Is it possible to achieve socialism in the modern world?

How could a revolution or significant changes to the economic system of a nation (towards socialism) work in the context of the modern world? To save time I'll include some inevitable questions

1. Are HICs, MICs, or LICs the most capable of/receptive to a major overhaul of economic system?

2. How would a country like the UK with significant employment in the financial and service industries alter the underlying capitalistic system without causing such discomfort and difficulty that it is too opposed before it has been given a fair chance?

3. How could a 'failed state’ such as Libya or Somalia achieve socialism in their current state and should they even try?

4. Given the extreme unlikelihood of simultaneous global revolution or even capacity of some nations to achieve the change required how would a country manage to avoid imperial oppression or state capitalism?

Attached: soviet_victory_by_macora_clausen.jpg (376x500, 168.12K)

The way I see it, there needs to be a major shift. Something to dislodge the neoliberal deadlock and cause people to question capitalism more. A big enough economic or environmental catastrophe could do it, but in its current state best we can do is edge in where we can.

This is something I consider a significant issue, will there ever be an event big enough that it tips the balance? I can't believe that there will be.

The 2008 financial crisis was about as in-your-face as you can get, and despite large portions of the working class having still not yet recovered the public anger seems to have decayed into apathy and resignation.

I must admit I've fallen into despair too but can't quite give up out of spite and sheer disgust.

Kings reigned for a few thousand years, we could easily have bosses for just as long.

Then an event of the next intensity is needed. We're talking Great Depression Germany levels of economic clusterfuck.

...

...

How about no?

This time we have the benefit of history, user. That and its more about striking while the iron is hot, if a strong leftist presence could be established quickly then fascism wouldn't have time to foment.

Careful that you don't end up hoping for bad things to happen to decent people just so you can further some political goal.

scary nothing came of this. Americans just laid down as trillions of dollars were handed to the banks. Meanwhile no bailtout for student loans for example.

The conditio sine qua non is total control (in this order) of finances, trade with the outside world, and internal production.

If tomorrow Jeremy Corbyn takes power in Great Britain for example, and starts to nationalize the railways, rebuilds the NHS, etc. (all simply socdem trier ideas), what would happen first would be capital flight and attacks against the currency and lending power of the government. These alone could create shortages in imported goods, crashing of living standards, and undermining of Labour power. If he survives that and wants to go further, communizing ever more spheres of the economy, attacks will come from internal capitalist industry creating artificial shortages, and undermining of internal stability via the black market. We have seen in in Venezuela, no reason it would not happen elsewhere also.

Any successful socialist project will have to have detailed plans ready to deal with all of these things, based on a careful study of the national economy and institutional makeup, and have the will and ability to assume a vast amount of control over society to achieve it. Recall Zizek's supposed quip to I think Yanis Varoufakis: the perquisite for a successful project is a powerful secret police. I do not think any currently active far left group is ready or prepared for that, neither in making detailed economic and financial plans or in planning for a true totalistic seizure of power, though I have read rumours that some of Corbyn's more hard-line allies are making preparations wrt the former (I want to believe).

The same as it should have been done 100 years ago - replacing money with labor-certificates and double-entry accounting based on labor and material-balances.
A higher-income country would be more capable since economic development is a prerequisite for establishing socialism.
I guess this could be answered two ways. In an economic sense, restructuring the economy would be accomplished via a planned transition and would be easiest if achieved by starving unproductive sectors of "social-capital" or whatever you want to call investment under socialism. In a political sense, it would have to be done forcefully without much regard to the input of the former bourgeoisie or financial enterprises. Tough luck for them.
It would require political stability and lack of foreign interference, so it's kind of pointless to think about. If they had outside assistance from another socialist country it would definitely be possible but probably only after being occupied and rebuilt for about 20 years.
These are two different problems. Foreign intervention can only be avoided by having a good defense, which really means nukes, ICBMs, and cyberwarfare. State-capitalism is an internal problem which is going to happen whenever society succeeds in expropriating the capitalists but then puts production under bureaucratic control of the state or their cronies. The only prevention against this is by eliminating the need for a bureaucracy and using modern telecommunications to achieve direct democracy in the workplace as well as society as a whole.

Rate my larp

Exactly.
It's due to impoverishment of theory. There are "leading Marxists" like David Harvey who don't even understand Marxist theory. And yet individuals like this attain prominence because Marxist and socialist parties seem to have entirely abandoned theoretical struggle.

Exactly. And this is something that Zizek brings up too. Take Greece for example. In Greece, Syriza's demands were only for very moderate social democracy. And yet, even this was not permitted at all. You are right in saying that the most important tasks for socialists today is coming up with a plan of radical change, or else we will be completely defeated. I think that Paul Cockshott is probably the best of the current living theorists about this.

...

I get the feeling he'd at least try. he's a 70s style socdem, and they at least have a bit of spine to them.

Attached: e80df66f4468f11cf22f2c154bba321435b7cbedc10d68e591ef00de56cad404.png (600x750, 400.42K)

Oh hey CPGb ML poster.

Nah, it will be more like 1950s style demsoc with anti-imperialist foreign policy. He will probs get hit by a No.11 bus: sparking an uprising or military junta, but yeah.

If he does get offed then the populace will shrug it's shoulders. best case, we get mcdonnel after but I like to think labour has a backup plan in case corbyn get snuffed out.

Socialism and communism can succeed only when there is no hunger, no need and no envy. So a technologically advanced society of homogenous people with self sacrificing enlightenment.

Are you in such a society? Are you such a person? Socialism is a side effect not a political ideology. If you view it as an ideology, what you'll end up with is totalitarianism.

clean your room

My wife cleans our house. I provide for my family. We both do our share and support each other while keeping complaints and our egos to a minimum.

For this you can just look at China/Laos/Vietnam.
Deng laid out the way on underdeveloped countries can achive Socialism. Those Countries were often exploited by Western Capitalist countries so they don't really had a own phase of Capitalism in their country. This concludes in underdeveloped Productive forces and weak infrastructure etc. Now, you shouldn't of course favor a Capitalist Government (That wont happen anyway why would capitalist now invest in the country if they can just exploit it from their countries). The key is to maintain a socialist Leadership that owns the Key industries and a private sector with special economic zones where Western Capitalist will invest and grow their industries. The will still be planned and all Capitalist industries will work for these goals and need to oblige to the state.

1) As always, times of major conflict and civil strife will leave the working class most disposed to radical change. Predilection toward major policy change (by force or legitimized procedure) is almost algorithmic: if things are so bad now that your living standards have noticeably depreciated, you will prefer change. The worse things get, the more you will seek reform. It's consumer preference as applied to political economy. Nothing especially mystical about it, but the real difficulty is figuring how that preference manifests: the people will usually be in favor of material (non-cultural, i.e. socialistic reforms opposed to the capitalist mode) changes, but sufficient propaganda and agitation may sway just enough popular support to simply swap out one capitalistic form for another, which is how we arrived at fascist and neoliberal "revolutions" or even the purely reactionary neofeudal movements which remained a threat well into the 20th century.

2) Socialism necessitates a full employment economy. Those in the financial sector will find work in productive or service industries, but you are correct in that many would be upset by such a change and in the main higher wage earners will be opposed to socialism. Exploitation in the third world makes working class revolution in the financial capitals seem less likely by the year. It is my belief that political economic crisis and collapse in several western countries and the total capitulation of American hegemony will absolutely be necessary before anything can be done for them. The good news is that this is on the horizon: it is only a matter of time.
3) It will be up to the good will of socialist states to devote resources, without hope of returns, to their comrades internationally. That may seem far fetched, but remember this was essentially the role of GOSPLAN for most of its existence, and it was wildly successful in bringing the totally undeveloped central Asian nations of the USSR to an unprecedented level of health, education and general prosperity. Modern nations which are suffering the most from poverty could certainly still benefit from the equity and liberty that socialism entails, but they cannot be expected to drag themselves from degradation all on their own, no matter their political economic model.
4) I sincerely believe that at this point in time our last best hope is a deliberate, non spontaneous revolution conducted mostly through reform, God willing, countries with socialist actors and legal foundations with economic and cultural preeminence such as China and India will reobtain a Marxian program, but that will only be probable when neoliberalism has definitively failed. I know this sounds ☭TANKIE☭, but whatever your ideas of the socialist model, our praxis in regard to opposing and retiring capitalism ought to be the same: support agents, be they individuals or state entities, that actively diminish the economic security and power of first the United States, then it's NATO allies, and secondarily support measures at home and especially abroad in major competing and soon-to-be dominant world powers for public ownership, workers rights, civil rights, and working class control of government.

Just admit it, comrades

lmaoing @ ur life. The main lesson of history is that nobody learns any lessons from history.

Attached: 18155777_1563661196985790_4837542692744562340_o.jpg (1170x2048, 267.8K)