There seems to be more and more of these reactionary socialists popping up. They somehow assume the capitalists will just allow them to be democratically elected and take their wealth from them. How can they be this naive, are they controlled opposition?

It seems they’re too scared to move further left because they still believe all the scary things about ML states, but when pressed on how they would defend their new socialist state from capitalists/imperialists, they hand wave it away with vague ideas of cooperation.

What is the best way to deal with them, and how many here were DemSocs before becoming MLs? If so, what convinced you?

  • savoy@lemmygrad.ml
    41·
    3 years ago

    It’s less that we deal with them and more that we pretty much ignore or leverage them for revolutionary purposes.

    DSA-type “socialists” aren’t a majority, and they’re not the masses that we should be trying to meet and reach out to; our focus should be on them. Demsocs will either stay hard in their position before inevitably being proven wrong (as history has shown) or flip to being true anti-communist reactionaries when the time comes.

    • Weilai Hope@lemmygrad.mlOP
      9·
      3 years ago

      The problem is i cant ignore them. Whenever I discuss Socialism on reddit, often against capitalists, the DemSocs come out to criticise the ML position. The moment i mention China being socialist they come flying out to condemn it as a hyper-capitalist state, or if i mention how a socialist state needs to be able to protect itself from internal reactionaries they immediately mention the 2000 bazillion deaths that supposedly occured. They are so frustrating and just seem like little libshits under a new name, and all their socialism seems to be entirely concerned with issues in western countries like healthcare reform, when for me its just about basic fucking human rights and exploitation around the world.

      • ChasingGlowies@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        3 years ago

        When people bring up death counts due to hardship under Communism they’re usually parroting propaganda derive wittingly or not from the Black Book of Communism and its ridiculously inflated figures.

        I like Chomsky’s demolishing retort to that argument in this article, using the much superior research from Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, who won his award by researching famine:

        … before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen’s India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had “similarities that were quite striking” when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. “But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India” (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: “India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame,” 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

        In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the “ideological predispositions” of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when “the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed,” thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

        Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist “experiment” since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the “colossal, wholly failed…experiment” of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The “criminal indictment” of the “democratic capitalist experiment” becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that “Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not],” returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the “third world.” But “you can’t make an omelette without broken eggs,” as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly “colossal” record of skeletons and “absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering” (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.

      • savoy@lemmygrad.ml
        1·
        3 years ago

        Anything online’s going to be a crapshoot. Honestly arguing and trying to win over demsocs online is going to be futile. Majority-white “socialists” online aren’t going to change their opinion in confrontations against communists. It can be infuriating, but we all need to hold revolutionary optimism that revolution in the imperial core is an inevitability.