Jump to content

Socialists of AVEN unite!


Recommended Posts

Hello! I thought it would be nice for Socialists here to have a thread where we can talk about Socialism and Socialist-related things. From Eugene Debbs to T.C.Douglas! 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

Ah, was considering starting a thread like this myself! 😂

 

Welp, thanks to my red rose leanings, there's no party in my country I can vote for. How're y'all doing?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoseGoesToYale said:

Ah, was considering starting a thread like this myself! 😂

 

Welp, thanks to my red rose leanings, there's no party in my country I can vote for. How're y'all doing?

In Canada, we supposedly have the New Democratic Party although they took the word Socialism out of the party constitution many years ago. The leader Singh is OK I guess. I am a member of the NDP but the same day I rejoined, I joined the Socialist Caucus.

In the UK Labour have sort of moved back to left areas but the Greens in my view is where its at. Do you like AOC and Sanders?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to a podcast this morning. Joe Rogan interviewing a woman who escaped the horrors of North Korea, a socialist society, when it was still possible to escape.

 

When you say you're a socialist, what does that mean to you personally? How do you personally see a world working under socialism?

 

I'm asking out of genuine interest as someone who doesn't have much of a political stance beyond not wanting a return to the horrors people endured under people like Fidel Castro (and in turn Che Guevera), Stalin, and Chairman Mao,  to name just a few. And of course, what the people of North Korea are experiencing now - horrors beyond what many of us can even begin to imagine, under the name of socialism (and communism especially). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale
54 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

Do you like AOC and Sanders?

All the times I was able to vote for Sanders, I did. I think he's a step in the right direction, especially his stance on PACs. He's only politician to run for president that openly acknowledges them and their corruption.

 

19 minutes ago, PanFicto. said:

North Korea, a socialist society

North Korea is not a communist, or even socialist, society. Socialism is a democratic system where the general public is in control of the means of production, instead of private groups or single individuals. The world has not yet seen a socialist or communist country. The closest countries have come are social democracies, such as Finland or Sweden, but they still have capitalist elements. Every polity that has labeled itself "socialist" or "communist" has been some form of capitalist oligarchy or capitalist dictatorship with the means of production owned by the state, which the general public has/had no power to influence.

 

The reasons for oligarchs and dictators making use of the terms "social", "socialist", "communist", "the people's XYZ", even the term "democracy" is to create a unique-sounding identity that defines itself outside of Western capitalism while also giving the public something to believe in while they're being oppressed. Hitler took the same tack with the German National People's Party, the People's Court, the National Socialist Teachers League, etc, though these institutions were as far right as you could possibly get. Dictators are masters of wordplay.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about socialism, but I do know we need to do something about the wealth inequality in this country and pass Medicare for All. I voted for Bernie twice.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Yea, that's not going to happen. I understand that we can have this fantasy around the idea that a nation where everyone has a fair shot at life and access to medicine and whatnot is possible,  but the thing is that despite all the so called democracy and freedom and other inflated ideals people are given to keep them in line, every nation in present and past times has always followed the rule of hierarchical power, with the richest/most influential at the top, and the rest at their mercy below.

 

Even for present day U.S, if you sit down to think about it, their "democracy" is no different than their so called fight against other "tyrannical" forms of government. A few sit at the top, doing as they please, while the rest are treated as less.

 

Pick any you want democracy, communism, socialism, etc, they all follow the same patterns. People just call it differently to give themselves a kick in the chest and self proclaim themselves as different/progressive/accepting/etc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PanFicto. said:

I was listening to a podcast this morning. Joe Rogan interviewing a woman who escaped the horrors of North Korea, a socialist society, when it was still possible to escape.

While North Korea absolutely sucks and I do not hold it (or China, or the USSR) as an example of "socialism" at all, Yeonmi Park is a very well noted liar, exaggerator, celebrity interviewee, and has been seen doing conspiracy theories about things like China/NK running South Korea and the need for a right-wing movement to take over. She was born after the famine and left North Korea at 13 and has no firsthand experience with Kim Jong Un. I don't take her appearance on a show that has a record with doing absolutely nothing to fact check or challenge their controversial guests or issue retractions of any note when they are caught as a good thing.

 

 

1 hour ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Socialism is a democratic system where the general public is in control of the means of production, instead of private groups or single individuals. The world has not yet seen a socialist or communist country. The closest countries have come are social democracies, such as Finland or Sweden, but they still have capitalist elements. Every polity that has labeled itself "socialist" or "communist" has been some form of capitalist oligarchy or capitalist dictatorship with the means of production owned by the state, which the general public has/had no power to influence.

This is the absolutely correct explanation.

 

The branch of socialism I identify with is usually labeled libertarian socialism. The key distinction is between that and state socialism, where the state takes centralized control of a planned economy. Libertarian socialism is based on decentralized direct democracy in federalism/confederalism, coops, citizen's councils, etc. In idealist terms, I would be a syndicalist, but I don't see that working. In practical terms, I'm a democratic socialist, because I do not see a path for revolution in America, and the kind of campaigns waged by people like Marxist-Leninsts do nothing but harm the already loaded public perception of socialism.

 

The entire tactic of making all leftism defined as the "other" during the Cold War has had lasting impacts on how Americans view socialism. When policies are presented in isolation, Americans tend to be approving of them. If you call them socialist, they instantly become unpopular. Using terminology like "abolish the police" is harmful to any chances of actually doing that. Even the tenets of things like anti-racism are extremely alienating when presented to most people, since the basic idea is to always be aware of your personal racism, and Americans are conditioned to not see that. Telling people they are at fault for systemic issues is a very quick way to make them hate you.

 

At this point, I think the best we can do is offer and stress positive programs (M4A, unions, public utilities, etc) and try to reframe the class consciousness of Americans as being aware of their place as workers in a capitalist state instead of what they have been told for decades (that they are all independent middle class people with a real chance at upward mobility from their segregated suburban property).

 

Bernie, the Squad, Jamaal Bowman, and the like are the best representation we have, though none of them are socialists. We can't be picky, purist, and exclusionary.

 

Even though the climate crisis and overall economic and social situation really require radical changes and immediate action, there is a line where you have to look at what we can realistically do.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Comrade Jade Cross said:

Pick any you want democracy, communism, socialism, etc

This is the kind of statement that bothers me. Socialism is inherently democracy. It is the most democratic you can get. The entire point is collective ownership and representation. The pervasive view of capitalism = democracy = freedom is a mountain that has to be moved.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

I'm curious, anyone who's read The Communist Manifesto... what are your thoughts?

 

The reason I don't identify with communism, and that I don't see it as feasible as socialism, is I think Marx gets a few major things wrong. Especially the bit about violent revolution. I think in order for a government to be accepted as legitimate and democratic, it has to happen peacefully and organically. Enough people have to come to the realization for themselves that the current system is oppressive to them and their loved ones and that there's something better out there to be had, and come together to draw that vision into being. It's also why I believe I'll never see socialism in my lifetime, we're just not there yet. I see a few beginning glimmers, though.

 

The other thing is the abolishment of all private property. This runs counter to human nature... humans have to have certain possessions that inform their sense of self and place, as well as give them comfort. Things like a house, keepsakes, works of craftsmanship would count. When people lose these things, say, in a natural disaster and their lives are unwittingly communalized, the result is demoralization and loss of sense of self. It would make zero sense to abolish all private property. If nothing else, the things that should be communally owned and controlled are the necessities for life (food, water, basic shelter, sanitation, electricity, healthcare, childcare, etc.), government entities and processes, education, transportation (including long-distance travel), and the internet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marx is good for theory and everyone should read him, but the idea of applying any of that in a practical way to modern society is ridiculous.

 

I also don't think it is necessary to read Marx to get the concepts of socialism. There are basic undertones of class unity and cooperation that do not need a structural framework.

 

I'd rather have people understand the concept of class consciousness and unity, cooperative responsibility, etc than study Marx talking about the proletariat uprising.

 

I am also uncomfortable with the idea of existing solely as part of a collective and lacking property or individual identity. I am more concerned with providing the necessities of life communally while providing a supportive environment for individual growth. I think we need that individual identity and retreat to be happy. Marx rejects the idea of the individual, really, and that just isn't how it works. The worst part is the way the Soviet experiment extended that to "you exist to be part of the state," which is a tragic erasure of liberty and the entire point of equity, replacing one master with another.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider myself adjacent to a good percentage of people that considers themselves socialist, but accurately a Scandinavia democrat i.e a person in the US democratic party that supports Scandinavia policies. It's not exactly socialism and neither are the Squad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, R_1 said:

I would consider myself adjacent to a good percentage of people that considers themselves socialist, but accurately a Scandinavia democrat i.e a person in the US democratic party that supports Scandinavia policies. It's not exactly socialism and neither are the Squad.

Social democrat is the general modern term for that school of policy, though it has a complicated history of use, mainly by "hardcore" revolutionary socialists and Marxist-Leninists use it as a pejorative for continued capitalism/neoliberalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

I'm curious, anyone who's read The Communist Manifesto... what are your thoughts?

 

The reason I don't identify with communism, and that I don't see it as feasible as socialism, is I think Marx gets a few major things wrong. Especially the bit about violent revolution. I think in order for a government to be accepted as legitimate and democratic, it has to happen peacefully and organically. Enough people have to come to the realization for themselves that the current system is oppressive to them and their loved ones and that there's something better out there to be had, and come together to draw that vision into being. It's also why I believe I'll never see socialism in my lifetime, we're just not there yet. I see a few beginning glimmers, though.

 

The other thing is the abolishment of all private property. This runs counter to human nature... humans have to have certain possessions that inform their sense of self and place, as well as give them comfort. Things like a house, keepsakes, works of craftsmanship would count. When people lose these things, say, in a natural disaster and their lives are unwittingly communalized, the result is demoralization and loss of sense of self. It would make zero sense to abolish all private property. If nothing else, the things that should be communally owned and controlled are the necessities for life (food, water, basic shelter, sanitation, electricity, healthcare, childcare, etc.), government entities and processes, education, transportation (including long-distance travel), and the internet.

I would agree that a worldwide socialist revolution needs to be nonviolent, if for no other reason than that it would be the only way to distinguish a truly new government and economy from all the oppression that has come before.  I think that so long as people can point at lives lost in overthrowing the old world governments to establish a new one, you'll be very hard pressed to end the cycle of violence humanity has been participating in throughout history. Even if the new government would just legitimately be better for everyone overall, if there were any significant number of people who lost their lives in defending  the old (for example, US military or government) then you are going to have people who will never give up that grudge, and who will try to use it to stir up dissent.

 

I mean, I'm sure you'll have people like that anyway, but if a new world government was established through agreement and cooperation, without mass slaughter of old powers to get there, I think that would serve as the most powerful tool possible, to combat that kind of recruitment.  Of course, overthrowing people who are willing to use violence to keep power, without using violence yourself -- that's a pretty hard hill to climb, so no idea if it's even possible. But yeah, still think that would be the way. Oh, also agreed, if it's possible at all, doubt it will be in any of our lifetimes.

 

I also don't see any need to abolish all private property. There definitely are things that need to be shared to communal ownership, like roads or parks, utilities, factories and the like, but -- you know, your laptop, your car, your house, all the random crap you own like books and clothes, I don't see any reason people can't have stuff like that. I don't even see any utility in saying the state must own things to that degree -- like, I don't even care if your private music collection does include some "priceless" rare things like unreleased Beatles recordings or something. That's neat and all, but your having it isn't hurting the rest of the world -- nobody needs your music collection, so yah, you have the freedom to keep it.

 

So yeah, agreeing with you on that last point, as well -- abolishing all personal property is not only not necessary, but I also think it would be counter-productive. If you tell people they have to give up everything they own to create a better world government, you'll probably just never see that government. On the other hand, I think we could all work together to figure out exactly where the lines need to be drawn, as far as ownership. 

 

Like, I have no idea how much a small plane costs, but I think it's potentially quite possible, if flying is your passion and you are a pilot, you could probably own a small plane. We all could not, so yeah, this would be one of those things that would cost quite a lot, even post-revolution. But I think it should still be possible. That is, as opposed to owning an airline, or likely even a huge plane like a 747. Those would probably need to remain in communal ownership. But again -- we could collectively figure out where exactly those kinds of lines need to be drawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a capitalist society there are two sources of power - the wealthy and the government.  Each acts to prevent the other from taking too much.   The average people get the scraps. 

 

But - in a socialist society the government is the only source of power, and virtually always the government also gets the wealth.  They have no reason to leave eve scraps for average people. 

 

It seems every time socialism / communism has been tried, the general population has ended off worse than they were before  (USSR,  Maoist China,  Cambodia,  Venezuela). I don't know of any large socialist countries that have had a high standard of living.

 

Social democracy (the Nordic model) is a whole different animal - strong social programs and high taxes seem to work well.  Its the abolishing of companies and private wealth that makes things fall apart. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in a socialist society, workers/citizens are the source of power.

 

Any state, not only in socialism but in any system, should exist to serve the populace. Especially in socialism, though, the state is only the ultimate coop, at least idealistically. In practice, there will always be a political class, but the point is to make them answerable to the masses.

 

State communism? None of socialism has actually been put into practice, and unfortunately, I don't expect it to any time soon, given that every socialist movement so far has been co-opted by a central authority and attacked from the outside until collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zagadka said:

No, in a socialist society, workers/citizens are the source of power.

 

Any state, not only in socialism but in any system, should exist to serve the populace. Especially in socialism, though, the state is only the ultimate coop, at least idealistically. In practice, there will always be a political class, but the point is to make them answerable to the masses.

 

State communism? None of socialism has actually been put into practice, and unfortunately, I don't expect it to any time soon, given that every socialist movement so far has been co-opted by a central authority and attacked from the outside until collapse.

In theory in a socialist society workers are the source of power but in real life it doesn't work that way.  With real power (police, military and financial) in the hands of the government, the workers have no real power (except another revolution).  Democracy usually becomes a sham - look at China where there are elections - between candidates selected by the central govt.  (though you could argue the US isn't much better).

 

I agree that socialism has never ben adopted in practice - but I think that is because its inherently unstable. The concentration of power inevetibably leads to an authoritarian central govt.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned that in reality there is a political class that is generally required. We will never have a classless worker run utopia. The thing I stress is decentralization. I also noted before that idealistically, I'd be a syndicalist. Break down the central structure and return most organizing to more local levels with a federal/confederal organization for broader cooperation. By realizing we don't need the centralized police and a constant investment in standing military forces with at least partially worker-owned corporations, you can limit the effects of authority by distributing the power to smaller levels... a single leader or party may dominate a local area or corporation, but without a powerful executive, their influence is limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, uhtred said:

In a capitalist society there are two sources of power - the wealthy and the government.  Each acts to prevent the other from taking too much.   The average people get the scraps.

 

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

In theory in a socialist society workers are the source of power but in real life it doesn't work that way.  With real power (police, military and financial) in the hands of the government, the workers have no real power (except another revolution).  Democracy usually becomes a sham - look at China where there are elections - between candidates selected by the central govt.  (though you could argue the US isn't much better).

 

I agree that socialism has never ben adopted in practice - but I think that is because its inherently unstable. The concentration of power inevetibably leads to an authoritarian central govt.  

I think there's a point here to be made that ideal capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith is ALSO a pipe dream that has not and will never be realized. People simply don't act in their own rational self interest - it's far too easy to convince people to act against their own self interest: see working class supporters of the GOP in the US.

 

Business interests have already completely suborned the government in the US - Citizens United and the really embarrassing lack of any kind of campaign finance reform has made that even more obviously true recently.

 

The difference between the capitalist pipe dream and the socialist one is that we've tried capitalism for a long time now, and it has and continues to fail spectacularly.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2021 at 4:27 AM, Zagadka said:

Marx is good for theory and everyone should read him, but the idea of applying any of that in a practical way to modern society is ridiculous.

 

I also don't think it is necessary to read Marx to get the concepts of socialism. There are basic undertones of class unity and cooperation that do not need a structural framework.

 

I'd rather have people understand the concept of class consciousness and unity, cooperative responsibility, etc than study Marx talking about the proletariat uprising.

 

I am also uncomfortable with the idea of existing solely as part of a collective and lacking property or individual identity. I am more concerned with providing the necessities of life communally while providing a supportive environment for individual growth. I think we need that individual identity and retreat to be happy. Marx rejects the idea of the individual, really, and that just isn't how it works. The worst part is the way the Soviet experiment extended that to "you exist to be part of the state," which is a tragic erasure of liberty and the entire point of equity, replacing one master with another.

Yep, I completely agree with this. Part of the reason my dad left the Socialist party back in the 70s was his frustration with how many socialists at that time, especially older ones, "quoted Marx like fundamentalists quote the Bible."

 

I think hinging an entire ideology on any one single theorist is part of the problem; it inevitably breeds rigidity, a lack of critical thinking, and ultimately a cult of personality. The problem is that human nature by default tends to gravitate to individualist narratives rather than broad systemic ones, and I think it would take a pretty big cultural shift to think and conceptualize more collectively in the way that such a system would demand.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

 

I think there's a point here to be made that ideal capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith is ALSO a pipe dream that has not and will never be realized. People simply don't act in their own rational self interest - it's far too easy to convince people to act against their own self interest: see working class supporters of the GOP in the US.

 

Business interests have already completely suborned the government in the US - Citizens United and the really embarrassing lack of any kind of campaign finance reform has made that even more obviously true recently.

 

The difference between the capitalist pipe dream and the socialist one is that we've tried capitalism for a long time now, and it has and continues to fail spectacularly.

I'm not going to disagree that capitalism has had a lot of failures but it seems to me that socialism has had far worse failures.  The 20th century was a test bed for new govt ideas,  form socialism to fascism, along side of old monarchies and somewhat more recent democratic capitalist states.   Of those the capitalist democracies seemed the least bad.

 

I'm old enough to remember China what it was really communist (it isn't any more - they have investment banks!),  USSR,  Pol Pot's cambodia, old N. Vietnam (which, like China is no longer communist),  N. Korea etc.    The horrors of socialism were only slightly overshadowed by those of fascism.  Tens of millions died, and hundreds of millions lived under oppression.  The oppression of present day capitalist democracies is nothing like what it was in the USSR or under Mao. In particular you have little fear of arrest for what you posted above.

 

I'm talking about "socialism" as collective (eg government) ownership of the means of production.  I make a distinction between this and countries with high taxes and strong social programs, which seems to work just fine.

 

The problem with socialism is that a large group of people can't really collectively own something - power is still concentrated in a small number of people.  Its just a question of how those people are chosen

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem we face in the US is nearly a century of demonizing everything remotely socialist. After initial gains from socialist labor movements in the early 1900s that gained anti-trust laws, limits on work hours, worker rights, etc etc, ranks quickly closed and especially after WWII, the Soviet threat made socialism a dirty word. We've had 80 years of constant subversion of unionization and social programs by tying them all to Pol Pot and Mao like you just did.

 

You state that a large group can not collective own something, and that is partially true (though there are things like public utilities, national parks, etc that betray that and are some of the most popular things), there is a basic concession that you (and the state communist regimes you cite as dangerous) make; that we *must* have centralized authority in control and planning everything, and they can only be minimally answerable to a large populace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

The problem we face in the US is nearly a century of demonizing everything remotely socialist. After initial gains from socialist labor movements in the early 1900s that gained anti-trust laws, limits on work hours, worker rights, etc etc, ranks quickly closed and especially after WWII, the Soviet threat made socialism a dirty word. We've had 80 years of constant subversion of unionization and social programs by tying them all to Pol Pot and Mao like you just did.

 

You state that a large group can not collective own something, and that is partially true (though there are things like public utilities, national parks, etc that betray that and are some of the most popular things), there is a basic concession that you (and the state communist regimes you cite as dangerous) make; that we *must* have centralized authority in control and planning everything, and they can only be minimally answerable to a large populace.

Its not just demonizing. I'm old so I know people who grew up in the Soviet Union. My wife had a friend (maybe deceased now?) who experienced the Chinese cultural revolution first hand.  These things were bad - bad beyond anything in our recent experience in the west. We complain about police - but we are not so frightened of the police that we don't dare complain because they may come in the dark of night and make us and our families disappear because of something we said. 

 

Some things are "collectively owned" but not collectively controlled. Tryin getting your public utility do change a policy.   You will find it almost impossible without going to your local government. 

 

But once the utility and everything else is directly controlled by the government, there is no where to go. 

 

When the local factory is polluting - who to you talk to to tell it to stop? When its income goes directly to the government - which then doles out small amounts to the "owners" you have no power. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it is boiled down though, the argument where you point at abusive governments in history to say that socialism can't work is approximately, "Because something has not happened already, that means it is impossible."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, uhtred said:

Its not just demonizing. I'm old so I know people who grew up in the Soviet Union. My wife had a friend (maybe deceased now?) who experienced the Chinese cultural revolution first hand.  These things were bad - bad beyond anything in our recent experience in the west.

I am also relatively old and also know people who grew up in the Soviet Union. Oh, and my major in college was Eastern European Cultural Studies, so I'm a tad familiar with the scenarios. So there's that.

 

When I said "demonizing," I didn't mean demonizing the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. Those states sucked and don't need much work to look bad. I meant demonizing socialism as a broad concept by tying it to those states. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

As @rebis just said, using those states as examples and justifications of how "socialism is bad" is the demonizing. Single party state communism like you see in the USSR, China, DPRK, and absolute disasters like the Khmer Rouge aren't much different than capitalist fascism in practice. Just different justifications.

 

 

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

Some things are "collectively owned" but not collectively controlled. Tryin getting your public utility do change a policy.   You will find it almost impossible without going to your local government. 

... do you think "collectively owned" means anyone can walk up and decide to change a policy? The way collective ownership works is to... work through the local organization/government... try getting a private utility operating as a sanctioned monopoly to change a policy.

 

 

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

But once the utility and everything else is directly controlled by the government, there is no where to go. 

 

When the local factory is polluting - who to you talk to to tell it to stop? When its income goes directly to the government - which then doles out small amounts to the "owners" you have no power. 

You have very curious views on how local government works and its relationship to the citizens and apparently a complete misunderstanding of how public utilities operate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the left in general need to work together. One of the things that made Allende and Blume so successful was that they had coalition governments with both progressive liberals and communists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2021 at 9:21 PM, R_1 said:

I would consider myself adjacent to a good percentage of people that considers themselves socialist, but accurately a Scandinavia democrat i.e a person in the US democratic party that supports Scandinavia policies. It's not exactly socialism and neither are the Squad.

 

On 8/8/2021 at 9:46 PM, Zagadka said:

Social democrat is the general modern term for that school of policy, though it has a complicated history of use, mainly by "hardcore" revolutionary socialists and Marxist-Leninists use it as a pejorative for continued capitalism/neoliberalism.

Social democracy in its modern form has nothing to do with socialism; it's just capitalism with a band-aid on. Of course, it's provided a high standard of living in social democratic countries, because, shocked Pikachu, capitalism with a welfare state is better than capitalism without one, but it still has all the flaws of capitalism and is not a sustainable system.

 

Even if you believe in social democracy, just take a look at what's really going on in Europe and realize that all the SocDem countries have been steadily dismantling their welfare states for decades. The only reason social democracy was ever propped up was to counter socialism, but then the end of history happened and there was no reason to keep the mask on anymore.

 

 

On 8/8/2021 at 7:56 PM, ben8884 said:

For an example of actual socialism at work check out Salvador Allende.

Yeah, and then he was killed in a CIA coup and replaced by a murderous fascist because Henry Kissinger, one of the most despicable humans alive, decided that Chileans shouldn't be allowed to have democracy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...