Socialism was established in Russia, public ownership was the principle aspect of the soviet economy and the working classes were in control of the state. Correctly analyzing the situation is vague, as it necessarily is due to being a short lemmy comment. However, some examples of this, and their connection to Marxism, are as follows:
Recognition of World War I as an inter-imperialist war, therefore leveraging the unpopularity of the war and the weakness of the Russian state to successful revolution
Recognition of the peasantry as capable of allying with the industrial proletariat, which groups like the Mensheviks distrusted
The establishment of a socialist state to defend the gains of the revolution, allowing the USSR to outlast the dozen+ capitalist nations invading it at its inception
Proper engagement with the trade unions and other groups, combining legal and illegal work, without resorting to adventurist terrorism like the left SRs
The recognition of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, which groups like the left SRs rejected in favor of sponteniety
And more. Is it possible that revolution could have been won another way? Yes. Did it work, and was this method applied successfully in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and many more examples throughout the world? Also yes.
They fundamentally did, repeating that they didn’t like a mantra isn’t a point, nor is said mantra justified by claiming it’s “obvious.” Again, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes were in control of the state. This is socialism as it exists in the real world, in concrete form. Both Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong are good places to start with looking at how the economy of the soviet union functioned.
An excerpt from the latter:
Several elections which I attended will show concretely how soviet democracy functions. Four election meetings were held simultaneously in different hamlets of Gulin village, which had no assembly hall big enough for all. One of these meetings threw out the Party candidate, Borisov, because they felt that he neglected their instructions; they elected a non-Party woman who had displayed energy in improving the village and were praised by the election commissioner—himself a Party member—for having discovered good government timber which the Party had neglected. The central meeting in Gulin expected 235 voters; 227 appeared and were duly checked off by name at the door. There ensued personal discussion of every one of nine candidates, of whom seven were chosen. Mihailov “did good work on the roads.” The most enthusiasm developed over Menshina, a woman who “does everything assigned her energetically; checks farm property, tests seeds, collects state loans.” Dr. Sharkova, head of the Mothers’ Consultation, was pushed by the women: “We need a sanitary expert to clean up our village.” The incoming soviet was instructed to “increase harvest yield within two years to thirty bushels per acre, to organize a stud farm, get electricity and radio for every home, organize adult education courses, football and skiing teams, and satisfy a score of other needs.
It may not be your preferred model of socialism, but it was real, and qualitatively different from capitalism. Trying to claim it isn’t the same as the “pure” socialism in our heads doesn’t change that material reality, socialism isn’t mystical but a material process.
Socialism was never established in Russia, and “correctly analyzing the situation” is too vague to be meaningful.
What do you think was done correctly that would not have been done so without Marxism?
Socialism was established in Russia, public ownership was the principle aspect of the soviet economy and the working classes were in control of the state. Correctly analyzing the situation is vague, as it necessarily is due to being a short lemmy comment. However, some examples of this, and their connection to Marxism, are as follows:
Recognition of World War I as an inter-imperialist war, therefore leveraging the unpopularity of the war and the weakness of the Russian state to successful revolution
Recognition of the peasantry as capable of allying with the industrial proletariat, which groups like the Mensheviks distrusted
The establishment of a socialist state to defend the gains of the revolution, allowing the USSR to outlast the dozen+ capitalist nations invading it at its inception
Proper engagement with the trade unions and other groups, combining legal and illegal work, without resorting to adventurist terrorism like the left SRs
The recognition of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, which groups like the left SRs rejected in favor of sponteniety
And more. Is it possible that revolution could have been won another way? Yes. Did it work, and was this method applied successfully in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and many more examples throughout the world? Also yes.
I am sorry, but you are returning nonsense apologetics.
Russian workers obviously never controlled the economy.
They fundamentally did, repeating that they didn’t like a mantra isn’t a point, nor is said mantra justified by claiming it’s “obvious.” Again, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes were in control of the state. This is socialism as it exists in the real world, in concrete form. Both Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong are good places to start with looking at how the economy of the soviet union functioned.
An excerpt from the latter:
It may not be your preferred model of socialism, but it was real, and qualitatively different from capitalism. Trying to claim it isn’t the same as the “pure” socialism in our heads doesn’t change that material reality, socialism isn’t mystical but a material process.