Racism and discrimination are pervasive in Germany. Xenophobic and derogatory views remain rampant. To coincide with the International Day Against Racism, new studies have been presented.
There’s no doubt that the USSR was extremely authoritarian, for sure. I’d say that was due to a variety of complex reasons, but foremost among them would be that there wasn’t a social revolution, there was a military revolution which replaced the existing ruling class with a different ruling class, rather than actually eliminating the ruling class altogether. The levers of power were maintained, and abused for personal gain, until capitalism was restored - and now we have the capitalist Russian Federation. The abolition of capitalism isn’t a magic bullet, and I’m not arguing that it is - but that does not change the fact that capitalism does inevitably lead towards fascism.
I’ve yet to find a society that is completely stable and has no driving forces pushing it towards tyranny of some form.
Well, I’d be glad to introduce you to anarchism. For what it’s worth, too, I’d say that Cuba demonstrates a pretty good model of a socialist society, despite the constant US terrorist attacks and interventions/blockades – quality of life, literacy rates, health care, etc. have all hugely improved, they have cures for lung cancer and Alzheimers in Cuba that we don’t even have in the West. Again, it’s not perfect, and there are no good states, but out of all of them, I’d say Cuba probably comes the closest.
but capitalism does inevitably lead towards fascism.
Again, in my initial response I pointed out why I have problems with this ‘inevitable’ and think it is a dogmatic statement.
Also, I stumble across comparing the flawed capitalism that actually exists with an idealised theoretical utopia of socialism/anarchism. Especially, since the socialism that did actually exist, was not only also flawed but eventually failed. Let’s be honest here. We cannot credibly say the flaws of the one system being actually applied are ‘signs of its inherent true nature’, while the other simply gets relabeled in a no-true-scotsman fashion. When a theoretical model collides with realities, the inherent flaws will emerge.
As did with the USSR. It was indeed a social revolution, nationalisation and expropriation of large landowners did take place. Only, transferring this then into the hands of the state under central planning made it necessary to create a huge state apparatus. Hence, also a new elite was created.
I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is your prerogative.
If by ‘leading to water’ you mean repeating a statement over and over again instead of addressing any critical comments on your argument, that’s certainly the case.
But if you’re just here to state and not to debate, then that’s completely fine with me. Have a great day, too!
There’s no doubt that the USSR was extremely authoritarian, for sure. I’d say that was due to a variety of complex reasons, but foremost among them would be that there wasn’t a social revolution, there was a military revolution which replaced the existing ruling class with a different ruling class, rather than actually eliminating the ruling class altogether. The levers of power were maintained, and abused for personal gain, until capitalism was restored - and now we have the capitalist Russian Federation. The abolition of capitalism isn’t a magic bullet, and I’m not arguing that it is - but that does not change the fact that capitalism does inevitably lead towards fascism.
Well, I’d be glad to introduce you to anarchism. For what it’s worth, too, I’d say that Cuba demonstrates a pretty good model of a socialist society, despite the constant US terrorist attacks and interventions/blockades – quality of life, literacy rates, health care, etc. have all hugely improved, they have cures for lung cancer and Alzheimers in Cuba that we don’t even have in the West. Again, it’s not perfect, and there are no good states, but out of all of them, I’d say Cuba probably comes the closest.
Again, in my initial response I pointed out why I have problems with this ‘inevitable’ and think it is a dogmatic statement.
Also, I stumble across comparing the flawed capitalism that actually exists with an idealised theoretical utopia of socialism/anarchism. Especially, since the socialism that did actually exist, was not only also flawed but eventually failed. Let’s be honest here. We cannot credibly say the flaws of the one system being actually applied are ‘signs of its inherent true nature’, while the other simply gets relabeled in a no-true-scotsman fashion. When a theoretical model collides with realities, the inherent flaws will emerge.
As did with the USSR. It was indeed a social revolution, nationalisation and expropriation of large landowners did take place. Only, transferring this then into the hands of the state under central planning made it necessary to create a huge state apparatus. Hence, also a new elite was created.
Okay, you know what, believe whatever you want. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is your prerogative.
Much love and solidarity, and I hope you have a great day.
If by ‘leading to water’ you mean repeating a statement over and over again instead of addressing any critical comments on your argument, that’s certainly the case.
But if you’re just here to state and not to debate, then that’s completely fine with me. Have a great day, too!