this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
924 points (100.0% liked)

196

16453 readers
2296 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 82 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The Ultimate Worrier

lmao, so worried.

[–] Manalith@midwest.social 24 points 2 months ago

Makes me want the username American Ninja Worrier.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Even a standard warrior would have no trouble winning over me, imagine what an ultimate warrior could do!!

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Win you over for the last time.

[–] Sternburgexport@feddit.org 58 points 3 months ago

Lmao gotteem

[–] tyler@programming.dev 40 points 3 months ago
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago

To be fair, that style of rhetoric where you repeat part of the comment you're epic dunking on is common on Reddit.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Socialism with democracy, but for that to happen the people need to install an temporary authoritarian government to make the transition no?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What if I told you we could vote ourselves into socialism?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That depends on if you believe in Stalin's ideas of a vanguard or Trotskys ideas of a vanguard. According to Trotsky the vanguard of the workers should be democratically elected.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or, hear me out, you can be a non-Marxist socialist, because socialism does not only mean Marxism.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, however I assume the person was specifically referring to Stalinism.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 2 months ago

Then the assumptions they forwarded as absolutes need to be addressed instead of accepted.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Authoritarian governments never allow themselves to be temporary. Generally speaking, they usually have to be forcibly removed.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You’ve seen them on the telly, those authoritarian governments that resign peacefully when their work is done.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Theoretically, amendments could be passed to alter the Constitution into anything, if they have support from enough states. Then again, if (theoretically) enough people support a radical change that is prevented because of the outsized influence of some states, how is that democratic?

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago

Understood, thanks!

[–] randoot@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

No, if enough people vote for socialist candidates and they pass a law that says all property now belongs to the state, then it'd be enforced just like any other current law.

The transition could be gradual. If we started nationalizing companies that get too big, and do that for a few generations then the state would own 99% of the economy.

If we keep raising property tax, you'd effectively get to the point where people are leasing the land rather than owning it.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Communism brain rot is trendy nowadays. It’s the last refuge for the tortured mind of the permanently online doomers. It’s almost non existent in real life thankfully

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not strictly necessary, but it sure does seem to keep happening.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Unless China does something very funny to their billionaire class and starts pushing the perpetual revolution, I think it's fairly safe to assume traditional Marxist thought is no longer the most dominant socialist school, and when the resource wars start in earnest there will be some genuine shifts in what kind of government a socialist revolution seeks to enact.

That or the fascists just win this time.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

that usually ends in disaster. never mind the fact that authoritarian governments like the power and wouldn't want to give it back, which defeats the entire point of socialism...

but even if you have a completely benign dictator (usually just a fantasy but for the sake of argument let's say we had one) people, especially in democracies, don't like the idea of a coup, unless it's them doing it but then it's a revolution. but that could also lead to reactionary sentiment.

we've seen this happen in Iran. democracy gets fucked with by a US coup, people react with a revolution but unfortunately reactionary forces use the anger to their advantage and devolve into a different kind of authoritarian regime anyway.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Dude Coyote'ed himself.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Socialism replaces Liberal democracy with something else (depends on the specific ideology).

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

LibDems (and Liberals in general) get pissed when I remind them that Liberalism isnt a left wing ideology.

i meant the British political party