this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025

173 points (95.3% liked)

Not The Onion

12663 readers

947 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

173

Elon Musk and Far-Right German Leader Agree ‘Hitler Was a Communist’ (www.wired.com)

submitted 12 hours ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The SPD, to this day, still works towards democratic socialism. It's been in the programme since the start. They have a lot of "belly-aches" along the way and they're often called traitors but, well, if they weren't leftists they could hardly betray the left, could they.

Social Democracy is not Socialism, it’s Capitalism with larger and more robust safety nets

And Marxism-Leninism is state capitalism, not socialism. Maoism doesn't even have public healthcare, Bismark was more of a socialist than that.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"Democratic Socialism" is a bit of a misnomer. It usually means one of two things, achieving Socialism via liberal democracy (impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg) or creating a Socialism via revolution but recreating liberal democracy, and not Socialist democracy, which is contradictory. In reality, therefore, it remains a Social Democratic ideology that upholds Capitalism but wishes to expand safety nets, and therefore isn't Socialist at all.

As for State Capitalism, that refers to a specific period of time, namely the NEP. The economy of states guided by Marxism historically are guided by public ownership and central planning, which was core to Marx's conception of an eventual Communist society. "State Capitalism" refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy and heavily guides it in a manner to achieve quick development, as Marxists believe public ownership and central planning is incredibly difficult to build "from the ground up" but that Markets readily create the infrastructure for public ownership and central planning through competition.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

(impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg)

Err what.

“State Capitalism” refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy

Lenin's economy. Market-focussed. I'm just going to leave that standing there, uncommented.

See I don't even disagree, in principle, with the statement "The SPD does not know how to bring about socialism". Only Anarchists do. Thing is: The SPD's approach is still way more on the money than anything tankies have ever come up with.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

With respect to Rosa Luxemburg, I am referring to Reform or Revolution, an excellent work.

For the uncommented bit, I am not sure the point you are making here. The goal of Socialism is not a fully publicly owned and planned economy, those are the means once industry has developed enough to make such a system practical. Russia was extremely underdeveloped when the NEP was employed. I think reading Marx might help you understand a bit more:

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

In a country where such a process hadn't yet become more developed, the Marxist answer is to create the foundations for public ownership and planning through a highly controlled and temporary market-focused economy, which was done away with.

The bit on the SPD is a bit silly, you claim that they are on the money yet have never created any form of Socialism, while Marxists have. You can be an Anarchist if you think that's best, that's your choice, but I recommend reading Marx if you want to better critique Marxists.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Liberals do not want to critique Marxism, they wish to endlessly dismiss it

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago

Yep, eventually twisting into knots to defend movements that haven't accomplished anything as "truly practical."

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

while Marxists have

Sure bud. Tell yourself that. While the USSR ultimately reached the stateless part, no actual groundwork for socialism was laid so banditry took over once the Bolshevik power structure collapsed. What followed was a free-for-all until the KGB got its shit together and... instituted imperialist nationalist capitalism. That organisation really hasn't changed since the times of the Tsar.

The Bolsheviks did not build resilience against any of that because building a society which is resilient against rule of minority groups seeking to exploit the masses would have undermined their own rule. The whole thing is inherently self-contradicting, Anarchists have been telling that Marx himself long before either of us were born so stop telling us to "read Marx". Rather, you read "On Authority" and identify the strawmen.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"Stateless" doesn't mean "governmentless," though the dissolution of the Socialist system nearly a century after its founding does not mean they never had a Socialist economy. Further, such a system did not "exploit the masses," it achieved massive working class victories such as free healthcare and education, doubled life expectancy, over tripling literacy rates to be higher than the Western world, and democratized the economy.

On Authority doesn't strawman anything.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

“Stateless” doesn’t mean “governmentless,”

According to the original socialist "state == hierarchical rule" definition, yes it does. Even Marx, even the Soviets, admitted that and did not confuse "real existing socialism" (sic) with actual communism.

the dissolution of the Socialist system nearly a century after its founding does not mean they never had a Socialist economy.

Congratulations, you understand sarcasm.

Further, such a system did not “exploit the masses,”

Irrespective of the veracity of that statement: Not something I said. Not the point.

On Authority doesn’t strawman anything.

Maybe you would be able to spot the strawman if you tried less hard to misunderstand my previous post. Something about resilience against something? Necessary preconditions?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago

You're actually quite far off about Marx and the State, and are presupposing the Anarchist as the "legitimate" and "original." For Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other non-Anarchist Socialists, the state was the tool of class oppression. The goal of Marx and Engels in their analysis was to show that the centralization of Capitalism leads to public ownership and planning, not decentralization. From Engels:

But to recognize the French Revolution as a class struggle and not simply as one between nobility and bourgeoisie, but between nobility, bourgeoisie, and those without any property, was, in the year 1802, a discovery of the greatest genius. In 1816 he declared that politics was the science of production and foretold the complete absorption of politics by economics.[23] Although the knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo, what is already very plainly expressed is the transition from political rule over men to the administration of things and the guidance of the processes of production -- that is to say, the "abolition of the state", about which there has recently been so much noise.

Further along:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Anarchists seek abolition of hierarchy, Marxists seek abolition of classes. You can be an Anarchist, but don't distort Marx to suit your ends.