Amanda Seyfried says socialism is a “gorgeous idea” in a new interview: "I know it doesn’t work perfectly"

“Socialism is a gorgeous idea, and I know it doesn’t work perfectly, or that people understand what the word actually means,” she continued. “For me, it’s taking care of each other. If I have more money, I can spend more money on other people.”

  • Edamamebean [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    19·
    2 months ago

    This kind of utopian idealism is anti materialist and as Marxists we must fight it at every opportunity. Socialist experiments around the world have won extraordinary victories for working and oppressed peoples, but to call them perfect is idealist nonsense. When looking at the history of actually existing socialism, it is readily apparent to all but the most dogmatic that class struggle is not resolved, but rather continues and in many cases intensifies in socialist societies after the revolution. It should be equally apparent that socialism is not an perfect endpoint, but rather just one step forward in the historical advancement of the class struggle by the proletariat. This intensification of the class struggle under socialism has in many cases also resulted in excesses and mistakes in socialist societies, which as Marxists we should not ignore, but rather seek to learn from so as to advance our struggle. We do ourselves absolutely zero favours in pretending that socialism or socialist societies are “perfect”.

    • LeninWeave [none/use name, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think the issue is that socialism is perfect (you’re right about that), I think the issue is that 100% of the time someone says it “doesn’t work perfectly” (or “works in theory”, or anything like that), they don’t have any idea what it is and what they mean is Stalin Ate The Grain and we need Nordic Social Democracy.

      • Edamamebean [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        The phrase definitely does get used in that way, however I would hope that those on this site have the ability to realize Stalin did not eat the grain with the big spoon without jumping to the other extreme of claiming that actually existing socialism is perfect. It’s just a nonsensical position to take, if socialism is perfect then there is no need for a progression to the next historical stage, there is no need for communism. I hope that hexbears are better than that.

    • LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      saying socialism works perfectly doesn’t say any of that and unless you want to point out the inherent flaw in the social ownership of production then im going to say yes it does work perfectly

      • Edamamebean [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        What exactly is “socialism works perfectly” supposed to mean then? That it works perfectly as the necessary stage to move from capitalism to communism? You could just as easily say capitalism “works perfectly” as a transition from feudalism to socialism.

          • Edamamebean [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Good grief this is unbelievably nonsensical. Ignoring the absurdity of calling a certain relationship of production “perfect”, ignoring the absurdity of reducing socialism to said relationship in a vacuum, failing to recognize that this relationship can only be created through the extraordinarily complex task of winning, maintaining, and advancing the political power of the working class in the complex conditions of the real world, ignoring all this, I have just one question for you. Why are you a communist then? If socialism is perfect, there is no need for advancement to the next historical stage of class struggle, I.E. communism. Those living in socialist societies can rest easy, put down the red flags, and roll up the banners. I wonder why they haven’t done that. Don’t they know they’re already living in a utopia?