this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
931 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39004 readers
3157 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well there was this guy called Karl Marx, who tried to suggest solutions to the problems of capitalism.

...but I hear he's not trending these days. Wrong kind of people liked his stuff.

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Actually socialism is more popular now than ever. Enough that mainstream media constantly writes scare articles about how socialist the young generations are.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The media thinking they can threaten me with a good time...

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's what the media has always done. It's just that in this age it's the easiest it's ever been to see past red scare propaganda.

[–] glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Socialism" in the form of government regulations and healthcare is popular. Not so much Marxism or proleterian revolution

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're seriously underestimating what most young socialists believe. It is true that they don't believe in revolution, but many of them change when they grow older and they lose faith in the system. I'm confident that will keep happening.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a millennial communist - though in any practical sense, I'm socialist. I've got very little faith in the system beyond it's ability to act on its self-interest, but (as much as I'd like to believe otherwise) I believe revolution isn't a sustainable way to bring about the change we want.

Revolution before we put in the groundwork to level wealth inequality will inevitably lead to power imbalance, and a likely collapse into autocracy. On the negative side, we see the likes of China and the USSR - massive death, famine, corruption, and a failure to deliver on the promise of worker enfranchisement. The most positive example I can think of is Cuba.

I want revolution to be a practical path forward - it brings the change we need quickly when we don't have the time to wait and incremental transition will be all but impossible at this point, but I'd need to be convinced it won't almost certainly lead to a worse state. What would be different about this revolution that would see it go right (or what examples am I missing?)

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What would be different about this revolution that would see it go right (or what examples am I missing?)

I would say there's no way revolutions of today will go in exactly the same path as before. Remember that China's and Russia's revolutions happened in extermely rural, agrarian, over exploited and basically completely ruined countries. If there's a revolution in the global north, just the difference in conditions and systems is already going to make a huge difference. But even if it happens in the global south, most of it is at least partially industrialized and not agrarian, as far as I know.

Anyway, other than that, I can't really give you an objective, unbiased answer. I was actually the same as you a couple of years ago, actually. I had the same concerns as you. I think you would really resonate with anarchist theory, analysis and critique of past revolutions, if you're interested in digging into it.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven't seen much to encourage me in more recent 'colour' revolutions and the Arab spring either. I figure I'd be more receptive if the history of this kind of thing (while circumstantially different) want near-universally bad.

Funnily enough, I feel my argument is based on anarchist principles (though I haven't read the theory) - if we don't address the practical power disparities created by wealth disparities, it'll be near impossible to fight the formation of less democratic hierarchies than we have today.

Whatever the case, this is a motivation for me to pull my finger out and go read Kropotkin though - cheers.

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Kropotkin is a nice start, though if you want an introduction I think Errico Malatesta's work is a lot better for that. The essay "Anarchy" is short for leftist standards and is very good. Also "At the cafe" is honestly an amazing introduction piece and it's written in a regular language as socratic dialogues, so it's perfect for starting. It even adresses a lot of counter arguments from many perspectives.

Otherwise Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloo is also amazing.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

While we might not agree on the methods, I appreciate you!

I'll look in to those.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Socialism isn't, but "SociALiSm" is.

Taxing people and providing social services is not Socialism. It's capitalism and good governance.

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, an average person in the DSA believes in wayy more than any regular social democrat. I agree that they're not radical enough, but they're an enormous organization of people against the status quo and so many of them genuinely care, so it's no surprise that a huge part of current radicals are ex-DSA members.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The DSA is not a significant political force, much less the people that radicalize out of the DSA.

In August 2023, the organization claimed 77,575 members.[1] According to the finance data for the 2021 DSA convention, the organization collected $4.6 million in membership dues in 2020.[157] The DSA allows membership dues waivers for members who "may be experiencing financial problems right now".[158]

DSA membership in 2023 declined from 2021, when membership peaked at around 95,000 members

Even at their peak, 100k people is not a significant political force, nor what I would call an "enormous organization."

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Enormous by socialist standards. The fact that they can have so many members in this day and age is commendable. A few decades ago any socialist thought being given an honest platform at all among the general population was a miracle.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The internet helped lots of uninformed populists radicalize each other, sadly.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We have different definitions of "enormous organization"

[–] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

For the standards of leftists in the USA, they're massive.