That wasn't real socialism.
Throughout my life, and considering that I live in a country that calls itself socialist, I have spoken with countless people who profess Marxism, both those who call themselves Socialists, and those who call themselves Communists.
I have spoken with native Marxists, but I have also spoken with many others who belong to different nationalities, and all of them seem to have very different positions:
Many of them affirm that Venezuela is a country that is on the road to socialism, but that has been sabotaged by international agents to provoke a crisis.
Many others say that Venezuela is not socialist, although those same ones affirm that both Cuba and the Soviet Union were.
Others even say that none of these countries were true socialisms, as if North Korea is.
Even some say that countries like Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea are not or were socialists, but that the Scandinavian countries are. Excellent reasoning!
Finally, we have a small number of Marxists who deny any attempt at socialism/communism in practice, and say that true socialism has never been implemented.
That is the ace up the sleeve of all Marxists, and they have told me innumerable times and on multiple occasions; "That wasn't real socialism." In fact, many take this even further, and dare to say things like; "It wasn't socialism, but capitalism."
I have innumerable reasons to think that each of the countries mentioned above have practiced and based their model of government on Marx's model, in the same way as all the countries of the Eastern bloc, the handful of African socialist countries, and the Asian socialist models that finally evolved into a hybrid between statism and free market.
Although that will not be discussed in this post, I'm really not interested in proving that these regimes were truly socialist.
When someone says to me: "That wasn't real socialism", I answer with the following question: "Why should I trust that the socialism that you propose is the real socialism?"
This is the reality, all the socialist eminences, leaders of the communist parties, Marxist theorists and ideologists, at some point supported these regimes, in fact, many of the current left-wing politicians did. Fidel Castro, Noam Chomsky, Pablo Iglesias, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Heinz Dieterich Steffan and countless others supported the socialist regime of Venezuela, why should I believe that the word of some anonymous Internet, or a low socialist, Is it more accurate than any of these influential socialists?
Why should I trust that they know more about socialism, than the socialist politicians that people (also socialist) vote for and support?
But you know what, I'm going to agree with them, let's suppose that Venezuela, and none of the other regimes was truly socialist, let's say that they used socialism as a facade and only applied their personalist dictatorship. (Praesumptio iuris tantum)
Now, with these new facts on the table, why should I believe that an anonymous Internet, a low-class socialist, or worse, a self-styled socialist politician like Bernie Sanders, are really socialists?
What makes me believe that they, like all previous regimes, will not be using socialism as a facade and then impose their dictatorship?
Absolutely nothing…
All the previous leaders, from Lenin, through Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Josip Broz, Che Guevara, and other names of the red team stars. All, without exception, were called real socialists, and in the name of real socialism they made the greatest disasters of the last century.
That's why no, it does not matter if they were real socialists or not, it does not matter if they were real Marxists, what really matters were all those disasters they did in the name of socialism.
For those same disasters, I would never trust a politician who proclaims himself real representative of socialism, because history has shown us that they, whether socialist or not, whether intentionally or unintentionally, have been the greatest destroyers of civilizations that history never seen.
Even the Nordic free market is there to be leeched off by commies. Those who cannot produce prosperity has to leech it from somebody else. You eventually run out of other people's money. So they allowed the economy to be free so that they can tax at levels which are several times higher than the kind of taxes that resulted in revolutions: https://steemit.com/economy/@vimukthi/a-brief-history-of-taxes-fiat-money-and-the-chinese-proto-socialist-emperor-who-ruined-his-country-waaay-before-marx-was-a-thing
Unfortunately Nordic countries will die off starting with Sweden. At the moment, safest region to bet on is SEA. At least that's what I think at the moment.
Interesting that mentions in the post about proto-Marxism during the Xin Dynasty. Jesús Huerta de Soto, who could easily be considered the greatest exponent of the Austrian School in the Spanish-speaking world today, spoke during one of his classes about a kind of proto-Marxism during the decline of ancient Rome, when the State began a series of subsidies and increased spending, which caused a decline in the private sector, and destabilized the economy along with essential basic productive activities such as agriculture, this weakened the empire and finally allowed the barbarians to cross the borders of Rome.
Continuing with the Nordic countries, my view on them is not so fateful, I believe that if they have taken wrong steps but nothing that can not be solved, my vision is more fateful on the other countries of Europe. I think Sweden can be a great example for other nordic countries, although in short, it is a matter of time to know what happens.
Worthy of a resteem my friend!
Thanks buddy!
In our previous exchanges, I asked you how you envision your personal life, what concept of living suits you the best? It's about as personal as it can get.
I think that ordinary people are mostly smart. They do not speak smart but what I observed during my lifetime is more to watch their actions and not so much their expressions or political opinions. In fact, talking about politics or society concepts never did very much good in gatherings. It's mostly about wanting to be right which means that the other is wrong.
I find no real meaning in that. Dictatorship - no matter under which name - worked only through fear and creating enemies or threats. To remain intact under a strict regime requires some guts.
As I do not speak from first hand but second-hand experience through my family I want to tell you a little story about my mother. She was 16 when the Russians took her and the whole family to Siberia after Germany lost the war. They were imprisoned in a camp and had to do hard labour work.
One day my mom had enough cutting down trees and chopping wood. She stood in front of the commander and said that she and her sister were not made for this hard work and she wanted to be assigned another job. The commander could have killed her at any time and she probably risked her life recklessly if her mother had been asked. But the man decided in favour of my mother and let the two women work in the laundry from then on.
This and other narratives of hers impressed me deeply and they may serve as an example to speak the mind and to not obey to what the forces demand. I really don't know how I myself would act if my life was threatened but I like to think that I would risk it.
All of us need more good examples of how people succeeded in withstanding and creating situations where hope can be taken on. Even the smallest individual experience is of great value. Even though it may seem that no other ordinary person is in sight who still owns integrity I think one should remain as the last one who does.
I share some of your thoughts, I believe that everyone is intelligent and rational, although not in the same things, certainly all have a gold. Nevertheless, you may not be interested in politics and society, but these two are interested in you. It is true that many times you get to a banal matter in which only the other is pointed out and you only look for be right at all costs, although I try to avoid it, that is why I avoid political parties and I focus more on ideals, the goal behind everything that gives it a meaning.
It is unfortunate that part of your family has had to go through that, although they are only those moments in which strength is most needed in which one can prove yourself. I've talked about it before, and maybe, just maybe, you're interested in this post.
Now, its true that we all need examples of integrity and hope, of strength in the face of adversity, although I have noticed that "all" means "many people", so the best way to find an example that can be useful for people is be ourselves the example. It only takes a person to act in the right way so that everyone begins to do the same.
Thank you for passing, I hope you have been able to get even one thing to think about the publication. Greetings.
I like your expression of "all have a gold". And it means a lot to me that you say that. It's not a small thing to say. It means for me that you have trust in yourself and therefore in others, too.
I don't know if I understand. Do you mean one thing to think about of this article of yours? But I did :-)
It may not be very pleasant how I responded but kind of ignoring what you talked about. Which it is actually not the case. I am almost fifty years old and from what I see is that the same topics pop up all the times as if people haven't already understood what happened throughout history. We all(ready) have. History reflects itself within the family, the streets, the towns, the nations, the globe. Must we still talk about atrocities when we have other stories to tell as well? I feel a great imbalance.
Maybe you just express something personal and take the description of dictatorship as a substitute to reveal personal pain. Which is okay. Suffering is real.
But I am not the one who says "Bravo!" only. I try to look at you personally and to make a connection which goes deeper. If I am overstepping borders than that can be seen as bad or as good. But never I do have bad intentions.
Saying goodbye for now.
Well, in that we differ. I think that if we had learned correctly from history, then it would not repeat itself. I agree that history is reflected in all aspects of our lives, and when I speak of it I don't try simply to know some dates or events to have something to talk about, but rather to be able to draw practical use of that knowledge.
Many ideas that worked in the past could do it again, ancient Greece, Rome, there is much to learn from us there. Who does not know where he comes from, does not know where is going. I myself have criticized history in the past as stories, because if we let history be history then they are just stories, but if we can learn something from it, then it has real value.
In the post there is a clear meaning, no matter what they say, or whatever they call it, it matters what they do, and applies as much to socialists as to any person, ideology, belief, and so on.
If you try to look at my personality you can do it in every action I do, in every comment or post, in every word I use, I think you can know a lot just because of that, even more than what could be known if I told personal anecdotes, that I have told them, although always with a goal. What I consider really important here would not be who I am or how I am, but what do I have to say? and in what can I help you?
Goodbye.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Relevance: Sharing the truth.
"real" socialism is the one in books.. the ones marked as fiction / fairy tales
It's fiction/fairy tales while it's still in the book. In practice, it is a terror tale.
Oh yes, we haven't tried real socialism......sure. But even if they got their perfected socialist state of the perfect amount of theft, who would take out the trash?
Nobody. Because the bigger trash is the socialism itself.
Nice...imo a lot of political ideologies have this kind of stuff going on especially if they fail in practice.islam is a nice example but its debatable.your stuff is geat btw.
Well, Everything is debatable. There is no problem in that people have different beliefs, it is good at some point, it avoids the single thought, the problem is when one of those people takes power and seeks to cover the mouth of those who think differently.
Thank you very much for the compliments and for the comments, I really appreciate it.
Socialism is a path to Comunism, but every socialist movements can step back to Capitalism if their leader don't have STRONG ideology and strategy.
Well, it is assumed that there is no State in communism, but in socialism the State is bigger than at any other time, I think Marx forgot to explain when and how this socialist super State disappears and communist anarchy begins.
It can be neveending process - fight with capitalists, with people who want to be a ruler, who wants to empose power on someone else. Endless process of checking who is who. I saw USSR film about what will be in future, an they show that in 2018 they would abandone money. Maybe it's the biggest communist thing.
The dream, the truth, the agony... the dream, the truth, the agony...