To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.

A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

Revolution and the historical application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have resulted in more democratic institutions being put in place than what previously existed.

Social Democracies are not Socialist, nor are they trying to be Socialist. They still depend on Capitalism, and exploitation of the Global South. They are also seeing rising disparity and weakening worker protections over time, because reforming a Capitalist state into something better over a gradual process is extremely difficult.

History's most notable democratically elected Socialist was couped in 2 years, Salvador Allende, with the help of the US.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I need you to shut the fuck up until you investigate just a single fucking thing you say. "Achieve many of the same outcomes" just holy shit. Collaboration and liberation are the same if you really think about it!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

That hasn't happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.