News and Discussions about Reddit
Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
Rule 1- No brigading.
**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **
YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.
Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.
**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
view the rest of the comments
Ah, okay.
Now, I'm curious. What is socialism to you?
When the working class holds state power, a transitionary period as they build the conditions for communism.
If that's the case, then why do workers have more rights and power in Western nations than those in Russia and China and in these other "Actual Existing Socialist" countries?
Why do you think most products are made in China? Because it's cheap, including the labour.
I also figured that one of socialism's core values is the eradication of private ownership, such as private property, which China still has.
Conditions for the workers in China have massively improved over the last 75 years. They continue to improve, as opposed to say, India which continues to export food while farmers hunger.
Due to central planning covering the major industries, everything is cheap in China, when you can get a good meal for 30 cents-2USD, and rent is 300USD, 1500USD/mo goes pretty far.
Cuba, despite 70 years of siege and US-backed terrorism, manages a higher HDI than every Caribbean nation, and a higher life expectancy for her people than America.
China doesn't have the luxury of stripping the global south for labor and resources. There's a reason all those countries remain eternally "developing" while China actually manages to improve conditions.
Russia hasn't been socialist for 35 years.
Private property has been a useful tool to develop the means of production. The capitalist class however, remains subordinated to the interests of the working class, as such we occasionally see one take a trip to a farm upstate when they step outside their lane. By 2050, Xi said it will no longer be necessary, so we should expect further reductions in the capitalists independence.
That's nice that China is improving, but if you're arguing on a purely worker basis, then Western, especially European and Commonwealth nations, have China beat, and by your definition, are more socialist.
This is true, but so too are their standards of living. I am curious though as to their minimum wage and how that compares to other nations.
So it's state capitalist then? And you take the word of the rich when they colour themselves as the government? Even when they're a foreign nation? So bizarre to me to be arguing for a nation you're not a part of.
If you agree that Western nations have better worker rights and more freedom than workers in China, then wouldn't it make more sense to support socialism in the West instead of a state capitalist foreign nation? And I want to specify, by the West, I mean democratic and liberal nations, such as those in the Commonwealth or Europe.
Workers having more crumbs while still being subservient to capital doesn't make them more socialist.
It uses markets to solve specific problems.
There are rich whom are party members, and are even less independent than rich people who have no connection to the government. We can infer they are not in control from the government's actions, from not propping up property prices to reeducating or even executing capitalists who commit social murder.
I'm not a nationalist, this isn't team sports.
Of course I support most any anti-capitalist party. But I've pretty much given up hope for the west.
But China is state capitalist, dude, it's not socialist. Hell, even in your argument for not propping up property prices, China still has extensive private property. That's contradictive of socialism!
So what exactly is your stance? Since China doesn't meet your definition of socialist. Are you advocating for state capitalism instead?
Like you've got some wires crossed somewhere here. I think you're conflating socialism and capitalism with imperialism.
My definition for socialism is that the working class holds power, as opposed to capital. China, Cuba, Vietnam, all meet that criteria. They use markets, but that doesn't make them state capitalist as capital doesn't dictate policy as in capitalist states.
Is your argument that a state is only socialist if they abolish private property on day 1?
My argument is that if you're saying that what defines socialism is the working class holding power, then Western nations, such as European or Commonwealth nations, are advancing your definition of socialism more than China.
So you should be advocating for Europe and Commonwealth nations over China if advancing socialism is your priority.
Consider this: China has one overarching union, the ACFTU, which is controlled by the state, which is the Chinese government. Independent unions, separate from the government, are considered to be illegal in China. Workers cannot unionise without explicit permission from the Government, and can only do so through the ACFTU.
Compare that to Western Nations, where worker unions are legal and largely separate from the government.
Out of these two, which more aligns with your definition of socialism being the working class holding power?
When the workers control the government, unions are redundant at best and reactionary bastions that will impede progress at worst, which we saw them stike at the behest if the CIA in Allande's Chile and Sankara's Burkina Faso.
I support unions in europe, I don't support their enemy, the capitalists and their governments.
Workers have better conditions in europe, due to colonial history and crumbs afforded by the threat of socialism, but the state isn't run by and for the working class as in AES countries.
If workers control the state, why must workers be prevented from organising independently?
Because those independent organizations can have interests opposed to the rest of society. Outside forces, historically the CIA, then amplify the influence of members who support such actions via money, media presence, and "international" support.
If independent unions are a threat, then the state doesn't fully represent workers.
The interests of different groups of workers can be diametrically opposed, or literally opposed to the interests of every other group.
But there's no opposition here, there isn't allowed to be.
That's why independent unions are important, so they can represent the diverse interests of workers.
They are represented, in government. We're going in circles here.
It is a cyclical argument we're having, yes.
That's why it's important to have some introspection. What pathway exists for workers to collectively oppose a state decision that harms them?
Like, look at these examples of China and the ACFTU oppressing and dissolving independent unions, arresting striking workers and arresting labour rights activists.
Workers in the JASIC factory formed a union with the assistance of left-wing students and Maoist, feminist and socialist activists. The Chinese government responded with mass arrests, raids and censorship.
Coal Miners protested against the Longmei Group, a state-owned enterprise (meaning the Chinese government owns it), for not paying wages. The organisers were arrested in their homes, and wanted photos were released of the striking miners.
Members of the Guangdong Panyu Migrant Worker Centre, which is an organisation that advocates for labour rights for workers, both migrant and domestic, were all arrested and had their houses raided.
Same with a union, talk to your representative. Failing that, complain about your rep to the guys above them.
But that relies entirely on the authority deciding to act against itself. You're turning a workers' union into a bureaucratic, administrative process. You're removing the workers' collective bargaining power and independence and turning it into an administrative grievance channel, that's consultative, not a sharing of power.
If what you describe is actually the pathway, there wouldn't be the need for these strikes and arrests.