Reminder that in a debate, no matter if you are an Anarchist, Trotskyst, MarkSoc or DemSoc...

Because it didn't achieve the same. First off, the superficial differences: Marxism-Leninism achieved the fastest industrialisation in history, won WWII, provided free education and literacy for everybody and got into space. Second off, the ideological differences: Keynesian Social Democracy is still capitalism, prone to the crisis of global capitalism that regularly occurs, relies on Third World exploitation (both things weren't necessery for the USSR) and, lastly, was only introduced to counteract the threat of a communist invasion in Europe. After the fall of the Warsaw Pact, neoliberalism destroyed most of the Keynesian achievements. Global Marxism-Leninism was the origin point of the Western Social Democracy becoming mainstream after WWII.

Elaborate. It surely wasn't Kautskyist. I'd agree with you if you'd refer to the later Khrushchev-Brezhnev revisionism.

No, I do not.
Kill yourself.

I defend against >muh gorillians and >muh starvation and to a certain extent the killing of kulaks but I am still very critical of how they did things. Also, if "soviet" is Russian for "Union" isn't the Soviet Union just the union Union?

I dont even defend most of marx writtings outside das kapital what makes you belive I'll defend the ussr

Dumbest tankiddie

The February Revolution was a literal bourgeois parliamentary revolution; the reason why it had to rely on the proletarian movement and founded the Supreme Soviet was because prior to it the Tsar has been an extremely inept dick towards the feudal suffering of the working class. The intellegencia and the cadets realized that.

Soviet means council.

Reminder that in a debate, no matter if you are an Anarchist, Trotskyst, MarkSoc or Leninist, you have to defend the SPD. Everything else is shameful defeatism and will render the left useless.
Nobody will take you seriously until you actually stand up for your beliefs and don't surrender to capitalist propaganda..
This argument is utterly ridiculous and righteously a meme, imagine a fascist saying "wasn't real fascism". You would justifiably ridicule him.
This is sort of a daughter of the "not real socialism" catchphrase only that it serves an explicit liberal narrative. It's fine if you elaborate how the social market economy wasn't real Socialism, but guess what: Not everything you hate is Capitalism. Use proper terminology, learn from leftcoms. Capitalism is defined by surplus extraction from a bourgeois upper class, this wouldnt be happening in the SocDem economy, regulationary bodies is not bourgeoise. Furthermore, Kurt Schumacher
defined the term to describe Social Democracy.
Even if you reject social market economy, you must be intellectually honest and point out that the numbers about the bad effect of it have been artificially inflated. The argument about it is trickery: By singling out the "Agenda 2010" as a singularity like "Thatcherism" you indirectly relativize the atrocities of neoliberal crimes and put up with the lies and propaganda about the number of victims, which partly comes straight out of neo liberal propaganda. If you don't outright defend the Agenda 2010, you are pro-fascist.

Thought it just mean Union. Today I learn

The best way to tear down capitalism is to admit places like the USSR were flawed, but that even in their flawed state they achieved things capitalism has not and will not. There is also a lot of strange perils that have occurred as the US has declined as a super power. CEOs behave a lot like party bosses did, corporations behave more and more like out of touch central planners, the state has started to kleptocratically cannibalize itself etc.

I defend them where it seems fair and contextually relevant, but as ideal societies.. no.

Smashies delivering valid arguments and non-sectarianism once again

Yeah but you are irrelevant. Nobody ever will take your ideology seriously, you are an edgy Stirnerist teenager on an imageboard

Social Democracy isn't associated with Socialism, but clearly with tamed capitalism. Your argument is nonsense. I was referring to a way radical leftism can survive in a debate, and it's surely not associating yourself with liberals. Great way to miss the point

"Planetarium".

Big whoop. You're glorifying material development on its own basis, something Marx himself literally saw as the cancer of liberal ideology (no surprise then that you glorify that which is auxilliary to capitalist productive relations, kek). Dick measuring contests in the field of growth for its own sake would crown China the victor within ten years; within the same ten last years of the USSR's existence, no less, following a proper state capitalist policy that actually works to maximize capitalist production: Lee-Dengism.

So is "central planning", a story of red-bureaucratic capitalism versus traditional decentralized firm-based capitalism: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm. And this completely ignores the worker-owned and managed sector of capital in USSR: the Kholkoz and Sovkhoz cooperative systems.

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm

Kek, MLs as it is, always: social democracy at the barrel of a gun = GOOD, social democracy at the barrel of a gun minus communist figure idolatry = BAD.

What did you actually hope to do with this shitty post?

Try harder.

Sectariamism is good and we need more of it. A strong position against totalitarianism and Leninism should be mandatory for all leftist organisations.

Holy fucking shit I'm dying over here.

Kek!

Because your argument was referring to material differences only. You claimed that SocDem did the same as ML on a material basis, I argued against it and now you blame me to engage in a material dick waving contest. Don't bring up comparisons which move goalposts.

You must have an extremely autistic defintion of capitalism, you also entirely ignored the argument I made about "state capitalism" in my OP. I'm really not eager to run down the defintions of capitalism and social democracy for you. I didn't shut myself off from well-argued critisicisms of the Soviet bureaucratic system, I simply refuse to acknowledge it was capitalism. My point was to abandon that RDWolff tier argument which is born out or sheer opportunism towards the liberal debate, on which Wolff relies to sell his crap. My goal was to find a way to bridge sectarianism without giving up edge, but after all you are a leftcom, sectarian and self-righteous by defintion. Rosa and Karl would spin in their graves, because guess what, they'd actually get over their circlejerk and tried to achieve shit.

Are you trying to imply that under Stalin workplace control was entirely abolished? The problem with leftcoms is that they love to take the critisicisms of authors who serve their own agenda as historical fact instead of referring to actual, academic sources about Stalinism.

Again, you are a shitposter with a literal teenager flag, while ML transforms Kerala into the First World and is still in power in half a dozen of nations.

Yeah, but what about actual communism? When was the last time literally any tankie party or country achieved that?

Also, I forgot to add that I literally get aids everytime those Dunayevskaya word salads get posted by leftcoms.

Guess again why a Troykyst and Trotsky love interest during the McCarthy era would write polemics about the USSR

Nobody claimed actual utopian communism was achieved. At least we achieved something while your kind achieved nothing that lasted longer than a few years and wasn't entirely regional and relies on an ideology that will never work because of the autistic state-not-a-state dichotomy.

What you achieved is irrelevant to the goal of communism. Yesterday I took a pretty epic shit, but I don't count that as an achievement relevant to communism.

Literally:
You started the dickwaving contest, lost the dickwaving contest, realized the dickwaving contest was a contest on equal productive footing, deny you started the dickwaving contest and now with
Again dodge the fucking analysis of Dunayevskaya (a Marxist communist, exiled from not just Russia but Europe too) and Mattick (yet another Marxist communist kicked out of one country and many other organizations) for her and his analysis while paralleling them to Richard "democratic wage labor is socialism" Wolff's "Marxian" critique of the USSR.

Ignoring the fact that Marx lived alongside Kautsky, critiqued the fuck out of his utopian conceptions of a post-capitalist system and years later, we saw a USSR under Stalin implementing Kautskyism with Stalinoid characteristics.

Also Rosa was beyond critical of Lenin's NEP not because she rejected pragmatism, but because she feared precisely that pragmatism in this form would lead to irreperable counter-revolutionary deviations as the law of value would begin to redominate productive forces (as it fucking did).

I'm sorry but one's fetish for jukujo anime titties doesn't make one an anime communist, nor does it make me one for the same reasons. Saying that she was a Trot because she digged Leon's dick is on the same level as calling Stalin a positivist because he immediately banned psychonalysis union-wide in the USSR because Trotsky had some interest in it. And this, of course, would be completely ignoring the fact that she always critiqued Trotskyist praxis during her lectures and even went as far as to contact Trotsky's wife to make sure he personally received her notes and critiques of Russian state capitalist theory: marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1947/letter-natalia.htm.

You're a demagogue and, most of all, a gigantic faggot.

This. I bring up criticism of the revolution by other Marxists as well.

Your hypocritical shitposting doesn't help anything. It's Anarkiddies who are the biggest sectarians within the radical left are also the biggest opportunists.

Why should I support gay rights or anti-racism? Why should I not just agitate for a ban for woman to work? Because all of that was initiated by our capitalist states, so give me a reason why I should not disregard that all because it doesn't cater to my special snowflake ideology.

You are useful idiots for fascism.

To conclude:

The establishment of a real force that could spread an international communist struggle was rendered near-impossible by the inheritance of a situation with but one shot at seizing power. So Lenin seized power while already knowing that the best he could do is guide Russia towards socio-industrial improvement, which is why in spite of the War Communism period (arguably the closest we've ever been to a proper lower phase communistic society), he instituted the volatile yet hyper-productive NEP to bring Russia forward.

Lenin never had the illusion that a dicatorship of the proletariat proper in Russia could ever birth in a long-lasting communist society facing the Whites, nearby ready-to-pounce liberal nations and the rising tide of fascism which had already captured Italy and was known to spread to Germany. He knew, like his best critics, that the only way forward was a general arc away from the barely post-feudal current situation in Russia towards a proper capitalist paradigm with the proper social-industrial advances this provides, as to then maybe establish a long-lasting intellectual Russian proletariat that could take over the reigns, either after him or through an eventual coup upon a coup, and guide a proper communistic Russian movement to accompany the rest of the world's movements.

And when I say "best of his critics", I refer to even the likes of the Italian left of communism, who never had any illusions (as the idiots here caricature) about "well, if it's not an immediate DotP transition to a communist society, we'll just sit on our asses!" – they actually wanted to keep this towed Leninist line of precipitating conditions, which is why Bordiga and Gramsci called Stalin the gravedigger of the revolution: with his "socialism in one country", not just a step away from Lenin's honesty in consciously and outwardly communicating that there was no post-capitalist productive relation present, he especially relegated the tone and direction of the state capitalist paradigm to that of pure regression.

Now kay why ess or read something other than your holy Saint Stalin literature.

Nice achievements, my dude.

Also, all your arguments are >The USSR wasn't THAT bad, therefore it was good.

You tankies are useful idiots for petty dictators to take power and maintain their power. Both your ideology and fascism are equally good when it comes to stopping the workers from achieving communism.

Also, I got trips, so my argument is inherently superior to yours.

...

I mentioned in my OP why it wasn't state capitalist. You just ignore that and resort to a single argument which you aren't even able to debate.

Anarkiddie showing his true liberal colors

kys, seriously, I made this thread to overcome sectarianism but you trigger me so hard that I'm calling myself stupid to even think that would be possible within the modern radical left

Okay, I'm going to answer this later. First warm day this year today

No, don't bother. I'm not interested and you've already disgusted me beyond just autosaging to just outright peacing out right now by being dishonest about your own bullshit in your own same thread.

So go back at shitting on le anarkiddies without much merit or principle; it's all you can reliably do.

You literally say that we are right in our evaluation of what it was, but you don't want us to call it capitalism, because the ones that extracted the surplus profit were not the bourgeoisie but a bureaucracy. Sorry, I really couldn't care less, because the practical effect is exactly the same.

You still have to prove that your ideology has not literally stopped as many if not more revolutions from achieving communism than fascism has.

Stop being a tankie, and I will be fine with you, but if you insist on maintaining a counter-revolutionary ideology, I do not think we can be friends.

...

Communism is a real struggle, a movement, not some state of affairs you can just establish.

You take a look at the far goal in the horizon, and instead of seeing it as an inspiration, a motivation, you start bitching over having to walk the distance. Not to say this goes for all ancoms in general just you in particular.

t. not even a tankie

If "walking the distance" means establishing state capitalism, it seems to me that we are walking barckwards.

OP you're retarded.

The second the soviet union is bought up, unless you are an actual ML, and even then honestly, the best thing to do is to point to other successful examples of Socialism - Paris Commune, Hungary/Germany communes, Catalonia - whatever suits your ideology best.

Doing anything else will just bog you down in trying to defend the undefendable, in normie's eyes at least.

If you want to move the debate forward and be in control on a topic you know more than they do about, do not dwell on the soviet union.

Alright, one more reply because of this gem:
You want the left to overcome its ultimately most creative quality: its tendency to stand by principles and thereby increase the odds of newer, better developments to occur instead of the single principle of all whipping ourselves for our sins against the black plague because it's the cosiest way to conduce your red bureaucratic capitalism as long as possible until liberalization is necessitated and we're back to zero. Fucking rich.

Even the anarkiddies, as little as I trust them to lead things, understand this, and are much more Marxist than Stalinoid "M"-"L"s ever will be:
>But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.
t. garl margs (marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm)

t. freddie angles (marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_10_28.htm)

I have an idea OP. How about we recognize where the Soviets failed AND where they succeeded.

Not sure I buy this. The discourse over the need for a welfare state in post-war Western Europe was all about the need for a new direction after the horror of the Depression and the war, not about the threat of Communism. Planning for it began DURING the war, with things like the Beveridge Report, when the USSR was still an ally. Then the golden age of social democracy lasted only 30 years and neoliberalism arose in response to the perceived failure of Keynesianism - significantly BEFORE the Warsaw Pact started cracking up. The timeline doesn't fit.

Why are some of you faggots so against ever giving the Soviet Union credit? We don't have worship or try to emulate it but there are things about it that were useful. Completly disowning it in a debate looks weak.

Can you expand on this, the USSR definitely had an imperialist foreign policy. I'm not saying your wrong just curious what you mean precisely.

I give it as much credit as I give to capitalist regimes or fascist regimes.

How about we stop talking about history like it's a football game or a marketing strategy. Going down a list of historical events and dividing them up into categories of "successes" and "failures" is a pointless exercise. Ultimately the Soviet Union only failed in the only way that matters.

OP is right. If you don't have critical support for USSR, Cuba, etc. then you are not a communist.

Stalinism transparently distorted Marxism to justify capital accumulation, get over it.