The Leninist system was one of the greatest blows socialism suffered in the 20th century, second only to perhaps fascism. When Lenin took power one of his first acts, along with Trotsky, was to destroy the socialist institutions that had arisen in the pre-Bolshevik era. He did away with factory councils, the constituent assembly (which was dominated by the left Socialists and SRs), of course went to war with the anarchists (tried to wipe them out).
There was a logic to it, they were orthodox marxists (unlike Marx incidentally) and the subscribed to a version of Marxism that said the revolution can't come in a backward peasant society. So they felt that they had to "drive" this backwards peasant class through industrialisation by force, and then by the iron laws of history socialism will be achieved. It's all nonsense of course, but they believed it.
This was what formed the basis for a totalitarian system with an ideological doctrine behind it. So now, sadly, the term "socialism" has been degraded to mean the kind of totalitarianism instituted by Lenin and carried through by Stalin.
It was entirely natural, of course, that the "Marxists" should be in the lead in destroying the revolution. Bakunin years earlier had predicted all this; he said that in the future there'll be two forms of socialism, and the one form will take over the state and institute a red beuaraucracy that will be the most violent, brutal regime the world has ever seen.
It was a good prediction, probably one of the only predictions of the social sciences that has actually came true.
I'm still puzzled as to why anarchists don't just openly come out and start worshiping Kautsky and Bernstein, seeing as how much they love the Menshies and SR's.
Oh right, that would have to mean acknowledging those "socialist institutions" didn't even fucking exist.
Ever since 1871 anarkiddies and Marxoids alike have been overeacting to every single popular uprising that springs up. Face it, losers. Russia in 1917 was never going to annihilate value or institute any form of government other than a military junta or parliamentarianism. That's all that was on the table, fuck all you losers for squabbling over your favorite pet faction as a substitute for serious analysis.
No, but Germany, France and GB could have.
Anarchists were pretty insignificant. The little side conflict with Makhno shouldn't be overstated. The anarchists couldn't survive without the bolsheviks anyway, and repaid them with robbing stuff from them. Can it? Which is exactly what happened. They were successful. Also, it wasn't by force from above. The collectivization movement was probably even greater in scale then 1917 itself.
It's tedious to respond to your other points that clearly come out of the liberal camp (muh totalitarianism). Did anarchism not have labor camps or a secret police? You are a hypocrite.
To truly get rid of value you'd need a world revolution. It doesn't matter anyway, and the question is more about ideological purity than the actual socio-economic system that was established. Production in the USSR didn't follow the law of value, so the existence of the value form doesn't really matter.
Don't make me fucking laugh. Every single party calling itself socialist in those countries had gone turncoat and the level of worker agitation in those countries following the Russian revolution simply weren't enough to change that.
There was NO CHANCE for any serious communist revolution in 1917, NONE. The best you'd see anywhere was reformism and regime change just like in Russia. People like you are 100% useless. You aren't radical enough to seriously change society, you're too intent on re-enacting the mistakes of the Russian experience. Ironically, you're treading down the same path as the Bolsheviks.
Look at Asia, Mao is spinning in his grave right now
I'm just speaking common sense. Every single movement in the past two centuries calling itself socialist or communist has completely failed. By apologizing for them you show your true colors as just another bourgeois reformist and turncoat-in-the-making.
You are making it sound like your brand of revolution - or rather, your idealized theory of it - wasn't a completely failure that couldn't even get off the ground. If you don't even get off the ground or simply do nothing you can't fail. Easy. I've never failed an astrophysics exam, you know? Neither have I ever lost a MMA cage fight.
Common sense is nonsense.
Are you finally learning?
Oh my… Nevermind.
Which is why we need to get better prepared for next time.
>There was NO CHANCE for any serious communist revolution in 1917, NONE. I love how you had to add (after reflection or not) the qualifier "serious" since you are perfectly aware of the fact that 1917 was, in fact, a legitimate proletariat revolution. That seemingly innocent qualifier when taken for what it is, for what ideological function it serves in your sentence, reveals you to be exactly what you accuse others being: "100% useless."
There are no guarantees at any moment in the historical conjuncture. The Bolshevik revolution could have gone substantially better in myriad different ways or could have ended up much worse, likewise. Of this there is no and there can be no knowledge or foresight – claiming otherwise is just playing the narcissistic clairvoyant.
Don't misconstrue my position; I don't share your premise (inert and undialectical "checkbox communism"). At the very least these different ways it could have gone (worse or better) could have provided qualitatively and quantitatively different lessons for us – "us," of course, does not include You, for "us" here designates communists who are willing to assume the tragedy as their own, with no pretensions at immaculacy.
(To comrades:) Imagine this this deluded soul unknowingly revealing his true colors when he addresses the revolutionary masses that are in the middle of leading an assault on the powers that be: "Don't you fools understand? This revolution can't be won! The time is not right! The conditions are not right! We must retreat!"
He then, the immaculate soul who can not be wrong since he can not risk anything, or take a leap, worse, be faithful to what he thinks he is, he, the obscurantist fortune teller, would be seen in that moment for what he really is: the human animal who has renounced even the possibility of becoming the subject of an emerging political truth – not out of fear or calculation but out of his self-serving certainty.
A bullet will prove him wrong.
Pic related Seriously that purely dogmatist argument could very well apply to world communism when capitalist aliens obverse earth and attribute value to things. I'm more interested in how production was organized.
You have no idea what value is, do you?
You have no idea what value is, do you?
We have a quite accurate assessment of the value of a bullet.
Make an actual argument or fuck off
Read Marx or fuck of.
I have. Did you?
I am concerned about the value form. But value is an abstraction, it will always exist as a construct for as long as capitalism exists. If the USSR decides not to give a shit about profitability and favors heavy industry instead if light industry its clear that whole the value form existed, it wasn't dominating production.
There's still plenty to study and learn from though, Zizek is right, the 21st century revolution has to do to Lenin what Lenin did to the Paris Commune, analyze, criticize, and go from there
Thanks OP for continuing to post these Chomsky quotes, helps remind me why I'm so glad he's dead. He's a liberal shill, no wonder he got tenure from an imperialist university.
Have fun with your totally not private property collective farms, the totally not wages you pay to workers, the totally not commoditys you trade and the totally not money you buy it with.
Every firm was required to generate a notprofit and firms that made less notprofit we told to make more… hmm….
Here's the thing all you faggots ignore. The fact that EVERY SINGLE LASTING REVOLUTION post-1917 has been of the Marxist-Leninist form is PROOF, IN AND OF ITSELF, that Marxism-Leninism is the correct theory for revolution. It's the only valid conclusion if you apply historical materialism. If you look at what Marx and Engels wrote about the Paris Commune, they wrote that they thought subsequent revolutions would take on many of its aspects, not because it was inherently right or wrong, but because it served as a precedent. As a result, Lenin attempted to replicate the strongest aspects of the Paris Commune while avoiding its pitfalls (IE, not getting crushed). In doing so, he established the strongest precedent of all.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT LEFTCOMS AND ANARCHISTS THINK IS THE "TRUE PURE FORM" OF COMMUNISM, HISTORICAL MATERIALISM TELLS US THAT THE NEXT STAGE OF SOCIETY IS A MARXIST-LENINIST DOTP.
this stuff belonged to the people anyway so there is no way to call this robbery unless you are a mental porklet
whoops, getting ahead of myself
yes because the "birthmarks" of socialism are the defining feuatures of capitalism. Also labor vouchers =/= money and collective property =/= private property. Ideologys don't make revolutions classes do. So is cambodia the next stage of human history? They had a real revolution and they called themselves socialist so obviously thats what socialism looks like.
So this is the state of communism today. Sad!
another ☭TANKIE☭ surprise, who would have guessed
waaah the old can't live on in the new!!! if its not perfect its shit!! goo goo gah gah!!
EVERY SINGLE LASTING REVOLUTION IS MARXIST-LENINIST. The confluence of the material and class conditions and MARXIST-LENINIST theory makes communist revolution. There is no other proven alternative.
How on earth is Cambodia representative of a lasting communist revolution? It's a FAILED OUTLIER and THEORETICAL DEVIATION just like Catalonia.
DPRK and Cuba are still going strong, what do you have to show for your bitching?
It's true, the material conditions have changed somewhat since the last wave revolutions. There is more automation, and the internet exists. We are also headed into a climate crisis. In many ways, this makes the conditions for revolution more favorable, though mass surveillance is a major obstacle. However, the task of Marxist-Leninists is simply to adapt Marxist-Leninist praxis to these changes (this is easy). The task of critics of Marxism-Leninism is to comprehensively prove that these changes are SO VAST that they COMPLETELY INVALIDATE the entire past century of revolution (some of which is STILL ONGOING AND SUCCESSFUL IN THE FACE OF MASSIVE ADVERSITY), AND to substitute it with a completely new praxis which is founded in theory and historical precedent! Anything less is a disgrace to Marxist analysis and completely fails to account for history. Hint: you can't, and you definitely have not done so.
Without the proletariat theory is worth nothing. The Russian revolution occurred because of material conditions and would have happened with or without the bolsheviks. So there is such a thing as not acheiving socialism? Why are you arbitrarily drawing the line at Marxism-leninism? If the USSR wasn't in line with Marx's definition of communism than its a theoretical deviation aswell, right? Plus the USSR failed too.
Imagine being this deluded
Cuba is liberalizing and DPRK is reliant on China not to sell them out. If a small chance of isolated islands is the best ML can do, then clearly ML is unfit for bringing communism.
Without a revolutionary theory, there will be no revolution. Period, the end.
No, the Russian revolution AND the Bolsheviks occurred because of material conditions. You can't separate the two. The conditions that are conducive to revolution are also conducive to Marxism-Leninism. The Marxist-Leninist form of revolutionary activity is the definitive, historically-proven form of all modern revolution.
In science we refer to a concept known as an "outlier," that is an event that fits neither the general trend nor the theory we use to explain things. We can dismiss outliers, particularly if they are blatant deviations that ended in abject failure (incorrect conditions, incorrect application, etc). Cambodia is such an outlier, particularly proven when the PLAF removed Khmer Rouge.
Marx wasn't an idealist, his "definitions" were BASED ON HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. The overwhelming and irrefutable historical precedent for revolution is Marxist-Leninist.
Marxism-Leninism is orthodox Marxism. It doesn't deviate theoretically in any significant way. Also, there's a difference between the most massive worker's state in history which lasted for over six decades, and the usual aborted anarchist revolutions that can't last a few years. Not only that, but the DPRK and Cuba still exist.
How the fuck is automation and internet not favorable to communism you retard? How is a global warming crisis not favorable to revolution?
Yes, just ignore when MLism dominated nearly half the globe.
So if Marx was never born then communism would never happen? Obviously not. The social contradictions of capitalism exist with or without someone explaining them. True, and I have nothing against the stradegy. I'm just saying it failed because the world revolution failed. Does a proletariat revolution always lead to socialism? No. The revolution can fail or something else can happen. So obviously you can't argue the USSR was socialist because the proletariat revolution established a new state. You have to prove capitalism was not present in the USSR. Again just because they had a revolution doesn't mean they established socialism. Demonsrate that capitalism was not present in the USSR. Just because you wave a red flag doesn't make it socialism if all the defining feuatures of capitalism still exist. If I called herself a socialist and led a revolution to overthrow the state, and the workers were behind me and it worked, yet I just started a new capitalist state does that mean I have established socialism?
Kinda makes MLism look bad, don't you think? It indeed dominated nearly half the globe, yet it still failed to complete socialism, let alone communism.
No, if Marx was never born, then someone else would have taken his place and written a similar body of work of similar importance to world revolution. Jesus christ, you really are clueless about historical materialism.
First of all, I am arguing that the ML form is the definitive form of revolution. They have the greatest rate of attempts and successes by far. It's not necessary to prove that the end result is pure, because the overwhelming rate of ML revolutions is proof enough that it is the way we are going to get to the next stage of society. If you think that the ML DOTP is "not true socialism" (false, it is at very least the low stage of communism), then you have to accept that whatever it is, it is the only realistic and precedented immediate goal we can set for ourselves. Second, THE OLD LIVES ON IN THE NEW. Capitalism is by definition going to be present to some extent in the initial DOTP, and it will take generations to erase.
Literally has never happened. Closest thing is modern China, which has overwhelming support from the masses yet has a large presence of capitalism. I think yes, such an anomaly represents highly-regressed or low-stage communism.
If that makes MLism look bad, how does it make your pathetic sect look?
Their rate is 0% since it didn't result in socialism nor communism.
It did though.
If your idea of a successful revolution is nearly half the globe collapsing into two small states, one of which is in the process of liberalizing, then you have laughably bad standards. Decades ago, possibly before you were out of diapers. Now ML is relegated to small parties who act like socdems outside of edgy imagery and rhetoric. For ML to succeed it needs to seize a country aafter intense wartime that prevents it from being invaded and destroyed by capitalist powers or rely on a sympathetic country to fund them. Seeing as MLs are very unpopular in the west due to decades of propaganda and MLs attracting spergs for whatever reason, that leaves on relying China to be just kidding about the whole capitalist thing and willing to fund and support revolutions that threaten capitalism. Assuming China is willing to back ML states, historically ML states have fallen to revisionism so you'll be looking at liberalizing forces or dumb shit like "market socialism" or "national communism" after 40 years at best.
OK, so what's your evidence that there's going to be a completely new form of revolution?
Every day I lose more respect for anarchists
You need to know what these things mean before you start your autistic screeching.
There is actual evidence for the law of value not regulating production. Of course, that would imply that you would have to read a book.
Of course ideologies matter. Do you think the superstructure is completely detached from the base? You realize that every normal human being would call you a vulgar ideologue, right? Money in the USSR wasn't money-capital, labor vouchers are fucking stupid, private property didn't exist. You can't just point at what Marx said 150 years ago in some pamphlet about labor vouchers, you need to actually argue yourself as to why they would be a good idea to bring about socialism. Do you think Marx argued for labor vouchers as an end in itself?! Jesus fucking Christ, the point is Marxist-Leninists mostly brought about a socialist system, whereas the Khmer Rouge did not.
yes that was my point. it is necessary to prove it wasn't capitalist Capitalism shouldn't be our goal. Again jsut because the proletariat had a revolution and they are flying a red flag doesn't mean the capitalism no longer exists. If the goal of a revolution is to end capitalism then ML has a 0% sucess rate. Its not "some aspetcs" its litterally capitalism. Yes. So modern China in not capitalism because the proles support it? Obviously its as bad or worse than the USA and the rest. The revolution can and does fail and you can't define things like that.
You know, I don't know what you guys get out of this autistic discussion over and over that leads to a greentext war about commodity production that nobody is going to read. At this point someone should just link to FinnBol's, Tovarishch Endymion's or Comrade Hakim's videos of which neither of them has been properly addressed by anybody here yet. It's incredibly boring to have another such a redundant discussion again, and it's especially tedious if the opposing side uses appeal to semantic authority all the time ("Marx uses this word and not this word") instead of explaining what Marx actually means or what his critique even is.
I'm going to make it short, and sum up the arguments that the USSR wasn't capitalist really quickly: - common ownership of MoP - state controlled by workers, some enterprises controlled directly by the workers - no individual producers but collective surplus allocation according to utility instead of regulating production individually according to exchange value and profit - production mostly for use (~ 80%), few pockets of commodity production such as agricultural cooperatives had quotas and were guaranteed contracts with the state to fixed prices - production didn't adhere to the law of value - therefore, commodities existed only insofar as they were allocated to the consumer by consumer cooperatives to be sold but weren't produced as commodities - no existence of money-capital, pay was according to quantity and quality of labor, no accumulation, Ruble used for foreign trade didn't circulate domestically - no wage labor, no surplus value extraction - therefore, no labor market, no unemployment - welfare state, women's rights, free stuff, yadda yadda yadda
There is an entirely seperate argument to be had about this that I don't want to get into right now. My argument is you can't just say it was socialist beause it was the result of a proletariat revolution and they had a red flag. Capitalism means something and in order to prove it as socialist you have to prove that capitalism didn't exist there.
Anarchists are fucking retarded propaganda eating children. Some of you fucks don't even try to understand dialectics. Bunch of utopian teenage fools.
The argument was that Marxism-Leninism equips the proletarian revolution with the means to survive. Every other revolution led by different tendencies was crushed in a matter of few years, sometimes even weeks. And also let me add that the revolutionary theories coming from the non-marxist-Leninist left are either incredibly weak, vague or utopian (as they make a prioiri statements). Communization in the American Rust Belt with e-democracy and a gift economy? Come on now.
There argument was at least partially Marxism-Leninism was what socialism historically looks like, which basically assumes that anything with a red flag is socialist. My point was you can't just say that you have to prove capitalism didn't exist.
user, if you talk to Marxist-Leninists, hyper-revisionists like Ismail ignored, do you get the impression that they call everything socialism that has a red flag? Note: Critical support =/= thinking it's socialism
What? I was saying just because its a result of a proletariat revolution doesn't mean thats historically what socialism looks like. I've heard some people say stuff like "it doesn't matter what Marx thought socialism would be like because the USSR was what socialism actually looked like" etc. And this sort of thing is just a watered down version of that.