needed to place a label on it, however I do consider anarchists (except anarcho-capitalists who are not real anarchists) and other libertarian socialists to be allies and I support them and would rejoice in their success (I also find their theories and ideas to be overall good and useful and admirable).

I suppose I misunderstood you, I equated your reference to anarcho-communism to support for the movement. My mistake.

Philosophically speaking, I can really empathize with and understand the ideals and viewpoints of anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists. But, I suppose, I've become something of a pragmatist/reform minded over the years and have really erred from that mindset.

[Mirjt]

I have not read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, but now I may (thank you for recommending it).

Also, I am not an anarcho-communist or an anarchist, I consider myself a general leftist and may best be described as a democratic socialist if I needed to place a label on it, however I do consider anarchists (except anarcho-capitalists who are not real anarchists) and other libertarian socialists to be allies and I support them and would rejoice in their success (I also find their theories and ideas to be overall good and useful and admirable).

I suppose I misunderstood you, I equated your reference to anarcho-communism to support for the movement. My mistake.

Philosophically speaking, I can really empathize with and understand the ideals and viewpoints of anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists. But, I suppose, I've become something of a pragmatist/reform minded over the years and have really erred from that mindset.

While I am not an anarcho-communist, I guess you could say I am a sympathizer and ally to anarcho-communism, however I myself am best described as a democratic socialist or just a leftist without modifiers, as I gain inspiration from all kinds of leftist and socialist thought. I also consider social democrats, distributists, and georgists to be allies even though I consider them to be moderates.

I can however understand why you thought I was an anarcho-communist, as I do reference their material a lot (I find it helpful), and I do come to their defense often (I try to defend ideological positions that I consider my allies when I believe they are being unjustly attacked).

[Slavakino]

You don't.

based

[Plzen]

You don't.

based

That joke of responding to "how" with "don't" was funny the first couple times it appeared on this thread.

Afterwards...

[Kubra]

We had a functioning anarcho-communist society, Catalonia (from 1936-1939) until they were attacked by Spain, Catholic backed forces, fascist groups, and the Soviet Union (who were mad that their communist society chose not to have a state that would ally with the Soviet Union).

Again, functioning is a loose term here. I might assume you've read Homage to Catalonia, as many anarchs-communists have, if you haven't, I recommend it (politics aside, it's a fascinating Orwell novel).

But if you have read it, you might remember that it wasn't perfect and that internal divisions amongst the leftists also played a significant factor in tearing apart the fabric of the anarcho-communist*** society (it was really a collection of trade and labour unions picking up the slack of a central government). And within that society, too, there were shortages, there were significant issues that weren't just caused by the malignant Francoists or malignant Soviets. It was because the model was built on thin ice.

there were shortages in the Republic. There were probably shortages among the nationalists. Wartime ain't pretty when it comes to shopping.

[-Astoria-]

based

That joke of responding to "how" with "don't" was funny the first couple times it appeared on this thread.

Afterwards...

It was never funny, to be honest.

[Diopolis]

Only they haven't lived under communism or socialism unless they're from the Zapatista or part of the Rojava territories, or if they're somehow old enough to remember CNT-FAI or the Paris Commune, all of which were functional.

So you're telling me that the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela aren't examples of "real communism" or "real socialism"?

Venezuela is a pretty good example of someone trying to be socialist and failing.

[Diopolis]

I suppose I misunderstood you, I equated your reference to anarcho-communism to support for the movement. My mistake.

Philosophically speaking, I can really empathize with and understand the ideals and viewpoints of anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists. But, I suppose, I've become something of a pragmatist/reform minded over the years and have really erred from that mindset.

While I am not an anarcho-communist, I guess you could say I am a sympathizer and ally to anarcho-communism, however I myself am best described as a democratic socialist or just a leftist without modifiers, as I gain inspiration from all kinds of leftist and socialist thought. I also consider social democrats, distributists, and georgists to be allies even though I consider them to be moderates.

I can however understand why you thought I was an anarcho-communist, as I do reference their material a lot (I find it helpful), and I do come to their defense often (I try to defend ideological positions that I consider my allies when I believe they are being unjustly attacked).

Distributism is... not exactly on the left. Neither is Georgism, for that matter.

[-Astoria-]

So you're telling me that the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela aren't examples of "real communism" or "real socialism"?

Venezuela is a pretty good example of someone trying to be socialist and failing.

Ah yes, the "WhY DoN't YoU Go AnD LiVe In VeNeZuElA?!" fallacy.

[Diopolis]

Venezuela is a pretty good example of someone trying to be socialist and failing.

Ah yes, the "WhY DoN't YoU Go AnD LiVe In VeNeZuElA?!" fallacy.

No, it is not.
Venezuela tried adding some socialist policies into a previously capitalist economy. These policies were dismal failures that resulted in mass famine, mostly because of incompetence. Nevertheless it was a failed attempt at socialism, emphasis on failed.

[Cisairse]

Ah yes, the "WhY DoN't YoU Go AnD LiVe In VeNeZuElA?!" fallacy.

No, it is not.
Venezuela tried adding some socialist policies into a previously capitalist economy. These policies were dismal failures that resulted in mass famine, mostly because of incompetence. Nevertheless it was a failed attempt at socialism, emphasis on failed.

It was primarily an attempt at authoritarian centralization, which is always bad and socialists should oppose at every step.

[Syrgastan]

Socialism doesn’t work because when the government is paying you then there is no incentive to work. Also all the companies will move because they are being taxed heavily and nobody is working. I don’t understand how people don’t get this

[The Alma Mater]

Socialism doesn’t work because when the government is paying you then there is no incentive to work. Also all the companies will move because they are being taxed heavily and nobody is working. I don’t understand how people don’t get this

Because most people do not work for money alone ?

[Diopolis]

Socialism doesn’t work because when the government is paying you then there is no incentive to work. Also all the companies will move because they are being taxed heavily and nobody is working. I don’t understand how people don’t get this

Authoritarian socialism in eastern Europe generally did not have issues with convincing people to do their jobs- labor protections generally were not much more extreme than in western Europe, and penalties for screwing up could be far more severe. The issue was typically with the separation of decision-making capabilities from on-the-ground knowledge- that the central planning committee usually lacked the in-depth knowledge of local capabilities and needs to make the optimal decision.

[-Astoria-]

Nevertheless it was a failed attempt at socialism, emphasis on failed.

Nah, that's a peak [citation needed].

[Region of Dwipantara]

Nevertheless it was a failed attempt at socialism, emphasis on failed.

Nah, that's a peak [citation needed].

Well, Chavez and his corrupt drug regime did get the endorsement of Noam Chomsky, which is a pretty socialisty guy. But then again, it may also just be a capitalist marketing stunt to promote Chomsky's new book.

[Cisairse]

Socialism doesn’t work because when the government is paying you then there is no incentive to work. Also all the companies will move because they are being taxed heavily and nobody is working. I don’t understand how people don’t get this

>wage labor
>companies
>taxes

What you're describing is not socialism. I don't understand how you don't get this.

[Nuroblav]

Socialism doesn’t work because when the government is paying you then there is no incentive to work. Also all the companies will move because they are being taxed heavily and nobody is working. I don’t understand how people don’t get this

"I'm hungry. Let's get mammoth."

"NOT IF I DON'T GET PAID FIRST LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!"

There are other incentives besides money...

[Stellar Colonies]

Talking about a 'revolution' tends to repel people, especially since revolutions with even the most utopian ideals tend to devolve into authoritarianism or at the very least settle down to the previous status quo, but with different people in charge, once they succeed.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Lotta anarkiddies in this thread, smh.

[Cisairse]

Talking about a 'revolution' tends to repel people, especially since revolutions with even the most utopian ideals tend to devolve into authoritarianism or at the very least settle down to the previous status quo, but with different people in charge, once they succeed.

Exactly, that's why the United States is still a crown colony.