this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
195 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15909 readers
734 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a little bit of correlation vs causation that you can argue with regards to this point as well. Yes, it's almost certainly true that any revolutionary upheaval in how society is organized is going to result in a bumpy transition. But revolution is often an act of desperation, a step that people are typically only willing to take after every other option has been exhausted and the alternative of being worked into an early grave is too bleak to accept. And even then, revolution is only likely once a critical mass of people find themselves in the same wretched circumstances.
So I would make the argument that causation should actually be reversed. It's not revolutionary transition that leads to poor living conditions, it's poor living conditions that leads to revolution.
I wasn't arguing that, I was just pointing out that the conditions in AES as we can assume are envisioned by the OP, are poor compared to the average American's. Not even compared to the workers' starting point. Yes, certainly the revolutions in China and Russia and Cuba started rewarding the working people with a higher quality of life within five years compared to their previous standing.
The question as you rightly point out is a wrong one in that regard as well, but I was specifically talking about their choice of definition for "socialism" not making sense.
If the question is "would you move to a rich socdem country?" The answer, following the spirit of the question, family ties and language barrier for example not being included, and being directed at existing socialists, is of course going to be a resounding yes, just like those "would you rather" questions where one option is to eat pizza and the other is to eat rocks. It's a pointless question.
I didn't assume you were arguing that, I was expanding on a point you brought up.
Oh yeah? Well I didn't assume that you assumed that!
Curses, I've fallen prey to the oldest blunder in the book!
(secretly I did assume that. I'm sorry comrade)