What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives.
Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.
incredibly progressive
Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.
and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically.
So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.
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,”
He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.
There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels.
The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.
You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.
Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.
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.
That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.
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.
Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o
I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.
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.
That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.
I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling.
I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?
Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.
“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds,excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).
Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.
Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.
So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.
He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.
The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.
You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.
Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.
That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.
Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o
I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.
That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.
I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?
Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.
“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds, excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).