927
Rule (lemmy.world)
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sternburgexport@feddit.org 58 points 1 year ago

Lmao gotteem

[-] tyler@programming.dev 40 points 1 year ago
[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago
[-] MadBob@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago

To be fair, that style of rhetoric where you repeat part of the comment you're epic dunking on is common on Reddit.

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Socialism with democracy, but for that to happen the people need to install an temporary authoritarian government to make the transition no?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

What if I told you we could vote ourselves into socialism?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

What if I told you every time that happens the bourgeoisie takes control of the military and starts a civil war to maintain their power?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure that holds without the CIA coming in to facilitate that in a relatively new democracy. If a large country with good institutions voted that way it would be a lot harder to pull off a military coup.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 year ago

That depends on if you believe in Stalin's ideas of a vanguard or Trotskys ideas of a vanguard. According to Trotsky the vanguard of the workers should be democratically elected.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago

Or, hear me out, you can be a non-Marxist socialist, because socialism does not only mean Marxism.

I'm aware, however I assume the person was specifically referring to Stalinism.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Then the assumptions they forwarded as absolutes need to be addressed instead of accepted.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Authoritarian governments never allow themselves to be temporary. Generally speaking, they usually have to be forcibly removed.

[-] suction@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’ve seen them on the telly, those authoritarian governments that resign peacefully when their work is done.

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Theoretically, amendments could be passed to alter the Constitution into anything, if they have support from enough states. Then again, if (theoretically) enough people support a radical change that is prevented because of the outsized influence of some states, how is that democratic?

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Understood, thanks!

[-] randoot@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

No, if enough people vote for socialist candidates and they pass a law that says all property now belongs to the state, then it'd be enforced just like any other current law.

The transition could be gradual. If we started nationalizing companies that get too big, and do that for a few generations then the state would own 99% of the economy.

If we keep raising property tax, you'd effectively get to the point where people are leasing the land rather than owning it.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Communism brain rot is trendy nowadays. It’s the last refuge for the tortured mind of the permanently online doomers. It’s almost non existent in real life thankfully

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

It's not strictly necessary, but it sure does seem to keep happening.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unless China does something very funny to their billionaire class and starts pushing the perpetual revolution, I think it's fairly safe to assume traditional Marxist thought is no longer the most dominant socialist school, and when the resource wars start in earnest there will be some genuine shifts in what kind of government a socialist revolution seeks to enact.

That or the fascists just win this time.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

that usually ends in disaster. never mind the fact that authoritarian governments like the power and wouldn't want to give it back, which defeats the entire point of socialism...

but even if you have a completely benign dictator (usually just a fantasy but for the sake of argument let's say we had one) people, especially in democracies, don't like the idea of a coup, unless it's them doing it but then it's a revolution. but that could also lead to reactionary sentiment.

we've seen this happen in Iran. democracy gets fucked with by a US coup, people react with a revolution but unfortunately reactionary forces use the anger to their advantage and devolve into a different kind of authoritarian regime anyway.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Dude Coyote'ed himself.

Socialism replaces Liberal democracy with something else (depends on the specific ideology).

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago

LibDems (and Liberals in general) get pissed when I remind them that Liberalism isnt a left wing ideology.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
927 points (100.0% liked)

196

18196 readers
1664 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS