You cannot reform capitalism into socialism. They are fundamentally oppositional. It would require revolutionizing the entirety of our economic and political systems. This is BASIC theory. Please read a fucking book.
I’m talking about reform of the definition or the method to reach socialism. Like the difference of methods between Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Eduard Bernstein.
I am, currently the quotations of Mao, and to be honest it sounded great until he explained that his definition of democracy was not mine or most people’s in current day.
As a dutch citizen with a parliamentary voting system (not FPTP barbarism) it seems to me deeply egotistical and frightening to read his definition:
The fact that the proletariat revolution prevailed means that the following state body is inherently democratic: this ignores that you need a small minority of well armed people for a revolution compared to a majority vote
That using Marx’s democratic centrism as democracy ignoring the obvious corruptible methods defended by his other notes: of unity through punishment for those against him.
I’ve tried to explain it to others but like you they swore at me, took my arguments out of context or proportion or used propaganda to negate my point.
Even amongst socialists you will find little proponents for Philosopher Kings.
Next you’ll tell me Robert Owen is not a socialist, or that reform can not happen with socialism.
You cannot reform capitalism into socialism. They are fundamentally oppositional. It would require revolutionizing the entirety of our economic and political systems. This is BASIC theory. Please read a fucking book.
I’m talking about reform of the definition or the method to reach socialism. Like the difference of methods between Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Eduard Bernstein.
I am, currently the quotations of Mao, and to be honest it sounded great until he explained that his definition of democracy was not mine or most people’s in current day.
As a dutch citizen with a parliamentary voting system (not FPTP barbarism) it seems to me deeply egotistical and frightening to read his definition:
Plato’s • Philosopher Kings
I’ve tried to explain it to others but like you they swore at me, took my arguments out of context or proportion or used propaganda to negate my point.
Even amongst socialists you will find little proponents for Philosopher Kings.
https://feddit.nl/comment/27815475
Thanks to this eloquent statement you fulfill the definition of Tankie and I’ll be blocking you, any other tankies please block me too.
Lol, yes. The very vocal Anarchist is a *checks notes* an authoritarian.
Sound logic.
Oh you’re a proponent of the Philosopher King concept? Please, do block me. Saves me the trouble.
Any actual socialist that’s read a single word of theory knows reform is a failure