Was the USSR from 1945 to 1956 the closest we ever came to communism on a big scale in a sustainable way?

...

Nope, try the Basque region in Spain and northern Italy for more successful examples.

No. Even Rojava is closer to communism.

How the fuck is the Basque region socialist in any shape or form??

Home to the most successful worker cooperative in the world fam.

Well if by sustainable you mean less than 20 years and by communism you mean socdem then sure.

Co-ops are not socialism

Well but that does not make the region socialist they just have a "socialist"(I would argue Coops are not necessary socialist ina capitalist economy as they have to follow capitalist rules) private cooperative that is placed there.

Right, there's lots of different coops. Workers coops are of course.

Worker's co-ops still aren't socialism

The term "ultraleft" isn't exclusive to leftcommunism. Amongst the mainstream marxist dialogue, "ultraleft" is usually referred to some elements of the Bolsheviks by the end of the NEP, certain later writings and policies of Stalin, and, of course, Hoxhaism. Remember that leftcommunism is a fringe movement, so if I don't think you should sperg out like if you present you position.

Also mind giving me the source you baboon? Your text doesn't even say to which era of the USSR it's referring to.

Things would have been worse.

Sorry tankies. Krushchev was the last chance the USSR had for progress.

Remember, it was the lack of destalinazation that didn't allow for Cynernetics.

How is Rojava closer to communism? It has rampant production for exchange and private enterprise. Besides the fact that Rojava is really small.

But Krushchevs reforms were economically right-wing, moving further away from the implementation of cybernetics. "Destalinization" was only concerning some civil liberties, it was neither economically progressive and actually threw Stalins attempts for democratization under the bus.

oh u

And it also has workers' councils not under the control of a Politburo, so there's that. There is actually no "closer to communism", it's an all-or-nothing affair. The structures are far more similar at least, but that's a cargo cult of communism at best. At least, I'd much rather live in a place under Rojava's system than in Stalin's USSR or Maoist China.
This is entirely irrelevant and that you would bring it up at all shows that you don't care about the mode of production or class struggle. You have the mindset of an ape - "hoo hoo, me tribe bigger, me better than you!!! nation strong!!!". You'll support anyone who has a big, strong fatherly nation because you have mental issues and don't think straight about leftism. Even anarkiddies aren't this dumb.

topkek
The accepted definition of "ultra-left" everywhere outside of your special snowflake Maoist self-criticism circle is left communism. No one regards Hoxhaism as ultra-left.
"Eclipse And Reemergence Of The Communist Movement"
All of them. It also includes Maoist China, Castro's Cuba, Venezuela, and so on and so on. They're all the same as the USA and France and Russia and every other openly capitalist shithole

Yes.

Do your reading!
nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/how-the-computer-got-its-revenge-on-the-soviet-union
Once again, you betray your idealism. The bureaucracy had its own capitalistic inertia. That you believe in the "philosopher king" under a different name and draped in red is the clearest proof in the world that you're a reactionary monarchist and an idealist. Stop embarrassing the Left by associating yourself with it.
A) There were none
B) democracy is a representation of the will of the ruling ideology - it means nothing on its own and is merely another expression of alienated state power

no

Stalin didn't achieve the One, True, Communism (all rights reserved to Fredrick Engels) but he brought Russia as close as possible to it on a large scale which is what the OP was asking.

See first part of this post:
OP's question is based on a flawed premise

It was 20 years of socdem. Communism isn't a scale, it's either communist or it isn't.

You'd be asking us "Was the USSR from 1945 to 1963 the closest we ever came to communism on a big scale in a sustainable way?" and tankies would largely support their namesake.

It was all over after Stalin's death honestly.

The premise isn't flawed at all (except that Stalin died in 1953). Anachrocucks can't face the facts that the USSR was a success under Stalin and have to deflect by saying "not TRUE communism!" or "not TRUE socialism!".

The Andropov reforms were probably the best chance to save the Soviet Union too bad he died before they could be implemented so Pizza Hut man basically shit on them and released his porktastic plans

See what I said in this post
Oh my god, you said cuck and called me an anarchist! Look at you! You're so edgy and sooo good at making arguments!
Are you now going to call a moderator to delete my posts because I hurt your feelings by insulting your daddy Stalin? Why don't you head back over to r/fullcommunism while you're at it? You'll be happier, we here at Holla Forums will be happier.

You seem to be historically illiterate.

archive.org/details/WorkingVersusTalkingDemocracy
archive.org/details/PeoplesControlInSocialistSociety
archive.org/details/USSRUSATradeUnionsCompared

It's funny how you quasi-liberals always do this thing where you are equating the Soviet government with some cartoonish villian, and completely ignoring Marx' materialist analysis. Yes, the fact that production for exchange and private enterprise exists in Rojava is relevant.

One of the basic assesments of marxism was always that revolution has to be global, so I'd argue the fact that USSR and China covered almost half the world at some point is relevant if you want to be in favor of socialism as a mode of production. It is obvious that the administrative effort decreases the smaller the territory is. I also specifically wrote in OP "on a big scale". Sure you can bring up the Paris Commune all day, but the fact that it was restricted to a city and crushed almost immediatly is obviously of relevance if you want to be intellectually honest. Marx himself criticized the Paris Commune for it's lack of institutional prowess and vigilance. I guess Marx was a tankie, after all.

Take your meds, you triggered fucktard.

I always find it amazing how ultraleft insurrectionists who beat themselves off to Camus and Dauve are completely dismissing the fact that Maoists are the largest tendency who do communist insurrections right fucking now in various countries, but for some reason that doesn't count because they are yellow.

*yawn* Mind putting on a new record?

>All of them. It also includes Maoist China, Castro's Cuba, Venezuela, and so on and so on
So you are openly admitting you are a reductionist faggot who won't even make the effort to ingeniously engage with very differently shaped modes of production the USSR had throughout its existence. Are you seriously unironically arguing that the USSR in 1925, 1950 or 1985 had the very same mode of production or are you just throwing memes at me? Your quote talked about competition, which is totally missing the point, since Stalins USSR didn't have much production for exchange, but it was rather the liberalization of the authority of the manager of state firms which led to production for exchange, due to the competing nature of a market socialist economy.

You reductionism sens my sides into orbit thinking about that Bordiga guy who got himself imprisoned because, hey, liberal democracy and fascism is, like, totally the same thing.

lmao

Socialism is not nationalized production, socialism is the abolition of private property and wage labor.

The article you posted says:

Its argument evolves arround the fact that the Soviets had some agitprop pieces against western computerization, and apparently that constitutes repression of research in the fields of computer science. It also doesn't help your argument at all: Just because some members of Stalins circle were sceptical about economic cybernetics doesn't mean that Krushchevs economic reforms would have helped the implemention of cybernetics at all, as their are dislodging production from central control.

Prove it faggot, independent production for exchange leads to competition and a capitalist inertia, centrally planned economy doesn't. It was not in the interest of a manager under Stalin to be capitalistic, as the workers were in control and could snitch him out anytime he would do so, which also happened multiple times. Read John Scotts "Behind the Urals".

ad hominem

clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

What's your point? I havn't argued for some inherent value of democracy (which I could), but you can't dismiss it as something that doesn't have some advantages from a utilitarian standpoint, for example as a feedback system.

All in all, piss-poor response, you strawmanned me on Krushchevs reforms and called me a monarchist

… which makes USSR under Stalin not socialist because, what?

Watch:
youtube.com/watch?v=gS692MzFA7k

Bullshit. If the workers have Democratic control over their workplace and there is no extraction of surplus value, then it's socialism.

Socialism requires Democratic control over the workplace.
The workplaces were nationalized, but the people did not have Democratic control over the nation, so they did not have Democratic control over the workplace.

Therefore the USSR was not socialist.

It's not the fault is not of the likes of Khrushchev or Xiaoping that they did meanie things you do not like, but of the garbage political system which enabled them to get into the positions of power.

Capital accumulation on the market implies extraction of surplus value.