I don’t defend the excesses of state socialism. I support democracy and believe that all power should be vested with the people. But to attack socialist and communist states without the context that international capital has tried constantly to destroy them is ignorance at best and deceit at worst - ThreadSky

leonardpierce.bsky.social • 1 day ago

I don’t defend the excesses of state socialism. I support democracy and believe that all power should be vested with the people.

But to attack socialist and communist states without the context that international capital has tried constantly to destroy them is ignorance at best and deceit at worst

Comments

shaynel.bsky.social•1 day ago

Simplistically (I fully acknowledge that, yet present this as a fundamental principle) we can reflect on the differences between *ownership* and *relationship.*

Indigenous cultures emphasize *relationship* and *kinship* with all living beings and the natural environment.

natedub.bsky.social•1 day ago

Been recommending this book to anyone interested in historical context and critiques of just this, it does a fantastic job assessing all of these socialist/communist attempts as steps on a long road - capitalism wasn't birthed fully-formed and socialism isn't going to be either.

gnosticalan.bsky.social•1 day ago

Thanks for the recommendation - I read the summary and it’s excellent. It’s now on my reading list.

I’m a big fan of Noam Chomsky’s work and currently focusing on his critiques of capitalism, resource exploitation, and industrial power. Always open to more suggestions!

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

I’m not a campist, but the proper approach to top-down, undemocratic socialism isn’t to write off the whole ideology as inherently flawed (especially while defending the much worse system of capitalism). It’s to INCREASE international solidarity and push for more worker power.

roninspoon.bsky.social•22 hours ago

What is a campist?

leonardpierce.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Campists are people who reflexively defend countries based on ideology or other factors and won't criticize them. It's often used on the left to mean people who defend any communist or socialist country no matter what they do, but it can also apply to capitalist states, 'Third World' countries, etc.

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

If communism was doomed to fail from the beginning, the bosses wouldn’t have to try every dirty trick in the book, from sabotage and propaganda to terrorism and war, to stop it. But that’s exactly what they’ve done, from the Diggers and the Commune to the USSR and China. What does that tell you?

speciesbeing.bsky.social•1 day ago

One could argue the cold war was a one-sided fight as far as effort goes.

jafarvcf.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'd say it's even worse than that in that innocent bystanders got hit in the process.
Nations that specifically rejected both camps got targeted, too.

speciesbeing.bsky.social•1 day ago

That's a good point. A good chunk of them wanted neutrality, but that wasn't enough for America.

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yeah, you can ask Tito, Ho, and any number of African and South/Central American socialists if being unaligned with other communist states kept the capitalist powers fro trying to destroy them

markr51.bsky.social•1 day ago

The few efforts at a democratic transition, for example Chile, were doomed from the start. Only the authoritarian approach, historically, has had any success in preventing defeat from the capitalist forces. But quite obviously, as many anarchists predicted, it locks in corrupt authoritarian rule.

markr51.bsky.social•1 day ago

However, at this point, with fascist ascendence worldwide, what is the path forward? Perhaps the only viable choice is to support the authoritarians who at least appear to have the general welfare of the people as their goal?

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

It’s important to distinguish between the use of violence/coercion by a legitimate authority with popular support to seize the means of production, stop sabotage or invasion, and protect the gains of a revolution, and the use of state terror by an established authority to quash legitimate dissent.

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

I’m not opposed to the use of force by the state, and capital will never surrender its power or property without violence. But we have to always be continually pushing for more gains and more authority for the workers and a dictatorship of the proletariat or it’s just swapping one evil for another.

billcaphil.bsky.social•1 day ago

Also, you'd never guess from that crowd that Reagan recognized the Khmer Rouge, armed them in the '80's—after the Killing Fields

leonardpierce.bsky.social•1 day ago

Once again:

rondorland.bsky.social•1 day ago

As we are seeing,all forms of government turn to shit when corruption at the top is rampant.
Democracy is no exception.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply