No, they’re looking at what life for regular people is like under a capitalist regime.
And I agree with that. Living in a capitalist hellscape is shit! Doesn’t mean it was better back then though. It sure was different, better in some ways but worse in others.
And the West didn’t shoot at people trying to flee and in the west your neighbors didn’t rat you out to the authorities for listening to radio from the other side. And it wasn’t the west that tore my family apart when the wall was build.
It’s always the people who got theirs and have zero empathy for the needs of others who praise the transition to capitalism in post Soviet states.
I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I. What I do praise is the end of an authoritarian regime that oppressed it’s populace. And I have criticized the rose colored glasses of those who didn’t live in it. And to be clear: the west didn’t bring freedom and democracy to the GDR. The citizens demonstrating in Plauen and Leipzig and Berlin did that. (Which btw. is a good point against it being an illegitimate state, because reforms could have been possible if the old guard hadn’t resisted civil rights as much.) The GDR failed just when it’s citizens had enough of it and tried to reform it and civil rights activists gained more influence. Maybe it would have been a better place when it could have existed longer and reformed but the unwillingness of the old men leading the country to accept ANY change led to its implosion before it cozld fulfill its promises.
GDR was a socialist state where means of production were publicly owned, and that fundamentally made it better than the current capitalist state. Yes, it had its contradictions, but it also existed under immense pressure from the west. The west didn’t have to shoot people trying to flee because it had a massive economic advantage. It’s kind of hilarious for people to pretend that capitalists would take a moral high ground if the positions were reversed. Doubly so now that privacy and rights are being rolled back right across the western sphere.
I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I.
I mean you just made a false equivalence to whitewash capitalism in the same comment. Also, anybody who uses the term authoritarian exposes themselves as having a deeply infantile understanding of politics.
All states are authoritarian by their very nature, they differ in being extensions of different classes class based on the type of social organization within the state. The extent to which any particular state exerts its authority depends on the given conditions and circumstances it finds itself in. The whole idea that a socialist system creates some latent desire for exerting authority at the helm is beyond absurd. What you have in practice are class dynamics and class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian bourgeoisie states. And the key difference between them is that nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to protect property of the capital owning class. Those same circumstances are once again starting to crop up in modern Germany hence the stratospheric rise of AfD.
It’s also not possible to refer any liberal capitalist state a democracy in any meaningful sense. Liberalism consists of two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on wholesome ideas such as individual freedoms and democracy. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.
As a result, liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. Thus, the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations. So, a liberal state cannot be democratic by its very definition.
The GDR failed because global fascist forces won a victory over USSR.
Uh… I don’t know why I would have to “out” myself. I’ve never been shy about where I stand politically. I’m a green progressive social democrat (to put it into terms even americans can understand) and it says so in my profile:
You’re somebody who unironically uses “nerd” as a slur, which is something I find far more damning and revealing.
That profile isn’t available on every client, btw.
Green progressive social democrat, so you are pro imperialist, pro NATO, pro rearmament, pro Israel, aka pro genocide, apartheid and settler colonialism, pro Ukraine war, pro Iran war, pro deportation, pro refugee camps on the borders of Europe, pro surveillance, pro destruction of the welfare state, pro destruction of worker rights, all mixed with a little bit of pro renewables and pro …ya, that’s it, what else, help me out here, I don’t see any other "pro"gressive things in current green or social democrat parties.
Forgive me for being a bit of an outsider, I thought socdem was essentially Democratic socialist, does it mean something else…?
Edit: just looked it up and it looks like a different thing than Democratic socialist but it certainly doesnt look fascism adjacent, am I missing something?
Ostensibly, social democrats believe in capitalism but want to borrow from socialist ideas to make it work. Democratic socialists are, ostensibly, anticapitalists who favor reform over revolution.
In practice, both groups protect capitalism. In practice, both groups side with fascism over socialism. In practice, you can ignore (especially Americans) those who call themselves demsocs and treat them as liberals.
Do you mean that of politicians who label themselves as demsocs, or anyone?
I don’t say this to try and start a fight, just talking about my experience, but as someone learning which versions of leftist political ideology I connect with, the purity testing by every different faction of leftist where anyone that isn’t their brand of leftist is a fascist is uhhh, challenging to try and navigate
I get the impression its because both both democratic socialist movements and non…Democratic socialist (what would be the term for the version of socialist you identify as? I feel like demsocs would say authoritarian but I don’t know how y’all would describe your own category, non-derisively. Marxist Leninist feels more specific than I mean) have betrayed eachother historically when enough momentum existed for one of them to succeed and it came time for one to win out over the other (is that a reasonable understanding?)
But it does make trying to navigate and engage with these spaces very hard 😅. Are there other brands of leftist that your faction sees as also legitimate leftists? (again, appologies for referring to y’all in this way it feels vaguely passive agressive, I just don’t have better language) Would the litmus test maybe be like a desire for revolution?
There’s a hazy progression that goes from demsocs, self-described Socialists and revolutionary communists. Most of us began as the former and, through experience and study, became the latter.
The difference between different groups purity testing is what they’re testing for. Liberals and liberal-adjacent people test your moral purity, or at least the moral purity of your rhetoric. Say all the right things, signal you’re on the good side, and don’t signal that you want the bad things. They do this because they are political idealists: that is, they have a fundamentally magical understanding of how power works, even if they don’t realize it. Their view of the world is a static one where everything fits into neat moral categories, and conveniently those moral categories just so happen to match what the person espousing it is comfortable with. To a liberal or socdem, violence against capital is morally unacceptable, no matter how many people it stands to save (and as of right now, that number is: all of them). Their test is concieved as a test of abstract moral purity; in reality, it’s a test of how much atrocity you are willing to abide for the sake of being a good boy.
Marxists, communists, etc are materialists: we believe that the world is a constantly moving, ever evolving machine with a trillion moving parts that all change and are changed by one another. To make a long story short, dialectical materialism or “marxism” is simply applying the scientific method to all of reality instead of just formal science. That’s why the phrase “reality has a marxist bias” exists: because communists begin with the facts and build an understanding upwards, while liberals begin with the primacy of liberalism/capitalism and build an architecture of justification downwards, until they create friction with the uneven terrain of reality. “Blue maga” is an example of this phenomenon.
When Communists purity test, we do so based on the effectiveness of your practices and the understanding that guides them. It’s basically peer review. We’re purity testing in a chemical way, to determine the potency of your shit and assess it for wider adoption.
To your last question, I respect anarchists. We fundamentally love humanity in the same way and want the same things for it, we just disagree on tactics. But they have a deep understanding of the urgent necessity of revolutionary change, and that makes them comrades.
You’re right. Marxist-Leninists understand the historical significance of revolution. When we push back against Social Democrats (and liberals disguised as reformist Socialists) we are making a choice based on study and history, not vibes. To MLs, your last sentence is crucial.
You can read about this topic. Beyond basic Marxist works, consider Rosa Luxembourg’s “Reform or Revolution” or Lenin’s “State and Revolution”.
There is a longer more complicated history around the term social democracy, but the short version is that beginning in the later 1800s, there arose two camps: reformist / pacifist / bourgeios socialists, and revolutionary ones. The reformist ones formed parties who, in every country they did so, ended up joining forces with capitalists to repress and put down the revolutionary ones. Every country has a long history of socdems doing this, as its been occurring since the 1800s when Marx and Engels noted this tendency.
And I agree with that. Living in a capitalist hellscape is shit! Doesn’t mean it was better back then though. It sure was different, better in some ways but worse in others.
And the West didn’t shoot at people trying to flee and in the west your neighbors didn’t rat you out to the authorities for listening to radio from the other side. And it wasn’t the west that tore my family apart when the wall was build.
I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I. What I do praise is the end of an authoritarian regime that oppressed it’s populace. And I have criticized the rose colored glasses of those who didn’t live in it. And to be clear: the west didn’t bring freedom and democracy to the GDR. The citizens demonstrating in Plauen and Leipzig and Berlin did that. (Which btw. is a good point against it being an illegitimate state, because reforms could have been possible if the old guard hadn’t resisted civil rights as much.) The GDR failed just when it’s citizens had enough of it and tried to reform it and civil rights activists gained more influence. Maybe it would have been a better place when it could have existed longer and reformed but the unwillingness of the old men leading the country to accept ANY change led to its implosion before it cozld fulfill its promises.
GDR was a socialist state where means of production were publicly owned, and that fundamentally made it better than the current capitalist state. Yes, it had its contradictions, but it also existed under immense pressure from the west. The west didn’t have to shoot people trying to flee because it had a massive economic advantage. It’s kind of hilarious for people to pretend that capitalists would take a moral high ground if the positions were reversed. Doubly so now that privacy and rights are being rolled back right across the western sphere.
I mean you just made a false equivalence to whitewash capitalism in the same comment. Also, anybody who uses the term authoritarian exposes themselves as having a deeply infantile understanding of politics.
All states are authoritarian by their very nature, they differ in being extensions of different classes class based on the type of social organization within the state. The extent to which any particular state exerts its authority depends on the given conditions and circumstances it finds itself in. The whole idea that a socialist system creates some latent desire for exerting authority at the helm is beyond absurd. What you have in practice are class dynamics and class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian bourgeoisie states. And the key difference between them is that nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to protect property of the capital owning class. Those same circumstances are once again starting to crop up in modern Germany hence the stratospheric rise of AfD.
It’s also not possible to refer any liberal capitalist state a democracy in any meaningful sense. Liberalism consists of two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on wholesome ideas such as individual freedoms and democracy. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.
As a result, liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. Thus, the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations. So, a liberal state cannot be democratic by its very definition.
The GDR failed because global fascist forces won a victory over USSR.
You’ve outed yourself as an anticommunist.
Uh… I don’t know why I would have to “out” myself. I’ve never been shy about where I stand politically. I’m a green progressive social democrat (to put it into terms even americans can understand) and it says so in my profile:
You’re somebody who unironically uses “nerd” as a slur, which is something I find far more damning and revealing.
I’d ask you to elaborate on why you think “nerd” is a slur, but I’m a bit afraid of the psychic damage your liberal brain worms might conjure up.
So I’ll do this instead: shut up, anticommunist nerd.
That profile isn’t available on every client, btw.
Green progressive social democrat, so you are pro imperialist, pro NATO, pro rearmament, pro Israel, aka pro genocide, apartheid and settler colonialism, pro Ukraine war, pro Iran war, pro deportation, pro refugee camps on the borders of Europe, pro surveillance, pro destruction of the welfare state, pro destruction of worker rights, all mixed with a little bit of pro renewables and pro …ya, that’s it, what else, help me out here, I don’t see any other "pro"gressive things in current green or social democrat parties.
checks out given that Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism
Forgive me for being a bit of an outsider, I thought socdem was essentially Democratic socialist, does it mean something else…?
Edit: just looked it up and it looks like a different thing than Democratic socialist but it certainly doesnt look fascism adjacent, am I missing something?
Ostensibly, social democrats believe in capitalism but want to borrow from socialist ideas to make it work. Democratic socialists are, ostensibly, anticapitalists who favor reform over revolution.
In practice, both groups protect capitalism. In practice, both groups side with fascism over socialism. In practice, you can ignore (especially Americans) those who call themselves demsocs and treat them as liberals.
Do you mean that of politicians who label themselves as demsocs, or anyone?
I don’t say this to try and start a fight, just talking about my experience, but as someone learning which versions of leftist political ideology I connect with, the purity testing by every different faction of leftist where anyone that isn’t their brand of leftist is a fascist is uhhh, challenging to try and navigate
I get the impression its because both both democratic socialist movements and non…Democratic socialist (what would be the term for the version of socialist you identify as? I feel like demsocs would say authoritarian but I don’t know how y’all would describe your own category, non-derisively. Marxist Leninist feels more specific than I mean) have betrayed eachother historically when enough momentum existed for one of them to succeed and it came time for one to win out over the other (is that a reasonable understanding?)
But it does make trying to navigate and engage with these spaces very hard 😅. Are there other brands of leftist that your faction sees as also legitimate leftists? (again, appologies for referring to y’all in this way it feels vaguely passive agressive, I just don’t have better language) Would the litmus test maybe be like a desire for revolution?
Warning, long:
There’s a hazy progression that goes from demsocs, self-described Socialists and revolutionary communists. Most of us began as the former and, through experience and study, became the latter.
The difference between different groups purity testing is what they’re testing for. Liberals and liberal-adjacent people test your moral purity, or at least the moral purity of your rhetoric. Say all the right things, signal you’re on the good side, and don’t signal that you want the bad things. They do this because they are political idealists: that is, they have a fundamentally magical understanding of how power works, even if they don’t realize it. Their view of the world is a static one where everything fits into neat moral categories, and conveniently those moral categories just so happen to match what the person espousing it is comfortable with. To a liberal or socdem, violence against capital is morally unacceptable, no matter how many people it stands to save (and as of right now, that number is: all of them). Their test is concieved as a test of abstract moral purity; in reality, it’s a test of how much atrocity you are willing to abide for the sake of being a good boy.
Marxists, communists, etc are materialists: we believe that the world is a constantly moving, ever evolving machine with a trillion moving parts that all change and are changed by one another. To make a long story short, dialectical materialism or “marxism” is simply applying the scientific method to all of reality instead of just formal science. That’s why the phrase “reality has a marxist bias” exists: because communists begin with the facts and build an understanding upwards, while liberals begin with the primacy of liberalism/capitalism and build an architecture of justification downwards, until they create friction with the uneven terrain of reality. “Blue maga” is an example of this phenomenon.
When Communists purity test, we do so based on the effectiveness of your practices and the understanding that guides them. It’s basically peer review. We’re purity testing in a chemical way, to determine the potency of your shit and assess it for wider adoption.
To your last question, I respect anarchists. We fundamentally love humanity in the same way and want the same things for it, we just disagree on tactics. But they have a deep understanding of the urgent necessity of revolutionary change, and that makes them comrades.
You’re right. Marxist-Leninists understand the historical significance of revolution. When we push back against Social Democrats (and liberals disguised as reformist Socialists) we are making a choice based on study and history, not vibes. To MLs, your last sentence is crucial.
You can read about this topic. Beyond basic Marxist works, consider Rosa Luxembourg’s “Reform or Revolution” or Lenin’s “State and Revolution”.
There is a longer more complicated history around the term social democracy, but the short version is that beginning in the later 1800s, there arose two camps: reformist / pacifist / bourgeios socialists, and revolutionary ones. The reformist ones formed parties who, in every country they did so, ended up joining forces with capitalists to repress and put down the revolutionary ones. Every country has a long history of socdems doing this, as its been occurring since the 1800s when Marx and Engels noted this tendency.
What about social democracy / democratic socialism / the Nordic model? Isn’t Sweden socialist?
Some more links: