• 148 Posts
  • 238 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 11th, 2024

help-circle











  • Regarding the edit: you should probably add that to your first comment as you probably meant the starter of this thread and not me

    Using the political compass wasn’t ideal to get my point across (I know it’s flawed, just didn’t know how to say it better). Basically what I meant is that on a scale from social democracy to anarcho-communism socialism+democracy would be something of a middle ground if that makes sense.

    Regarding state socialism/capitalism: I know there is a distinction and my insertion wasn’t very nuanced, that’s why I formulated it as possibility.

    Anyway thanks for the nice discussion, it’s always to have a discussion that is based on arguments and not insults


  • The way you describe it makes sense to me. The main problem in Germany was probably not directly going to socialism after WW1, especially since Germany somewhat was expected to directly go there from monarchy (I believe this prediction was made in the communist manifesto? Not sure). Even though it doesn’t fit my ideals, Weimar may have been more stable if an authoritarian socialist government was installed, as a lot of people were anti democratic.

    Sorry if my statements seemed in bad faith, but I find it hard discussing Marxist-Leninist politics on Lemmy, as those defending those parties/states are a lot of times Lemmygrad style stalinists.

    I asked about rule 3 as I and most people I personally know use the democratic socialism definition in that capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, and that one should thus strive for a socialist society using any means possible (including a revolution). This society would then be organized via a representative democracy.

    What you described is what I would describe as social democracy and nothing else, however after looking it up a bit these terms are defined so broadly that there is significant overlap between definitions. I fear this is a major problem with these kind of terms as everyone has their own definitions of them/uses them differently creating confusion.

    I think socialism is inherently a related idea to democracy (one could argue socialism without some form of democracy or decentralized government isn’t socialism but state capitalism) and together they are the “conservative” variant of anarcho communism.


  • I am not trying to say that the SPD wasn’t defending capitalism at the time, heck one could argue during World War One they were even defending the monarchy. What my point is, is that the KPD in fighting the SPD (who I’d argue was still the major party politically closest to the KPD, even if there were significant differences) as their main political enemy and not the openly fascist NSDAP or one of the party’s who openly called for a return to a monarchy they became more like the NSDAP (Führerkult, antisemitism, authoritarian etc) and thus I argue that neither of these were good options and one shouldn’t have have voted for neither of them. I’m not saying the saying the SPD isn’t problematic from a communist perspective, but that one shouldn’t just give the KPD a pass because they are communists. This coming from a anarcho communist standpoint, so I understand if you aren’t as uncomfortable with a authoritarian party, but that’s just my view on the matter.

    Also, one question regarding rule 3, I get all of the listed things but could you specify what exactly you mean with Democratic Socialism. Is this about reformist socialist parties or about revolutionaries who want a democratically organized socialism?


  • Say about the SPD what you want, but the KPD also betrayed communism in a way.

    • Firstly, like you mentioned, the fight against the SPD instead of NSDAP, the party which would have been the most realistic to establish socialism with
    • The antisemitism and nazi rhetoric present in their campaigns, with slogans like “Nieder mit Judenrepublik“ - “ Down with the Jewish Republic” and calling for violence against Jews
    • The forced unification of the party und the Führer like Figur of Ernst Thälmann

    I am not going to discuss whether their idea of how a transitionary socialist society should look is “korrekt”, however the devotion to Stalins ideas and the exclusion of parts of the because they were to left should be looked at critically.

    One thing in regard to the SPD: Originally it was called Socialist Workers Party of Germany, however it was banned for being socialist. After the law banning them went out of power, they “restarted” as SPD, likely because they wanted to avoid being banned again. In the beginning the SPD was quite Marxist and the social democrats in the party were more of a minority despite the name. There also had been significant efforts to deradicalise the SPD by conservatives, for example by giving SPD functionaries roles in government without them being able to make radical changes, slowly turning the party from Kommunist to Socialist to Social democracy to the conservative party it is today. I don’t know who, it may have been Trotsky, but a communist revolutionary has argued that parties trying to reform capitalism to socialism via a representative democracy will always fail due to always either being not radical enough or not mayor enough



















  • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.workstoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldrule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    165
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW.