Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
472 replies to this topic

#421
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

lfey659jwk3y.jpg


  • caltrek likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#422
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭Пришло время для большевистских мемов, товарищ!☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Дразнят грязную и умирающую императрицу буржуев!

JLE66Fv.jpg

 

 

 

Вот, как Императрица-буржуа становится чернорабочим!

nms3ep1.jpg

 

 

Красивая пролетарская императрица ходит ее домашнее животное робот!

V4RHnjn.jpg

 

I have no idea if anything I just typed made sense.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#423
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

I also have to thank my OCD towards Mother Meki for helping me understand what exactly the dictatorship of the proletariat really means. Before last month, I could never quite move past that damn word, "dictatorship". 

But now I understand that it actually means "take the current order, but now reverse it." In America (and, indeed, across the world), we have two bourgeois political parties. They aim to assist the capitalist class more than anything— one just happens to pay lip service to the underclasses from time to time. The proletariat has to choose between these two bourgeois parties that don't represent, deciding which one gets to rule over us. 

In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the same rules apply. It's just that, instead of the two parties representing the bourgeoisie, they represent the proletariat. What few bourgeois there are, thus, have to choose between one of these two proletarian parties to rule over them.

 

Definitely could use a change in phrasing. Just like how I've been raging against the term "lab-grown meat". No one wants lab-grown meat, but they will take clean meat (or simply meat). Workers don't want a "dictatorship", even if it's in their name. But call it something like "worker republicanism" or "proletarian democracy", and you get supporters instantly.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#424
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

My post on Technism.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#425
As We Rise

As We Rise

    On and off and on and off

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts

.


Currently going through a shift in my views.


#426
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Here's a meme for our resident commies

photo.jpg


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#427
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

xiaoviolyn

Marx's theory was that Communism was a natural progression from Capitalism, based on technological progression, and its impact on society.
Feudalism to Capitalism with the advent of the Industrial Revolution (and thus cheap goods and labor to exploit for mass production), and then Capitalism to Socialism as the rich got richer, while the poor got poorer but smarter and more knowledgeable due to being more politically conscious.
The transition from Capitalism to Socialism is not the same as a transition from Capitalism to Communism, as Marx's works specifically outline that Socialism is the key phase in which the groundwork for Communism develops.
The ground work established by Socialism is that because of Capitalism, the three classes (Upper, Middle, Lower) will eventually become an imbalance between the Upper (the Bourgeoisie), and everyone else (the Proletariat). The concept was that all the wealth of society would funnel into this small elite who had control over the means of production for society (ie. monopolies over industry, etc.), and the Middle class fractured -- the richest becoming rich, the poorest becoming poorer.
This is the famed 'class struggle' that is prevalent in Marxist literature, and Marx then offhandedly remarked that the Proletariat would eventually overthrow the Bourgeoisie as the dependence the Proletariat once had for the Bourgeoisie disappears as new technologies/means of production emerge.
Once the old class of the factory and corporate-owning bourgeoisie disappeared, the theoretical stage of 'Communism' would come into being, where the old Proletariat are now the 'ruling class'. Marx would then go on to merely theorise/speculate what a Communist society would be like, as Marxist theory revolves on this cycle of class struggle:
The majority splits into a pyramid of classes. As technology progresses, the classes begin to merge. Climax is reached when a major technological/societal/cultural revolution takes place, and the current ruling class is ousted by the majority. Repeat.
Now, what the Western World generally perceives as 'Communism'/'Marxism', is actually Leninism.
Lenin, unlike Marx (who treated Communism as 'heaven' in some respects, I guess), believed so strongly in rushing Russian society onto the route of Communism, that he wrote pages and pages on forcing human beings to artificially develop faster and reach the fabled 'Communist Utopia'.
Enter Leninism, and the Vanguard of the Proletariat.
The Vanguard were intellectuals who spearheaded the revolution. Lenin figured that the Proletariat didn't NEED to know that they were being exploited, nor did they NEED to start the revolution themselves. (EDIT: After having this brought to my attention, I've found my source on this wasn't particularly reliable. Lenin's Vanguard also served as the role as educator of the masses to Marxism. Regardless of his intent, however, in practice, it wasn't particularly well executed. Subsequent critics of Lenin would later state what I had crossed out earlier!) He didn't WANT to wait for the middle class to eventually fracture into the poor and the rich, and he didn't care -- so he did it bottom down, believing that the only way to reach utopia... Was to seize it by force.
That is the difference between Marx and subsequent 'Communist' ideologies.

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.


  • zEVerzan likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#428
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

xiaoviolyn

Thanks, and I'll try to answer these to the best of my ability!
Disclaimer: I was educated in China, under Chinese sources, so I may or may not be biased, so please take my answers with a grain of salt and form your own opinions after looking at other perspectives too!
The fracturing of the middle class into a rich bourgeoisie class getting increasingly richer and everyone else getting increasingly poorer is what leads to the 'class struggle', correct?
Yes.
If so, how does the proletariat pull themselves away from the control of the rich using progression of technology? Wouldn't the rich be in control of the new technology?
This is a hard one, and is one of the questions asked among a few Marxists. I'm no soothsayer, but as Marxism is based upon historical repetition, I'd look towards the previous 'technological revolutions' in order to answer this.
Let's look at Tokugawa Japan, and its transition to Meiji Japan as an example of a contemporary Feudal-Capitalist shift.
If so, how does the proletariat pull themselves away from the control of the rich using progression of technology?
The key to this is that the rich/ruling class becomes complacent, and that the 'lower portion' of the Middle Class become 'turncoats' and are forced into Proletariat status.
In Tokugawa Japan, the Tozama Daimyos, while rulers in their own right, were considered below the other Daimyos, and for this shard of history, were the 'turncoats' from Middle Class to Proletariat.
As some of you may know, the Tozama Daimyos were eventually the ones who embraced Westernisation and Capitalism (Rangaku, etc. etc.) while the Shogunate rejected it. With superior military and economic might caused by their adoption of Capitalism, the Tozama would then go on to spearhead the Meiji Restoration and overthrow the Tokugawa Shogunate, and usher in an industrial revolution for Japan.
Wouldn't the rich be in control of the new technology?
This is interesting because a recurring theme in history is that the ruling classes tend to become complacent, and attempt to pursue the status quo. This may be their downfall!
In the cycle of the class struggle, does this repeat indefinitely according to Marx? Does the cycle continue after the stage of Communism is reached?
It's been a while, so I can't remember exactly what Marx has to say about this, but IIRC, yes, the cycle continues. Communism was just the furthest Marx could predict. Treat Communism as a "IN THE YEAR 20XX..." kind of thing you see in videogames!
Lenin, on the other hand, believed that anything was better than Capitalism, so he focused everything on trying to overcome that.
And from what you said regarding Lenin's views vs. Marx's, in short Marx believed that it was up to the people to pull themselves away as technology progressed and the revolution and subsequent utopia would naturally occur, while Lenin believed that he could jumpstart the revolution without having to get rid of the Proletariat's dependence on the Bourgeoisie?
Yes! One of the KEY things of Marx's vision of the revolution from Capitalism to Socialism was that the Proletariat would become smarter and more politically aware. This could be accomplished through ubiquitous education, free and unlimited access to information and opinions, etc.
In short, the Proletariat had to know they were being oppressed before they could try to struggle against the Bourgeoisie!
And to tie it back into the discussion about China, were Mao and co.'s ideologies significantly different from Lenin's in how they approached the problems? How?
Overall, there was very little ideological difference between Leninism to Stalinism, and Stalinism to Maoism, as most offshoots of modern Communism are derived from Leninism. Their differences generally come from operational/technical differences!
A very abridged explanation is:

  • Leninism = force revolution
  • Stalinism = maintain revolution
  • Maoism = Stalinism, but with a focus on peasants and mass agriculture rather than workers and industry
I can't really elaborate on how they approached the problems because these ideologies sprung up at different 'time periods' of their respective revolutions, so to speak. Leninism emerged as a means to kick out the Tsars, Stalinism emerged as a means to industrialise Russia, and Maoism emerged because Mao was having trouble adapting Stalinism to a woefully undeveloped and uneducated China!

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#429
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Isn't it interesting how most discussions of a highly automated economy tend to return to something that basically mimics what Marx (not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, the original guy Karl Marx) said? 

 

In fact, the only people I've ever seen deny the possibility of high-automation are the same who are typically opposed to socialism but, at the same time, support the same sort of innovation that would lead to automation— you know, neoliberals; libertarians; ancaps; voluntaryists; minarchists. Jakob and Linux on this very forum are perfect examples— Jakob seems to react with glee to anything that suggests that AI and automation are being slowed down or aren't progressing at the exponential rates people claim they are. Yet if the world were predominantly minarchistic, the profit motive would invariably mean that business leaders would pursue automation and eventually general AI, which then sets the stage for classical Marxian socialism to arise, either through gradual evolution or through ultraviolence. Those who can see this coming don't deny it and do try thinking of solutions that don't fall back on the Reverse Luddite Fallacy.

 

 

The perfect example of this is nowhere else but the libertarian mecca that is Silicon Valley— a place that is basically the world center for center-left libertarianism, full of social progressives/economic libertarians. They're the ones championing the idea of automation today (perhaps because of their direct relationship with advanced technology?) leading to a neo-palace economy via UBI tomorrow. I've already explained why I think UBI won't be great times, but it's something more than simply saying "there'll be new jobs we can't imagine today".

 

 

ADD moment: Well, them and anarcho-primitivists. Though they're more of the lot who unironically believe in that humanity was at its peak with "primitive communism"


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#430
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • LocationUK

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.

But those are the only times when socialism has ever risen on this Earth. Only using Marxism-Leninism can socialism ever rise again and sustain itself. Obviously it would be different depending on the particular circumstances under which particular revolutions take place and the national conditions etc but the core principles of Leninism (itself just an evolution of Marxism) will still be implemented if socialism is to succeed.



#431
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

 

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.

But those are the only times when socialism has ever risen on this Earth. Only using Marxism-Leninism can socialism ever rise again and sustain itself. Obviously it would be different depending on the particular circumstances under which particular revolutions take place and the national conditions etc but the core principles of Leninism (itself just an evolution of Marxism) will still be implemented if socialism is to succeed.

That's basically the same idea as "This is the only way it's been tried; it's the only way it ever will work." This is the socialist equivalent of conservatism or traditionalism.

One of these days, a great protestant reformation will occur in the socialist realm. When that'll come and what it'll look like, I don't know.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#432
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • LocationUK

Okay whatever, as you wish. Essentially what I mean is that there's nothing wrong with using Leninism. As for these 'new' types of socialism that will supposedly arise and sweep the world, we'll see...



#433
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,565 posts

Rosa Luxemburg: The unsung hero of postcolonial theory

 

https://www.aljazeer...1102537785.html

 

Introduction:

 

(Al Jazeera) The world at large is these days celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) the revolutionary political economist who, with a single act of theoretical genius, redefined our enduring understanding of the material foundations of our economic class, social life, political positions, and ideological proclivitiesin his three-volume magnum opus, Das Kapital (1867–1883) . His very vocabulary of theorising the economic foregrounding of social and political (and even religious) forces have now become integral to the social sciences and the humanities - used and abused by friends and foes alike. 

 

In a world ravaged by the wanton cruelty of predatory capitalism - now most notoriously led by the imperial presidency of Donald Trump and his billionaires' cabinet, aided and abetted by their European and regional allies - the enduring wisdom of Marx's theory of capital and its political consequences continue to guide the course of our struggles for global justice.

Marx, however, was incurably Eurocentric in the very cast of his critical thinking. Although he was aware of the expansionist proclivities of a capitalist economy, Marx never fully developed a theory of how colonialism was the modus operandi of this capitalist tendency. Although in the 1850s, Marx wrote brilliantly in his essays for New York Daily Tribune on various aspects of European colonialism, his Eurocentric blind spot led him to his notorious notion of "Oriental Despotism" and the scandalous argument that colonialism was actually good for India because it "modernised" the subcontinent.

 

Such theoretical blinders and political blunders barred the extension of his own insights into a more global theory of capital and its political consequences. When it came to his perception of the non-European world, Marx was as much an Orientalist as the rest of his European contemporaries - though he, of course, wished to see the world liberated globally from the terrors of an abusive capitalist system. But when he said, "Workers of the World Unite," he basically had European workers in mind. The rest of the world had to be liberated from their feudal ways and "modernised" before reaching the revolutionary consciousness of his European audience.

 

The necessary and crucial task of extending Marx's groundbreaking ideas to the world at large remained for the next generation of Marxist critical thinkers, the Polish-born German Jewish revolutionary thinker and activist Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) in particular.

1e332f2a7c64431ea11bf03557c69912_18.jpg

Carnations are laid on the tomb of German communist leader Rosa Luxemburg during a ceremony to commemorate her death, at the Monument for the Socialists in Berlin, Germany

[Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters]


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#434
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

This lady needed a new liver to live, and she had to fight her insurance tooth and nail to get it.

Quote

Portland, Oregon (CNN)All Erika Zak wants to do is play with her daughter on the playground. Take her to the zoo. Walk her to school.

 
She's never been able to be the mother she longs to be.
 
At 38, Erika is dying.
 
Her battle to live began almost as soon as her daughter, Loïe, was born four years ago, when Erika was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic colon cancer that had spread to her liver.
The cancer was removed from her colon and, her doctors say, she responded well to treatment. But a microwave ablation surgery last year to remove two tumors from her liver went terribly wrong, leaving a fist-sized hole in her liver and destroying her bile ducts.
 
Every day since has been a fight to survive. She's been hospitalized 19 times in Oregon over the last 12 months for infections, bleeding and an array of other health issues.
She has high blood pressure in her liver, which backs up the veins in her esophagus and can be catastrophic. Her surgical oncologist constantly worries she will fall ill with a bad infection and die.

I know that this has a happy ending, but nonetheless it exemplifies how completely screwed up the American healthcare system is.  It's the shitty insurance companies screwing us over, and the shitty hospitals that just bend over and take it.  We need to de-privatize the healthcare system, or at the lest reform it so that things don't cost us 20x what they cost the hospitals to preform.

 

Capitalism, and specifically privatization and deregulation, at its finest.

 

X-post from Scum


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#435
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

29740202_156543205040488_515565636533878


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#436
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,671 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

I also have to thank my OCD towards Mother Meki for helping me understand what exactly the dictatorship of the proletariat really means. Before last month, I could never quite move past that damn word, "dictatorship". 

But now I understand that it actually means "take the current order, but now reverse it." In America (and, indeed, across the world), we have two bourgeois political parties. They aim to assist the capitalist class more than anything— one just happens to pay lip service to the underclasses from time to time. The proletariat has to choose between these two bourgeois parties that don't represent, deciding which one gets to rule over us. 

In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the same rules apply. It's just that, instead of the two parties representing the bourgeoisie, they represent the proletariat. What few bourgeois there are, thus, have to choose between one of these two proletarian parties to rule over them.

 

Definitely could use a change in phrasing. Just like how I've been raging against the term "lab-grown meat". No one wants lab-grown meat, but they will take clean meat (or simply meat). Workers don't want a "dictatorship", even if it's in their name. But call it something like "worker republicanism" or "proletarian democracy", and you get supporters instantly.

 

Thanks for bringing this up, one of my biggest criticisms of socialism/communism is that the terminology is so harsh and austere-sounding, even though the concepts make a lot of sense when you actually bother to look up their true meaning. This has the effect of alienating (ha) people who are on the fence about the whole thing. I attribute this to bad translations from German.

 

Gotta repackage lefty words to be more friendly to western ears because linguistics are important! Market it to be competitive in the Free Marketplace of Ideas, if you will. Because as we all know, the Free Marketplace of Ideas determines success based on how well-marketed an idea is, and its currency is attention.

 

Fascists understand this very well and repackage their ideas constantly to be marketable in the Free Marketplace of Ideas, as seen with the rise and fall of the Alt-Right and their euphemised slurs and nazi propaganda. Sure most lefties saw through it but most normies were happy to give them the benefit of the doubt until some fash accelerated his car through a crowd of counter-protesters and murdered someone. In fact, it seems they always communicate in this ever-mutating code language, that in modern times usually involves emojis. It's fascinating!

 

Fascists are always evolving, but lefties are stuck using the same words for a century and a half! C'mon, we're supposed to be progressive! That's why I love memetics.

 

d38.jpg


  • joe00uk and rennerpetey like this
I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#437
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

I also have to thank Mother Meki for helping me understand what "social justice" means. True social justice would be if the oppressed classes/peoples are granted political and economic power. Anything less is a concession. Would you rather be subservient to the admittedly helpful feudal lord who claims to sympathize with you and gives you extra seeds for the winter than the old harsh lord did, or would you like direct control of the seedgrain.

I think that's why I don't like SJWs most of the time. It feels too much like they don't understand what social justice is and are merely following a trend of "white cis people, usually males, do stuff we don't like and we're going to rant about it". Mind you, many SJWs are really exaggerated caricatures found by the alt-right, but there are real sorts. The "my culture is not your prom dress" thing is one example of that. Literally only middle-class Westerners, usually white girls, got offended whereas the Chinese— you know, actual communists— learned of it and thought it was amazing that an American actually wanted to wear something they saw as casual dress but figured wasn't well known outside their borders. If anything, the SJW reaction was more offensive to the Chinese than the actual prom dress. That's not social justice. That's probably one of the furthest things from social justice. 

 

 

And I keep coming back to Mother Meki, talking about it in terms of lefty politics. Creating such a story has done more for helping me understand leftist and rightist politics than any amount of propaganda, defining texts, and blog articles ever could. What you said, Evan, is exactly the reason why Mother Meki was ever a thing in the first place. Going back to 2010 or so, back when it was nothing more than "wealthy young princess helps overthrow her oppressive regime and accidentally suffers under the Red Terror along with other members of the old order", I kept building onto it because I wanted to see other such stories, stories that were set after a revolution and constructed a socialist world. I never found any. Just about all leftist/anticapitalist fiction I found (that I could actually read) was inflammatory calls for action against injustice of some sort. It was Soviet socialist realism that broke the mold, and most of that is untranslated. When I imagine Marxist writing, I think of extremely dry, academic, sexless, humorless details of what a certain revolutionary slogan means in societal functions. 

 

 

It's ironic how conservative Marxism is. It hasn't grown up over the past hundred years and steadfastly refuses to get with the times, which is why I told Joe that there has to be some sort of Protestant Reformation of socialism at some point. It's one reason why technism is what it is. When I re-examined technism and Vyrdism, I realized pretty soon that "Marxism-Technism" is probably a more apt name for it and technism is, without any irony, what socialism should be today. When we're so close to the age of automation and artificial intelligence, using century-old slogans won't work. Adopting the measures of leaders from agrarian societies in industrial ones won't work— hence why Maoism is literally something no one but those leftists in the most backwards and underdeveloped regions of the planet should aim for. Maoism has nothing to give to industrial societies because Maoism was literally intended as a means of bringing an agrarian society into the industrial age. It's like freezing water to toss ice cubes in Antarctica. Stalinism, too, isn't useful for the modern age. Stalinism arose as a means of radical industrialization. The part about running through kulaks and all that— that was besides the point. All of these big socialist concepts are basically running on outdated hardware, using outdated languages, like a parody of itself. Socialism in the 21st century has to base itself around automation and post-industrialism. 


  • joe00uk, Erowind and rennerpetey like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#438
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,671 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably
Yes yes a thousand times. Also another thing I dislike about lefty is how pedantic and sectarian they a-

the Chinese— you know, actual communists

EXCUSE ME

Yes, the communist Chinese. With their stock exchanges, different classes, overworked businessmen, and consumer culture. China stopped being communist long ago.

Self aware jabs aside, yes the left needs a legitimate movement.
Technically with sufficiently advanced technology an old-school communist system would work but it would be very stunted compared to what a more integrated techno-Marxist society could be.

To add to your point, socialism's only really been tried by developing nations. Russia, China, Cuba, all had their revolutions at an agrarian level and then built their modern infrastructure. Thing is, socialism should only really be tried in nations where capitalism had allowed them to prosper and already created all their infrastructure and tech. ThE progression should be, Primal Communism> Slave State> Feudal State> Capitalism> Socialism> Communism. Sure Stalinism and Maoism worked to develop those previously backward nations but I argue Communism should never have been attempted as early as it was.

You can't just start as a Feudal State and skip right to trying Communism immediately, it might kinda work but as we've seen it'll probably turn out authoritarian and impoverished because it doesn't have the technological and cultural development needed for Communism to truly prosper. That's why Communism has failed so far in history, add to that more powerful capitalist nations going out of their way to ensure communism's failure.
  • Yuli Ban, Erowind and rennerpetey like this
I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#439
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,155 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

This is the same thing that I've been trying to do with Babylon Today and slice of tomorrow in regards to futuristic technology. I realized at some point that you can promise and predict anything. Create memes, create infographics, create art pieces and whatnot, hold lectures and forums to discuss a certain topic, etc. One of the best ways to truly visualize it is to set it in motion. If you can't do it in real life, do it in a story. 

And why I'm trying slice of tomorrow is because I realized that the closer a character's life resembles our own, the more we can actually relate to what's going on. And that's where a lot of sci-fi falls flat, in that they focus on heroes and villains. There are attempts to make the heroes everymans, but that's not actually addressing the issue. 


  • rennerpetey likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#440
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,671 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably
As for my previous post, I quoted you and accidentally pressed the submit button. I edited in my actual point tho, Damn mobile
I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users