Skip Navigation
Socialism @lemmy.ml
MoonlightFox @lemmy.world

Curious about socialism

Hi! I am a stranger on this instance, I have read a lot of warnings about the "tankie triad", but wanted to see for myself and keep an open mind.

I watched this video, and it made me want to take a deep dive into socialism/communism, with as much objectivity as I can. https://youtu.be/BeRjTtKFlVM

I understand how capitalism works, and I have doubts that it is a sustainable system for society long term, but social democracy has been a good way of keeping capitalism in-check in Norway. So even if capitalism is not ideal, it is in theory possible to tax the rich more and keep the whole thing going in the future. I also understand the exploitation and the extraction of surplus value, rent seeking etc.

Other capitalist countries such as the US is currently struggling with basic human needs. And that is "the shining beacon of capitalism".

In Norway it has for a long time been common to use the US as an example of what not to do.

What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism. More about the differences. Preferably from less dry sources than The Capital from Marx. Where can I learn more? Preferably a bit entertaining.

It is important to me that it is historically accurate and factually correct.

Look forward to your replies 😊

53 comments

  • First off, it's fantastic to see that you're willing to learn! That's great, it's really commendable. Consider making an account on Lemmy.ml, Hexbear.net, Lemmygrad.ml, or even Lemm.ee, so you can see more of what the so-called "tankies" are actually saying, rather than having them blocked from view on Lemmy.world.

    As for answering your questions, I want to speak on Norway first. Norway, and the western countries in general, are "Imperialist" by Marxist standards. Norway essentially bribes its proletariat with a portion of the spoils it reaps from hyper-exploiting the Global South, through methods such as IMF loans and outsourcing production. Norway keeps Capitalism temporarily in check simply for its own workers, but acts parasitically towards the Global South.

    Of course, the United States, despite being worse for its workers, is by far the largest and worst Empire, it's just that the spoils of Imperialism are divied up even more lopsided, where the 1% earn unfathomable sums off of it.

    When looking at Socialism and how it functions, look to "AES" countries, or "Actually Existing Socialism." These include Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, Laos, DPRK, the former USSR, etc. Right off the bat, alarm bells are probably ringing for you, but keep 2 things in mind:

    1. You are not immune to propaganda. The Red Scare and Anticommunism in the West is deeply penatrating, and likely clouds much of how you see these countries.
    2. A system being Socialist does not make it a wonderland Utopia, they still exist in the real world and face real problems, both internal and external.

    In Marxist terms, Socialism is where Public Ownership is the Principle aspect of the economy. Large firms and key industries being publicly owned means that the Public Sector is the one with power over the economy. The PRC, for example, has its large firms and key industries overwhelmingly publicly owned, while the private sector is dominated by cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is because Marx believed you had to develop out of small ownership, not simply make it illegal, hence why you'll see Socialists talk about the Productive Forces all the time. Norway, as an example, has the large firms in the Private Sector, and the Public Sector is in service of the Private.

    That's a quick overview! I skipped over so much because it's really a vast topic that unfortunately does require reading. I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List I designed to be easy to get into and not be quite so dry. This is the best path to get a firm understanding of theory, and is what @Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml tagged me here for (thanks, comrade!).

    Alternatively, I will recommend reading just the first section for now, made up of Principles of Communism, followed by Blackshirts and Reds, and Dr. Michael Parenti's 1986 Lecture. Afterwards, Blowback is an excellent podcast talking about US Imperialism, and frequently touches on sympathetic portrayals of Socialist movements. You won't be a theory expert, but those will help drive interest in theory in general. I'd also read Dessalines' Crash Course Socialism if you go this route!

    Feel free to ask me any questions if you have any about Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, etc, and I'll do my best! 🫡

    • You are right about the alarm bells. I am skeptical about PRC actually being socialist, I have seen it as a authoritarian capitalist country with a veneer of communism with close to no freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of the party / government.

      I know that my views are biased due to my upbringing and the culture I live in.

      However, you did say that it can be socialist and still face real issues.

      I am critical of the censorship, surveillance, and treatment of the Uyghurs.

      But I will try to keep an open mind, and get to know China more. I think that is a good country for me to learn more about. I think the view on publicly owned large firms is interesting. In Norway some of our largest firms are mainly or heavily owned by the government or smaller regions of Norway. For instance Equinor is about 70% publicly owned.

      I'll read about the other countries as well, and I'll try to remember your point about it not being perfect wonderland, even if socialist.

      To anyone reading this, please don't do a whataboutism here. I can both be critical of the treatment of Uyghurs and the censorship of Tiananmen square massacre AND Guantanamo Bay, US prisoners being treated as slave workers, human rights abuses, immigrants being sent to CECOT, warcrimes, Palestine genocide etc. just so that there is no confusion here.

      When it comes to Norway, I agree that it benefits from current capitalist world order, and think your arguments here is valid.

      • I appreciate your openness.

        For starters, if the PRC appears to you to be a "Capitalist country," then what do you believe its economy is structured as, and what would it instead have to look like in order for it to be Socialist, in your mind? I believe the China that exists in your head likely isn't really what it looks like in real life, and your idea of Socialism likely isn't the same as Marx's. That's not really a personal failing on your part, just what I believe is a lack of investigation on the subjects, ie with time and clear intention you'll better be able to understand what Marxists are talking about when we talk about China.

        I'll address your claims about China, in order.

        1. Censorship - it is indeed true that the government controls the speech of Capitalists and maintains that control. This is something Marx also advocated for. The truth is that the Proletariat quote frequently does criticize government decisions, and the government will frequently concede, such as during the major COVID years where widespread backlash led the CPC to relax control, despite it leading to an increase in cases. The fact is, without control of the speech of Capitalists, Capitalists flood media with messaging friendly to them with their power over media.
        2. Surveilance - generally overplayed in western media, and western surveilance is often worse.
        3. The Uyghurs - complicated subject. I recommend starting with the UN report, along with China's response. Then, read The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz to learn more about why Western Media focuses so heavily on this issue and distorts it. There's also this extensive list of resources debunking common mythologizations of the treatment of Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang.
        4. Tian'anmen, or the "June 4th Incident" - The CPC's stance, and most Marxists in general, on Tian'anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC's official stance on what it calls the "June 4th incident". This is a rejection of the commonly reported story in western media, such as BBC, of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat's cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.

        I reiterate, the CPC's stance isn't that the massacre didn't happen, but that Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don't frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan's dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian'anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:

        In a disputed cable sent in the aftermath of the events at Tiananmen, British Ambassador Alan Donald initially claimed, based on information from a "good friend" in the State Council of China, that a minimum of 10,000 civilians died,[237] claims which were repeated in a speech by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke,[238] but which is an estimated number much higher than other sources provided.[239][240] After the declassification, former student protest leader Feng Congde pointed out that Donald later revised his estimate to 2,700–3,400 deaths, a number closer to, but still much higher than, other estimates.[241]

        You mention that the CPC censors events like these that report on a clearly mythologized version of events. Quite right, they do, because they don't want foreign governments trying to destabilize China so that they can take advantage and plunder their industry freely. The alternative is to just let western media do as it likes, and be subject to yet another US-sponsered coup.

        All in all, though, I applaud you for being open. Norway has a public sector, indeed, but unlike China the Public Sector supports the Private, and controls key industries. Norway in general essentially hitches a ride on NATO and takes advantage of the situation while worker rights backslide and safety nets erode.

        Any questions, feel free to let me know!

  • tankie triad

    Anybody who uses the term "tankie" can safely be ignored and blocked.

    but social democracy has been a good way of keeping capitalism in-check in Norway

    Even though some of these concessions have been rolled back? Also, Norway, etc were able to offer these concessions by exploiting other countries.

    What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism. More about the differences. Preferably from less dry sources than The Capital from Marx. Where can I learn more? Preferably a bit entertaining.

    A podcast called Actually Existing Socialism is really good!

  • I highly recommend you check out all the other stuff people have recommended, but I would like to add two books:

    The first one, which I really like, This Soviet World by Anna L. Strong, talks about life in the Soviet Union. Secondly, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, which while being more focused on it's name sake, soviet democracy, does talk about life and society and is interesting.

    A somewhat nerdy book Russian Justice, Mary S. Callcott, describes the justice system and prisons. Finally I have begun reading Red medicine: socialized health in Soviet Russia (Arthur Newsholme & John A. Kingsbury, 1933), but since I haven't finished it I won't recommend it, simply just mentioning it.

  • What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism.

    Keep in mind that any hypothetical or actual example of a socialist project or society must account for the fact that it will be built in essentially wartime conditions in direct confrontation with capitalism/imperialism from its very beginnings. Therefore, much of how it functions will inevitably be intertwined with the question of how to defend itself from covert sabotage and overt violent destruction from capitalist/imperialist reaction. We should look at history and at ongoing modern attempts at constructing socialist societies and projects, as well as all projects/societies which confront imperialism, in order to have a more comprehensive view of the actual outcomes and possibilities under various conditions. For these reasons, someone new to socialism generally should also be studying history along with learning theoretical concepts.

    I second the recommendations of the Blowback podcast as a way to learn some history about the worldwide confrontation with imperialism. You may also be interested in the videos and articles of Geopolitical Economy Report, he mainly covers current events but he does cover historical events as well. I also recommend ProleWiki, which will give you a fairly standard Marxist-Leninist view on a variety of topics and you can also look at the various cited sources for jumping off points of your own research. You may be interested in the book Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners by Roland Boer.

    • ProleWiki? Seriously? You're better off finding books to read or tearing apart Wikipedia's sources, ProleWiki is hilariously biased and lacks content

  • Welcome.

    I understand how capitalism works, and I have doubts that it is a sustainable system for society long term,

    You are 100% right

    What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism

    First, socialism and communism are different. Socialism only aims to socialise production, meanwhile communism aims to socialise both production and consumption.

    Secondly, how society would operate and function under socialism depends on what kind of socialism the society embraces. Socialism isn't just one kind. There is market socialism, socialism with planned economy, and socialism with mix of market and planned economy.

    Meanwhile how society would operate and function under communism usually follows the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin.

    Edit:

    1. Adding "Meanwhile how society will operate and function under communism usually follows the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin."
    2. Change "how society will operate and function under socialism" and "how society will operate and function under communism" to "how society would operate and function under socialism" and "how society would operate and function under communism"

  • If you want to get some understanding of socialism from an anarchist perspective I can't recommend enough either Anark for videos, or An Anarchist FAQ for text. Both of these also include a lot of explanation of where anarchism fundamentally differs from Authoritarian Socialists (AKA Marxist-Leninists) and Libertarian Capitalists (AKA "Anarcho"-Capitalists)

  • I think the Tankie Triad term is more about linking certain people with support for authoritarian policy, rather than socialism as a whole. There are a ton of people across Lemmy instances that think of themselves as socialist and reject authoritarianism. They might use the term "tankies" to distinguish between themselves and those socialists who might support "using tanks" to suppress dissent. So the distinction you see some draw could be more about that instead of socialists vs non-socialists. People on one side tend to paint socialists as liberals, and people in the other side tend to paint socialists as tankies. Reactionary comments are easy to make and aren't useful but people make them anyway for a myriad of understandable reasons so that's that. 🥹

    That's my understanding on this part of the issue so far.

    • The biggest thing with the label of "authoritarian Socialism" is that "authoritarian" is ill-defined and meaningless, and is applied arbitrarily towards Marxists as a holdover from Red Scare accusations from the US. Authoritarian is a sliding target that can just apply to anything with a government, it's an emotionally charged word used more as a thought-terminating cliché than anything else.

    • I've come around to the idea that ultimately socialist countries live under constant pressure from capitalists to collapse, from birth. Thinking about the history of the USSR in particular, it went from counterrevolution, to WW2/Nazi invasion to open US backed sabotage with very little breathing room.

      The birth of liberal nations was also messy. The US started with probably the largest genocide, that of native Americans, in known history. Revolutionary France was no picnic either.

      On the other side of the coin, lib socialists/anarchists have unfortunately been crushed by their neighbours repeatedly. Thinking about the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia, etc. I think we would all love to live in a world of nothing but love and peace, but there are bad, selfish guys out there who will smoosh your utopia in a heartbeat.

      This ends up necessitating some degree of authoritarianism as a self-defense mechanism.

      We are now being presented with the reality: that it was never a choice between peaceful exploitation under capitalism and idealistic but authoritarian socialism, just that the capitalists were biding their time and building support for just long enough to make it seem like a viable driver of increased living standards. The capitalists are done with worker power and are bringing down the hammer. They are bored and want us to war again.

      The Soviets were accused of creating Potemkin villages, the capitalists created entire Potemkin "service economies" that barely produce anything, funded/enabled by historical imperial wealth and power dynamics.

      We are then presented with a choice, do we want working people to be in charge? Or do we want to let the wealthy treat us like their property?

      • I think we would all love to live in a world of nothing but love and peace, but there are bad, selfish guys out there who will smoosh your utopia in a heartbeat.

        I had a complementary thought about this recently. I think it's less so about bad, selfish guys, than the capitalist system fighting for survival. The capitalist economy produces a small number of grand winners of power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. The one unavoidable thing that persistently threatens the winners is the working class organizing and taking away that power and/or wealth. And if the working class does that, it effectively undoes the capitalist system. Well if that's a persistent threat, and there's a country in the world that's gone through this process and survived, then that could serve as a guiding example for the working class in any capitalist country, wouldn't it. All of a sudden, people can not only imagine an alternative but see one where people have it alright. And so the mere existence of a successful socialist country increases the threat of working classes overthrowing their capitalists.

53 comments