Why do you hate the Soviet Union so much again?
Vast majority of Russians and other Eastern Europeans regret the collapse of the USSR and think they had it better...
Other urls found in this thread:
Good job comrade
I don't, but I do hate that people think we should replicate what is obviously a failed project. I hate that people dismiss and undermine other socialist projects (Stalin himself undermining a few) in favor of what can only be called a failure.
The massive bureaucracy that came with its foundation was one of the major reasons for its downfall (remember how ol' Gorbachev was allowed to dissolve the Union despite there being overwhelming support for it to stay)
I'm not saying the Union was perfect but what particular things do you think it failed to do?
"Abolishing the bureaucracy at once, everywhere and completely, is out of the question. It is a utopia. But to
smash the old bureaucratic machine at once and to begin immediately to construct a new one that will make possible the gradual abolition of all bureaucracy, this is not a utopia, it is the experience of the Commune,
the direct and immediate task of the revolutionary proletariat"-Lenin
Should have gone for the Orthodox Marxist route in all seriousness. That bureaucracy literally killed the Union when one cocksucking social democrat got control allowing him to literally dissolve it with no shits given so he can star in a dominos pizza commercial.
Even if I'm an Anarkiddie to you folks I'm giving improvements, the Union was fragile as shit and the wrong person becoming its leader allowed it to be dissolved
form a stateless classless society where things are produced for use-value rather than exchange-value.
He should have been shot the moment he tried to dissolve it after the referendum results told him to fuck off tbh.
Because if the soviet union was what socialism looks like then I might have to stop being a socialist.
It failed to create the conditions to transform society from a capitalist mode of production towards a communist mode of production. This is mostly due to the fact that it relied heavily on a bureaucratic form of planning that alienated most workers from the production process and put power in the hands of said bureaucrats. Marxism-Leninism fails because it ultimately gives a party, not the proletariat, power over the state. The rigid hierarchy inherent to the party makes it the perfect place for sociopaths and those looking for power to work their way into the highest echelons of power, people who in the end don't care about socialism. You can make the case that reforms can fix this but reforms require the consent of the party to begin with, consent which will never be given.
tl;dr M-L projects require two revolutions to actually achieve communism. One against the bourgeois, another against the party. It's not surprise that these all degenerated into capitalist oligarchies.
I don't hate the Soviet Union, I just hate having to defend the Soviet Union to liberals/right-wingers.
What's the source for those?
The first three screenshots are from Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti, further sources are included in the book
The fourth is from Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, a fairly mainstream text written by a liberal named Robert Thurston.
Thanks. Why do you want to replicate the project given the problems listed in
Psychopaths do pretty well in councils too. Go to a school board meeting in the US if you want to see how a small minority can hijack and subsequently ruin everything.
The one post the tankie doesn't respond to.
Marxism-Leninism=/=Literally everything every leader of the Soviet Union ever did
Most Marxist-Leninists, even many hardline Stalinists or Maoists, understand that you couldn't and shouldn't completely replicate either the Soviet System or Maoist China.
It really baffles me why in the world Marxist-Leninists are perceived as wanting the same thing as every single Soviet leader despite many of them having conflicting ideas about how to go forward with their socialist process, even between Lenin and Stalin themselves obviously.
Tankies in general think that the soviet union is the model that modern day attempts at socialism should follow but not necessarily that we should or could try to replicate it in the modern era.
Anarchists don't post anything in these threads because they're genuinely interested in learning about the inner workings of soviet society or marxist-leninist theory. The vast majority just want to regurgitate Red Scare talking points and pretend as if every anarchist experiment was secure from criticism or that non-anarchist projects like Rojava and Chiapas are somehow based examples of how to live in a stateless society
nice comeback, now answer user's question
Live in America and try to recall your boss than ask someone from Russia who's over 50 if it's the same experience
There, question's answered
I don't see how a school board meeting is comparable to say a soviet.
I don't see how you can have M-L without a one party state, a party based on rigid hierarchy that controls the state, and bureaucratic planning of production. You've responded to my post but completely failed to address any of it's points.
I don't see how when he calls himself a libertarian communist multiple times throughout that interview. You can talk to lolberts without being one user, and saying that people should be free to choose their own political and economic system is not the same thing as claiming that market economies are good or desirable.
Just because he had a soft spot for american-libertarians (entryism), doesn't mean he was one himself.
I don't see how you can have anarchism without it immediately being subverted from without by hostile capitalist nations
I'm with you all the way OP
chomskytes and anarchkiddies are bourgeois tools.
I'm not an anarchist, and you're just deflecting. What can you hope to ahcieve besides repeating the failure of the past if you can't address these problems?
alluding to anecdotal evidence that your too lazy to even post yourself is not an argument.
Is that why they had to make illegal to emigrate?
Comrade I know you can do better than strawman and deflect. As I've already stated, I'm not an anarchist.
because it's ruined entire generations understanding of socialism, on top of being capitalist
all tankies get guillotine
ps there is no such thing as "marxist"-"leninist" theory
I'm ok with it all except women's rights.
Gulag : )
The West and the red scare did that
this. Only a neutral AI could make the system perfect.
because they killed more humans than any other genocide in China. less than Three kingdoms era after but it's still the same shit.
I don't know, Lenin admitting they needed to be capitalist?
Never change tankies
Everything has information bias.
Even though I know wiki has a bias, I still used that as reference. Unless corroborated further with other studies, I'll keep your facts in my dossier.
I'm just exaggerating my point earlier btw.
I wouldn't say a majority regret its collapse, but support for the capitalism that followed is not unanimous by any stretch of the imagination.
I fucking hate these threads. If you want to learn about the USSR and what worked and what didn't, go check >>>/marx/
No serious Marxist-Leninists will post hard historical theory here because all the sperging anarkiddies and ultras will just ignore it, claim its all false, shitpost, or call it red fascism. Then, some random hot take from a Twitter tankie is being posted and circlejerked about, ignoring effortposts. It would be more honest if all the ultras, anarchists, communalists or whatever flavor of opportunists really drop the charade and express the actual reason of their contrarianism to actually-existing socialism: It's not about the historical role of commodity production, don't give me this shit. It's about appealing to liberals and the intellectual mainstream, and defending Stalin or making a case for the DPRK gets you ostracized immediately. So you decided to disassociate yourself from every socialist state in history, label it as "not real socialism", but in the end you fail to realize that people aren't this stupid - they will understand what you are trying to sell them, and nobody will buy that there is absolutely no relationship between the attempt of building socialism and the historical result. In the long run, truth wins and opportunism fades into obscurity.
they wont post it here or anywhere because "hard 'marxist'-'leninist' theory" doesnt exist
you wont admit that not-socialism is actually socialism, and it's not because of what makes socialism! ur just being mean!
It's more likely that you are a brainlet with a low IQ that gets his political indoctrination from Xexizy videos and never venture outside your safespace. It's not likely you'd ever touch or understand a book of Ilyenkov or whatever.
Yeah, fundamental misunderstanding of Marx' critique. You literally think that his work can be summarized as a list of bullet points that one has to check whether or not something capitalist or socialist. It's completely dismissive of the underlying notions of the law of value that require more nuanced materialist analysis. This primitive vulgarization of polticial economy which is replaces materialist analysis with biblical exegesis out of lazyness when confronted with new situations is symptomatic. Did the law of value determine production in the USSR? It clearly didn't. Those who preposterously claim it did, need to provide evidence.
Marxist-Leninists build, Leftcoms critique.
in my book you, w that POV, don't qualify as an anarkid
dude there were no attempts by anarchists because the retards who could have benefited the real left fell for the strong fist meme and erected bureaucratic shitfests liked soviet union. Because obviously emulating the threat is how you deal with it.
It was one attempt, historically severely constrained, at building socialism. It's not what socialism looks like (as an inert stage), but how it construction failed. You'd be an idealist faggot to measure actual history to ideals.
So this is how tankies reason. Holy shit he gave you real problems and you just insult him when he's not even anarchist. Ashamed for you honestly, really shows what's inside the head of people like youthat drone about "anarkiddies" in multiple threads like you actually had theory/plans/ideas that you don't have. you are the real kiddie
How about this reformulation then?
I legit wanna hear your response
similarly, there's no "Jesusist"-"st.Paulist" theory. There's one that lays down critique, and one that implemets. These two are situated on two diff. levels, yet show a succession of becoming.
to mods: Im on mobile, that's why I multiple-post
put down your positivist koolaid
Man this is getting pathetic
Yes, Lenin was a self-avowed capitalust! Prayse KEK
Essentially they are prole collectives whose filiation is based on the same work environment. Granted, the soviet is one possible form of rev. organ, while syndicalism is questionable on many grounds…
I don't see how you can have a Marxist rev. w/o the same, although I'm familiar w the counter-arguments but find them unconvincing.
Any collective decision creates a kind of hierarchy, that of the majority supporting a task, and that of a minority contesting it. Consensus based collectives are 1) a myth; 2) end up in shadow-tyrant-like structures like OWS.
this formulation is very confused, tbh. Yes, the USSR was bureaucratic (so was Kekalonia or Makhno's communes) but planning itself didn't take place by the bureaucracy, since the bur. is the organ of applying laws, decisions, etc. and not the organ of making them.
I mean… you are just simply confused, tbh. Maybe wiki up the terms you are intent on using??
More like: the market…
Rehardless. That Bookchin interview is cring inducing af. If you deny it you admit that you are an uncritical fanboi, tbh.
Yeah it's a little cringy in the same way that RDW can be a little cringy sometimes. Explaining basic socialism to brainlets requires it
A school board meeting isn't the same thing as a polis, soviet etc. School boards themselves operate on elected representatives, not direct democracy. Hierarchy is not collective decision making but minority decision making. If the party is the ultimate organ of decision making (it was) and the bueracracy is entirely composed of party members then there's no qualitiative difference between those who make and implement the law. You haven't at all addressed the issues of the USSR but instead hand waved them away as if they were nonexistant.
Also, what does buercracy mean to you? I don't see how self rule and confederation of soviets in Black Ukraine entails a buercracy.
Srsly, are u being ironic or wut? I've never seen RDW prayse the market, u stpid fanboi
I've seen him state shit like "cooperatives are socialism". There are plenty of reasons to be critical of bookchin, but you're just being petty. Bookchin never praised markets in that interview
"Freedom to do what, from what?"
Found your problem: literally never, ever happened. Keep daydreaming, tho.
It is historical fact that this never happened, but keep shilling for your [whatever]!
Lel, can you even name the differences, you illiterate baboon?
Literally the same applies to Kekalonia and Makhno's communes, ya baboon.
My position is – and I invite you to counter it based on historical evidence –, that you can't have a post-cap. revolution w/o a bureaucracy, i.e. a revolutionary organ that takes into its hands the egalitarian redistribution (etc.) of collectively decided principles!
Let me tell you. For idealist idiots: bureaucracy = le bad. Since they are so far beyond reading that they can't distinguish historical facts from >le memes, that they conclude the following:
Don't bother showing them historical evidence. They don't care. All they want to hear and read is anti-communist success stories.
maybe fucking kill yourself, you anti-communist moron?!
Saying lolberts aren't as bloodthirsty as tankies isn't exactly praise m8. Direct democracy existed within the athenian polis and through many different institutions. What makes you think it "never existed" ? If you've got evidence to disprove the notion that the party did not control the state, then please do share it. Many historians would beg to differ though. I never defended catalonia because they did indeed join the government and it was to their detriment in the end. I asked how direct decision making by the members of ukranian soviets constiuted a bueracracy and you have yet to answer me. Bueracracy to you just seems to mean "any organ of decision making and planning" , a definition that is just plan wrong based on the actual etymology of the term and how it's been applied historically. You're conflating directly democratic decisions made my soviets in black ukraine to decisions made ultimately within a party structure, with the party structure ultimately controlling the state. Ranting and getting upset isn't going to make your point any more convincing bte
Thank God nobody made this parallel except you.
The ancient Greek socio-economic system was according to all historic evidence a slave-owning society. You are, quite symptomatically, focusing on the political system of the ruling class therein and idealizing it as some kind of heaven.
How fucking pathetic you have to be not just to fake history, but to praise a fucking slave-holding society as your optimal kind of "direct-democracy."
Your meme didn't just never happen; and you didn't just have to fake history; but you had to go against the materialist dialectic in order to fake everything known so that you could believe in it.
the levels of your cuck'edness know no bounds
Fuck you. My slave society was the closest humanity ever got to direct democracy, so kys.
Nobody ever denied that Athens had a slave economy. That doesn't mean that they didn't also have a system of direct democracy. You can support the direct democracy aspect of the society while opposing the slave owning and patriarchal aspects of it. I'm not sure what you take as praise then if not the fact that he said he "felt safer" among them then among tankies. Again, ranting and getting upset doesn't make you more convincing, and not responding to most of my argument doesn't help either.