[-] FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz 63 points 9 months ago

Democratic socialism just means you believe in democratically governed socialism, not that you think you can just vote capitalism into socialism. There's both reformist and revolutionary democratic socialists. I both believe in democracy and also see that the only way to overturn capitalism (at least in the US) would be through revolution. All the democratic part means is that they're opposed to monarchies or dictatorships.

[-] Confidant6198@lemmy.ml 26 points 9 months ago

Are you saying that you can have undemocratic socialism?

[-] Una@europe.pub 45 points 9 months ago

Isn't that what USSR was, dictatorship?

[-] Confidant6198@lemmy.ml 31 points 9 months ago

Dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the people

[-] Una@europe.pub 26 points 9 months ago

How? You still have 1 person having full power instead of being first among equals?

[-] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 16 points 9 months ago

Stalin was a captain of a team

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 19 points 9 months ago

Counterpoint:

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What's the background for this report, who compiled it, what the sources were and so on?

It sounds pretty dubious since it has big ass text at the start saying

This is UNEVALUED information

[-] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's a top secret report created by the informational gathering apparatus of a global super power/nation state, with all the interest to get an accurate picture of their geopolitical rival, but also with the interest to keep their population not in the know (not it's like the only time in US history). The fact that it fits with other historical accounts of Stalin by e.g Domenico Losurdo.

Funny how you libs always pull out skepticism when it's against the western narrative. Even if it's unvaluated, it's not going to be significantly off. The CIA is pretty good at what they do fedposting

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Can you point to any of CIA's metainfo about this file? Since I don't think we have anything more than this is some CIA file, but no info about who compiled this info, what they base it on, how has it been evalued (other than at the time it was apparently unevalued) and so on. You don't even know what the CIA thought of this document. We just know they have it.

Do we just take it as true because it's from CIA, even though we have no other information about it or what?

Funny how you libs always pull out skepticism when it’s against the western narrative

I mean are you against being sceptical of some random ass CIA document with big ass text on top of it about it being "unevaluated information"? Say it ain't so.

[-] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

Can you point to any of CIA’s metainfo about this file? Since I don’t think we have anything more than this is some CIA file, but no info about who compiled this info, what they base it on, how has it been evalued (other than at the time it was apparently unevalued) and so on. You don’t even know what the CIA thought of this document. We just know they have it.

Might as well ask Snowden or a top ranking official

Do we just take it as true because it’s from CIA, even though we have no other information about it or what?

Why do you think they host it?

I mean are you against being sceptical of some random ass CIA document with big ass text on top of it about it being “unevaluated information”? Say it ain’t so.

Do you even know what bias is?

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago

It doesn't sound like you have any of the info that would make this a credible document. CIA hosts a shitload of documents and a lot of them are absolute bunk and directly contradictory. They've collected a lot of reports over all the decades they've been around, that's sorta their job and then they evaluate that information and based on that try to sus out the true information. Unfortunately we have no idea what the CIA itself thought of this info, at the time of release they haven't evalued it. It's almost like finding a book in a library and believing it to be credible because it's a well known library that has that book.

Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?

[-] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?

I already answered above. It fits into the picture of historical accounts of Stalin and of how bias and interests work in regards to a nation state and it's geopolitical competitors.

You're convently ignoring the context in which this document exists and how its content relates to it.

It’s almost like finding a book in a library and believing it to be credible because it’s a well known library that has that book

Your try at abstracting something this complex fails. It's more akin having two libraries with two different accounts of history where some books are deliberately hidden (for various reasons, it exists and wasn't destroyed). This is a now a made-public book confirming the other libraries accunt history with their own source

Also:

The CIAs work is sloppy and they lie to themselves in their top secret documents. It was a soviet double agent collecting this

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

You don't, though, this is ahistorical. Not only was the politburo a team, but the politburo wasn't all-powerful, merely the central organ. There was a huge deal of local autonomy.

[-] KumaSudosa@feddit.dk 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And at what point is it no longer a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Do you really think, say, the Soviet leaders were looking out "for the proletariat"? Is Kim Jong-Un doing so because the country's official name contains the word "people"?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

The working class saw a doubling of life expectancy, reduced working hours, tripled literacy rates, cheap or free housing, free, high quality healthcare and education, and the gap between the top and bottom of society was around ten times, as opposed to thousands to millions. The structure of society in socialist countries is fashioned so that the working class is the prime beneficiary. Having "people" in the name of the country makes no difference on structure, be it the PRC, DPRK, or otherwise, what matters is the structure of society.

[-] KumaSudosa@feddit.dk 3 points 9 months ago

If the defense for a NK-style society is that it "at least benefits the working class" I suppose even trickle-down isn't that bad.. whether class exists as a concept or not means nothing if you have to live like in NK..

The truth is that as long as you have a structure that allows a group of people to control and steer society - be it a "Proletarian dictatorship designed to benefit the workers" or otherwise - those people are gonna shape it in a way where it benefits themselves. It's a reasonable assessment that the main issue of the Soviet Union was Stalin's insanity and forcing certain policies (collectivisation) too fast, but the truth of the matter is that a new class simply emerged: the political, the ones that might not be traditionally rich but benefit in other ways. The working class was never the main beneficiary of the Soviet Union.. at the end of a day a dictatorship is just a dictatorship and it's never for the people. I'm in no way against socialism or enacting various socialist or socialist-adjacent fiscal policies but that doesn't mean that all just magically become good when the working class dubiously "benefits".

And how much has those same parameters improved in capitalist societies? China didn't become rich and influential until they started transitioning into s capitalist class society. No shit that working class conditions improved compared to (almost) literally being serfs

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] psoul@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

There was no dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky prevented labor unions from going on strike. War communism was forcing workers to labor as slaves. The new economic policy sent managers bourgeois back to run the factories.

It was a top down dictatorship. Not a bottom up dictatorship of the proletariat. It was supposed to be all the power to the soviets. The soviets ended up being a tool for the politburo.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

This is remarkably liberal. In times of existential war, strict control and competent planning was necessary. The NEP was strictly necessary going from barely out of feudalism to a somewhat developed industrial base upon which economic planning can actually function properly. The system of soviet democracy waa far better at letting workers run society, and the wealthiest in the USSR were only about ten times as wealthy as the poorest (as compared to the thousands to millions under Tsarism and now capitalism).

The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, through and through. There is no fantasy version of socialism that can ever exist without needing to deal with existing conditions, obstacles, and barriers.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] HoopyFrood@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 months ago

This idea would seem to rest on the logic that any given poor person would be less likely to be corrupted by power than a given rich person (presumably due to their experiences being poor). In my experience when you give someone who is used to destitution access to power and resources their instincts are incredibly self serving. Being part of the proletariat does not automatically indicate any amount of empathy, humility, self control, forward thinking, or any other characteristic of a good, fair leader.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, the soviet union was democtatic. The soviet union had a more comprehensive and complex system of democracy than liberal democracy.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

It was even dissolved through a vote

Illegally though, most of citizens voted against in a referendum that was just ignored.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

besides the oxymoron of a dictatorship of the people, yes, you can have government that claim to be socialits that are a dictatorship

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to proletarian democracy, and is juxtaposed against liberal democracy as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[-] FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

Yes, under a dictatorship, it's literally happened before. Are you being serious or is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha where you go "socialism can't exist without democracy so the label is pedantic"?

Socialism under one party governments have happened, that is not democracy, even if democratic elements exist within. You can't have democracy under one party, the people need the ability to form an opposition party if the need arises.

[-] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

if we're going on about pedants then I might as well add that a democracy can't exist with only two parties, either.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

All socialism is democratic, so "democratic socialism" in practice either means reformist socialism, social democracy (capitalism with safety nets, usually dependent on imperialism), or is a means to distance this new socialism from the really existing socialism in the world today and historically. Reformism is wrong and doesn't work, social democracy is still capitalism and depends on imperialism in the global north version, and the last is just red scare "left" anti-communism that reeks of chauvanism.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What about democracy? Can't voting fix our problems?

[-] AbeilleVegane@beehaw.org 10 points 9 months ago

The voting for leftists into office one is there twice.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

Fixed

[-] pineapple@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago

Thank you, as a democratic socialist this is what I was looking for.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

More like, under new management.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Marxist: Let me mock one of my closest ideological allies. That will help bring about revolution.

Democratic Socialist: The fuck did I do to you, bro?

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 15 points 9 months ago

Democratic socialists are not our ally

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And that's why you've got no chance as a movement. And you couldn't create anything sustainable even if you did. Congrats.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

Marxists control the world's largest economy by PPP, democratic socialists don't come anywhere close to that. If you're making a jab at Marxists on the basis of relevancy and sustainability, the best the democratic socialists had was less than 5 years in Chile before comrade Allende was couped.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Democratic Socialists are anti-communist. Either they are reformist, which is wrong, social democrats, which is welfare capitalism, or seek to separate themselves from existing socialism by implying it isn't democratic. None of the above are based on allyship with Marxists. At best, demsocs can be recruited from for better orgs, or aligned on specific movements like Palestinian liberation.

[-] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

The DSA has everyone from reformist soc dems, to anarchists, to MLs, to Maoist Third Worldists

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago

and that's precisely the reason it's been so effective

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 7 points 9 months ago

This is so dumb.

If you want change, you have to take power. Power is where the people think it is.

If people can't even realize their own power as workers and unionize, they're not about to rise up in some glorious revolution. And even if they did, the majority would just do capitalism again, because most people can't imagine anything else

But the economic system is collapsing. When it does, we need power. That's how this works. We take local, State, and federal positions and use them to do progressive things, to improve material conditions.

And then when we get to an inflection point, we need leaders who already have the support of the people. We need populist progressives in power

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Ernst Thälmann tried that

Many others within germany were also trying that too. It did not work

We must build duel power, not power within the bourgeois system

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

This is simplistic. If reform works, do it. If it cannot, use force. Even Marx, if I remember correctly, supported the reformist Chartists in relatively democratic countries like England (while supporting revolutionary methods in feudal Germany).

[-] marcie@lemmy.ml 18 points 9 months ago

[-] cody@catboy.baby 4 points 9 months ago

@Confidant6198@lemmy.ml I am not a marxist. Destroy it anyway.

What about democracy? Can't voting fix our problems?

Memes

Rules: