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
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