this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

solarpunk memes

2468 readers
676 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ex_06@slrpnk.net
tsugu@slrpnk.net
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
2
This meme was inspired by the response to a meme I posted on r/worldjerking (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 months ago by andrewrgross@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10351845

This is the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldjerking/comments/1d92dkp/rate_the_political_factions_in_my_totally/

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Most people know about the end states. How you get there is way more important. Gotta get to communism without becoming a dictatorial hell scape like ussr or China.

The two main avenues are slow change through existing means and violent revolution. The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don't already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I've ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

Look at Project 2025. That's a fascist takeover plot that has a plan for future government. No one really takes it seriously, unfortunately since it could happen. so even fewer will take other plans seriously.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

dictatorial hell scape like ussr or China

Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia is a great book that goes into this, a lot of the terror during that period was not Stalin personally going around and shooting every peasant who had more than 5 rubles to his name (during the rare moments he wasn't personally eating everyone's grain). Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

The book doesn't cover the period between 1917 and 1923, or the Hundred Flowers Campaign in China, but you can see similar sentiment in transcripts and letters when Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

At a very general level, we can infer any socialist country is more democratic after the revolution based on the fact that the government pursues the interests of the people more than it did before the revolution.

In Cuba for instance, their last constitutional referendum had a 90% approval rating. Do you think that happened by chance, or that you are simply unaware of/trained not to recognize how the people determine the actions of the state?

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

How was that allowed to happen? Did they build a system of oppression that was ripe for takeover by petty tyrants, some of whom became actual, fully fledged tyrants, whilst simultaneously shutting down the mechanisms by which workers could have power over their own lives?

This isn't about whether Stalin personally gets into heaven, plus the absurd strawman that people think he did anything personally shows a complete lack of systemic thinking, which was ironically one of Marx's great contributions to political thought. It is about whether the systems we build are liberatory or oppressive.

The State is Counterrevolutionary

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I'm not watching a youtube video.

Did they build a system of oppression

No, such a system already existed, evidenced by the famines, massacres, etc that happened almost yearly in China and Russia before the revolutions.

What I'm getting at is that while the post-revolution states weren't utopias, they were far better than what came before. Telling people otherwise only serves to prolong the status quo.

Also they kinda did have a government ready to go in the case of the USSR, the Soviets.

simultaneously shutting down the mechanisms by which workers could have power over their own lives

Except they had and used those mechanisms, as evidenced by the massive improvements to the average person's lives after the revolution.

the absurd strawman that people think he did anything personally

Apologies, typically when I see people doing anti-communism use the term dictatorial, they mean a single person exercising absolute power. Though I don't understand why you'd consider a dictatorship of the working class "hell".

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not watching a youtube video.

Why not?

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The way they feed you information is patronizingly slow, and while I'm not expecting a widely cited academic paper published in a reputable journal, Youtube essays are one step below shitposts on internet forums in trustworthiness and academic rigor.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Guess we're watching different video essays, then. Most are edutainment at best, true. But there are *soy many with cited sources on youtube.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I gave them the text as published on the anarchist library, but they didn't seem to appreciate that either. It's almost like they just don't want to learn history that isn't their revisionist version of it.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

Everyone knows that any critique of Stalin is CIA propaganda. /s

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There was no dictatorship of the working class. They defanged the Soviets - you know the workers' councils that the USSR was named for.

You don't have to watch a video, here's the script text for the entire series:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary

MLs love reading, don't they? Oh but wait, that's anarchism. Go ahead, tell me it's beneath you and I should read On Authority. I have. It was underwhelming to put it nicely.

And yes, the system they built was on the back of and patterned after the authoritarian monarchist regimes they followed. That's not a favourable light to put that system in. Was it marginally better than a monarchy? Sure, why is that relevant to anything? We live under neoliberal regimes of which none to my knowledge has ever been toppled by an ML revolution.

That ideology is centuries out of date. Anarchists saw its downfall before it started. It's failed.

Even if you're combatting some bizarre strawman about absolute dictators, it's equally bizarre that your response is to attempt to rehabilitate Stalin's character. That puts you squarely in tankie territory.

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

MLs

?

thx

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

Because no viable alternatives have been shown to work.

Unregulated capitalism is untenable, but regulated capitalism is and remains the best system we've been able to come up with.

I'm all for new ideas, but you've got to show some kind of precedence of it working in order to change the largest system in the world.

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

Unregulated capitalism has never been tried and it’s probably the solution to all the problems with our current system.