What was the deal with the centralization and the statism? Decentralized structures work better than centralized ones, and their excuse was that they needed someone to "run"(?) the entire economy(!). This led to Stalin, then Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the entire thing began to fall apart.
Bolsheviks
Jose Carter
Other urls found in this thread:
dcs.gla.ac.uk
twitter.com
Jaxon Lee
what did he mean by this
Ethan Foster
...
Adrian Perez
there's this thing called a "soviet"
you could give those power instead of the party
Logan Long
Like where? Almost everything in economy is monopoly or oligopoly, let alone state itself.
There was never any long-term anarchic societies at all.
Power isn't given. It is asserted. Thus, the Soviets and the Communists are one and the same.
Josiah Hill
This lead to two superpowers, that did something, which is infinitely more than can be said about some imaginary decentralized non-statist idea.
Aiden Roberts
I am so tired of seeing liberals use the old Soviets as a moralistic smokescreen for their Menshevism. The peasants had already thrown municipal independence out the window as soon as they started putting parliamentarians in power, the Bolsheviks just threw the new Tyranny in a less Western-friendly distinction, must to the disdain of proimperial anarchists such as yourself.
Brody Roberts
The only failure of the Soviet system was Gorbachev.
Ryder Perez
Then the peasants should have been taught the error of their ways and given the independence back over time instead of giving it to Moscow.
Shouldn't the end goal be to eliminate mono- and oligo-polies? For a dictatorship of the proletariat? Perhaps the lack of long-term anarchic societies is due to them always being besought by centralized ones with overwhelming force?
The Soviets could have made a decentralized system work with cybernetics, but the elite of the party chose to reject it to preserve their power, to its demise.
He was a complete moron.
Jason Cooper
dude we just need to automate the bureaucracy