this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23062 readers
358 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

i think most of us already know that you cannot blindly apply soviet or chinese socialism to our respective states without considering the underlying reasons for reform and opening up and the rapid industrialisation of the soviet union. you can't just create a sez in fucking malmo and expect to become a socialist paradise in a month, this is obvious. once a socialist state or multiple pop up in europe or north america, in the near future, the first thing that would happen is, most likely, a complete blockade. the remaining capitalist states in europe or nato if thats still around would either invade you or sink any ships sailing into your ports. any semblance of socialism in the west, especially in the core, would be seen as an existential threat (correctly so, actually). and you dont have any manufacturing capacity at home and definenetly not enough to resist the combined military effort of the west. like, what the fuck do you do once you, as a deindustrialized state with an aging population, have your trade cut off and have to fight a war without any nearby allies? maybe the billions of climate refugees can aid any reindustrialization effort if thats on the table, but thats really not gonna be on the table as intervention would happens as soon as you take control, you just dont have the time. this is ignoring any russian or chinese interference or an unforseeable change in the global economic system within 10 or 20 years, of course. that could change a lot and would be desirable. but i cant and we cant predict exactly how that would change the equation here, so i dont know how i could consider that in the scenario.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cerealkiller@hexbear.net 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think the first thing is "get nukes".

[–] Lyudmila@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

But it's just so difficult to do! That's the only reason other sovereign countries don't develop nuclear power programs, not imperialism or anything.

And it's not as though the US would do something stupid like make a public Quizlet for of its nuclear secrets within the last 5 years, and then not change any procedures afterwards. Or willingly allow another nation to steal research and materials.

But the real challenge is having the infrastructure to enrich the uranium. It's not as though there are private corporations that have enrichment sites or something.

I mean, you can't just Google documentation from the US and Soviet nuclear programs. We arrest people for buying too many smoke detectors! Nobody could just... Start enriching in their back garden.

And it's not like there are breeder reactors that you could use to enrich uranium anymore. Those are so dangerous and outdated, light water reactors have surely replaced them all by now!

Could you imagine if there were a bunch of little tiny reactors running on enriched uranium all over the place for some sort of research, I mean where would they even put a reactor for research? A college or something? And they'd just let anyone with a student ID walk in and look at a nuclear reactor? They would never let you just walk into the control room, especially not with a camera. Ridiculous!

What, are they just gonna store enough enriched uranium for a weapons program underneath a football stadium or something? Why would they spend money on that when they could buy a bigger, more expensive football stadium?

I'm so glad this sort of stuff isn't just public information and there aren't like, maps of all the nuclear sites in North America or Europe.

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

The second thing is to never give up those nukes

[–] Lisitsyn@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

or do a belarus and join russia's nuclear umbrella

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fatal flaw of the socialist governments that were destroyed by Operation Condor is that they were peaceful.

So, Juche I guess: radical self reliance to survive the inevitable blockade, mass mobilization of the people into a People's Army to make any potential invasion extremely costly for the empire, and get nukes as fast as possible. I don't even need ICBMs for my nukes, I think just having any nuclear capacity in this hemisphere would be enough.

[–] FumpyAer@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago

Cuba is doing relatively well, but I do worry that one of the constant coup attempts will stick someday.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i will beat everyone with a stick, the west has manufacturing capacity ffs, sorry it's not 90% of the world capacity or whatever, it's still great.

and you do libbed out yugo model/swedish plan in 1 month, give every worker unsaleable share of the business they operate in, let them have fun figuring it out.

let the whiteys (libs) have fun in explaining how that's theft, and they should return to being servants of masters, similar how peasants weren't thrilled with bolsheviks requisitions, but were even less thrilled with whiteys (requisitions and you are all poo people actually)

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

Well the important question first is how was power seized? How the party would rule would be drastically different in the circumstances it found itself in the driver seat

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

The bigger question is where this socialist state comes from, how it manages to come into being. Surely you don't expect people to simply vote to secede and form the socialist state.

A much more likely scenario would be the weakening of the pre-existing state domestically, to the point where there is room for organized actors to replace some of the state functions. This would need to happen with some economic backing: firms of substantial size that can provide the money to make social services happen. Most likely there's a party apparatus that facilitates these things, not an openly insurgent party but a special-interests party.

At a certain point, the party or regional assembly declares that they will function as an autonomous subunit, leaving to the national government only the questions of national defense and international trade arrangements. Leave the country nominally intact, while creating your own local laws. Then, with the economic engines you have, do the Deng gambit: make sure the imperial core economies rely on you enough that to go to war with you would be self-destructive.

Maybe at some point a switch flips, and the region goes from devolution to independence. By that time (and really, throughout every part of this) you want lots of weapons.

[–] Tormato@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

Tax the fucking fuck out of the rich, firstly.

Disincentives greed and hoarding, which is the end game of capitalism.

At the same time heavily fund campaigns to mock and bully the rich. Not a Ferrari or Porsche should be without broken windows and flat tires. Hound all their residences until there’s no peace for those sociopathic criminals. Form flash mobs to terrorize golf courses.

Make it so they can’t give away their money quickly enough.

Just one tactic for creating socialism, heh….