And there is no single definition of socialism or communism, it's all a matter of debate. Some definition of it could contradict each other. I'm willing to support some social democrats, but when it comes to Marxist-Leninists or Maoists, well... treat them the same way fascists are treated.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Except there is exactly that: socialism is where the working class owns the means of production.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is normally a right wing or centrist nutjob. People who debate if the USSR are debating how well it meets that criteria, not what the criteria actually is.

Also there are loads of people who are socialists but not MLs. Not all communists are MLs or Maoists either. Anarchist communists, libertarian marxists are communists that don't fit into that group. Anarchists in general are socialists that don't agree with MLs or Maoists or authoritarian regimes like China or the USSR.

Stop going around spouting centrist nonsense and actually read socialist theories if you want to legitimately criticise it. You can't criticise such a broad range of systems without first understanding what they are and what they have in common.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Bruh, I just wrote that there are different types if socialists. MLs think that whatever they did is workers owning the means of production. It just so happens that this ML ideology is the state ideology of the wast majority of "socialist" states.

I clearly wrote that I have no problem with liberal leftists by giving socila democrats as example of socialists I would support. Is not liking MLs a centrist nonsense?

And I have no problem with any leftists until they do not start to oppose the democratic system with checks and balances. Which they, especially ML types, often do.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So basically anyone left of a social democrat you don't support? As far as I am concerned social democrats aren't real socialists but support hybrid economy.

Out of curiosity do you have any problem with anarchist communism, market socialism, or any other true socialist ideology that is pro civil liberties?

Also MLs do want a democracy, it's called democratic socialism (which are different from social democrats, yes it's confusing). As far as they are concerned the democracy we live in now isn't real, and I tend to agree with them on this as do many other leftist groups. Just to be clear I haven't been an ML in a while.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I basically disagree with any left or right wing person that want to destroy, through revolution or any other means, democratic system with it's checks and balances. Basically if your desired political system implies that there is no separation of power, I consider it authoritarian. And of course freedom of press, respecting human rights and not persecuting opposition is also an important part of it.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How can a society without a state - anarchism - possibly be authoritarian? There are no police or military to enforce any authoritarian policies is many forms of anarchism. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

I actually agree with you that MLs can be authoritarian. That's part of why I left those ideologies behind. What I don't agree with is painting all socialist ideologies with the same brush. Some are based on direct democracy which is always going to be more democratic than representative democracy, weather you think that's a good thing or not.

I also don't believe we live in a true democracy as it's controlled through political and economic corruption including lobbying, as well as the two-party system created through FPTP voting systems. Not to mention manufactured consent. So to me those checks and balances aren't that effective, especially compared to real direct democracy.

Edit: also MLs believe in checks and balances last I checked. The USSR was full of bureaucracy for this very reason.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Generally, anarchism seems to me like a dysfunctional mess or just a state with extra steps. And I don't see direct democracy working for any society with big population without leading to tyranny of majority, which I see as an authoritarian form of government. Not even mentioning that through direct democracy could rise some tyrant.

To clarify everything, by using democracy I mainly mean representative democratic republic. Direct democracy could be reasonably incorporated in democratic process, like it's done in Switzerland.

Imho, modern democratic systems have a lot of problems but in no way as much and as grave as its alternatives.

And no, ML do not believe in checks and balances. Having a lot of bureaucracy doesn't mean you have implemented the system of checks and balances. Marxism-Leninism presupposes creation of one party state controlled by the communist party, where the communist party is the supreme authority. Doesn't sound like a system with checks and balances.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Generally, anarchism seems to me like a dysfunctional mess or just a state with extra steps. And I don’t see direct democracy working for any society with big population without leading to tyranny of majority, which I see as an authoritarian form of government. Not even mentioning that through direct democracy could rise some tyrant.

So you don't actually care about being democratic as end in itself then.

And no, ML do not believe in checks and balances. Having a lot of bureaucracy doesn’t mean you have implemented the system of checks and balances. Marxism-Leninism presupposes creation of one party state controlled by the communist party, where the communist party is the supreme authority. Doesn’t sound like a system with checks and balances.

There are systems like Cuba which have multiple houses which vote on issues - just like USA and UK have multiples voting bodies. These people are representatives elected by the people. Grouping them into distinct parties doesn't make it more democratic and I can't see how it adds checks and balances.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you don’t actually care about being democratic as end in itself then.

I care about representative democratic republic with system of check and balances. Basically the system majority of people imagine when someone mentions democratic countries. I think it's the best system that showed itself to provide prosperity, stability, respect for human rights and so on.

Grouping them into distinct parties doesn’t make it more democratic and I can’t see how it adds checks and balances.

The problem there is with checks and balances. Allowing other political parties to take your place if you f up, is an important part of it.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

The problem there is with checks and balances. Allowing other political parties to take your place if you f up, is an important part of it.

In most modern democracies there are only two parties that actually matter. So this argument doesn't hold water to me.

I care about representative democratic republic with system of check and balances. Basically the system majority of people imagine when someone mentions democratic countries. I think it's the best system that showed itself to provide prosperity, stability, respect for human rights and so on.

Said system doesn't work. It's led to people starving on the streets, exploitation of poorer countries, and is propped up largely by war and suffering. Sure it's better than feudalism I guess, but feudalism was itself better than slave society. It's time to build something better.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Except there is exactly that: socialism is where the working class owns the means of production.

No that's Marxism. Socialism existed before Marx. Generally socialism is understood to be some form of collective ownership(in a strict form) by a community or state, but that could take the form of worker control, complete democratic control, or what it is in a lot of cases which is technocratic beuracrat control. In a less strict form it could even include voluntary cooperation.

[–] trekman10@union.place 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

that's just various examples of the working class owning (and managing) the means of production

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So the USSR was socialist? And so is North Korea? The state controls the means of production.

[–] trekman10@union.place 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Did I say they were? I was referring to "collective ownership (in a strict form) by a community or state [which]...take[s] the form of worker control, complete democratic control" as an example of the working class owning the means of production, and challenging the idea that "collective ownership" and "working class ownership of the means of production" are mutually exclusive.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I didn't say "which", I said "could". While what I said does include what you said, it also includes "collective ownership (in a strict form) by a community or state…which is technocratic beuracrat control"