you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 2 hours ago* (2 children)

Maybe this is our disconnect:

You seem to be approaching this as if the goal is a USSR-like society, and so you argue that progressive politics won't achieve that.

I agree. They won't. And I don't want them to, either. I would say most people don't want that.

By the angle I'm approaching from, which is what I think the current zeitgeist is onboard with, is making incremental progress towards a system closer to the Nordic Model.

There's a reason Norway has the stereotype of being one of the best places in the world to live. They enjoy an excellent quality of life. If we can achieve that in the US, I can spend the rest of my life peacefully avoiding politics, only turning up to vote in each election so that we can maintain it.

And I believe that's possible with progressive politics. And I believe it's impossible to achieve using violence.

So that's likely the source of our disagreement. I don't want a USSR-like society. I don't want bolsheviks to violently overthrow the civic order, plunging society into chaos so that they can reshape it into their own authoritarian wetdream.

So if that's your goal, then I stand as firmly against you as I stand against fascism. And even if I have to walk a razor's edge to arrive safely at my destination, then my feet are gonna bleed, but I'm gonna keep fuckin walking. Because that's the only way forward that doesn't lead off a cliff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    I don't necessarily need the USSR, I need a worker controlled society. I need socialism, where the commanding heights of the economy are socially controlled and the working class controls the state. This is incompatible with the Nordic model, which is essentially capitalist control of the state and commanding heights, but a large welfare net, one that comes from imperialism and unequal exchange. The high living standards in the Nordics come from the backs of global south labor.

    What I want is worker liberation, and an end to the dictatorship of capital. If you stand against the workers of the world, including yourself, so that you can enjoy cushy safety nets taken from the backs of the global south, then you have far more in common with fascism than I ever could.

    The fact that you do not even mention imperialism and unequal exchange while espousing the Nordic Model is precisely why we need to be serious and study socialism, rather than operate purely off of vibes and hopium. Revolutionary optimism is good, nonsense is bad.

    Also, for what it's worth, your jab at the USSR is unfounded, it was far more democratic than the Nordics are today.

    The disconnect seems to me to be that I recognize and understand imperialism as a system capitalism necessarily evolves into, and that I see the state as a product of class struggle dependent on the mode of production and distribution. You see capitalism, ironically, as a static system that can be perpetuated forever (or at least for our lifetimes) as long as we simply vote to maintain social democrats, and do not factor in that this requires the moribund system of imperialism to go on for at least a while longer despite already being on its way out.

    When you fight tooth and nail against the only group that can bring socialism, when capitalism collapses under its own weight you'll only have barbarism. You'd rather oppose a transition to socialism and have barbarism necessarily take its place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 34 minutes ago

    Why do you think a violent revolution would result in a worker-controlled socialist society? It seems it would just result in a society dominated by whoever controls the revolution, its resources, and distribution systems.

    And the thing you gloss over is that that's precisely what tends to happen in so-called "communist" revolutions. I put communist in quotes because I know that's not true communism. But Stalin and Mao were both authoritarian dictators who centralized resources under their personal control, maintained dominance and hierarchy through their personality cults, and caused millions of deaths and widespread suffering throughout the regions under their control. To say nothing of the surveillance states they used to maintain their hold on power.

    I agree that capitalism is going to inevitably crumble, especially now that it's reached the point when it physically cannot continue to expand. However, by my view, violence and chaos are the path to barbarism.

    The purpose of building the welfare state and social safety nets now isn't to pacify the masses to enable capitalism to continue. It's to have those structures in place so that when capitalism does inevitably fall, we'll already be able to organize ourselves civilly and distribute resources in such a way that everyone has what's needful.

    The transition to socialism can and must occur. But it must happen through political means, or else all is lost. And to do so, first the welfare state must be in place.

  • source
  • parent