It’s a good thing I don’t only accept models of analysis based on how well they fit into my already held beliefs, and instead by how coherent the logic is. That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
I really don’t think your method of argument based on inserting your own presumptions of my thought process, ie that I only accept things based on how they fit into my current understanding, is particularly effective. I already gave several examples of where I’ve changed my views, you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them beyond me not agreeing with you.
That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It’s a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It’s only “silly” once you apply a definition that’s not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you’ve got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).
you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them
Lol. As if that’s something I’d be able to prove. I’ve given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.
It isn’t based on monopolization of power within the party, though. Marxist-Leninist states have resulted in comprehensive democratization of their systems, including outside of the party. The only conclusions are that you’re a) wrong about Marxist-Leninist theory, b) wrong about Marxist-Leninist practice, or c) some combination of a and b. I suppose if you accept logic based on incorrect premises to be consistent with itself even if it isn’t correct, then it counts, but at that point it’s more of a semantical point than a logical one.
I’m aware of why you believe I’m inflexible, I just think it’s obvious at this point based on examples that I’m more than willing to change my mind in the face of good argument and evidence.
The party took the decision making power from the soviets. Or at least from any soviets not loyal to them. Wait a sec, gonna relisten to the podcast describing this.
They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Section 7 states that “the right to issue orders relating to the management, running and functioning of enterprises remains in the hands of the owner. The control commissions must not participate in the management of enterprises and have no responsibilities in relation to their functioning. This responsibility also remains vested in the hands of the owner”.
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s
The thing with the USSR (and every socialist country) is that they are real places, with real positives and real negatives. As such, there exists individual evidence of corruption, such as some people selling goods on the black market. What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives. The USSR was not a perfect country, and that has never been my argument, but it was incredibly progressive and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically. These people supported the system.
Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,” but what’s important is the context. There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels. From The Trade Union Movement in Soviet Russia:
The factory committees became more and more powerful, grouping behind them as they did a huge number of workers who, at that time, were probably unaware of the true character of the trade union movement. The formation of the committees corresponded to a simple conception in the conflict with the employers. The workers were ever ready to follow the counsels of the committee, the members of whom they knew personally. But as yet, they followed their leaders blindly and with none of the labour discipline and class consciousness which are the real bases of the trade union movement. Most of the committees only considered the individual interests of their own undertaking, and their main object was to keep their undertaking working irrespective of how the others were faring. They even went the length, in conjunction with the employers, of raising the price of the articles they manufactured. And they ended by disorganising the whole of the national economy as, in order to obtain raw materials and fuel for their personal requirements, they sent agents into the provinces, who often bought at ridiculously high prices.
The trade unions, on the contrary, being less concerned with petty local and private interests, realised far more vividly than did the factory committees the necessity of improving economic conditions.
The union system replaced the factory committee system. This solved the problems of the latter, strengthening the socialist system and improving development, which was the fastest route to improving the lives of the working classes.
As for your bit on 1917, this is before the establishment of the USSR, and right towards the beginnings of the Russian Civil War. There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords. This period was followed by the New Economic Policy, which was described as “state capitalist,” before transitioning to the early soviet planned economy.
The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.
If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people. The most important administrators largely lived in fancier apartments with faster access to luxury goods, they didn’t live like the former Tsar nor like modern billionaires.
All in all, I’ve done my fair share of reading critiques of the USSR. After all, I used to agree with them! I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling. I think you owe it to yourself to do the same for the sake of your own growth, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent place to start. Here’s an audiobook link if you prefer, or even Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, you did mention liking podcasts. For podcasts, I’ve heard good things about The Sickle and the Hammer and Actually Existing Socialism, and I personally also like Blowback (though the latter is more about US imperialism against Iraq, Cuba, the DPRK, etc).
It’s a good thing I don’t only accept models of analysis based on how well they fit into my already held beliefs, and instead by how coherent the logic is. That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
I really don’t think your method of argument based on inserting your own presumptions of my thought process, ie that I only accept things based on how they fit into my current understanding, is particularly effective. I already gave several examples of where I’ve changed my views, you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them beyond me not agreeing with you.
Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It’s a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It’s only “silly” once you apply a definition that’s not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you’ve got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).
Lol. As if that’s something I’d be able to prove. I’ve given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.
It isn’t based on monopolization of power within the party, though. Marxist-Leninist states have resulted in comprehensive democratization of their systems, including outside of the party. The only conclusions are that you’re a) wrong about Marxist-Leninist theory, b) wrong about Marxist-Leninist practice, or c) some combination of a and b. I suppose if you accept logic based on incorrect premises to be consistent with itself even if it isn’t correct, then it counts, but at that point it’s more of a semantical point than a logical one.
I’m aware of why you believe I’m inflexible, I just think it’s obvious at this point based on examples that I’m more than willing to change my mind in the face of good argument and evidence.
But the party didn’t monopolize power, when it took power from the soviets? O.o
The soviets remained in the soviet union. The party did not monopolize power.
The party took the decision making power from the soviets. Or at least from any soviets not loyal to them. Wait a sec, gonna relisten to the podcast describing this.
They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
Here’s my source: The Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, S10E86 - The Communist Soviets
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s
The thing with the USSR (and every socialist country) is that they are real places, with real positives and real negatives. As such, there exists individual evidence of corruption, such as some people selling goods on the black market. What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives. The USSR was not a perfect country, and that has never been my argument, but it was incredibly progressive and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically. These people supported the system.
Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,” but what’s important is the context. There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels. From The Trade Union Movement in Soviet Russia:
The union system replaced the factory committee system. This solved the problems of the latter, strengthening the socialist system and improving development, which was the fastest route to improving the lives of the working classes.
As for your bit on 1917, this is before the establishment of the USSR, and right towards the beginnings of the Russian Civil War. There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords. This period was followed by the New Economic Policy, which was described as “state capitalist,” before transitioning to the early soviet planned economy.
The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.
If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people. The most important administrators largely lived in fancier apartments with faster access to luxury goods, they didn’t live like the former Tsar nor like modern billionaires.
All in all, I’ve done my fair share of reading critiques of the USSR. After all, I used to agree with them! I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling. I think you owe it to yourself to do the same for the sake of your own growth, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent place to start. Here’s an audiobook link if you prefer, or even Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, you did mention liking podcasts. For podcasts, I’ve heard good things about The Sickle and the Hammer and Actually Existing Socialism, and I personally also like Blowback (though the latter is more about US imperialism against Iraq, Cuba, the DPRK, etc).