51
submitted 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) by DandomRude@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 22 points 12 hours ago

Dictatorship of The Proletariat:

Step 1: Vanguard Party takes "temporary" control

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Vanguard Party says: "Actually nvm, its "temporary" indefinitely"

Result: Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, but with extra steps.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 hours ago

People could form their own communes that best reflects their values and stay united under a federation of some sorts for defense against the inevitable bourgeois aggression.

Perhaps that is what the USSR could have been.

Maybe next time.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second

I'm sure people thought the same about disposing of monarchy at one point.

this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
51 points (91.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44135 readers
751 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS