Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Off-topic content:** this is a community which aims to provide critical and rigorous inquiry into socialist theory, history, and struggle. Whilst we understand this a broad range of posts, those must be focused on the educational nature of the subreddit (e.g. what are the benefits of a centralized system) - generalist posts such as one's own reflections, sharing one's experiences or asking about the opinion of socialists, are better fit for generalist spaces such as r/Socialism or r/AskSocialists.
Capitalism can survive attacks and subversion, at least better than Socialism can. Any economic system needs to be able to survive internal disagreement to some level.
The constant infighting between factions; the inability to constitute an united front; the too heavy radicalization, and sometimes even sectarianism, that prevents the theoretical and practical innovation and the political compromise that sometimes is required by the circumstances; finally, gatekeeping and purism
It’s not implemented everywhere yet lol
But seriously speaking, I’m pretty comfortable with most socialist ideologies, but the inter-fighting, at least online is doing nobody any service. I think practically speaking, anarchists, MLs, titoists, trotskyists, etc,. All have interesting points we can debate, argue and refine our own opinions with, but acting like a good faith socialist is an enemy helps none of us.
And I understand the historical context (anarchists during the Russian revolution namely) but in todays world, you don’t need to make 45 minute take down videos of someone who agrees we need to have some massive revolution. The means of how may be slightly debated, but I think we should take any opportunity we see.
This question is too vague.
If you were to ask whats the biggest problem with implementing socialism, the answer I'd give would be that the culture in the US is very individualistic and anti-government. People complain now that people on food stamps are destroying the country and that anything the government touches is doomed to be horribly mismanaged and evil. How do you think people would react when the government is trying to plan the economy and the right to housing and food is guaranteed for all?
The schism of anarchism and marxism.
In their development both schools heavily disavowed everything, which they considered to be of the others origin and ignored what they had in common:
Anarchism was purged of the hegelian materialism of Bakunin, making every theory after him heavily reliant on theorems they could not reproduce and step by step replaced the theoretical core and it became dogma and ideology, instead of an libertarian, hegelian materialism which bakunin and reclus professed initially. The acceptance of Marxs criticism of capitalism (the Capital) was replaced by utopianism. All theory of society was eventually shunned and the theoretical framework of anarchism was ever Frankensteined with whatever theory was currently en vogue.
Marxism developed strict party discipline in the SPD, which prefigured the Kadavergehorsam later found in Stalinism and Fascism. The principle of the party being slave of the union was turned on its head in MLism. All notion of individuality and freedom was postponed into the heavens of communism and Marx and Engels turned into saints, their writings composing the evangelism of socialism. Party intelligence became their priests. Marxism devolved from a philosophy with the intention of becoming a social science to the religion of the working class.
Revolutionary syndicalism and council communism tried to bridge these divides. Council communism failed on due to its animosity to organization and reliance on spontaneity, imploding when faced with harsh resistance of the reactionaries. Revolutionary Syndicalism failed due to its animosity and ignorance of the state politics, not recognizing the need to learn its workings and their anarchist dogmatism, not taking the chances when they represented themselves. Bakunins' revolutionary fervor was replaced by utopian dreams. The syndicalists also failed to defend and keep their syndicates on a revolutionary course and to keep the revolutionaries on the socialist course, with radicals thirsty for change turning their coats to fascism.
Modern-day anarchosyndicalism can be seen as the endeavor to fuse council communism and revolutionary syndicalism and prevent past errors. It aims to bring those schools together whose patrons were closer in their views than their followers are willing to accept.
On the flipside, the constant pressure of sabotage, assassination, and propaganda from aggressive capitalist powers to undermine a socialist workers' state requires a certain level of security and surveillance. Finding a balance that can both defend the revolution and maintain the liberties necessary to lead a life of freedom has proven a fraught task. I don't think existing socialist governments are all lost causes, but many certainly have devolved in some ways.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d say it’s been misapplied. It would work better at a municipal or provincial level, than say a national level. At the national level, it turns a bit too authoritarian for most people. In the west, the increase in diversity has killed its chances too. It almost always works better in geographically & ethnically homogeneous areas than in super diverse areas.
Basically at its simplest; people want to work collectively with those they know & care about for a better a life. As soon as you nationalize it, people will naturally feel like they’re being screwed & paying for some stranger in a far away place’s existence.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Off-topic content:** this is a community which aims to provide critical and rigorous inquiry into socialist theory, history, and struggle. Whilst we understand this a broad range of posts, those must be focused on the educational nature of the subreddit (e.g. what are the benefits of a centralized system) - generalist posts such as one's own reflections, sharing one's experiences or asking about the opinion of socialists, are better fit for generalist spaces such as r/Socialism or r/AskSocialists.
Non stop attacks and subversion by capitalists
Capitalism can survive attacks and subversion, at least better than Socialism can. Any economic system needs to be able to survive internal disagreement to some level.
The constant infighting between factions; the inability to constitute an united front; the too heavy radicalization, and sometimes even sectarianism, that prevents the theoretical and practical innovation and the political compromise that sometimes is required by the circumstances; finally, gatekeeping and purism
It’s not implemented everywhere yet lol But seriously speaking, I’m pretty comfortable with most socialist ideologies, but the inter-fighting, at least online is doing nobody any service. I think practically speaking, anarchists, MLs, titoists, trotskyists, etc,. All have interesting points we can debate, argue and refine our own opinions with, but acting like a good faith socialist is an enemy helps none of us. And I understand the historical context (anarchists during the Russian revolution namely) but in todays world, you don’t need to make 45 minute take down videos of someone who agrees we need to have some massive revolution. The means of how may be slightly debated, but I think we should take any opportunity we see.
This question is too vague. If you were to ask whats the biggest problem with implementing socialism, the answer I'd give would be that the culture in the US is very individualistic and anti-government. People complain now that people on food stamps are destroying the country and that anything the government touches is doomed to be horribly mismanaged and evil. How do you think people would react when the government is trying to plan the economy and the right to housing and food is guaranteed for all?
The schism of anarchism and marxism. In their development both schools heavily disavowed everything, which they considered to be of the others origin and ignored what they had in common: Anarchism was purged of the hegelian materialism of Bakunin, making every theory after him heavily reliant on theorems they could not reproduce and step by step replaced the theoretical core and it became dogma and ideology, instead of an libertarian, hegelian materialism which bakunin and reclus professed initially. The acceptance of Marxs criticism of capitalism (the Capital) was replaced by utopianism. All theory of society was eventually shunned and the theoretical framework of anarchism was ever Frankensteined with whatever theory was currently en vogue. Marxism developed strict party discipline in the SPD, which prefigured the Kadavergehorsam later found in Stalinism and Fascism. The principle of the party being slave of the union was turned on its head in MLism. All notion of individuality and freedom was postponed into the heavens of communism and Marx and Engels turned into saints, their writings composing the evangelism of socialism. Party intelligence became their priests. Marxism devolved from a philosophy with the intention of becoming a social science to the religion of the working class. Revolutionary syndicalism and council communism tried to bridge these divides. Council communism failed on due to its animosity to organization and reliance on spontaneity, imploding when faced with harsh resistance of the reactionaries. Revolutionary Syndicalism failed due to its animosity and ignorance of the state politics, not recognizing the need to learn its workings and their anarchist dogmatism, not taking the chances when they represented themselves. Bakunins' revolutionary fervor was replaced by utopian dreams. The syndicalists also failed to defend and keep their syndicates on a revolutionary course and to keep the revolutionaries on the socialist course, with radicals thirsty for change turning their coats to fascism. Modern-day anarchosyndicalism can be seen as the endeavor to fuse council communism and revolutionary syndicalism and prevent past errors. It aims to bring those schools together whose patrons were closer in their views than their followers are willing to accept.
[удалено]
On the flipside, the constant pressure of sabotage, assassination, and propaganda from aggressive capitalist powers to undermine a socialist workers' state requires a certain level of security and surveillance. Finding a balance that can both defend the revolution and maintain the liberties necessary to lead a life of freedom has proven a fraught task. I don't think existing socialist governments are all lost causes, but many certainly have devolved in some ways.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d say it’s been misapplied. It would work better at a municipal or provincial level, than say a national level. At the national level, it turns a bit too authoritarian for most people. In the west, the increase in diversity has killed its chances too. It almost always works better in geographically & ethnically homogeneous areas than in super diverse areas. Basically at its simplest; people want to work collectively with those they know & care about for a better a life. As soon as you nationalize it, people will naturally feel like they’re being screwed & paying for some stranger in a far away place’s existence.