How do we build socialism in a post-nuclear exchange scenario?
A major benefit would be that the previous system has already been destroyed. The state and the bourgeoisie would be gone. Even if some porkies remained in their nuclear bunkers, they wouldn't have any power.
A major drawback would be trying to establish order in a totally chaotic situation, dealing with raiders, mutants, etc.
IMHO talking about this is more important than talking about traditional revolution, because I don't think we have time for that. The contradictions of capitalism are about to explode into nuclear war any second now. In this context, the post-nuclear scenario is a much more viable path to socialism than traditional ML praxis.
No. Nothing is gonna explode at least for a lot of time. I fucking hate doom posters retards like you
Jacob Cox
t. Posadas circa 1962
Jaxson Stewart
>>>Zig Forums
Alexander Murphy
Dude no Financial or state collapse may be a prerequisite to serious revolution, but not a nuclear war You can't build socialism in the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse (or a biosphere collapse for that matter). Too much would be destroyed.
Cooper Mitchell
Why not? You could build feudalism or capitalism, so why not socialism?
Honestly, I don't find nuclear apocalypse to be all that likely of a scenario. It COULD happen, humanity DOES have the capacity, but it's almost not worth worrying about because it's basically a world-ending event if it were to happen. Climate change causing mass migration, crop failures and subsequently wars and regional supply chain disruption, economic collapse, soil erosion, water scarcity, diminishing returns on EROEI from fossil fuels when the global population is exploding, these are things that are already happening - if you're going to talk about the role of socialism in times of collapse you need to frame it around these issues. See attached pic.
I don't know if you've noticed, fam, but our industries require a lot of things in order to work, and they won't work if most of those things are blown to hell. Advanced technologies require advanced infrastructure, and it will take a long, long time to rebuild.
Even if almost everything is destroyed, some survivors would find amidst the ruins some books, and use them to build electricity, industries, etc. Some survivors might be engineers or scientists themselves, which would expedite this process.
The only major difference I could see is that in a post-apocalyptic world, luxuries would be hard to find. The main industries would be pharmaceuticals, food, transportation, and the newspaper.
Julian Ward
Hell, the Tandy era NCR would be a good model to go off of if the surface is at all habitable.
Technology doesn't just require knowledge, that's idealist bullshit. If you gave the Romans a schematic of a steam engine or gun, they still wouldn't be able to build it, because they don't have the tools, the materials, and the infrastructure to build it. Most of those things would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, which would severely limit the surviving industries and hamper their recovery. We won't become cavemen, but socialism is gonna be a far-off prospect when you can't even build a tractor.
Also, OP is a fucking retard. "Mutants"? Seriously? Radiation kills you and turns your children into cripples, it doesn't turn you into a 'mutant'. The challenges faced in a post-nuclear society will be the same as with any other collapse of society - ensuring you have the basic resources needed to survive and defending yourself from other groups. It's gonna look a lot more like Sarajevo than Fallout.
Any socialist society would require the mechanisation of agriculture. Without tractors and other agricultural technology, food production is too labour-intensive to sustain the industries required and most of the population would be busy just getting food. At that stage, you would have a class of people who would appropriate what little surplus labour there is to enrich themselves, giving them the freedom to do things like getting really good at fighting - a warrior class. Suddenly you're back to feudalism, any 'socialist' communes would struggle to defend themselves against better trained warriors and be conquered. All that's left would be states fighting each other. So yes, you need tractors.
Not if you utilize hydroponic greenhouse farming. You could feed large amounts of people this way without needing tractors.
Charles Morales
People will spend their mornings hunting for radioactive deer, fishing for mutated carp in the afternoon, writing their epitaphs after dinner, without waking up tomorrow – just like Marx predicted.
Anthony Wright
I was actually going to make a pol pot joke but opted for Lenin instead Now out of my way reactionary!
Do you understand what massive infrastructure is required for this to be produced?
Austin Sanchez
I'll just get the lads together to hussle up some industrial-size manufactured glass panes in the fire pit. Then after spending lunch finding berries and nuts to eat we'll get on the hydraulics for the watering system with the scrap metal bill found in the back of that overturned pickup truck, k?
Cameron Peterson
Ok, maybe you have a point. But you still haven't addressed this user:
We should at the very least imagine ways we could implement primitive communism in a post-apocalyptic situation. Also how to avoid feudalism and slave society.
Ryan Scott
How did you really think this works, user? That if you put copper and iron together in a pot that they make electricity? That they somehow store electricity if you can get some lightning to hit the iron rod? Walk me through your thought-process.
This is why just having a guide-book to engineering is a survivalist meme.
Honestly, read that Wikipedia page you linked to. Here's another little blurb from it.
This shit wouldn't make enough charge to power your Tamagotchi pet for an hour and would be a waste of otherwise useful resources.
not as marxists you dullards. primitive communism is not a 'type of communism' but a completely distinct mode of production. Marx described any such deluded approaches to go back to primitive communism or any pre-capitalist modes of production as reactionary socialism and non-communist. insofar as we can imagine the immediacy of a post-apocalyptic scenario its ridiculous to think there would be a reemergence of primitive communism, or that this would be desirable. The best course of action would be the organisation of a strong, centralised workers' state which would efficiently commit all available resources and manpower to the reclamation of key technical advancements and remnants of of world civilisation. Think USSR five year plans on steroids, quite possibly with more slave labour and worse, more dangerous working conditions. If this were done there would be a chance for the reestablishment of modern society along socialist lines in the course of as little as 150-250 years after the blast.
Oliver Rivera
How would you go about this? What would the very first 5 year plan consist of?
Ethan Martin
well i don't know, lmao probably reclaiming as much functional machinery and processed resources as possible. Securing operational factories, refineries, motor vehicles and stockpiles of tools and raw materials. Then the establishment of supply chains for raw materials, that is putting people back in the mines, power stations, logging, processing and refining industries as well as the securing and maintaining of railway lines to ensure the flow of resources to heavy industry. Not sure what the solution to the lack of oil shipments for most of the world would be. Shipping would be difficult to reestablish which means no contact between continents, hydroelectric, coal and solar power stations would have to be the main source of supplying electricity for industry.
Jeremiah Bell
We wait for the ayy lmaos to bring socialism to us.
Parker Myers
Even if you have tractors, which you won't have, how the fuck would you make stuff grow in a radioactive wasteland?
