this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
828 points (85.8% liked)

Memes

45731 readers
942 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, Chile was a democratic election but then came the CIA because those nasty people wanted their own resources for themself!

[–] WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

OK, that's as good an answer as any.

Salvador Allende got couped three years after his election. Are there any ways you can think to prevent a foreign power from undermining future hypothetical socialist governments that wouldn't be authoritarian?

[–] ikilledtheradiostar@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea, because they just gave up and certainly didn't try to defend themswlf, sadly even a gun is of no use as poor third world country facing the world power, I can't see a way to prevent that.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago

sadly even a gun is of no use as poor third world country facing the world power

Cuba is the most notable example of the many countries that have proven this wrong.

If you have popular support and guns, the options for the U.S. are either mass, indiscriminate slaughter or leaving. We usually get tired of the mass, indiscriminate slaughter after a few years.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea, the CIA got rid of them and installed one of the worse dictators in history. Luckily the fight against communism is over so I have my doubts it would happen that way again but especially for a poor country I see no chance whatsoever be that with or without violence :(

[–] WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The coup in Bolivia kind proved that even social democracy is off the table if it interferes with imperialist interests.

This is a problem that all anti-capitalist ideologies have to face.

The capitalist hegemony has an interest in preventing nations from shifting away from the status quo, so socialist, anarchist, whatever revolution that is fought, however it is fought. It will have to carry out some practices that would be decried as authoritarian to protect themselves from outside interference.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't see how you would protect yourself in that scenario, you seem to think they just let it happen on purpose which certainly wasn't the case, America is just a lot more powerful than any third world country. I do agree that the rich will always fight any attempt because they loose power and money from such a move and as soon as you interfer with imperialistic interests you are fucked byond recovery anyway.

[–] WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see how to protect this hypothetical socialist state either. Cuba has managed to escape any attempts that the US has made to overthrow it's democratic mandate but it had the support of the USSR in it's early stages and there's no hegemonic power right now that could be of similar help.

I'm not a particularly bright person, and I don't think I'll ever have a proper answer.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

There is a lot that's wrong with Cuba and I certainly wouldn't want to live there but it's one of if not the only better places (in terms of things like access to healthcare, housing and such) in south America despite heavy sanctions and the dictatorship but I have absolutely no idea how they still exist, it's a fucking miracle considering the the circumstances and they do it at very high costs in terms of technological progress. What I always viewed as huge mistake is the UDSSR or China as partner, they never cared much about the ideology (they did kind of care for a perverted version supporting some parts whenever it was convinient for the powerful but really not much) and fought for their own interests, doing so wasn't/isn't just a risk to your reputation which would be fine but also your autonomy and many of their goals aren't any less imperialistic than Americas.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Chile was coup'd by a faction in its own military with western backing, not actually invaded by the west. Chile could have prevented this by preemptively purging fascist officers in the military. This would have saved Chile but condemned it to being called fascist on lemmy.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My main issue with authoritarian attempts to achive anything close to socialism failed because of coruption and similar shit if they didn't just use it as nothing but a talking point in the first place so I don't see that as viable option to achive any kind of equality ether.

[–] WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That the USSR managed to last long as long as it did despite being invaded by more developed nations multiple times during the aftermath of its revolution and eventually collapsed largely due to its own internal corruption does put paid to the idea that some authoritarian measures will help protect a socialist state from external attempts to destabilise it.

The problem seems to be one inherent within the structure of states. Any heirarchical structure like that is fit to be abused by someone sufficiently self interested that they'd put their own interests above the interests of the people gestures at Mikhail Gorbachev selling the USSR out to the Western core for his own enrichment.

Anarchism, being decentralised, might be able to withstand some of the issues that were present in the late USSR. But previous anarchist attempts have been crushed by outside actors much easier than socialist attempts.

I don't really know what there is to be done.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Absolutely but authoritarian states are at a even higher risk in that regard and you got enough powerful enemies as a socialist already. One of the biggest issue for Arnachism next to the absurd amount of very different interpretations is ironically Socialism/Communism, parts of many revolutions had Arnachist ideas and so did big parts of the historic worker movments (Black is the flag of the Arnachist and Red of the Socialist worker) but they never really managed to get any of them in to the new system even after a successful revolution. It's all a very tough question and I wish I had good answers but I fear the truth is none of us dose, at least we oppose fucking capitalism I guess, that's a start and history has shown it can spread to bigger parts of society in some cases.

[–] raven@hexbear.net 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are violent revolutions not a form of democracy? They generally require popular support to succeed.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You misunderstand. When liberals violently overthrow the aristocracy, that's a liberation movement. When socialists violently overthrow the capitalists, that's authoritarian tankie red fascism.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

but I thought propaganda was when I don't listen to the western narrative