No, I have a lot of experience in liberal organizations and they are not, despite the memes, closer to conservatism than progressivism.

Perhaps if you redefine progressivism.

The major differences between a liberal and a social democrat or progressive comes down largely to deciding when a market has failed and when to use government intervention, both Liberals and progressives are fine with intervention, only the threshold changea. We want the same things, mostly, but disagree on how to get them.

Yep, you redefined it.

Conservatives, philosophical Conservatives anyway, won’t typically even consider such a thing, and often do not even want the same things as Liberals or progressives.

Conservatives often do, and the distance between genuine progressivism and liberalism is shorter than liberalism and conservativism.

This both sides same stuff just hurts progressive causes, because it sours mushy people with little to no real philosophy on voting for liberal parties. Those people flip flop back to Conservatives when they get angry and we lose the progress we’ve made, as is about to happen in Canada.

Electoralism will not save you.

Conservatives are a subcategory of liberal. They aren’t conflated, that’s like saying thumbs and fingers get conflated.

How’d you get a picture of me?

Per Capita?

Yes, they are rapidly developing and increasing percentages of their overall power comes from renewables, especially Solar, which they have invested tons of money into R&D to make scaling that economical.

Yes, they have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat that carefully manages and plans a market economy in a transitional socialist state.

But first we have to get rid of capitalism and institute democratic socialist planning.

All strains of Socialism are democratic, it’s a bit redundant to include unless you’re trying to emphasize the democratic factor as opposed to our current system.

So you believe murdering Palestinians is okay, then, if we aren’t “too far gone” yet.

This is the most nothing-burger reply. Queer people are among the most vocally supportive of moving outside the bounds of electoralism because the DNC does not protect them.

Very short way of saying you will never lift a finger other than to vote even if Trump takes away your right to vote.

Time to sieze the trolley and build new tracks.

You can’t negotiate with Democrats. This is the great lie of Electoralism.

Well I compare the extreme left with the extreme right since it is basically the same imho. Different reasoning for the mindset of “what’s not with us is against us”.

No offense, but this is a childish view of politics. The extreme left is categorized by trying to care for the entire population, the extreme right is categorized by intense nationalism, xenphobia, and brutal class stratification.

Communists committed the same crimes as the Nazis so of into the same cell and the key is best disposed of.

No, they did not. Read Blackshirts and Reds. The Communists and the Nazis represented entirely different groups, and the Communists dramatically improved the lives of their citizenry while the Nazis brutally crushed them.

And the other big problem with pure socialism:

Why hasn’t it worked yet? No Utopia as of yet, only repression, human rights violation and death.

It has worked and continues to work. Read more than US state propaganda. Utopianism is anti-Marxist, Marxists advocate for Scientific Socialism.

It’s as if the human factor is the point where there is change needed, not the system itself.

This is Idealism. What’s considered Human Nature is expressed and reinforced by the system itself, the Mode of Production.

Read a book sometime.

Yes, minor implementations that won’t change anything at scale. The carrot to keep you trying in vain.

As someone who decided on the impractical major choice of Sociology when they were young, all I can say is that there a lot of economists, political scientists and sociologists that would argue otherwise.

Sure, in Capitalist countries you can find an endless supply of anti-Marxists.

A lot of folks would argue that democratic and authoritarian systems of government can be applied to economic systems that lean toward both the capitalist and socialist ends of the spectrum.

Sure, a lot of folks don’t actually know what Marxists advocate for as well. The vast majority don’t, in fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism

I really don’t need to be linked the Wikipedia pages on these concepts. I am aware that liberals exist and their ideas of Marxism and Socialism exist. This isn’t a book-reading competition, but I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I have read lots of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. I know what I advocate for, and what others advocate for, and what they advocated for.

Can you explain the State Structure advocated by Marxist-Leninists, and why it is considered “authoritarian” in a manner that isn’t arbitrary and vibes-based?

To restate this entire argument, it is essentially this:

Scary Words are a type of Socialist that is Spooky Word type of Socialist, as opposed to Nice Word type of Socialist. Spooky Word isn’t a structure, it’s an adjective, and Spooky Word Socialists also advocate for Nice Word structures, but because they actually exist in the real world, liberals call them Spooky Word Socialists instead of Nice Word Socialists.

Authoritarian is an adjective, not a structure. Democratic is a type of structure, Authoritarian is not. It’s a buzzword that means nothing at all.

I would say it’s important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it’s supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.

Sure, sounds reasonable.

I don’t know if it means they’re automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it’s an SOE it’s immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.

Correct, there is a contradiction at play, and a risk. We do not appear to see this playing against the CPC pruning and managing a Socialist Market economy though, at least not yet.

Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn’t a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.

Again, I had to. Analyzing the CPC as a DotP would be a conversation in and of itself. If you disagree, we can discuss that point, but the limitations at play means we must make the assumption for the rest of the analysis. It isn’t perfect, but I can’t write a book, here.

I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it’s still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn’t mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.

Hierarchy isn’t the problem, class control is. Hierarchy is a tool. Creating Capital is absolutely important for the PRC, the lack of it under the Gang of Four led to struggles. The CPC controls and carefully manages and prunes the economy as it grows, and absorbs more as it socializes more of its economy as it ripens, so to speak.

If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.

This is where the Marxist Theory of the State comes in. If the economy is fully socialized, then it isn’t competing with itself, and is being planned by the people for the benefit of all. Class antagonisms no longer exist, and the state transitions, as Engels describes, to an administration of things, rather than a policing of people. It won’t be Anarchist, but it will be on the way to Communism (the state can’t fully wither away until global socialism is achieved).

I’m not an anarchist or anything and don’t agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you’re interested Murray Bookchin’s analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.

I’m aware of the Anarchist critique of Hierarchy, I just don’t see it as the primary issue. Socialism isn’t a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on the status quo, and Communism an improvement on it.

An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.

You too!

I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn’t feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.

That’s a fair critique. The point I was trying to drive home, however, is that it was fundamentally Socialist, which I believe retained after 1936 as well.

I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation, but aren’t there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party “runs” for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).

Not necessarily. There is an illusion of choice, in reality it’s largely run by the DNC and GOP. There are rare, minor upsets, but the ones that pose legitimate chance to shake things up are either heavily out-financed during the election, or are shunned by the party upon reaching some semblance of power. The electoral system of the US is a filter.

Thanks for the recommendation! I’ve started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I’ll have to pick it up again.

No problem! Thanks for your input, much more reasonable than the other commenter, and not just because we agree on almost everything.

Tell that to literally any monarchy in history.

What do you think Capitalism is? It has dethroned the Monarchies throughout history, or relegated them to a fraction of their former power.

Did I say communist? Did I stutter?

All Socialist countries are headed by Communist parties currently, ideologically they are Communists. This is splitting hairs.

Monarchists didn’t really support Capitalism, and neither do Communists support Capitalism. Primarily, what is dominant in terms of class structure determines the system, broadly. Liberals want a system dominated by Capitalism and Capitalists, and support measures that protect and service that structure.