Europe had socialist leaders. It set half of it at least 50 years back in terms of social and economic progress, put up barbed wires around the borders, banned and imprissoned the oposition. Never more!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach,
OK and what if that approach doesn’t lead to socialism? What you are describing is a change to how democracy works, why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries? And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse. What you suggest has no evidence of working. Social democracy does.
Also a consensus among just a few thousand people is impossible, Denmark that is one of the best democracies in the world, and we have 12 parties represented in parliament. How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?
Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.
You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.
why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries?
No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.
And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
It’s really important to emphasize that anarchism isn’t some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ
Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their area as well as their needs, desires and hopes and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse.
Uhm… Russia isn’t socialist, mate. They’re very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I’m just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.
What you suggest has no evidence of working.
That’s actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.
How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?
There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.
Bottom up, direct democratic? Will we not have the same issues as now with people simply getting manipulated? Like seriously, 1/2 voted for Trump, a 2nd time no less. The problem is not the eventual type of government but how stupid, ignorant and selfish most people are.
Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I’ll explain:
A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don’t necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.
That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they’d inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you’re not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.
Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down
It’s a childish fantasy that is completely unrealistic, consensus even among a thousand people is impossible and unrealistic.
The only consensus possible is the one that the 1 party communist countries in Europe had before Communism disappeared.
That 1 party system was of course in reality an authoritarian dictatorship. And those that disagree are put in prison. That’s how you create “consensus”.
Europe had socialist leaders. It set half of it at least 50 years back in terms of social and economic progress, put up barbed wires around the borders, banned and imprissoned the oposition. Never more!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
OK and what if that approach doesn’t lead to socialism? What you are describing is a change to how democracy works, why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries? And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse. What you suggest has no evidence of working. Social democracy does.
Also a consensus among just a few thousand people is impossible, Denmark that is one of the best democracies in the world, and we have 12 parties represented in parliament. How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?
Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.
You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.
No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.
It’s really important to emphasize that anarchism isn’t some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ
Uhm… Russia isn’t socialist, mate. They’re very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I’m just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.
That’s actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.
There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.
Bottom up, direct democratic? Will we not have the same issues as now with people simply getting manipulated? Like seriously, 1/2 voted for Trump, a 2nd time no less. The problem is not the eventual type of government but how stupid, ignorant and selfish most people are.
Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I’ll explain:
A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don’t necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.
That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they’d inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you’re not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.
Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down
It’s a childish fantasy that is completely unrealistic, consensus even among a thousand people is impossible and unrealistic.
The only consensus possible is the one that the 1 party communist countries in Europe had before Communism disappeared.
That 1 party system was of course in reality an authoritarian dictatorship. And those that disagree are put in prison. That’s how you create “consensus”.