Socialist isn’t entirely the opposite of authoritarian. In some dimensions it is. In others it’s unrelated. The USSR can be both socialist and authoritarian. Many argue it was both.
When you establish a socialist nation, the resources of the ruling must be extracted by force, as they cannot be reasoned with. They will not simply give up their wealth because socialism won. The only option is to take the resources by force. The exact same sort of force they use on us today.
Feel free to provide any other realistic solution to wealth redistribution. That is the issue with people like you that don’t read theory. You think socialism just magically happens. The countries that ACTUALLY did this shit know that isn’t how this works.
There has never been a transition from a large mature capitalist republic to a socialist republic society(ussr certainty didn’t). No one can predict how it will happen, certainly not you and certainly not me. The ussr is no model at all for the future of the United states.
Does pre-revolution Cuba qualify as a comparable stage of capitalist development to the US today? Methinks no and I don’t expect things to go the same way in the US as they did in Cuba. I think the US is closer to the state of capitalism Marx thought would start a transition towards socialism than Cuba or tsarist Russia.
Some significant differences from past iterations:
Many developed industries that don’t have to be built from scratch
The most powerful military in the world
Just based on those two, if a socialist revolution is to occur in the US, there would be no immediate (or any war) waged on it, so no resources would need to be dedicated on that. There would be no need to scramble to develop almost all industry. Due to the extreme consolidation, taking control over the system would likely be easier - fewer levers control everything.
It doesn’t need to be perfectly comparable. The reality is, we know these worms ain’t gonna give up their resources for nothing. It will be taken by force. That is a guarantee.
This is just a link for an anarchism FAQ. Feel free to just name the nations. You can type it out.
And yes, I do consider a nation that went from millions of peasants, to exploring space, providing free education, free healthcare, and women’s rights, while going toe to toe with the greatest capital super power of all time as a success.
Name a more successful iteration of socialism. I’ll wait. You seem very confident about this lol.
Edit: they were never heard from again 🤣
It’s concerning that you think the Soviet union was socialist and not authoritarian.
Socialist isn’t entirely the opposite of authoritarian. In some dimensions it is. In others it’s unrelated. The USSR can be both socialist and authoritarian. Many argue it was both.
Socialism requires a dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you never read theory?
That is “state socialism” as pushed by cold war propaganda (marxism-leninism interpretation). Socialism certainly doesn’t require a dictatorship.
The only other option would be magic.
When you establish a socialist nation, the resources of the ruling must be extracted by force, as they cannot be reasoned with. They will not simply give up their wealth because socialism won. The only option is to take the resources by force. The exact same sort of force they use on us today.
Feel free to provide any other realistic solution to wealth redistribution. That is the issue with people like you that don’t read theory. You think socialism just magically happens. The countries that ACTUALLY did this shit know that isn’t how this works.
There has never been a transition from a large mature capitalist republic to a socialist republic society(ussr certainty didn’t). No one can predict how it will happen, certainly not you and certainly not me. The ussr is no model at all for the future of the United states.
Cuba
Does pre-revolution Cuba qualify as a comparable stage of capitalist development to the US today? Methinks no and I don’t expect things to go the same way in the US as they did in Cuba. I think the US is closer to the state of capitalism Marx thought would start a transition towards socialism than Cuba or tsarist Russia.
Some significant differences from past iterations:
Just based on those two, if a socialist revolution is to occur in the US, there would be no immediate (or any war) waged on it, so no resources would need to be dedicated on that. There would be no need to scramble to develop almost all industry. Due to the extreme consolidation, taking control over the system would likely be easier - fewer levers control everything.
It doesn’t need to be perfectly comparable. The reality is, we know these worms ain’t gonna give up their resources for nothing. It will be taken by force. That is a guarantee.
Sure, you could call most of these socialist: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seca5
It seems like you did not, in fact, wait. I have better stuff to do than debating tankies.
Also, the fact that you consider the USSR a successful iteration of socialism is… concerning.
Stating historical fact makes you a tankie apparently
🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
This is just a link for an anarchism FAQ. Feel free to just name the nations. You can type it out.
And yes, I do consider a nation that went from millions of peasants, to exploring space, providing free education, free healthcare, and women’s rights, while going toe to toe with the greatest capital super power of all time as a success.
It’s an anarchism FAQ :P
It was a brutal dictatorship. What they achieved does not excuse that.
Yeah, I’m getting the impression I’m dealing with a political lightweight here.
Socialism is an economic system, not a moral one.
Best of luck of on your journey.