It really doesn't matter if the USSR was socialist with flaws of not socialist beause of the flaws. As long as we acknowledge those flaws and the fact we need to that we need to learn from the USSR's successes and failures it doesn't matter if they were socialist or not. The only incorrect positions would be "it wasn't socialist so I don't have to think about it or learn from it" or "It was perfect and we should just do the exact same thing again.
Other urls found in this thread:
It just reinforced what anarchists have been saying all along. If you are not an anarchist after it you are simply delusional.
This video basically says the same as you (but expands a little on it)
Communalism > Anarchism tbh
I agree social democracy with more councils is superior to pure anarchy.
Socialism Democracy > Socialism Democracy with no state XD
And then I said: "It's transitional period guys I promise!"
whatever you want but fuck autocracy tbqh.
This mostly directed at Leftcoms and MLs.
you have not thought this through
we havin communism or what? we fuckin or what?
We don't agree on the flaws.
The point is the argument isn't if the USSR is socialist or not?
But it is. You won't learn the same lessons from the USSR depending wether you think it was socialist or not.
well it fuckin sucked what sucked the dictatorship. socialism can't be reached with a dictator, they're retards. bye
We should be arguing about what was wrong with the USSR and what lessons can be learned not whether it was socialist or capitalist.
But surely you and me won't agree on what was wrong in the USSR if you think it was socialist and I think it was capitalist, will we?
THE DICTATORSHIP holy shit. why even repeat it.
Yeah yeah, we get it: socialism can only be reached overnight with magic and the power of good vibes. Bye.
It's reached by just practicing it. How the fuck you gonna practice a shit like socialism or communism with bureaucracy? classes? levels? hierarchies? it's ridiculous.
Socialism is not autocratic. Off is not a channel.
So you do practice socialism?
yes I own my labor. Not a boss, not a fucking state. Me.
You're such a revolutionary!
more than you pucci.
I am truly amazed.
I think you're wrong. Take the question of commodity production for example. Both ML's and leftcoms (and anarchists too probably but I don't care about them) want to abolish commodity production, and implement production for use to the furthest extent possible. Instead of discussing whether or not a society that hasn't completely abolished commodity production can accurately be called socialist, we should be discussing questions like "would it have been possible for the USSR to abolish commodity production at any stage of their development?", "what steps could have been taken to abolish commodity production?", "what potential problems would they have encountered trying to abolish commodity production?", etc, etc. You can't just abolish commodity production and money dude like just stop doing it. It will inevitably be a quite complicated process to administrate that could end in complete chaos and a bunch of Pol Pot shit if not handled correctly. Like, just making money illegal without any thought behind it would end in a total disaster.
Not necessarily. Both ML's and leftcoms want to ultimately do away with commodity production for example, so both would agree that that was a "problem" and could discuss how it should have been handled and how it could be handled in the future. In the same way, leftcoms and ML's most likely agree that centralizing control over the means of production in the hands of the state was a step in the right direction.
But even if two people disagree on what the problems of the USSR were, starting a discussing with "what should have been done about problem X", would still be a lot more productive than endlessly arguing over the definition of socialism. The person who disagrees X was a problem could state why, and then explain what problem they think the USSR should've focused on fixing instead.
second half of this post was meant to reply to
suck me off then
Stop it now kid, the adults are talking.
You get different lessons based on if it was socialist or capitalist.
If it was socialist and these problems occurred, then we should be asking what about socialism in the USSR failed. If it was a capitalist state, then we should be asking why it wasn't a complete transition.
But that debate did happen, which is precisely why we've had actual Marxists on one hand, Stalinists on the other since the 1920's. The former said, and keep saying, that the USSR should have focused on the global revolution; the latter, that it had to "build socialism in one country". And here comes, straight for the actual discussion on what was to be done in the 1920's, the question of the nature of the USSR, of the definition of socialism.
If the USSR had commodity production, legitimate commodity production, then you're already making the stance that the USSR had a capitalist economy.
You can't strip problems of their context and then try to make sense of them in some kind of sterile hypothetical and then arrive at anything meaningful.