I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.

  • https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/

    ML states are the only successful socialist states in history to hold out for a significant amount of time against the United States empire. I’m not super attached to the vanguard model myself, but can you show me a single other successful model? I think this quote is quite relevant here:

    "This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

    In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

    Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

    Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

    That group was annihilated." - Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

    • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Authoritarianism under the banner of socialism isn’t success. It’s just a different kind of failure.

      • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you define what you mean by “authoritarian” in a way that doesn’t include actions the US does ? What is authority in your mind?

      • Is it better to be too “authoritarian” and protect your revolution, or just let reactionary states destroy your newly formed socialist state, carve up the remains and enjoy the spoils while people suffer?

        • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re authoritarian, who are you protecting? It’s not for the people or the workers, so it’s not a revolttion worth protecting.

            • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are we talking about a revolution or a government, here? If you believe the revolution is ever-ongoing, fine, substitute your own words for the taking-power part and the governing part. If the taking-power part, I’m not sure we can know. Look at the Iranian Revolution. There were leftists involved with the taking-power part, but not so much with the governing part. As far as a government for the people, there are probably many different ways it can turn out, but the essence is fulfilling people’s basic needs while also respecting their human rights. No one’s gotten it right yet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

              • No one’s gotten it right yet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

                I used to think this way, but does this not seem the height of arrogance to you? That all the past attempts were dumb and stupid, but we are the true socialists and will get it right this time! I urge you to read this article, western socialists have a really bad problem with this kind thinking

                I could show you a lot of stats from past and current socialist experiments that show how much the quality of life changed for the better for the average citizen (if you would even accept those), but I think a bigger hangup for many people is human rights.

                I pose the same question I asked someone else earlier, is it better to go overboard and be too “authoritarian” in trying to protect your socialist project, or be too kind and see it torn up by the reactionary forces of the world?

                • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I don’t think it’s arrogance. I’m not saying we have the answers, I’m saying we need to keep trying, because our past attempts were insufficient. It’s not arrogant to try to learn from one’s mistakes. And it’s not arrogant to assume that a movement’s chances of success can be altered by changing material conditions.

                  I’m well aware that in many cases, authoritarian socialism/communism has improved material conditions for many people. But I also notice that not a lot of Westerners defending these governments attempt to move there. All our current systems are fucked, and acknowledging that is awareness, not hubris.

                  In answer to your question of “which is better,” it probably depends heavily on the preexisting local circumstances. But I’m from the US, so I’m sick of being forced to choose between two shitty options in a false dichotomy. Neither. Neither is better, and we need to stop pretending what exists now is the end of political and economic philosophy. It’s not. We need to do better.

                  • My point is that all of this is really easy to say when you don’t actually have to control and wield power and defend your gains for the working class against reactionaries. I don’t really understand what your hangup is here, every socialist strives to learn from the mistakes of past experiments, but I would never say they weren’t legitimate attempts, which is what it seems like you’ve been implying?