this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
133 points (75.3% liked)
Memes
56792 readers
286 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Entryism historically doesn't work well. Even if a political party were to flip, winning electorally still doesn't let you establish socialism within the confines of capitalism. You still need revolution.
Entryism historically has faired better than a "revolutionary" third party. No party aside from Dems and Republicans have controlled congress or the presidency since the 1850s. More recently we have seen political flips. FDR's New Deal coalition failed to include LGBTQIA+, but the coalition survived 30ish years with prosperity for the working class* before ultimately being destroyed by Nixon and ultimately Reagan.
My point being, that the last 2 times revolutionary politics wete introduced (FDR and Reaganism/Trumpism) it led to YEARS of success for the party:
Healthy, well-regulated capitalism is complementary to socialism. In a world of abundance capitalism gives power to the workers to choose how they want to spend their time and to work on the projects they're passionate and proud of, while socialism evens the playing field for kids to be able to grow up and participate on an equal footing, and it enables entrepreneurs to take greater risks to advance society's collective prosperity. Healthy, well-regulated (but still flawed) capitalism existed for under 50 years. It did not address bigotry and other social injustices, as society was considered to be a monolith of white men. Socialism in this same time frame would have had the same issues: unaddressed bigotry and unequal footing.
It should also be noted that legislation has increasingly made it more difficult for a 3rd party to participate. So while there was limited success in 2000, States have made it more difficult for third parties to have success.
We need a revolution. I would rather a peaceful revolution, and I'm sure you would too. But regardless of the shape the revolution takes, following a path of least resistance is a less labor intensive way to grow a movement, and it's a playbook that has worked well against the LGBTQIA+ community.
"Trans people shouldn't play sports" offends fewer people than "trans people shouldn't live" even though they mean the same thing. That's why Republicans have hit sports so hard. It's why they targeted local drag shows not Ru Paul's Drag Race. Take a page from their book. Tea party the shit out of the Democrats.
If you want to build a movement quick, get quick wins. Boycott a local restaurant for hosting a Nazi candidate, as opposed to boycotting Walmart. Creating a 3rd party pushes an elected revolution back by a minimum of 4 years (since many states dont give ballot access unless you hit 5% in the previous election).
*Of course, the cis straight white folk faired the best
You really can just say anything these days
Both fundamentally changed the country, yes.
Deeply unserious person.
They didn't even do that, let alone be revolutionary.
Adding domestic concentration camps is revolutionary in my opinion. Not saying its good.
Literally already had domestic concentration camps.
It's not revolutionary. Especially not in a place where literal privatised prisons exist.
You really can just say anything these days
There's a few critical misunderstandings you have.
Revolution is not simply change. Revolution is the conquest of state power by one class against the previous. Both FDR and Reagan serve the capitalist class, neither was a revolution but instead a shift in how capital dictates.
Further, you are entirely erasing imperialism. The New Deal grew alongside the US Empire. It was a way to export the contradictions within society to the global south. With the 50s onward, the US Empire was the world hegemon, super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Domestically, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples were crushed, alongside LGBTQIA+ people. Internationally, the global south was horrendously butchered for profit. It is through the exploitation of the global south that both capitalism and a large welfare net remained.
The rise of Reagan was the triumph of imperialist capital reaching a new stage. Neoliberalism is the imperialism of the modern era, where finance capital has shifted from simple capital export to neocolonialism and unequal exchange.
"Healthy, well-regulated capitalism" cannot exist, nor can it be complementary to socialism. Markets can play a part in either system, but the question of who society serves is determined by which class controls the state and the commanding heights of the economy. China has a socialist market economy, and leverages this to uplift the people. Finland, the other user's previous example, has a capitalist economy, and uses it to plunder the global south and bribe their domestic working class.
Socialism is not welfare. Socialism is not the public sector. Socialism is a system, as capitalism is. There is no such thing as an "elected revolution."
What is critically necessary is revolutionary organizing for the purpose of overthrowing the old, capitalist state apparatus, and creating a new worker state. This has been done around the world successfully many times before, and we need to learn from their efforts. Not simply hide imperialism and hope to share in the spoils of it.
Do you mind defining:
-Capitalism (or the US's economy, taking into account utilities, imperialism, and government sectors such as military/oil)
-Socialist Market Economy
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy (ie rising, dominant, and in control of the commanding heights), and the capitalist class controls the state. Imperialism as a stage in capitalism is where bank and industrial capital monopolize and consolidate, creating finance capital, which pivots to export of capital rather than simple commodities. Since the state is capitalist, the public sector serves the capitalist class above all else.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. The socialist market economy is a form of developing socialism where marketization is employed in a controlled manner to support the development of the productive forces, which are the bedrock of developed socialism. Just as public ownership in capitalism is not socialism, private ownership in the context of a socialist system is not capitalism either.
Well, if you declare it.
Please explain how utilities are seen between the 2 different systems. Utilities seem to both operate on the same principals in the US and China, in such, that the people elect a government who then sets the price while heavily regulating for maximum efficiency
In both capitalism and socialism, the state exists to support the ruling class, capitalists in capitalism and workers in socialism. To a certain extent, both capitalists and workers need utilities to continue society, but the nature of how they operate in different systems is stark. In the US, for example, fossil fuels dominate the energy market, because wealthy capitalists are antagonistic towards green energy as they derive their wealth from fossil fuels. In China, renewables are expanding at a staggering rate. The ultimate purpose of utilities in capitalism is to maintain and expand capitalist profits, while the ultimate purpose of utilities in socialism is the well-being of all.
Elections are not the same as class control. No matter who you elect in the US, there will only be servants of capital. No matter who is elected in China, there will only be servants of the workers. Both systems can only be changed by revolution or counterrevolution, individuals working within either system cannot reform it to the other. The question of class struggle is one settled through force, not the ballot box.
What keeps corruption out of China's government?
There is corruption, but it's regularly purged and kept in check by a combination of whole-process people's democracy, and the practice of democratic centralism within the CPC. Corruption existing is just a problem systems have to deal with.
So its the structure if the democracy as opposed to the capitalism vs socialism?
If your starting point is the US you could still move towards something like Finland without a revolution.
Be part of the cultural change that would be required for that.
Finland is still an imperialist country, that's why it has the system it does without revolution. They simply exported the major contradictions within society to the global south, aligning their proletariat and bourgeoisie against the global south. Capitalists still dominate Finland and workers don't have power, they just have more generous welfare, which could be taken away at any time by the capitalists if conditions changed and imperialism weakened.
I'd much rather be a part of a revolutionary party that actually stands to move humanity forward.
The "more generous welfare" has been going for a while (source: i live in this shithole), and it will keep going down as conditions have changed and imperialism has weakened. Having joined NATO just in time to witness the US throw the EU under the bus to save its own ass financially speaking, the current European conflict demands our state to increase its defence budget to 5% of GDP. The bourgeoisie government will resort to increasing stripping of social programs, and in turn drive further privatization of healthcare etc. The impotent left and other controlled opposition parties will pay lip service to reversing these policies in hopes of winning some more seats in the next election, but will never manage to do anything substantial because the state lacks the funds to pay healthcare workers (especially the nurses and janitorial services) living wages. Eventually it won't matter, as all parties serve the same masters and clearly taking care of the most vulnerable and marginalized in this society costs too much. Russia serves as a scapegoat for these policies, as the war in Ukraine is intrinsically linked to these policies but most people will seemingly just stop thinking once the discussion reaches this part. I think there was a conscious effort by the Powers to inflate the amount of public discussion and media directly comparing the Winter War to the Russian SMO in Ukraine, in order to get more of the population on board the NATO bullshit and ever-increasing military spending (which, in a way, isn't necessarily a false comparison; most just won't mention the amount of fascists on "our" side in both conflicts, oddly enough). The brainwashing and propagandizing begins at birth for the contemporary Finn, and unless subjected to the monstrous true face of the "welfare state" through their material conditions they lack the capability to reach class consciousness and will be helpless against the overwhelming power of the US/EU misinformation onslaught.
Sorry to hear that, that sounds fairly bleak. This just goes to show the critical importance of organizing work even within the empire, and how consistently building a revolutionary party is an arduous but worthwhile cause. Good luck!
Thanks. I've personally mostly given up on surviving all this, given the minuscule amount of local organizing. It could also be that I've been at home the entire summer trying to deal with rapidly deteriorating physical and mental health and thus only engaged with the locals online, most of whom disgust me, which all have had an impact on my emotional well-being. Also poverty, but that's been a mostly lifelong problem. Shit sucks.
Again, sorry to hear that. I'm unfamiliar with Finnish socialist parties, but there should be at least one decent one. Joining a party can be very fulfilling work!