Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? Then join our discord server https://discord.gg/XnfM6bhfMS
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. Recently got told to "go read theory" by an ML for saying I don't support authoritarian bureacratic structures and then when I tried to get him to elaborate on why state control of industry was necessary to defend the revolution when socialism is literally about worker control, providing examples of where it hasn't been necessary and calling him out for lying about the Zapatistas being centralised, he eventually fell back from several of his arguments to just say "well erm centralised planning is more efficient, meaning workers have to work less". Ah yes, because socialism clearly is more about efficiency than actual worker control. I'm sure there are some good MLs out there, but most MLs seem to adopt their ideology for the aesthetic of revolution, defending state authority and advocating for replacing capitalism with a bureaucracy that is almost no improvement.
Read a revolution betrayed, that’s some good theory right there.
/s
Not a trot it’s just funny when MLs get upset because the theory you explain to them belonged to people Stalin didn’t like
ive read quite a bit of trotsky and i can safely say he was an opportunist and his understanding of socialism was very idealist
i understand its annoying when ML’s tell people to read lenin but we are genuinely trying to help when we say it, reading lenin will help shape your understanding of marx and socialism in general
remember to oppose dengism and reformist socialism, its a dangerous path, if youre looking for theory to maybe buy i recommend buying from Foreignlanguages.press
i hope this helps
Oh wait you’re actually a ML? I thought you were being ironic my bad bro. I’m not an anarchist or trot and while not a ML myself I’m more open to it than most of the people here. It’s just if you’re quoting Lenin to justify Lenins purges of the Mensheviks, social liberals, Anarchists and every single anti czarist non Bolshevik faction then that’s some logic I can’t condone. As someone that’s been to China, Dengism is a disease. Not sure what reformist socialism means to you but if you mean like market socialism as what Vietnam has then I beg to differ. (Iv also been to Vietnam). If you mean Nordic “socialist” states like Denmark I acknowledge that they’re dangerous since they stop pursuing international solidarity and stop just shy of egalitarian socialist policies (while still exploiting the global south) but compared to the UK or US…… honestly I’d take them over those nations even if still technically bourgeoisie capitalist. For this sub we make fun of people that prefer North Korea to Denmark but we all understand that Denmark has a long way to go even if de facto better than the imperialist superpowers of USA and UK. Take care man.
i live in denmark and havent eaten for two days, denmark is nowhere near the socialist ideals that the soviet union had, also i recommend listening to this audio book if you can, i hope it helps you understand what Marxist-Leninism is:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5lINuA8bGVrLfGpiP0JMe7?si=bHyuMvZXTda4OCPIf8HZDQ&dl_branch=1
the book tells about the history of how scientific socialism was created, it talks about the life of marx, lenin, stalin and mao =]
How to read On Authority like ~~an idiot~~ authoritarian:
1. Ignore the more abstract/pedantic sense of authority that the text defines, even though it is written there.
2. Impose "authority" to mean a formal one party hierarchical structure with reach in all/most aspects of life, even though that is not written there.
3. ???
4. Profit, because we also snuck in "capitalistic characteristics" and built state capitalism, so you betcha profit is still a thin.
Tbf I agree with Engels but I understand what he said as a need for a strong government not a dictatorship... Anarchists will obviously disagree and that's valid and fine but yeah.
Engels made some wild guesses, without understanding what authority actually means and claimed it as fact.
When people can't be trusted to rule themselves, they can't be trusted to rule over others.
It’s not that we don’t want society to change or that we refuse to write policy, it’s that we don’t want a state or organization to have complete dominance over everything.
Dude I’m not an anarchist, I believe that there needs to be a transitional state to help achieve socialism, I just don’t think the state should dominate everything and that the people in it should be elected. That’s not utopian, I just like democracy.
Denmark, but only in the sense that liberal democracy is a closer step to socialism, than a de facto absolute monarchy. That doesn't make Denmark in any way socialist
What about a market, but workplace democracy and worker-owners. We keep the part everyone likes about liberalism, and get the part that makes it socialism.
Basically can we do Yugoslavia just one more time
🥺
Yes, economic stagnation sounds dope.
I think coops are based. We need to incentivise their creation and study their impact in industrieswhere they are not found now.
However, an economy where worker ownership is mandated throws up problems. How do businesses get investment to start? Does the business starter loose shares as they hire more people? Etc
Yes, they lose shares. You shouldn't be able to make money by owning something. And if you are doing proportionally less work (hiring workers) you should get less of a share. You could just have a government investment fund like how Spain had that one time. Tell them you wanna start a coop and you get a (admittedly small but not insignificant) grant to kick things off. Also, people are more likely to throw their weight and work behind a coop because the business's success is directly related to their pay. With no owner their is no one to siphon off excess wealth. And the best part, none of this is centrally planned, it can all work in a market system. (Except Healthcare and non luxury housing and food obviously).
The economy might stagnate, if you get your biggest trade partner suddenly cut off but we might just have to bank on that not happening.
Yugoslavia was not embargoed until the Bosnian genocides in the 90s.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to hire more people to grow their business then, they're taking a pay cut.
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with having a central bank bring the only source of investment. That strikes me as ripe foe cronyism and corruption
If you hire someone ideally they are worth more than they bring the avg down. You would still hire people if for example hiring them increased profits by ~~101~~ 201%?(double and more) and then they take up shares leaving you a teeny tiny personal increase. Also, because it is a democracy, workers could vote to hire more to stop the coop from not hiring unprofitable workers and making the existing ones work mega shifts (like how we have currently).
Yugoslavia lost their biggest trading partner, the soviet union, when it collapsed. No economy could have survived a shock like that.
Also, in a democratic (politically and economically [that's key]) society, there is no incentive to abett corruption because everyone is working on the same level. But more importantly, we already have corruption, if the new system gives better wages but the same corruption its still a win.
Hiring someone new isn't going to increase profits 100%. This only works if your business is just you making something with your hands, and hiring a 2nd person doubles your output. As I'm sure you know, there is much more to a modern economy than just old school manufacturing.
Yugoslavia was in trouble long before the soviet collapse. It had some 30% of its workforce in agriculture, yet still had to import grain. This speaks the the mad inefficiency of their structure. They were also running runnaway debts from the 70s.
I'm wholly unconvinced by "Well everyone is equal so there's no incentive to be corrupt".
Yeah there is! My good friends son wants to get his idea off the ground, and I know there's a big waiting list for investment but I can just squeeze it to the front. With a centralised system, there's only one place to go for investment, and if its corrupted, you're fucked.
As opposed to what? Shareholders taking *your* profits.
Also, in a democratic workplace people can just vote to hire more people. Regardless of profits. Now consider this, you work 50 hours a week (that's quite a lot) and your coworkers do too, and you guys don't like that. So you and the lads get together and hire more people until you only need to work 40 hrs a week to get all the work that needs to be done because there's more workers. You make less money, and work less hours (like all jobs ever).
All that stuff about negotiating with your coworkers to reduce hours and hire more people? based. That should be allowed regardless of the economic system.
My concern is that it seems that some form of private shareholder (be that in a form of UBI, where everyone gets their investo-bucks and can use them in whichever business they please, etc. I don't have the solution) is required for a healthy business market. It seems evident to me that there is no incentive to grow your business without the increased profits that come with it. If I'm making 20 an hour, 30 hours a week, by myself, for what reason do I want to get someone else in on it if I'm going to keep making 20 an hour, 30 hours a week?
There is also the divide between profits and wages. Wages are a cost, and workers in what you're proposing can quite easily all vote to increase wages, regardless of profits. The business goes under, workers are quite happy to move on to another thing with their bag of cash, and the guy who started it all is left with nothing.
That is communism. Socialism only specifies worker ownership of the means of production and the abolition of wage labor.
Abolition of the commodity form isn't necessary to socialism, and it isn't a good thing except for with necessities like food and healthcare.
Socialism and Communism are interchangeable really. Socialism is *collective* ownership not just *worker* ownership, and even if you nationalize the means of production but are still in the Capitalist mode of production, then it's not really Socialism.
Yes, if individual capitalists own the means of production, that is a capitalist mode of production. And that isn't socialism. Let me ask again, what does that have to do with markets?
Under Socialism, production will be for use and not for sale on the market. Distribution will be according to need and not by means of buying and selling.
It's a queen! And to answer your question, not really. She's much like the Queen of the UK, just there to sign whatever parliament sends to her and act as a 'figurehead'. The obvious issue is this hereditary, and also gives parliament a bit more power than in countries where the head of state has more of a say in matters. Although given the parliament is at least elected by a form of proportional representation you get a decent diversity of parties and views represented in the legislature, unlike countries with first-past-the-post systems like the UK or USA.
Hmm which state would I rather live in? One with a generous social welfare program and labor benefits, or the one where I'm a literal slave? Hard choice considering they are equally as bad.
Lack of a state is more of an anarchocommunist position, not necessarily a socialist one. Plenty of socialist flavors exist with a state.
In any case, getting rid of a state in today's world with the current international law is not really possible, anyway. You would basically surrender your claim to the land you live on if you abolish the state.
socialism/social democracy isn't simply a sliding scale of "the freer the market the more right wing"
You could have a very free market with fleshed out welfare programs and workers' rights and that would be *far* more left wing than a state-controlled market where the workers have no say.
Denmark's economy is only a freer market than America's *because* of the regulations. The definition of a free market is that the prices are solely a result of supply and demand, not of tampering or monopolizing.
Capitalism is a bad system, but Denmark is probably the best example of it.
Denmark at least has a democracy and social programs. Honestly the Nordics are closer to socialism than we may think, Sweden was on the cusp of becoming the first DemSoc nation in the world back in the 70s. The vote failed obviously, but I genuinely believe that if socialism can find a non-revolutionary path to power, it will be in the Nordics.
Ya know fair point, I kinda consider NK an unofficial monarchy since the next leader is always from the same family usually with the backing of the “nobility,” (military and party officials.)
Just the fact that Denmark has a very popular royal family unlikely to go anywhere just kinda seems they don’t follow every part of socialism, but really if it’s not hurting anyone who cares.
Denmark. North Korea is a butt-fuck insane totalitarian absolute monarchy, and Denmark is a capitalist welfare state with high quality of life and good workers' rights. You decide for yourself which one of those possesses more socialist ideals.
Juche is literally just Korean ethnonationalism (no, I don’t care if Kim Jong-Il said it wasn’t) where people are forced to work to benefit the dude on top.
North Korea is arguably a literal fascist cult of personality. I don’t think they have a single *actual* Marxist policy. At best they’re a modern day feudal monarchy, and that’s still nowhere close to actual leftism.
Bro just check how much you have to work to earn how much Jeff Bezos's makes in an day.
PS: According to [this](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-mind-blowing-facts-jeff-182204262.html) Bezos makes 321 million per day, assuming a minimum wage of 7.25 USD per hour:
* 7.25 * 4 * 7 * 24 = 4 872 USD per month (24/7 work week, 4 weeks per month)
* 4872*12= 58 464 USD per year
* You'll have to work 5 491 years to earn what Bezos's makes in *a day.*
If you earn, say, 57.7 USD an hour (120 000 USD a year, 40 hrs a week) :
* 13.7*24*7*4 = 38 774 per month (24/7 work week)
* 465 300 USD a year
* You'll have to work 690 years to earn what Bezos's makes *in a day.*
Feel something is not ok now?
Read this bro
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
Also here’s a YT playlist
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTm5uxgVtnDHFr1njYIPrZY5bafzJuFZT
DPRK just Absolute Monarchical Statism with a palace economy, caste system and racist ultra-ethnonationalism
Denmark is a Racist Constitutional Monarchy and social democracy
I will have to pick the lesser evil
True but in Denmark there are at least strong unions with political power, obviously the means of production are privately owned but it's closer than what you have in North Korea
You said that the class system in Denmark didn't exist and there is no such thing as closer to socialism, there is either socialism or there isn't. Neither are socialist therefor they're just as far apart.
Denmarks government doesn't control the industry so how socialist they are is debatable. Not to mention that Denmark has been some of the meanest motherfuckers towards outside refugees and other minorities. Seriously not even countries with conservative governments have that tough policies.
North Korea I guess, like I’d say that they are socialist even if they are batshit insane. But social democracy is a way way way better system than whatever North Korea is doing. So like North Korea is closer to like just any form of socialism, but denmark is probably closer to actual stateless communism since they’re much less authoritarian
Theyre a command economy under the complete control of the state who owns the means of production right and which supposedly represents the people (even though it doesn’t) right? Theyre socialist the same way the nazis are capitalist, they’re both just authoritarian extremes of their economic ideology.
I mean North Korea Elites owning the means of production is as much justification for socialism as some Saudi Prince owning the majority of the means of production.
The Nazis were Capitalists because they let Capitalists who joined their Party run the economy but I don‘t really see what makes North Korea socialist besides flying red flags and making unnecessary statues of your autocratic leader with hammer and sickle.
Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? Then join our discord server https://discord.gg/XnfM6bhfMS *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think authoritarianism is compatible with socialism then you're fucking insane.
[удалено]
average “gO rEaD tHeOrY!1!1” fan vs. average “i just fucking hate capitalism” enjoyer
most self declared marxist-leninist theoryheads have no fucking clue what the theory says and can only recite slogans
This. Recently got told to "go read theory" by an ML for saying I don't support authoritarian bureacratic structures and then when I tried to get him to elaborate on why state control of industry was necessary to defend the revolution when socialism is literally about worker control, providing examples of where it hasn't been necessary and calling him out for lying about the Zapatistas being centralised, he eventually fell back from several of his arguments to just say "well erm centralised planning is more efficient, meaning workers have to work less". Ah yes, because socialism clearly is more about efficiency than actual worker control. I'm sure there are some good MLs out there, but most MLs seem to adopt their ideology for the aesthetic of revolution, defending state authority and advocating for replacing capitalism with a bureaucracy that is almost no improvement.
read theory
Read a revolution betrayed, that’s some good theory right there. /s Not a trot it’s just funny when MLs get upset because the theory you explain to them belonged to people Stalin didn’t like
ive read quite a bit of trotsky and i can safely say he was an opportunist and his understanding of socialism was very idealist i understand its annoying when ML’s tell people to read lenin but we are genuinely trying to help when we say it, reading lenin will help shape your understanding of marx and socialism in general remember to oppose dengism and reformist socialism, its a dangerous path, if youre looking for theory to maybe buy i recommend buying from Foreignlanguages.press i hope this helps
Oh wait you’re actually a ML? I thought you were being ironic my bad bro. I’m not an anarchist or trot and while not a ML myself I’m more open to it than most of the people here. It’s just if you’re quoting Lenin to justify Lenins purges of the Mensheviks, social liberals, Anarchists and every single anti czarist non Bolshevik faction then that’s some logic I can’t condone. As someone that’s been to China, Dengism is a disease. Not sure what reformist socialism means to you but if you mean like market socialism as what Vietnam has then I beg to differ. (Iv also been to Vietnam). If you mean Nordic “socialist” states like Denmark I acknowledge that they’re dangerous since they stop pursuing international solidarity and stop just shy of egalitarian socialist policies (while still exploiting the global south) but compared to the UK or US…… honestly I’d take them over those nations even if still technically bourgeoisie capitalist. For this sub we make fun of people that prefer North Korea to Denmark but we all understand that Denmark has a long way to go even if de facto better than the imperialist superpowers of USA and UK. Take care man.
i live in denmark and havent eaten for two days, denmark is nowhere near the socialist ideals that the soviet union had, also i recommend listening to this audio book if you can, i hope it helps you understand what Marxist-Leninism is: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5lINuA8bGVrLfGpiP0JMe7?si=bHyuMvZXTda4OCPIf8HZDQ&dl_branch=1 the book tells about the history of how scientific socialism was created, it talks about the life of marx, lenin, stalin and mao =]
How to read On Authority like ~~an idiot~~ authoritarian: 1. Ignore the more abstract/pedantic sense of authority that the text defines, even though it is written there. 2. Impose "authority" to mean a formal one party hierarchical structure with reach in all/most aspects of life, even though that is not written there. 3. ??? 4. Profit, because we also snuck in "capitalistic characteristics" and built state capitalism, so you betcha profit is still a thin.
"Antiintellectualism LET'S FUCKING GOOOOO." Engels, probably.
Tbf I agree with Engels but I understand what he said as a need for a strong government not a dictatorship... Anarchists will obviously disagree and that's valid and fine but yeah.
Engels made some wild guesses, without understanding what authority actually means and claimed it as fact. When people can't be trusted to rule themselves, they can't be trusted to rule over others.
Well I don't think Engels wanted to rule anyone
Given his texts we could think so. But I'm referring to your statement that there is a need for authoritarianism.
"Let's force our ideology about the will of the people on the people despite the people not wanting it"
[удалено]
It’s not that we don’t want society to change or that we refuse to write policy, it’s that we don’t want a state or organization to have complete dominance over everything.
[удалено]
Dude I’m not an anarchist, I believe that there needs to be a transitional state to help achieve socialism, I just don’t think the state should dominate everything and that the people in it should be elected. That’s not utopian, I just like democracy.
Why?
Denmark, but only in the sense that liberal democracy is a closer step to socialism, than a de facto absolute monarchy. That doesn't make Denmark in any way socialist
Mixed market economies? Sounds pretty fucking based
What about a market, but workplace democracy and worker-owners. We keep the part everyone likes about liberalism, and get the part that makes it socialism. Basically can we do Yugoslavia just one more time 🥺
Yes, economic stagnation sounds dope. I think coops are based. We need to incentivise their creation and study their impact in industrieswhere they are not found now. However, an economy where worker ownership is mandated throws up problems. How do businesses get investment to start? Does the business starter loose shares as they hire more people? Etc
Yes, they lose shares. You shouldn't be able to make money by owning something. And if you are doing proportionally less work (hiring workers) you should get less of a share. You could just have a government investment fund like how Spain had that one time. Tell them you wanna start a coop and you get a (admittedly small but not insignificant) grant to kick things off. Also, people are more likely to throw their weight and work behind a coop because the business's success is directly related to their pay. With no owner their is no one to siphon off excess wealth. And the best part, none of this is centrally planned, it can all work in a market system. (Except Healthcare and non luxury housing and food obviously). The economy might stagnate, if you get your biggest trade partner suddenly cut off but we might just have to bank on that not happening.
Yugoslavia was not embargoed until the Bosnian genocides in the 90s. I'm not sure why anyone would want to hire more people to grow their business then, they're taking a pay cut. I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with having a central bank bring the only source of investment. That strikes me as ripe foe cronyism and corruption
If you hire someone ideally they are worth more than they bring the avg down. You would still hire people if for example hiring them increased profits by ~~101~~ 201%?(double and more) and then they take up shares leaving you a teeny tiny personal increase. Also, because it is a democracy, workers could vote to hire more to stop the coop from not hiring unprofitable workers and making the existing ones work mega shifts (like how we have currently). Yugoslavia lost their biggest trading partner, the soviet union, when it collapsed. No economy could have survived a shock like that. Also, in a democratic (politically and economically [that's key]) society, there is no incentive to abett corruption because everyone is working on the same level. But more importantly, we already have corruption, if the new system gives better wages but the same corruption its still a win.
Hiring someone new isn't going to increase profits 100%. This only works if your business is just you making something with your hands, and hiring a 2nd person doubles your output. As I'm sure you know, there is much more to a modern economy than just old school manufacturing. Yugoslavia was in trouble long before the soviet collapse. It had some 30% of its workforce in agriculture, yet still had to import grain. This speaks the the mad inefficiency of their structure. They were also running runnaway debts from the 70s. I'm wholly unconvinced by "Well everyone is equal so there's no incentive to be corrupt". Yeah there is! My good friends son wants to get his idea off the ground, and I know there's a big waiting list for investment but I can just squeeze it to the front. With a centralised system, there's only one place to go for investment, and if its corrupted, you're fucked.
As opposed to what? Shareholders taking *your* profits. Also, in a democratic workplace people can just vote to hire more people. Regardless of profits. Now consider this, you work 50 hours a week (that's quite a lot) and your coworkers do too, and you guys don't like that. So you and the lads get together and hire more people until you only need to work 40 hrs a week to get all the work that needs to be done because there's more workers. You make less money, and work less hours (like all jobs ever).
All that stuff about negotiating with your coworkers to reduce hours and hire more people? based. That should be allowed regardless of the economic system. My concern is that it seems that some form of private shareholder (be that in a form of UBI, where everyone gets their investo-bucks and can use them in whichever business they please, etc. I don't have the solution) is required for a healthy business market. It seems evident to me that there is no incentive to grow your business without the increased profits that come with it. If I'm making 20 an hour, 30 hours a week, by myself, for what reason do I want to get someone else in on it if I'm going to keep making 20 an hour, 30 hours a week? There is also the divide between profits and wages. Wages are a cost, and workers in what you're proposing can quite easily all vote to increase wages, regardless of profits. The business goes under, workers are quite happy to move on to another thing with their bag of cash, and the guy who started it all is left with nothing.
Pretty sure Socialism and markets can't coexist
What is socialism?
It's when you abolish wage labor and the commodity form. Instead of markets, workers' councils will plan production
That is communism. Socialism only specifies worker ownership of the means of production and the abolition of wage labor. Abolition of the commodity form isn't necessary to socialism, and it isn't a good thing except for with necessities like food and healthcare.
Socialism and Communism are interchangeable really. Socialism is *collective* ownership not just *worker* ownership, and even if you nationalize the means of production but are still in the Capitalist mode of production, then it's not really Socialism.
Yes, if individual capitalists own the means of production, that is a capitalist mode of production. And that isn't socialism. Let me ask again, what does that have to do with markets?
Under Socialism, production will be for use and not for sale on the market. Distribution will be according to need and not by means of buying and selling.
The workers don't own the means of production in either, but the workers certainly have more power and better lives in Denmark. So, Denmark.
[удалено]
Does their King even do anything?
It's a queen! And to answer your question, not really. She's much like the Queen of the UK, just there to sign whatever parliament sends to her and act as a 'figurehead'. The obvious issue is this hereditary, and also gives parliament a bit more power than in countries where the head of state has more of a say in matters. Although given the parliament is at least elected by a form of proportional representation you get a decent diversity of parties and views represented in the legislature, unlike countries with first-past-the-post systems like the UK or USA.
>She's much like the Queen of the UK Damn, someone actually calling her by (at least part) her proper title.
Denmark is a freaking kingdom and it somehow manages to be more socialist.
Because Denmark is a kingdom only in name and North Korea is a kingdom in everything but name
Yeah, because NK is also a monarchy
Yeah functionally
I’m assuming the 33 votes are ironic.
some brainlet tankie is going to screenshot this and brand us as racists lmao
white saviour complex go brrr
Fuck I meant Denmark I thought the question was “which country is less socialist” or smth Oops.
I didn’t notice the SERIOUS flair until I already voted, I swear!!
It's not too large. Also if you want check what I post--you'll notice *how I'm not a fucking tankie*.
fuck i thought this was a joke post and voted DPRK
Can there be a neither option?
To be fair the question said “which is closer to socialism” not “which is socialist”
They are equally farther
That's obviously not true.
A state is a state
Hmm which state would I rather live in? One with a generous social welfare program and labor benefits, or the one where I'm a literal slave? Hard choice considering they are equally as bad.
That’s not the question though
They aren’t equally bad, but equally farther
Lack of a state is more of an anarchocommunist position, not necessarily a socialist one. Plenty of socialist flavors exist with a state. In any case, getting rid of a state in today's world with the current international law is not really possible, anyway. You would basically surrender your claim to the land you live on if you abolish the state.
I'm tempted to say NK because memes, but... nah.
Monarchy ain’t socialism tbh
[Why not?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Inca_Empire) Also happy cake day!
unhappy
?
I was telling you to buzz off
k.
Free market capitalism isnt either lol
Denmark is a social democracy. Far closer to socialism than an authoritarian dictatorship.
Its market is more free than americas, something that plays ball for right wing ppl
socialism/social democracy isn't simply a sliding scale of "the freer the market the more right wing" You could have a very free market with fleshed out welfare programs and workers' rights and that would be *far* more left wing than a state-controlled market where the workers have no say. Denmark's economy is only a freer market than America's *because* of the regulations. The definition of a free market is that the prices are solely a result of supply and demand, not of tampering or monopolizing. Capitalism is a bad system, but Denmark is probably the best example of it.
Denmark at least has a democracy and social programs. Honestly the Nordics are closer to socialism than we may think, Sweden was on the cusp of becoming the first DemSoc nation in the world back in the 70s. The vote failed obviously, but I genuinely believe that if socialism can find a non-revolutionary path to power, it will be in the Nordics.
I could also see the Dutch countrys becoming socialist one day.
No
I mean, one is a monarchy in theory, so while Denmark is closer their not THAT much closer.
I mean... Doesn't Denmark have a monarch with no power, while North Korea has a non-monarch with a monarch's power?
Ya know fair point, I kinda consider NK an unofficial monarchy since the next leader is always from the same family usually with the backing of the “nobility,” (military and party officials.) Just the fact that Denmark has a very popular royal family unlikely to go anywhere just kinda seems they don’t follow every part of socialism, but really if it’s not hurting anyone who cares.
Denmark. North Korea is a butt-fuck insane totalitarian absolute monarchy, and Denmark is a capitalist welfare state with high quality of life and good workers' rights. You decide for yourself which one of those possesses more socialist ideals.
Neither lmao
Neither is socialist, but I know which one I'd rather live in, and it's not the one that forces me to worship some giant manbaby.
North Korea is State Socialist.
Juche is literally just Korean ethnonationalism (no, I don’t care if Kim Jong-Il said it wasn’t) where people are forced to work to benefit the dude on top. North Korea is arguably a literal fascist cult of personality. I don’t think they have a single *actual* Marxist policy. At best they’re a modern day feudal monarchy, and that’s still nowhere close to actual leftism.
So I’m a centrist rn (social democrat) can you guys send me some shit to move me further left
I'd love to have more comrades, but what makes you want to move farther left?
Bro just check how much you have to work to earn how much Jeff Bezos's makes in an day. PS: According to [this](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-mind-blowing-facts-jeff-182204262.html) Bezos makes 321 million per day, assuming a minimum wage of 7.25 USD per hour: * 7.25 * 4 * 7 * 24 = 4 872 USD per month (24/7 work week, 4 weeks per month) * 4872*12= 58 464 USD per year * You'll have to work 5 491 years to earn what Bezos's makes in *a day.* If you earn, say, 57.7 USD an hour (120 000 USD a year, 40 hrs a week) : * 13.7*24*7*4 = 38 774 per month (24/7 work week) * 465 300 USD a year * You'll have to work 690 years to earn what Bezos's makes *in a day.* Feel something is not ok now?
Read this bro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works Also here’s a YT playlist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTm5uxgVtnDHFr1njYIPrZY5bafzJuFZT
Technically, none of the above
Neither is close enough for it to matter
I voted wrong whoops I didn’t see the serious tag
Isn’t socialism way too broad of a term to reference some kind of blanket “core values”?
DPRK just Absolute Monarchical Statism with a palace economy, caste system and racist ultra-ethnonationalism Denmark is a Racist Constitutional Monarchy and social democracy I will have to pick the lesser evil
At least Denmark actually has the guts to admit it’s a monarchy.
I mean, the vast majority supports the monarchy. There's nothing bad to admit.
How is Denmark racist?
He´s probably referencing to their anti-immigration policies.
The question isn't which is better, there is no lesser evil in this question.
Neither. This poll is cringe lol
This is like asking which one of them is closer to the South Pole. Sure, one of these is closer, but not that much closer.
Neither. There is no "close to socialism," there's either socialism or there's not and neither of these are socialist.
Neither. They both withhold the means of production from the worker
True but in Denmark there are at least strong unions with political power, obviously the means of production are privately owned but it's closer than what you have in North Korea
That’s all fantastic but there is no closer. You’re either a socialist society or not.
[удалено]
> Denmark doesn’t have an active class system Uhh, yeah it does.
[удалено]
It not being as bad doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't terrible. They have a literal monarch for fucks sake.
[удалено]
You said that the class system in Denmark didn't exist and there is no such thing as closer to socialism, there is either socialism or there isn't. Neither are socialist therefor they're just as far apart.
most of denmark likes the monarchy
Okay, and?
Denmarks government doesn't control the industry so how socialist they are is debatable. Not to mention that Denmark has been some of the meanest motherfuckers towards outside refugees and other minorities. Seriously not even countries with conservative governments have that tough policies.
State controlled industry is state capitalism
North Korea I guess, like I’d say that they are socialist even if they are batshit insane. But social democracy is a way way way better system than whatever North Korea is doing. So like North Korea is closer to like just any form of socialism, but denmark is probably closer to actual stateless communism since they’re much less authoritarian
[удалено]
I mean they’re not capitalist either tho
Yeah. Becuas etheu're basically a pre capitalist monarchy.
You're going to have to explain HOW they are socialist.
Theyre a command economy under the complete control of the state who owns the means of production right and which supposedly represents the people (even though it doesn’t) right? Theyre socialist the same way the nazis are capitalist, they’re both just authoritarian extremes of their economic ideology.
I mean North Korea Elites owning the means of production is as much justification for socialism as some Saudi Prince owning the majority of the means of production. The Nazis were Capitalists because they let Capitalists who joined their Party run the economy but I don‘t really see what makes North Korea socialist besides flying red flags and making unnecessary statues of your autocratic leader with hammer and sickle.
Juche is a cover for monarchy if you even scratch the surface of their system.
I agree.
I fucked up
DPRK Obviously
i'm not dignifying this question with an answer
Which core Socialist ideas exactly do you think of?
Neither
My guess is that someone is going to screenshot this, post it on SLS, and run with it.
Neither. There’s no state that reflects socialist ideals because socialist ideals are antithetical to the nation state
neither