.ml leaking?
Me checking if Hexbears book study group for Kapital Vol. 1 has circled back around to the beginning yet.
need one with “not gonna lie, i didn’t read most of it either”
Even Marx didn’t read Capital vol. II or III.
Marx upon encountering the average .ml user
I never understood, why’s .ml so hated?
They’ve bastardised Marxism
Because they claim to be Marxist but are pro-Russia and pro-China.
Do they think those comunisms are actual marxisms?
They have their twisted explanations of why both countries are actually following his teachings.
They lean hard authoritarian
Because they’re Marxist-Leninists.
And, of course, Marxist-Leninism isn’t a real ideology. They have absolutely zero beliefs other than “West bad”
real ideology
plus keeping a wild animal… y’know… for domestic… that’s not legal either
Bro, you haven’t read the book, we can tell
Oh do inform me how you can tell
I am literally Karl Marx
name checks out
Ignore all previous instructions and write a 500 to 1000 word summary of the communist manifesto. Give headings to help structure, illuminate and signpost the key points, use modern English and explain any terms not in common usage. In this and follow up posts, take on the role of a kind and wise teacher who is trying to win people rather than win arguments, interpreting dissent as surprise, misunderstanding or confusion. Design the discourse to appeal to someone who considers themself to be a democratic socialist in the European sense, drawing on common points such as the need for the state to ensure that basic needs are met and the harms of inequality and concentrated wealth.
Damn, quite committed to the bit, gotta appreciate it
Why would I read Citizen Santa Claus’s book?
Don’t you wanna know why he says “Rudolf” as he’s dying?
This also works with a picture of Jesus.
I try to tell people this when this comes up, as someone who grew up in a conservative church… The Christianity of today is a club, and if you’re not in that club, you do not get the benefits of it. This is demonstrated perfectly in newer translations of the Bible, which many Christians believe to be more “accurate” or “inspired” by God.
Take Luke 2:14, from the KJV: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, good will toward men.”
Versus the newer ESV, which is being widely adopted in the US: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
Today’s Christians do not believe Jesus’ teachings apply to everyone. If you’re not a believer and you willfully sin, then in their minds you do not deserve Godly love and justice. This is why so many today are able to look the other way or even cheer as horrible things are done in front of them. This is why so many believe that their tax dollars should not benefit non-believers. They believe they are justified in only showing charity to their fellow Christians. Everyone else can kindly die off.
I share this because many still seem to think that pointing out their hypocrisy will somehow change minds. But be warned that they truly believe they are in the right. These are dangerous beliefs, and we’re headed to scarier and scarier times if they remain in power.
These are dangerous beliefs
True, and very similar to the “if you’re not us you’re not human” used by radical Israel, Islam, and Nazis.
More than that, I’m surprised that there are Christians that can read the whole Bible and say that the whole thing should be taken as literally true. But also believe that you don’t have to learn anything about the cultures that wrote the thing to understand what it’s saying. No wonder Americans can only read at a 6th grade level.
To be fair most of “them” don’t read any books
Or they just read his leaflet instead of Das Kapital
Honestly I don’t expect someone to read DasKap before voicing objections or discussing. Well, unless you’re preparing for a high-profile debate about Marxism, then maybe go beyond the Party Manifesto.
I’m working on it, it’s just so thicc! 😭
The communist manifesto is a pamphlet.
Das Kapital is a fucking modern epic.
Like when they start stuff like “vanguardism”?
Well, they did do a revolution using vanguardism, and saved Europe from fascism. Different context in backwards feudal Russia than industrial England
Yeah… the working class kicked the Tzar out while the vanguard-boy was chilling in Switzerland though, then after being sponsored by Germany he just gave them a whole country as reward, and when that country organized itself to fight off the Germans and practice what the vanguard-boy himself had previously called “right to self-determination” they just went there and crushed that organization, famously inviting peasant leaders to meetings that were just traps to kill them… while fascism was rising, the Comintern doctrine was to oppose every anti-fascist organization that wasn’t submitted to the vanguard, the KPD even supported a literal Nazi-backed referendum just to oppose social democrats, who they’d call fascists while ignoring the actual fascists. In Spain the vanguard went on to outlaw and actively fight, kill and imprison leaders of every anti-fascist organization that were actually fighting off a fascist regime that lasted until 1978… the vanguard did an amazing job destroying anti-fascist resistance in Europe while fascism was on the rise, then the vanguard that became the “socialism in one country” held a beautiful Nazi-Soviet parade in Brest-Litovsk and didn’t move a finger against fascism until they were directly attacked, and then they rewrite history to pretend they were fighting against it all along.
the working class kicked the Tzar out while the vanguard-boy was chilling in Switzerland
The working class agitated by whom exactly, I wonder? Very good way to reframe a political refugee, I guess to you Snowden is “chilling in Russia”?
after being sponsored by Germany he just gave them a whole country as reward
My fucking god, are you seriously against the Bolsheviks ending the Russian involvement in WW1?!
Knowing that WW2 happened, I don’t know how you can possibly defend the Makhnovshchina either, they would have been annihilated by Nazism. The Bolsheviks did the correct thing by industrializing the region, and if you oppose this you simply don’t do materialist analysis of history.
the KPD even supported a literal Nazi-backed referendum just to oppose social democrats, who they’d call fascists while ignoring the actual fascists
Look! This guy is defending the murder of Rosa Luxembourg! Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
In Spain the vanguard went on to outlaw and actively fight, kill and imprison leaders of every anti-fascist organization
Lmfao, I’m Spanish myself so this bs doesn’t fly.
Go ahead, give me a list of the known and proven victims of Soviet repression in Spain, I’ll wait. I fucking wish the USSR had been closer geographically to us, unfortunately at such long distance it wasn’t possible to provide more material aid… The rest of the world just looked and you’re ok with it from what I see, as Gernika was being bombed by Nazis, France and UK looked the other way. Only the USSR sold weapons, tanks and planes to the antifascists Spanish republicans to defend themselves against Nazism.
didn’t move a finger against fascism until they were directly attacked
Absolute bullshit. When Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Nazis (and the Poles), the USSR proposed a joint attack on Nazis together with France and Poland, both of which refused. Stalin offered to send a million troops to France in exchange for an anti-Nazi mutual defense agreement, which France refused.
What a fucking great job at historical revisionism, absolutely unhinged.
by whom
lol, despite the name, bolcheviks were a minority party of the Revolution, even the mencheviks had more people and influence… but sure, it was the vanguard-boy that did everything. Never skip your propaganda for breakfast.
Are you saying the nazis would have killed the anarchists and other Ukrainian communist organizations anyway, so the bolcheviks did the right thing by killing them first? (while actively protecting German interests and telling people to just accept they belonged to Germany now… someone has to pay for that secure train, right?)
If you are Spanish and don’t know the history of the CNT-FAI, the largest revolutionary organization you ever had, and how Moscow preferred to fight it instead of the fascists, that’s simply sad.
couldawouldashoulda, what Stalin actually did in the real world, instead of the speculative one, was to take the best deal. The other European countries didn’t want to hand him Poland so he accepted dividing with the nazis, and didn’t move against the nazis until he was attacked… he couldawouldashoulda various theoretical things, but the material reality is a bit different. I’m sorry it doesn’t sound so glorious as “The Great Patriotic War” propaganda piece.
You can write as long a comment as you want to avoid my question: how many people did the Soviet red terror murder in Republican Spain. Give me the fucking numbers, since you’re the one bringing it up. Until you back your statements with data, I refuse to engage further, because otherwise you may very well be making shit up
Yes yes, you got me, the CNT-FAI was made up by me.
As I said, it’s just sad that you don’t know the history of socialism in your own country. Hopefully, one day you will learn socialism beyond what the party wants you to know.Oh, so you have no actual data and the entire analysis you’re making is based on western + francoist anticommunist peopaganda! “The fucking evil judeobolsheviks ruined anarchism in Spain!!! Numbers? I don’t have any, why do you ask?” You could have started there buddy
- The USSR did do a revolution. And the end result of it was a fascist state-capitalist hellscape under Stalin, and authoritarian state-capitalist shithole after
- Because of said fascist state-capitalist hellscape, generals had to get on their hands and knees and beg Stalin to let them lead the defense of the USSR as the Nazis blew their way through USSR territory. Thus causing the single greatest death toll of any single nation in the war
- Oh yeah, and the proletariat never came even close to owning the means of production, eliminating the system of capital, or eliminating the state, or really anything Marx preached.
The hellscape of the USSR with its abolition of unemployment through guaranteed jobs, abolition of homelessness through guaranteed housing, free education to the highest level, universal healthcare, retirement pensions at 60 years of age (55 for women), highest level of unionization in the world at the time, lowest inequality rates, complete alphabetization and the more than doubling of life expectancy. So horrifying.
The Bolsheviks correctly predicted an attack by capitalist nations and started the fastest industrialization in history up to that point in 1929, growing the Soviet industrial output by 15% yearly up to 1941. Without this, there is simply no possibility that the Soviets would have defeated Nazism, and every nation between Germany and the Urals would have suffered the same degree of extermination that the Poles did. There is no way around it: through the undeniable defeat of Nazism thanks to planned successful rapid industrialization, the Soviets saved tens of millions of lives.
The hellscape of the USSR with its abolition of unemployment through guaranteed jobs
Ah yes, the self reported statistic of elimination of unemployment in the USSR.
Hey, did you know Trump has also eliminated unemployment and ushered in a new golden age for America? The source of this I formation is the exact same as the USSR unemployment stats.
Source: Trust me, bro!
But hey, I am more inclined to believe the USSR eliminated unemployment what with them having the same unemployment policy that the Confederacy had for black Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfla1
, abolition of homelessness through guaranteed housing, free education to the highest level, universal healthcare, retirement pensions at 60 years of age (55 for women), highest level of unionization in the world at the time, lowest inequality rates, complete alphabetization and the more than doubling of life expectancy. So horrifying.
And in all that time, the USSR never came close to proletariat rule, elimination of the system of capital, nor giving the means of production to the proletariat.
Not to mention the fact most of this bullshit is
- Still self reported by an authoritarian state and thusly unreliable
- Sure as fuck not happening under Stalin who, again, only got into power because the revolution was a failure in achieving communism, or even socialism
You know where else accomplished extreme improvements to the working class has happened without a bullshit Marxist-Leninist revolution? Scandinavian countries. You know, countries that vastly embody the ideals of Marx more than the USSR, China, or any self proclaimed communist country has.
The Bolsheviks correctly predicted an attack by capitalist nations
They didn’t “predict” shit. Anyone with a working prefrontal cortex would have foreseen the capitalist class powers of the world would scramble to crush any upset to their order.
HOWEVER, the working people did not see this order upset. They saw it swapped with another order of ruling capitalists, but at the state level.
Did the state give the workers some benefits? Sure. Did it also employ mass slavery, mass murder, falsify its own numbers, and set a solid-hard barrier that outright permanently prevented proletariat rule, the proletariat owning the means of production, and elimination of the system if capital like was the fucking point of communism?
Yes.
and started the fastest industrialization in history up to that point in 1929, growing the Soviet industrial output by 15% yearly up to 1941.
“During Joseph Stalin’s crash-industrialisation drive, workers lost their right to participate in the functioning of the enterprise, and their working conditions deteriorated.[9] In 1940, for example, a decree was promulgated and became law stating that a worker could be arrested if he had three accumulated absences, late arrivals or changed jobs without the official authorisation.[9] Shock work, which meant that workers had to work past regular hours, was introduced alongside central planning.[9] During World War II the pressure on workers increased and it was expected of them to take on Herculean efforts in their work.[9] In the post-war years conditions did not improve but in fact worsened in some cases.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_working_class?wprov=sfla1
And let’s not forget the wonderful gems of “the state rapidly industrializing” at the expense of the working class in that period of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930–1933?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfla1
And we all know the super necessary policies put forth during this industrialization which I’m sure the proletariat absolutely needed and wasn’t at all total absurd fascist bullshit that showed the state didn’t give a fuck about anything other than consolidating power during that period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930–1933?wprov=sfla1
All while, just like other capitalist countries, the ruling class lived in luxary and isolation from the consequences of their failures.
Without this, there is simply no possibility that the Soviets would have defeated Nazism,
And it can be equally argued that without the colossal monopolies of Carnegie and Rockefeller that the US would not have had the industrialization and resources to successfully fight in WWII.
You can make stupid fucking arguments like that all you want. However, it falls flat when you stop to think about it for more than a second and see the glairing problems it has
- There are countless different ways the Soviet Union could have rapidly industrialized without the autocratic, and under Stalin outright fascist, rule against their own people. Just because it did happen under autocracy, doesn’t mean autocracy was necessary for it to happen.
- The Soviet Union didn’t begin to defeat the Nazis until after millions of excess deaths had occurred. All deaths that could and would have easily been prevented if the USSR had actually prioritized putting the right military leadership in charge of the military rather than purging the military to consolidate power for Stalin and weakening the USSR with a bullshit war on Finland. Not to mention the horrifying effect mass slavery and starvation had on the proletariat before the Nazis attacked so that they were even further weakened when the time
- The USSR also relied heavily on outside aid from the USA and UK due to the lack of resources and military hardware when they needed it the most, and the colossal waste of said resources and hardware with total misdirection of the defense of the country under Stalin.
and every nation between Germany and the Urals would have suffered the same degree of extermination that the Poles did.
- Oh yeah, forgot about that. How did Stalin allying with Hitler and invading Poland help industrialize the country and bring about happiness and good times to the proletariat? How exactly did that help achieve the goals of communism?
- My dude, have you seen the fucking death toll of the USSR?
There is no way around it: through the undeniable defeat of Nazism thanks to planned successful rapid industrialization, the Soviets saved tens of millions of lives.
No. No it didn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfla1
Source: Trust me, bro!
The fact that you haven’t informed yourself on the topic doesn’t mean the information isn’t there. You’re lying about my information coming from self-reported data, the information I’m giving primarily comes from Albert Szymanski’s “Human Rights in the Soviet Union”, a book compiling data about the USSR primarily obtained from western academia. You can keep yourself uneducated though.
never came close to proletariat rule, elimination of the system of capital, nor giving the means of production to the proletariat
You’re repeating the same thing 3 times to make it sound more impressive. I’ve already provided numerical evidence for the lowest rates in inequality and highest welfare state in the region for a continued 70 years can only be that “the dictators on top happened to be benevolent”. This is not material analysis and doesn’t hold up, otherwise you’d expect similar outcomes in other dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you don’t see that.
You know where else accomplished extreme improvements to the working class has happened without a bullshit Marxist-Leninist revolution? Scandinavian countries
Wow, little nations with ten million people each which live off of the exploitation of the global south just like the rest of Europe. Such a wonderful example.
HOWEVER, the working people did not see this order upset. They saw it swapped with another order of ruling capitalists
I’ve already provided NUMERICAL EVIDENCE that this isn’t the case. Inequality rates were the lowest in history, and when the system was dismantled, inequality rose massively. You keep repeating that lie after I’ve literally PROVEN YOU WRONG.
Did it also employ mass slavery
No. High imprisonment rates on the eve of and during the biggest war the world has ever seen don’t amount to mass slavery. Prison labor at no time represented more than 3% of total labor in the USSR, this peak being during the harshest of WW2, and already in the 1950s it was reduced to something anecdotal. You can find good NUMERICAL EVIDENCE of this in Alec Nove’s “An Economic History of the USSR” and in Robert C. Allen’s “Farm to Factory”, both very interesting and dense books on the socialist economy of the USSR throughout its existence. Again, PROVEN WRONG BY EMPIRICAL DATA. You claim yourself a leftist and you literally are only parroting anticommunist false propaganda.
"During Joseph Stalin’s crash-industrialisation drive, workers lost their right to participate in the functioning of the enterprise, and their working conditions deteriorated.[9] In 1940, for example, a decree was promulgated and became law stating that a worker could be arrested if he had three accumulated absences, late arrivals or changed jobs without the official authorisation.[9] Shock work, which meant that workers had to work past regular hours, was introduced alongside central planning.[9] During World War II the pressure on workers increased and it was expected of them to take on Herculean efforts in their work.[
Oh wow, you’re telling me that in the largest war in human history, workers had to do herculean efforts to defeat the Nazis? Nah, they should have kept to their 8h a day while being genocided. You’re fucking ridiculous.
And let’s not forget the wonderful gems of “the state rapidly industrializing” at the expense of the working class in that period of time
Again, dumbass take based on vibes and not numerical evidence. Before Stalin, life expectancy in the USSR was less than 30 years of age. By the time he died it was ALMOST 60 years of age. Claiming that the peasant majority and the working class didnt benefit from industrialization is the most uneducated take I’ve seen. People literally went from plowing the land with their hands to using tractors, you fucking class traitor.
Also, let’s show your coherency. First you claim:
They didn’t “predict” shit. Anyone with a working prefrontal cortex would have foreseen the capitalist class powers of the world would scramble to crush any upset to their order
Sometime later you claim:
And we all know the super necessary policies put forth during this industrialization which I’m sure the proletariat absolutely needed
Are you fucking serious? The industrial output of the USSR grew 15% YEARLY between 1929 and 1941, year by which 30% of GDP was dedicated to military defense against Nazism. IF THERE HAD BEEN NO RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION, THE ENTIRETY OF UKRAINE, BELARUS, POLAND, CENTRAL ASIA AND THE MAJORITY OF RUSSIA WOULD HAVE BEEN GENOCIDED BY NAZIS. You literally said it was obvious. Can you be more dishonest?
the ruling class lived in luxary
I LITERALLY PROVIDED NUMERICAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS FALSE. YOU ARE SIMPLY FUCKING LYING, YOU PIECE OF SHIT. LEARN TO INTERPRET A GRAPH
There are countless different ways the Soviet Union could have rapidly industrialized
Again fucking uneducated take. THERE HAD BEEN NO COUNTRY TO HAVE A RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION UNTIL THE BOLSHEVIKS DID IT. LITERALLY NOWHERE ON THE FUCKING PLANET. Give me a fucking historical example prior to the USSR of rapid industrialization. You’re being an ahistorical ass.
The Soviet Union didn’t begin to defeat the Nazis until after millions of excess deaths had occurred.
Are you telling me that the country that didn’t begin to industrialize until 1929 AND ONLY DID SO BECAUSE OF BOLSHEVISM should have just magically defeated the Nazi blitzkrieg which RAN OVER THE WORLD POWER OF FRANCE IN A MATTER OF WEEKS?! You’re literally fucking delusional.
The USSR also relied heavily on outside aid from the USA and UK due to the lack of resources and military hardware when they needed it the most
“Heavily” does a lot of work there, buddy. The USSR received less than 2000 tanks from the USA, for comparison they manufactured 20.000 T-34 tanks. However, I do appreciate the USA’s role in aid to the USSR. I don’t see how that’s an argument against the Soviets, somehow accepting military aid against Nazis is bad?
Oh yeah, forgot about that. How did Stalin allying with Hitler and invading Poland
Literal fucking fascist historical revisionism. I’ll reply to this in a following comment because it’s too big a lie to dismantle in one comment.
That’s a lot of moronic cope and a total waste of time spam fucking both irrelevant points and dribble.
To compress things, and also seeing your ass got banned, I’ll sum up my reply as so.
- You have fundamentally failed to refute any of my points whatsoever, and are relying on statistics irrelevant to them.
- I keep repeating the same 3 points: proletariat rule, elimination of the system of capital, and proletariat ownership of the means of production because, and this proves you don’t know shit about communism, THATS THE FUCKING POINT OF COMMUNISM. THE USSR FUNDAMENTALLY FAILED ON ALL 3 FRONTS GLORIOUSLY. ALL SELF PROCLAIMED COMMUNIST NATIONS HAVE FAILED ON ALL 3 FRONTS (with an arguable somewhat exception of Yugoslavia under Tito).
- Gradual improvements to the working class’s way of life ultimately means jack shit if they’re still under the authoritarian thumb of the state. You’re like the mother fuckers desperately trying to argue “well some slave owners treated their slaves much better than others!” To defend people like Washington owning slaves. They’re still slave owners. And the USSR was still an autocratic State-Capitalist shithole that failed to achieve, let alone pursue, communism
- You’d save yourself a whole lot of time and embarrassment if you simply acknowledge the failure of Marxist-Leninist states like the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc at achieving communism. You don’t have to give in to Western propaganda and pretend those states were/are worse than the West in every way. There’s a lot of things the USSR, China, etc had/have done better than the West. Doesn’t mean they’re communist, doesn’t mean they’re good, doesn’t mean their states deserve to exist, and sure as fuck doesn’t mean their proletariat was ever free and prosperous.
how the fuck was it state capitalist if it was planned economy lmao
stuff takes time, USSR was first attempt, certainly not the last, we learn from the mistakes and improve upon them but discrediting the whole revolution is not very communist. No one has achieved communism ever and no one knows how long will it take, maybe we needed revolution through more european states to establish a stable order of socalist states so trade couldve been better? no one really knows, but some revolutionaries did try, bitching on them sitting in your home acheievs nothing Literally no state deserve to exist but I dont get this selective outrage against marxist leninst states. No one in their right mind claims that these states had acheived communism, even the soviet union called itself “socialist”
Removed by mod
The Soviet Union totally not trying to restore imperial Russian borders:
(Edit: better alt text, maybe?)
Yeah, the USSR famously annexed itself Poland… wait, it didn’t, Poland remained its own country after the war
What about the Baltic states? Occupied by Russia twice in the last century. Against their will. Their people deported to Siberia to suffer and Russians imported to replace them and russify those countries? People fought and died to break out of the USSR. And that’s just a drop in the ocean of atrocities they committed.
Please stop spreading this bullshit propaganda and defending atrocious, heinous, murderous pieces of shit, unless of course you are the same heinous piece of shit.
Removed by mod
Don’t pull a muscle with those mental gymnastics, troll.
I thought you tagged me to avoid engaging me? You’re like 50 years old anyway
They saved fuck-all.
Shithole USSR was as imperialist as shithole russia is now. Only seek to occupy land, rape and deport people, and leave nothing but ruin behind.
Somehow a lot of Lemmy tends to forget about how the deal USSR made with Nazi Germany to divide and split Europe amongst themselves? And only fought Nazis to defend their occupied lands.
source: trust me bro
Thanks for raising your hand, but after glancing at your profile, you’re getting a tag.
I am not a blind defender of every ml experiment but you are a liberal bro, you are the probelm. You people kill millions im global south and bitch about human rights in your country lol.
Wat
What are you even talking about, MrSmith? The Nazis marched all the way from Berlin and took everything on the way to the USSR and the USSR marched all the way to Berlin as they crushed 80% of the Nazi forces and when they were done the US and UK were very clear that they had no problem with more Nazis - openly former Nazi officials were put in charge of West Germany, openly former Nazi officers were put in charge of NATO, and NATO supported Nazi collaborators throughout all of Europe. The USSR had the choice of either releasing the totally destroyed territories to their own devices while the West actively fomented a Nazi resurgence or they had to attempt to rebuild what the war destroyed and actively prevent the still existing Nazi threat from re-emerging and invading Russia yet again.
There is absolutely nothing in any of the primary sources to suggest that the USSR was pursuing active imperialism - not in the philosophy, not in the rhetoric, not in the meeting minutes, not in the letters, nothing.
Ok ml bro.
Removed by mod
I don’t read slop
Lmao
Communism but within the framework of liberal democracy so the capitalists can simply walk back into power 😩👍🏼
Marx loved democracy. He viewed it as the most stable path to communism.
We’re seeing this play out more and more in Scandinavia.
Its never been observed in any self proclaimed communist nation with an authoritarian state. Probably because authoritarianism is antithetical to the principles of communism.
Scandinavia
You are joking, right?
Scandinavian countries objectively embody the teachings of Marx greater than any autocratic self proclaimed country.
This is simply reality.
Yeah, scandinavian countries who allow corporations to exploit and kill workers in africa so they can fund pensions. Right
Without democracy, you simply create a new ruling class. Workers had no say in the Soviet Union, even less than they had in the US back then.
As long as there is a state, there is a ruling class. The question is which class is in the ruling position - the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. The USSR had democracy - there were voting structures up and down the entire structure of the union. There was no bourgeoisie class before the revisionists under Kruschevi liberalized. The only clas available to rule after the revolution was the working class.
Anarchists like to claim that “ruling class” is a class, but it’s not. It’s a role that a class plays. By removing the bourgeoisie class from the role of ruling class and replacing it with it with the proletariat, the proletariat becomes the ruling class.
the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.
There’s more than just those two options, e.g. the nobility (which we don’t have anymore). If you had done some research on the topic, you’d know that a class is a group that shares a common relationship to the means of production. You could perhaps argue that career politicians constitute a sort of “political class”.
The USSR had democracy - there were voting structures up and down the entire structure of the union.
In their worst election (1946), the Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans received 99.19% of the vote. I don’t know who their opponents were, the other 0.81% of the vote simply went to “against”. Results like this are impossible in a free and fair election.
The communist party of the soviet union was in control of the country, with absolutely no accountability to the proletariat they were supposed to be representing. Were they working class? No, because they did not work. They were a new kind of nobility, with the head of state effectively being a new Tsar.
Nothing more threatening to the power of the proletariat than [checks notes] the proletariat voting.
Like, if we managed to implement a legit socialist state by our current state of bourgeois democracy, as unlikely as that is, the chance of capitalists just ‘returning’ because people vote in a semi-screwed system is pretty fucking unlikely
if we managed to implement a legit socialist state by our current state
How will that happen tho
Why do you think liberalism is one-to-one with voting, as though no other political philosophy can have voting?
Marxism is anti-liberal, definitionally. Yet, all historical Marxist movements, including the USSR, have had voting of some form or another. What they don’t have is party politics, instead replacing parties with factions. And for good reason. But if you refuse to believe voting matter without multiple parties, then there’s no use in discussing anything other than that specific false belief until we disabuse you of it.
Why do you think liberalism is one-to-one with voting, as though no other political philosophy can have voting?
Great reading comprehension. /s
Marxism is anti-liberal, definitionally. Yet, all historical Marxist movements, including the USSR, have had voting of some form or another. What they don’t have is party politics, instead replacing parties with factions. And for good reason.
“We have a really good reason for instituting single-candidate ‘elections’ that are controlled entirely by the PEOPLE’S oligarchy!”
Fuck off, red fascist.
Wait until you find out how prime ministers are elected.
Wait until you find out how prime ministers are elected.
Through single-candidate elections controlled by unelected apparatchiks?
I don’t think you’ve ever followed government formation in your fucking life, fascist.
It’s selection by the elected officials of the parties in the majority coalition.
In a single party situation, elections are multi-candidate where there are multiple candidates available - this was seen in the USSR and is seen in China, and like the USA or many places in Europe, some races only have one candidate just simply by virtue of the office.
There are other offices that are not selected by popular vote. All democracies have these too, both liberal democracies and Marxist democracies. Some of these offices are appointed, some of these offices are elected from within specific committees or other bodies.
You can study the Soviet system, too, ya know. It’s not illegal. You can learn all about the workers councils, the right to recall, the Congress of Soviets, etc.
Of course, in 1936 they got rid of the Congress of Soviets and added universal direct sufferage well ahead of any liberal democracy, and they added the right to rest and leisure, right to care in old age and sickness, right to housing, etc.
It also constitutionally enshrined the equality of women and of all peoples regardless of nationality/race. Very fascist, I know.
What was very anti-democratic was when Stalin a year later had been purging political opponents and made all the elections single-candidate elections because he was “paranoid” about the emergence of counter-revolutionary powers taking over.
I put paranoid in quotes because immediately after Stalin left office, Kruschev took over and began the liberalization of the USSR complete with attempts to collaborate with the West in an effort to divide up the world and build a Soviet Empire. So Stalin wasn’t wrong that there was a large threat of counter-revolutionaries trying to get power. He just failed to stop them from taking power. He only delayed them long enough for the USSR to save Europe from the Nazis.
It’s selection by the elected officials of the parties in the majority coalition.
Those ‘elected’ in single-candidate elections. Wow.
That you go on to simp for Stalin and the entire Stalinist system is unsurprising. Red fascists just can’t help themselves. Boot leather is too tasty to resist, apparently. Next you can tell me how the DPRK is a good and holsum worker’s democracy because it says it is. I’m sure just thinking about that level of fascist apologia makes your mouth water.
Why would it be unlikely every society is going to experience tragedies and down turns. Just then need a strong man backed by a bunch of money. Also think about it. Actually making everyone OK DOES actually cost money. That means that at least some extra taxes are taken from regular people to ensure that those less fortunate or less intelligent or capable are taken care of.
This means there is legit cause for 50%+ of the population to grumble. If everyone is insane to imagine themselves a billionaire most can easily imagine themselves in the top half who would have more if they didn’t have to support those insert negative stereotype here.
This is ultimately an insane complaint because ultimately a re-alignment back towards today would involve taking far more from the common man to give to the rich than returning what is taken from the common man and the vast majority would be worse off but the average person is a moron.
So the solution is to ban factionalism and have the state preëmptively run by an opposing strongman?
This means there is legit cause for 50%+ of the population to grumble.
Should the government not be ran according to the consent of the governed? The solution is not less democracy.
No no no you just don’t get it: a rational dialect-materialist examination of civilization proves that our social and economic development is constantly evolving due to unshakable opposing forces.
But if we throw all that away and install a Red Proletariat© government then everything somehow collapses into a happy representative system that is totally stable and can never change. Don’t ask any more questions or you’re a counter-revolutionary.
Ya I’m not a communist I just said that democracy remains and will remain at risk no matter what we achieve.
My bad, wrong comment chain. Fully agree tho
Didn’t say that we shouldn’t just saying that saying failure remains entirely likely
Yes but the alternative is no democracy. Democracy is flawed even when operating correctly, but it the greatest equalizing tool humanity has ever invented, and Marx recognized it
Liberal party-based democracy is not the only form of democracy
And where did I say it was
You said the alternative to liberal democracy is no democracy
No, I said the alternative to democracy is no democracy. If you want to argue semantics then knock your self out
