this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
413 points (92.1% liked)
Memes
45171 readers
1626 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree, I think socialism can and will beat capitalism eventually.
And a strongman dictator usually beats socialism
true the world's capitalist countries are not susceptible to this
This meme isn't saying Socialism will not prevail. Rather, it's saying that even though Socialists can't individually beat Capitalism right now, as Capitalism decays Socialists increase in number and Capitalists weaken in strength, making Socialist victory more probable over time.
Beat or being able to flourish once the Goth Galadriel is gone?
Because historically the revolutionary forces (the one toppling the bourgeoisie) are extremely shitty governors (just continuing mass murdering & plundering which kinda makes sense if you think how & what they have been through).
In very few historical instances of regime changes all the previous actors as well as anyone involved in the revolution were prohibited in forming the new structure. This helps a lot to actually change the system.
You wouldn't want to move from a czar to a dictator, thats long term the same bullshit, only makes things better in short term.
Same with any oligarchy, if it exists and has power than it matters little what kind of regime it technically is.
Edit: I might have chosen poor words but I didn't mean that the ideologies behind revolutions make for poor government, just literally the force of a few 100 or 1000 people directly involved in the forceful part of the revolution. The fighty-fighty people.
Historically this is false 👍
No, I meant the immediate people involved in the revolution, those often don't fair well & don't last long (eg people in a party, not necessarily main headline names). Iirc Russia changed almost everyone in charge in the 20s & 30s to a more stable structure afterwards.
In such system changes the country often goes through another (lesser) system revolution a few years after the first one (when the focus is to just keep shit running) & it's better that people involved change at that point too.
Like what happened with Robespierre (~Jacobins), the early two or three years under Lenin, and I think Slovakia or Poland when they transitionv away from communism they forbid running for office to anyone that held any official power under the previous regime (the same people that formally facilitated the end of communism since it as that kind of revolution).
What you showed is what happened after after that, so the point of revolution. And I couldn't agree more with that. My point was not in that. It's that you need admins and regular politicians to run any system smoothly, and the few 1000s of people revolutioning arent usually the best at tirelessly debating a monetary policy or what road laws to use.
(Oh, the "plundering" part - yes, perhaps the wrong word to use, I meant that fairly literally, irl taking things, not doing it in an organised legal manner which is how "the 1% gets to exist" – and you can se that clearly in the Russia chart too, 90s capitalism was the framework for that, so "paper" not raiding rich houses)