this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
-9 points (26.3% liked)

Socialism

6364 readers
5 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

i'm NOT even sure if this is the right community for me to post this on. that said, i got banned from hexbear (and now banned from posting stuff on !slop@hexbear.net from this lemmy instance) for "history of repeating us state department talking points, antisocialism and zionism" as well as possible "fedposting".

i DON'T usually complain about hexbear, but part is me's glad i got banned from hexbear - of course that site is mostly run by tankies.

of course you DON'T have to be a tankie to support marxism-leninism - i asked this question here, and some people said 'you DON'T have to support stalin to support ml'.

i think that the ussr would've been better off today if the ussr continued to led by a troika after lenin's death in 1924, but who am i to judge? i prefer lemmy.ml (another lemmy instance).

i apologize to any hexbear people reading this, and i'm sorry i called you tankies. seriously!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

if a socialist country has multiple parties that DOESN'T have any way of competing, what would it be like?

also, can a socialist country have like-minded parties that "support the socialist order", but regardless competes with each other (as their ideologies are in the socialist spectrum)?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think you'd do better to understand what does exist and why, for now, before trying to invent new ways.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

i think that there'd still be multiple political parties, but all of them would support different forms of socialism/communism (from across the socialist spectrum); they'd still cooperate together in a 'vanguard coalition', led by the communist party which serves as the foremost social institution), but they'd still compete in elections and such.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

These "different forms" you suggested are entirely incompatible with each other. That's a recipe for infighting and instability.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

when i say "different forms", i mean forms like regular marxism, de leonism, councilism, liberal socialism and mutualism. i also find democratic centralism to be pretty interesting, especially the part about open debate before unified voting, and i'd add that to the equation. seriously!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

These are completely different structures that you can't smash together into one system.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Study existing socialist structures in practice right now and why they function as such before trying to invent your own socialist structure and claim it's better.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

i'm NOT even saying that that structure is better. that said, do you have any resources (like audiobooks and .pdfs for reading, for example)?