First of all, my apologies, I took you for a social democrat lol.
My main point is, that without the betrayal of the SPD, everything after 1919 would have been different. Arguably even Stalin wouldn’t have had much ground bc there would have been less reason for a “bastion” of “socialism in one country”.
The whole Great Socialist October Revolution was organised around the premise that they would either be joined by already industrialised nations (like e.g. France or Germany), or be doomed…
Imperial Russia was, to put it simply, a semi-feudal backwater.
But I digress.
OFC the ComIntern was unfortunately instrumentalised and largely controlled from Moscow from the late 20s on, but again, the “social fascism” theory is entirely understandable given the historical context, even if it was a strategic mistake.
I would disagree that the KPD was mainly fighting social democrats, but rather the other way around at least since 1919. Also the KPD didn’t use police squads or their paramilitary org to shoot down workers protests. Blutmai was organised by the SPD.
The KPD organised the “Antifaschistische Aktion” btw, which then worked on the principle of “Einheitsfront” ie. a front of the working classes and “just” didn’t participate in the “Eiserne Front”, which was organised as a popular front, ie. included bourgeois elements.
Also need I remind you that in the social democratic “Three Arrows”, the 3rd arrows stands for anti-communism?
Regarding Rule 3: Democratic socialism as an ideology, is very similar to social democracy in it’s definition, bc from a leftist POV, by it is neither democratic, nor socialist.
It wants to magically convince the ruling classes to give up their power by using the system put in place by said ruling classes in the first place lol (bourgeois “democracy” is no democracy at all).
Their definition of socialism is also heavily revisionist, nowadays social democracy is basically dead and “democratic socialists” just abuse that label to bring forward social democratic points, that are at least not seeping with neoliberalism. They exist entirely within the bourgeois system of career politicians in service of a “civilised” bourgeois “democracy”. Nowadays “democratic socialism” is pretty much “let’s try and trick the system to form a mixed economy by nationalising key industries”…
Back in Luxemburg’s days, the Mensheviks and (M)SPD were “democratic socialists”.
It is in place bc I didn’t want to deal with arguing with wanna be western “leftists” all the time. Usually it’s just there to kick (rad)libs lol
I would argue that socialism, if implemented properly (ie. without the bureaucracy at the helm) is inherently more democratic than anything capitalist, since it gives the working classes direct ownership, or control over the economy, which is (historically), always more dominant than the political or cultural superstructure.
Especially if direct council democracy is implemented properly (which was historically often sidelined for state socialism to be able to survive in the first place)
The way you describe it makes sense to me. The main problem in Germany was probably not directly going to socialism after WW1, especially since Germany somewhat was expected to directly go there from monarchy (I believe this prediction was made in the communist manifesto? Not sure). Even though it doesn’t fit my ideals, Weimar may have been more stable if an authoritarian socialist government was installed, as a lot of people were anti democratic.
Sorry if my statements seemed in bad faith, but I find it hard discussing Marxist-Leninist politics on Lemmy, as those defending those parties/states are a lot of times Lemmygrad style stalinists.
I asked about rule 3 as I and most people I personally know use the democratic socialism definition in that capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, and that one should thus strive for a socialist society using any means possible (including a revolution). This society would then be organized via a representative democracy.
What you described is what I would describe as social democracy and nothing else, however after looking it up a bit these terms are defined so broadly that there is significant overlap between definitions. I fear this is a major problem with these kind of terms as everyone has their own definitions of them/uses them differently creating confusion.
I think socialism is inherently a related idea to democracy (one could argue socialism without some form of democracy or decentralized government isn’t socialism but state capitalism) and together they are the “conservative” variant of anarcho communism.
I would politely disagree on your categorisation of ideologies, especially with your use of the so called “political compass” as it is an inherently falsifying and misleading “tool”.
Also I’d say that state capitalism and state socialism are distinct and separate things.
But there are a lot of nuances there. And I must admit that I’m not sufficiently informed to explain it correctly. Like I wouldn’t put the NEP and Stalinist era USSR, and the "P"RC today (which is arguably a bourgeois state of a new type and so on) all in the same category.
I’m at this point in my knowledge journey where I know enough to understand most intricacies and nuances on at least a surface lvl, but lack the depth to properly explain it -_-
I’m personally not an ML, but do believe that there is a big divide between most internet "ML"s as seen on Grad, Hexbear and so on, and actual ML IRL.
Also, historically, Marxisism-Leninism has been a liberatory ideology in former colonies and the 3rd world in general, you just have to look at movements with Comrade Bishop or Thomas Sankara at the helm, in Grenada and Burkina Faso respecitvely.
Fun fact regarding those two, both were brutally surpressed by imperialist/colonialist powers. Sankara was shot in a coup orchastrated by the French and the USA, tactless as ever, just straight up invaded Grenada…
My stance on inter-leftist (read socialist) interactions can be summed up as follows: Unity in theory is unrealistic, but solidarity in praxis is vital.
You can’t reconsile two fundamentally different (not opposed, mind you!) worldviews (ie. materialism and idealism) and even inside of those two there are laaarge differences, but as long as the goals are the same, I believe there should be pragmatic alliances and solidarity.
Regarding “democratic socialism”: Virtually any “democratic socialist” party is as I described, especially in the imperial core and virtually everywhere nowadays.
Historically there used to be examples in the imperial periphery like the movement with Salvador Allende at the helm, that actually tried to do good things, but ultimately failed because their idealism was exploited by the CIA…
EDIT: I’d also like to make you aware of another thing: I see the German and European flag i your username. The EU is a (neo-)colonialist/-imperialist entity. I get all the “Union of peoples” popularity. I’m all in favour to (con)federations like that. It’s just that I’m categorically opposed to unions of financial capital, which the EU boils down to unfortunately
Or mb I’m just misinterpreting your usage there :/
(Edit moved to separate comment, since I mixed up the OP of this thread)
Regarding the edit: you should probably add that to your first comment as you probably meant the starter of this thread and not me
Using the political compass wasn’t ideal to get my point across (I know it’s flawed, just didn’t know how to say it better). Basically what I meant is that on a scale from social democracy to anarcho-communism socialism+democracy would be something of a middle ground if that makes sense.
Regarding state socialism/capitalism: I know there is a distinction and my insertion wasn’t very nuanced, that’s why I formulated it as possibility.
Anyway thanks for the nice discussion, it’s always to have a discussion that is based on arguments and not insults
First of all, my apologies, I took you for a social democrat lol.
My main point is, that without the betrayal of the SPD, everything after 1919 would have been different. Arguably even Stalin wouldn’t have had much ground bc there would have been less reason for a “bastion” of “socialism in one country”.
The whole Great Socialist October Revolution was organised around the premise that they would either be joined by already industrialised nations (like e.g. France or Germany), or be doomed…
Imperial Russia was, to put it simply, a semi-feudal backwater.
But I digress.
OFC the ComIntern was unfortunately instrumentalised and largely controlled from Moscow from the late 20s on, but again, the “social fascism” theory is entirely understandable given the historical context, even if it was a strategic mistake.
I would disagree that the KPD was mainly fighting social democrats, but rather the other way around at least since 1919. Also the KPD didn’t use police squads or their paramilitary org to shoot down workers protests. Blutmai was organised by the SPD.
The KPD organised the “Antifaschistische Aktion” btw, which then worked on the principle of “Einheitsfront” ie. a front of the working classes and “just” didn’t participate in the “Eiserne Front”, which was organised as a popular front, ie. included bourgeois elements. Also need I remind you that in the social democratic “Three Arrows”, the 3rd arrows stands for anti-communism?
Regarding Rule 3: Democratic socialism as an ideology, is very similar to social democracy in it’s definition, bc from a leftist POV, by it is neither democratic, nor socialist.
It wants to magically convince the ruling classes to give up their power by using the system put in place by said ruling classes in the first place lol (bourgeois “democracy” is no democracy at all).
Their definition of socialism is also heavily revisionist, nowadays social democracy is basically dead and “democratic socialists” just abuse that label to bring forward social democratic points, that are at least not seeping with neoliberalism. They exist entirely within the bourgeois system of career politicians in service of a “civilised” bourgeois “democracy”. Nowadays “democratic socialism” is pretty much “let’s try and trick the system to form a mixed economy by nationalising key industries”…
Back in Luxemburg’s days, the Mensheviks and (M)SPD were “democratic socialists”.
It is in place bc I didn’t want to deal with arguing with wanna be western “leftists” all the time. Usually it’s just there to kick (rad)libs lol
I would argue that socialism, if implemented properly (ie. without the bureaucracy at the helm) is inherently more democratic than anything capitalist, since it gives the working classes direct ownership, or control over the economy, which is (historically), always more dominant than the political or cultural superstructure.
Especially if direct council democracy is implemented properly (which was historically often sidelined for state socialism to be able to survive in the first place)
The way you describe it makes sense to me. The main problem in Germany was probably not directly going to socialism after WW1, especially since Germany somewhat was expected to directly go there from monarchy (I believe this prediction was made in the communist manifesto? Not sure). Even though it doesn’t fit my ideals, Weimar may have been more stable if an authoritarian socialist government was installed, as a lot of people were anti democratic.
Sorry if my statements seemed in bad faith, but I find it hard discussing Marxist-Leninist politics on Lemmy, as those defending those parties/states are a lot of times Lemmygrad style stalinists.
I asked about rule 3 as I and most people I personally know use the democratic socialism definition in that capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, and that one should thus strive for a socialist society using any means possible (including a revolution). This society would then be organized via a representative democracy.
What you described is what I would describe as social democracy and nothing else, however after looking it up a bit these terms are defined so broadly that there is significant overlap between definitions. I fear this is a major problem with these kind of terms as everyone has their own definitions of them/uses them differently creating confusion.
I think socialism is inherently a related idea to democracy (one could argue socialism without some form of democracy or decentralized government isn’t socialism but state capitalism) and together they are the “conservative” variant of anarcho communism.
I would politely disagree on your categorisation of ideologies, especially with your use of the so called “political compass” as it is an inherently falsifying and misleading “tool”.
Also I’d say that state capitalism and state socialism are distinct and separate things.
But there are a lot of nuances there. And I must admit that I’m not sufficiently informed to explain it correctly. Like I wouldn’t put the NEP and Stalinist era USSR, and the "P"RC today (which is arguably a bourgeois state of a new type and so on) all in the same category.
I’m at this point in my knowledge journey where I know enough to understand most intricacies and nuances on at least a surface lvl, but lack the depth to properly explain it -_-
I’m personally not an ML, but do believe that there is a big divide between most internet "ML"s as seen on Grad, Hexbear and so on, and actual ML IRL. Also, historically, Marxisism-Leninism has been a liberatory ideology in former colonies and the 3rd world in general, you just have to look at movements with Comrade Bishop or Thomas Sankara at the helm, in Grenada and Burkina Faso respecitvely.
Fun fact regarding those two, both were brutally surpressed by imperialist/colonialist powers. Sankara was shot in a coup orchastrated by the French and the USA, tactless as ever, just straight up invaded Grenada…
My stance on inter-leftist (read socialist) interactions can be summed up as follows: Unity in theory is unrealistic, but solidarity in praxis is vital.
You can’t reconsile two fundamentally different (not opposed, mind you!) worldviews (ie. materialism and idealism) and even inside of those two there are laaarge differences, but as long as the goals are the same, I believe there should be pragmatic alliances and solidarity.
Regarding “democratic socialism”: Virtually any “democratic socialist” party is as I described, especially in the imperial core and virtually everywhere nowadays.
Historically there used to be examples in the imperial periphery like the movement with Salvador Allende at the helm, that actually tried to do good things, but ultimately failed because their idealism was exploited by the CIA…
EDIT: I’d also like to make you aware of another thing: I see the German and European flag i your username. The EU is a (neo-)colonialist/-imperialist entity.I get all the “Union of peoples” popularity. I’m all in favour to (con)federations like that. It’s just that I’m categorically opposed to unions of financial capital, which the EU boils down to unfortunatelyOr mb I’m just misinterpreting your usage there :/(Edit moved to separate comment, since I mixed up the OP of this thread)Regarding the edit: you should probably add that to your first comment as you probably meant the starter of this thread and not me
Using the political compass wasn’t ideal to get my point across (I know it’s flawed, just didn’t know how to say it better). Basically what I meant is that on a scale from social democracy to anarcho-communism socialism+democracy would be something of a middle ground if that makes sense.
Regarding state socialism/capitalism: I know there is a distinction and my insertion wasn’t very nuanced, that’s why I formulated it as possibility.
Anyway thanks for the nice discussion, it’s always to have a discussion that is based on arguments and not insults
I’m so sorry for mixing you up, I for some reason didn’t realise ^^’
Thx for clarifying and thank you too for the nice discussion! I enjoyed it as well :)
Btw I love that antifa tux pfp :p