Much as I love a good dunk on the tankies, I find Marxism a bit lackluster in this day and age.
Marx was an important thinker for his time, and made important insights on the nature of capitalist economies, but he also lived over 100 years ago. Practically the entire field of economics developed after this point, not to mention a lot of relevant history and struggle related to his ideas.
So go ahead, read Marx, read Lenin, read whoever. But place them in the proper historical context. We’ve learned much about the world since these people lived, and the world has changed as well. They weren’t prophets whose sacred words we must follow, just a few voices among many. Take what is true and useful and discard what has been disproven.
Well, as Marx once said, “If there is one thing that is certain, it is that I am not a Marxist.”
Marx recognized his place in the grand scheme of things as a contributor to socialist thought, not a prophet or final arbiter of socialist theory. I find that very noble and far-sighted (ironically?).
Yes, well this comment was directed mainly at Marxists, not Marx himself. He seems like he was a mostly reasonable person, even if a few of his ideas were disagreeable to me.
I also just generally think naming your entire philosophy after one person suggests a certain level of dogmatism. You don’t have to call yourself a Marxist to think Marx had a lot of good and important ideas. Humans are very prone to deifying people and it’s a dangerous and anti-intellectual urge.
Ha! Read this after I commented the other.
Well said.
Not to insult anyone’s philosophies or anything, but it’s always weirded me out how socialists name their ideologies after people, instead of what they represent. Anarchist philosophies are called things like mutualism, market anarchist, syndicalism, platformism, et cetera. Socialist philosophies are Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, et cetera. Again, not shitting on the philosophies themselves, just the naming tradition, and how psychologically I think that might help that whole image of dogmatic attachment to the thinker, instead of the thought.
Doesn’t seem weird to me. Things are routinely named after their creators/discoverers/proponents in STEM. Nobody thinks you’re being dogmatic if you talk about Newtonian gravity or Fourier transformations. Why should political philosophy be different?
It’s not that it seems to be weird, per se, more that it adds to that image of dogmatic attachment that leftists often have. In addition, cults of personality are a real thing, and sometimes it can be difficult to separate thinker from thought, especially when the thinker is centralized in the philosophy. At least, feels that way to me. In the stem fields, no one is going to argue that we must have a focus on God in the sciences, for instance, just because Newton was religious. That’s not the subject of discussion when talking about gravity, it’s containted pretty tightly to gravity and it’s explanation using observable, repeatable experimentation. Whereas it’s pretty common within Marxist communities that one must be an atheist to be a Marxist, as Marx was an atheist and talked about the abolishment of the church. Political philosophy isn’t as far removed from religious philosophy as we would often like to think.
Big ass asterisk on this comment: I’m currently sick, and feel like I’m not explaining myself well at all. Got that brain fog.
That which you describe is not socialism. Marx, Lenin, Mao, ho chi min, ect. were communists and their acts were meant to build up to communism. They believed that a command economy with socialistic entities controlling industry were a good tool to do so (save for Marx). Their philosophy was not sincerly socialist however they simply saw it as a means to an ends. A step in the evolution towards their goal.
Seperatly, communism which can be described as a moneyless, stateless, classless system where resources are distributed according to need first then want and ability to redistribute is an anarchist solution. Sure, they never got there, but this is what they were trying to build towards. They were, fundamentally, anarchists. They simply believed that an authoritarian “vanguard” was needed to get society to a point where it could form this anarchistic solution by overthrowing the vanguard.
Lastly, syndicalism is arguably not an anarchistic movement as it’s not even really a cohesive idiology. It’s moreso descriptive of common ideas than proscriptive and can work with both a regulated economy with an organized government or without. Thus the term anarch-syndacalist
As for the naming I tend to agree. Though the reasoning for the name is understandable. Each had a different idea on how communism could be built and each (save for marx) were quite dependant on authoritarian, strong man tactics. On Marx though, he was the prodomenant speaker for the ideas put forward. The more generic idea present, communism, follows your prefered naming scheme.
Lastly, I’m certain I could find some mutualist variant, or market anarchist variant, named after it’s progenetor. Particularly if I were to look into anarch capitalism I’m sure it’s present
Okay, starting at the end there. Anarcho capitalism is not anarchism, and is besides the point when discussing any actually libertarian philosophy. Just gotta throw that out there. And while I’m sure you may be able to find some trend in the libertarian left that’s named for the thinker, the general trend is to name for the thought.
Also, re socialism vs communism: until Stalin, the terms were effectively synonyms. There were discussions of the higher and lower phases of socialism, but the idea that socialism is synonymous with the state capitalism of the USSR is something that came about when Stalin gave a speech and basically declared “we did. We achieved socialism.” In the anarchist tradition, we still use the terms as synonyms, because we don’t believe in the necessity of the transitionary state capitalist phase. The belief is that socialism (read: communism) can be achieved directly by the dismantling of the state apparatus and the creation of mutual aid networks and other alternative structures in its place. Notable, those structures need to be created before the state is dismantled. There’s a lot of quibbling here, because Marxist and anarchists use a different definition of what a state is, so in theory, they’re more compatible than most people belief. Which brings up the next point:
They were fundamentally anarchists
Yes and no. While it’s true that they were believers in the possibility of a stateless, classless, moneyless society, the actual, functional difference between a communist and an anarchist is that an anarchist is a communist that believes we do not have to pass through some preordained transitionary state capitalism phase, and that we can achieve the goal of communism through direct action by the proletariat, and not have it delivered from above by a new class of revolutionaries and vanguardists. So yes, end goal is the same, the means separate the actors. Essentially, almost all anarchists are communists, not all communists are anarchists.
I respect your opinion on syndicalism, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Syndicalism is anarchist tactic, arguably the most successful anarchist tactic within the US and Canada, and represents the building of the new within the shell of the old. I get where you’re coming from, and I’ve heard the arguments before. They’ve never convinced me. Almost nobody has a problem considering platformism to be an anarchist philosophy, even if they disagree with it and hate it, but syndicalism gets called out as not being a cohesive ideology, and not an anarchist philosophy, or “just unionism,” but the primary difference between platformism and syndicalism are linguistic and the result of translation between English and Ukrainian.
I think you’re having some issues separating your specific ideas and ideology from definitions and history here. I’ll, much like you, start with your last statement. But not before thanking you for a well thought out response.
There are multiple forms of syndicalism that have existed throughout the years and though you may see them as building towards a noble goal of anarchism, that’s objectively not every instances goal nor is it needed for the definition. Sure, syndicalism is incredibly helpful to build an anarchist future, but it can also end up simply building a better future inside another system. It’s not about convincing you it’s about describing historic acts. Once more syndicalism is descriptive of a collection of similar movements. It is not something designed by a person or group. It’s descriptive, not proscriptive. Many, yes, are anarchist, but not all. Look at Canadian and American efforts who at the time were not called syndicalist but now are correctly classified as such. Look at the original french movements. This is not a calling out. Syndicalism is a fantastic method which brings out quite a lot of good. As for platformism, I’d agree, it’s a form of syndicalism.
This is like stating that a builder makes homes. Sure, they can make homes, and we can agree they should, but they can also create a company HQ. They’re still builders. One can say since they’re not working towards a goal we agree with they are not builders, but they wouldn’t be correct in a literal sense.
Now, onto socialism. As a socialist I resent the idea that socialism is synonomous with communism and disagree with it being historically thought of as such. Socialism has been distinctwidely known as distinct from communism since the 1840s, less than 10 years after it’s first usage.
I believe you to be confused too by what I mean. I do not believe Stalinist russia to be socialist. That fascist authoritarian, much like another, just used that word as a bludgeon and a rallying cry. Socialism is worker control, and ownership, over industry. That is all. Though there was quite alot of worker control under the USSR I would argue under command economics the true owner was the government. The workers still had alot more power over their workplace, thus my description of it being socialistic.
no, however, stalin did not make these terms different. they’ve been so since the 1840s and both marx and lenin described them as such.
Socialism has been, will be, and currently is a system where the workers have control and ownership over industry. I see no reason to conflate it with communism, a money-less, classless, stateless system where resources are distributed equitably. That would make the term meaningless.
Lastly, on anarchism, that is a word with a fairly well defined definition too. Anarchism is simply any anti-hirachical system that is fundamentally against any system of authority. We can agree that an anarcho-capitalist sociaty would quickly devolve into a system with well defined authorities but at that point it would nolonger be anarcho-capitalist. The system as defined is an anarchist solution. It’s just an increadibly stupid one that’ll instantly implode unlike more well thought out forms. I’ll be clear here, though I am not an anarchist I do see reason in the communist form of anarchist movements.
As for communism differing from anarchism, your example is a-historic. Since you speak on a vanguard party, I assume you mean leninism as marx did not write on this. Leninists, maoists, etc, did not believe it had to pass though capitalism. Quite the opposite they thought a vanguard party could skip this part. What you describe as anarchism, direct action by the prolatariate, is also part of leninism as he thought the same. He simply believed that the prolatariate needed to be spurred to action by increasing their quality of life and education before they overtake the vanguard party in a second, violant revolt. It seems that you do conflate the two ideas of anarchism and communism when it comes to the end goal though differentiate only on methodology. This is not the case however as one can have a system with no authority, no hyrarchy, which still has money as long as that money is evenly distributed and wealth isn’t allowed to accrue. Or, where a state still exists, but only exists through direct democracy on each action. Both would be poor solutions but still anarchist solutions.
Okay, there are several points here where I believe you are confused as to my meaning. Likely my fault for not being clear in my explanations.
I’d also like to thank you for your reply. I’d like to think of you as a comrade. While I’m not a ML or MLM, I do believe in left unity, to a greater or lesser extent.
Now I’d like to ask you a favor. I’m sick, and frankly, exhausted. I don’t have the energy to reply properly tonight. Mind giving this a bump tomorrow afternoon? 16ish hours from now, at your convenience. Otherwise, with the brain fog, I’ll forget.
Sorry for the delay, and for my misunderstanding. I’ll be clear it’s likely my fault I’m reading and responding on the go. Apologies for the mistakes in my writing too re-reading my reply was a chore. Thank you though, no matter our disagreements you seem like you just want a better world and I strongly believe we’re both working towards similar, valuable things. You seem like a chill person. No pressure to respond if you’re not up to it I know thinking while sick can be a painful experiance. If you do, my reply may be slow, power has been spotty with the storm here today
David Ellerman’s modernization of the classical laborists’ argument against capitalism is significantly more powerful than modern Marxism.
Marx’s claim that private property is the root of capitalist appropriation has been disproven in modern theories of capitalism’s property rights structure. Private property plays a role in giving bargain power to get favorable terms, but the ultimate legal basis of capitalist appropriation is the employer-employee contract
Wait. I’m ignorant about this stuff. Can someone explain please?
At a super rough gloss:
Pure Marxism encompasses two basic theories: Marx’s critique of capitalist economics, which he argues are predicated on unjust material distributions which are employed by the owning class to steal value from the working class by controlling the means of production; and his proposed alternative, wherein the workers own the means of production and exist in a stateless, classless worker’s paradise (“communism”).
Notably lacking in Marx’s work is a compelling plan for how to move from capitalism to communism. Enter Leninism: to transition, the so-called “vanguard party” will seize control and establish a total dictatorship to wholly quash capitalism and bring the society into alignment towards communism; when this is achieved, the vanguard party is supposed to relinquish control and the worker’s utopia may commence.
This school of thought, deemed Marxism-Leninism, is the nominal philosophy underpinning many modern states that bill themselves as communist, including the USSR and the CCP. While on paper it provides a feasible path to the worker’s utopia, critics argue that in practice the vanguard party fails to relinquish control, establish themselves as the new owning class, and operate a fundamentally capitalist regime under the trappings of communism.
Wow that’s a great explanation! Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. It’s a lot more clear now.
Orthodox Marxism believes that societies develop through different modes of production, each one building the foundations for the next - feudalism builds the foundation for capitalism, which overthrows it; capitalism builds the foundation for socialism, which overthrows capitalism in turn.
Marxist-Leninists believe that you can skip the whole pesky “capitalist accumulation” bit if you just believe really hard with a small group of dedicated ideologues (the vanguard party), and that if you give all power to this vanguard, it will DEFINITELY turn into a worker’s state. Somehow. Someday. Seemingly, though, every time MLs have tried this, it’s devolved into a fascist state or a capitalist oligarchy.
Very curious. I’m sure this isn’t some flaw in their brilliant planning. Maybe they didn’t believe hard enough.
And the beauty of such an excellent summary is that it’s all historically based. So many things look good on paper but never factor human nature—which coincidentally loves ignoring history and repeating it’s mistakes.
You can’t have a hierarchical society without the problems with hierarchy
Even if you aim to not have one, one will naturally form. Then you gotta enforce it, which ironically creates it, and an authority becomes elite through power or wealth, etc. Pick any social ism you like and that’s the natural outcome. Millions of years of nature can’t be suddenly undone by an idea or school of thought. The issue has always been us and ideas of a better society never factor in that it’s for humans that be all humany.
Hierarchies aren’t as hard-coded into humanity as you think it is. There are non-hierarchical societies still existing today, like immediate-return hunter-gatherers.
The environment of a society forms their ideology. Not some vague notion of “human nature”. The question is: how do we create the conditions for a free society to form out of the current one?
A reduction in population to return to numbers we thrived in, so that you are once again in a society of just 50 or so others working like a single organism, all with value and purpose. A pack, a tribe, a village, a community; whatever you want to call that instilled natural concept we do well in.
But you get those numbers up just a bit, well we know what happens.
But you get those numbers up just a bit, well we know what happens.
That’s the common narrative, but I don’t think that’s a necessity.
I knew I didn’t like Leninism, but it was moreso because I hate totalitarian regimes. TIL about the vanguard and it’s purpose, thanks for that.
No problem!
The worst part is I really do understand the temptation of that kind of thinking - “If only I was in charge, if only the people who were on my side were in charge, we know exactly what’s wrong and we know what to do to fix it!” - but societies operate according to the way their interests are structured, and no amount of ideological fervor can change that.
Vanguard parties pretty inevitably turn against worker’s democracy, because people are fickle and will not keep them in total power indefinitely (and gods know leftists love infighting), but in doing so, they set up their own interests in opposition to the interests of the workers. At that point, it’s just a matter of time, the clock ticking until despotic clientism of a very feudal sort reasserts itself.
I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.
…benevolent to whom?
I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.
…benevolent to whom?
My favorite example of the flaw in this thinking is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
An incredibly brilliant, driven, and ruthless man. Wildly popular, unmatched power, friendless workaholic, insane charisma, genuine ideological dedication, incredibly well-read, deeply involved with coordinating with experts on every facet of society, cult of personality, the works. And though he could do great things for Turkiye, he still could not fundamentally change its power structures without undermining his own power - but if he undermined his own power, he could not guarantee that the power structures would change to his liking.
It’s a fundamental flaw in the accumulation of power in a single institution (such as a strongman/dictator/vanguard party/etc). Accumulating power causes society to form around the actual locus of power, regardless of how that power tries to redirect society.
Is there any good ideas on a plausible way to manage power? The fundamental laws governing power, politics, wealth etc seem to always lead to negative outcomes.
Like state socialism led to the same complete concentration of economic power in the hands of the few as late stage capitalism is doing now. But I’ve never heard of any plan to address this.
One idea would be to randomly select representatives, bypassing filters that select for those who are best at accumulating power at the expense of anything else. Randocracy?
Or are we just out of good ideas?
Is there any good ideas on a plausible way to manage power? The fundamental laws governing power, politics, wealth etc seem to always lead to negative outcomes.
Like state socialism led to the same complete concentration of economic power in the hands of the few as late stage capitalism is doing now. But I’ve never heard of any plan to address this.
Generally, the suggestion is either “Separation of powers” (ensuring that each power-hungry institution has a self-interest in keeping the other power hungry groups from getting too powerful) or decentralization of power (a la anarchists). Both have strengths and weaknesses. State socialism in most polities has only been attempted with very… authoritarian regimes with no real interest in separation of powers (and certainly not in decentralization), so there’s some ambiguity as to whether it would work out better in a legitimately democratic polity.
One idea would be to randomly select representatives, bypassing filters that select for those who are best at accumulating power at the expense of anything else. Randocracy?
Sortition, that’s called. The ancient Athenians used it for some offices.
The strength to overcome capitalism has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it? Lenin says that for the workers to achieve this strength, the organization of the working class is necessary, because it is the only weapon we have in front of the entire state apparatus that the bourgeoisie holds and the only way to organize this force is through a vanguard party
The strength to overcome capitalism has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it? Lenin says that for the workers to achieve this strength, the organization of the working class is necessary,
So far, so good.
because it is the only weapon we have in front of the entire state apparatus that the bourgeoisie holds and the only way to organize this force is through a vanguard party
See, this is where it runs into problems. The whole idea of the vanguard party ignores that this vanguard, if successful, is placed into exactly the same position as prior (usually feudal) elites, and that material conditions thus suggest that a similar relationship of the vanguard with society will come about - which is what has happened every time thus far.
I’m more partial to syndicalist notions, personally.
We may not agree on the method of how our class (I assume you are not a bourgeois) should organize but if you defend the idea that the workers should overcome capitalism and take the reins of power, we are friends
Awesome. Unironically. It would be nice to see a real labor revival and the destruction of capitalism within my lifetime. I won’t hold my breath for doing anything on a timetable that short - gods know the course of history is fickle - but hope for that eventual future is what keeps us going.
deleted by creator
OP’s entire ideology is summed up by “Stalin bad”. Which fair enough, criticism of Stalinism is always welcome, but he’s a leftist anti-communist dedicating more time to spread negative sectionalist propaganda than to actually push for leftism.
OP’s entire ideology is summed up by “Stalin bad”.
What a radical I am.
Wow, he’s just like ML then. Well minus the hypocrisy.
Alot of the criticism of Stalin was basically already laid out by Bakunin before Lenin so maybe the second face for both
cries
Mom and Dad are fighting again!
come up with and execute something better then
It’s called capitalism.
lol ok
“fascism is when classless society without exploitation of surplus value, when no mythical past of greatness of the nation, when no ethnonationalism, when women’s rights and when equal political representation among different ethnicities, when promoting internationalist solidarity, and when greatest union membership in the history of humanity”
How about instead of, as a self-proclaimed leftist, you stop wasting time making sectionalist memes and you focus on actually productive discussion?
It’s not sectionalism to call out crypto-fascists larping as leftists
“it’s not sectionalism when I don’t like that flavour of leftism”
“Leftism is when you play apologist for a fascist regime because it painted itself red.”
10/10, no notes
Anti-communist tries to define the USSR as fascist without violating Umberto Eco’s 14 signs of fascism or twisting them through mental gymnastics or making up ahistorical facts to prove their point challenge: impossible
spoiler
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
Check.
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Check.
- The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Check.
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Definite check.
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Check.
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
One of the few unambiguous 'no’s.
- The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
Definite check.
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Definite check.
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Definite check.
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Questionable. I could make some arguments here, but we’ll be generous and say no.
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Definite check.
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Check.
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Definite check.
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Definite check.
But hey, why take my word for it? Why not ask Umberto Eco about Stalinism?
Mein Kampf is a manifesto of a complete political program. Nazism had a theory of racism and of the Aryan chosen people, a precise notion of degenerate art, entartete Kunst, a philosophy of the will to power and of the Ubermensch. Nazism was decidedly anti-Christian and neo-pagan, while Stalin’s Diamat (the official version of Soviet Marxism) was blatantly materialistic and atheistic. If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.
There was only a single Nazi architecture and a single Nazi art. If the Nazi architect was Albert Speer, there was no more room for Mies van der Rohe. Similarly, under Stalin’s rule, if Lamarck was right there was no room for Darwin. In Italy there were certainly fascist architects but close to their pseudo-Coliseums were many new buildings inspired by the modern rationalism of Gropius.
A couple criticisms. The cult of tradition and The USSR rejecting modernity? That’s clearly not true. From art to science, Soviet principles were about not just rejecting the old ways but completely wiping them away. Mao took it to the extent of having the youth go around and cut the hair of elders who sported traditional fashion.
Secondly, Nazi as anti Christian was a post war invention to hide Christian complicity in Nazism and the Holocaust. Christians ran the Nazi schools. Hitler’s speech’s were straight from Martin Luther’s book, “On the Jews and their Lies.” In the private Table Talk interviews, Hitler talked about his dream of creating a German Christian church exactly like England has the Church of England. He didn’t want to destroy Christianity. He believed he was saving it just like England had done. That private interview was intentionally edited and mistranslated after the war to portray Hitler as anti Christian.
A couple criticisms. The cult of tradition and The USSR rejecting modernity? That’s clearly not true. From art to science, Soviet principles were about not just rejecting the old ways but completely wiping them away. Mao took it to the extent of having the youth go around and cut the hair of elders who sported traditional fashion.
Soviets made a big show of being modern, but were positively moribund in traditional artistic mediums, and rejected many modern scientific ideas as bourgeois regardless of evidence. The realms in which the Sovs were most anti-traditionalist were that of new artistic mediums (with Soviets being pioneers in film, a medium that only barely and technically predates the Soviet Union in a serious sense) and in traditions that were rooted to institutions of society they didn’t control, as all totalitarian states.
Secondly, Nazi as anti Christian was a post war invention to hide Christian complicity in Nazism and the Holocaust. Christians ran the Nazi schools. Hitler’s speech’s were straight from Martin Luther’s book, “On the Jews and their Lies.” In the private Table Talk interviews, Hitler talked about his dream of creating a German Christian church exactly like England has the church of England. He didn’t want to destroy Christianity. He believes he was saving it just like England had done. That private interview was intentionally edited and mistranslated after the war to portray Hitler as anti Christian.
Anti-traditional Christian, if you prefer. Nazism’s position on Christianity was markedly different than, say, fascist Italy, or the clericalist fascist regimes Germany allied itself with, and the strong neo-pagan current in Nazism is not something that you would find prominent in other contemporary major fascist movements. It’s fair for Umberto Eco to single it out.
“fascism is when classless society without exploitation of surplus value, when no mythical past of greatness of the nation, when no ethnonationalism, when women’s rights and when equal political representation among different ethnicities, when promoting internationalist solidarity, and when greatest union membership in the history of humanity”
Rich. If anyone is wondering, this is what MLs genuinely believe about the Soviet Union and China.
How about instead of, as a self-proclaimed leftist, you stop wasting time making sectionalist memes and you focus on actually productive discussion?
Like explaining basic concepts of Marxism to MLs? No thank you.
this is what MLs genuinely believe about the Soviet Union
Please explain how there were exploitation of surplus value, a mythical past of greatness, ethnonationalism in the USSR, and how womens rights weren’t categorically forwarded to world-pioneer levels, tell us the percentages of representation in the party of different ethnicities, tell us how the USSR’s ideas weren’t based on internationalist solidarity, and tell me one country with more union members than the former USSR.
I know you’re not going to answer to any of these questions seriously and you’re gonna dismiss it with “lol u are fash”, just pointing out you haven’t done and won’t do any research on the topic because you’ve been brainwashed by leftist anti-communism.
exploitation of surplus value
Ignore the surplus. Value was taken away from those who needed it (example case holomodor)
ethnonationalism in the USSR
Especially in occupied areas, non-russians were treated as 2nd class citizens and partially eradicated (insert “go to gulag” -meme. See also: genocide)
how womens rights weren’t categorically forwarded to world-pioneer levels
So quick online search already shows you that it had nothing to do with equality between the men and women, but about better abusing women’s labor. Just like in a capitalist society
Below a lazy Wikipedia quote:
Though the prevailing Soviet ideology stressed total gender equality, and many Soviet women held jobs and advanced degrees, they did not participate in core political roles and institutions.[24][25] Above the middle levels, political and economic leaders were overwhelmingly male[citation needed]. While propaganda claimed, accurately, that more women sat in the Supreme Soviet than in most democratic countries’ legislative bodies combined, only two women, Yekaterina Furtseva and (in its last year of existence) Galina Semyonova, were ever members of the party’s Politburo, arguably the most important component of country’s government
tell us how the USSR’s ideas weren’t based on internationalist solidarity,
Your ideas don’t mean a shit if your actions don’t reflect it.
tell me one country with more union members than the former USSR
The unions were led and controlled by the communist party, which was also on control of everything else. That’s like naming Musk the leader of trade union at Tesla
Ignore the surplus
Spoken like a true Marxist
Value was taken away from those who needed it (example case holomodor)
You’re telling me that the first attempt in history at collectivisation of land wasn’t perfect? Damn, communism destroyed. Fyi, land collectivisation was carried out by poor farmers, and they were so bloody and excessive against Kulaks that the party had to go and impose limits on how many people were declared Kulak per region. Holodomor was a tragedy as a result of a poor first attempt in history at land collectivisation, not an intended extraction of value of workers from a given place at a given time, as proven by the fact that when land collectivisation ended, nothing like that ever happened again.
Especially in occupied areas, non-russians were treated as 2nd class citizens and partially eradicated (insert “go to gulag” -meme. See also: genocide)
The Stalinist terror can and should be condemned. It was senseless, excessive, cruel, inhumane, and worst of all, unfounded and pointless. But trying to add racial/ethnical undertones to it is ahistorical. It happened to Russians and Georgians and Armenians and Uzbeki alike.
So quick online search already shows you that it had nothing to do with equality between the men and women, but about better abusing women’s labor. Just like in a capitalist society
Sure, that’s why women would retire at 55 compared to 60 years old for men. That’s why there were widely available restaurants and canteens in cities and food service in workplaces to relieve women from the burden of cooking. That’s why there was a wide availability of kindergarten to rid women of the burden of child rearing. But oh yeah, you did a quick online search, which totally proves that feminism in the USSR was actually not true feminism somehow!
While propaganda claimed, accurately, that more women sat in the Supreme Soviet than in most democratic countries’ legislative bodies combined
So wait, you’re telling me, that the country with more women in the Supreme Soviet than in basically the rest of the worlds’ legislative bodies combined, wasn’t pioneer in feminism? I’m not saying it was feminist to 2024 standards, or that it was perfect, but it was by FAR the most progressive country on earth at the time.
Your ideas don’t mean a shit if your actions don’t reflect it
The USSR was the only country to sell weapons to republican Spain (I’m Spanish) in their struggle against fascism. They provided immense help to China in its early industrial development through technological exchange and sending experts to their economy, as they did with most other socialist countries at the time. The USSR was a beacon of internationalism in an otherwise capitalist hellhole of a planet. Key note in internationalism, the USSR itself had an incredible national diversity between its republics, with most people in central Asian republics not even speaking Russian after 7 decades of USSR. Industrial development being boosted in the poorest republics such as Central Asia, equal access to medicine and healthcare in all republics, education being provided in the local language of the republics… Fuck me if that’s not internationalist solidarity as opposed to nationalism.
The unions were led and controlled by the communist party
If unions were so bad and useless, but voluntary to join, why was the USSR the country with the highest unionization rate? The myth of “they were controlled by the communist party” is, well, just a myth. Some things that Unions did: Controlling important aspects of production. Enforcing workplace safety regulation. Organizing educational activities for workers by workers, and training for higher positions. Providing access to doctors and medical revisions. Providing access to affordable housing. Choosing representatives to make their demands. Electing higher positions within the workplace. Providing announcement boards and periodical publications with complaints and remarks of workers for everyone in the workplace to read.
Please explain how there were exploitation of surplus value,
Insane that you think the workers weren’t exploited for the surplus value they created in the USSR. I guess the holsum state apparatus just took what value the workers produced and then very conveniently gave them the amount it was worth in incredibly shitty housing, bread lines, and police repression.
a mythical past of greatness, ethnonationalism in the USSR,
Denying ethnonationalism and an obsession with a great and mythical past in the USSR. Rich.
Great Patriotic War was never mythologized, no cult of personality with Lenin or Stalin, no mass deportations and genocides of ethnicities inconvenient to the Russian majority -
Oh. Wait. That’s right.
and how womens rights weren’t categorically forwarded to world-pioneer levels, tell us the percentages of representation in the party of different ethnicities,
Women’s rights were world pioneer levels in the USSR. Hah. Maybe in the 20s.
tell us how the USSR’s ideas weren’t based on internationalist solidarity,
Internationalist solidarity is when you run a colonial empire, and the more colonial it is, the more solidarity you express.
and tell me one country with more union members than the former USSR.
What good is a union that doesn’t even have the right (or ability) to strike? But sure, tell me more about how striking workers getting gunned down is actually union power.
I know you’re not going to answer to any of these questions seriously and you’re gonna dismiss it with “lol u are fash”, just pointing out you haven’t done and won’t do any research on the topic because you’ve been brainwashed by leftist anti-communism.
Oh no.
Not leftist anti-Stalinism.
Insane that you think the workers weren’t exploited for the surplus value they created in the USSR. I guess the holsum state apparatus just took what value the workers produced
You trying to justify that a society can exist without any degree of bureaucracy, and somehow the existence of administrative personnel earning normal wages totally means that there’s an oppressive class and an exploited one.
and then very conveniently gave them the amount it was worth in incredibly shitty housing, bread lines
Hahaha oh god no, “communism is when bread line and your house is ugly”. We’re at peak lib levels here. Bread lines were nonexistent in the USSR after WW2 until Perestroika, but sure buddy, you’ve done your research.
no mass deportations and genocides of ethnicities inconvenient to the Russian majority
you run a colonial empire
You’re a fucking joke. You can possibly make the argument of forced deportations of Crimean Tatars, but that’s literally the only case of anything remotely like an attack to a given ethnicity that you can conjure. Saying that there was anything remotely resembling genocide in the USSR is ahistorical anti-communist bullshit. Again proving you haven’t read a fucking history book not written by libs. Oh, the russian majority, adoring a Georgian as a statesman and leaving as his successor a Ukrainian! There hasn’t been a single state on earth less oppressive towards local ethnicities than the USSR. Education being offered by law in the regional language of the republics, written publications in the local language exceeding that of Russian in most republics, celebration of local customs and traditions (go to Uzbekistan and tell me how Russified they are), equal access to education, healthcare, similar salaries between republics and ethnicities, vast investment in industrial development of all regions… You have no fucking idea what colonialism is.
Women’s rights were world pioneer levels in the USSR. Hah. Maybe in the 20s
By the 70s, there were more engineer women in the USSR than in the rest of the world together. You can’t at that period find comparable numbers of women in justice, in higher positions at education, as doctors, or as any highly regarded position in society in literally any other country of the world, not even those that had been industrialised for 150 years longer than the USSR. Widely available canteens and restaurants so the burden of cooking won’t fall on women. Widely available kindergartens so that the burden of upbringing children won’t fall on women. Again with the fucking ahistorical bullshit. Claiming that the USSR was the most feminist nation of its time is simply a historical fact if you look at any fucking statistic on the topic, which you clearly haven’t done.
What good is a union that doesn’t even have the right (or ability) to strike?
Controlling important aspects of production. Enforcing workplace safety regulation. Organizing educational activities for workers by workers, and training for higher positions. Providing access to doctors and medical revisions. Providing access to affordable housing. Choosing representatives to make their demands. Electing higher positions within the workplace. Providing announcement boards and periodical publications with complaints and remarks of workers for everyone in the workplace to read. Again, proving you haven’t read a fucking book. I’ll flip the question: if unions were useless, why was the USSR factually the country with the highest number of unionized workers? Did Stalin personally go to everyone’s house and put a gun to their head to join the union or what?
Not leftist anti-Stalinism
Nuanced anti-Stalinism is actually good, I’m not Stalinist by any means. The great terror was absolutely horrendous, unnecessary, and accomplished nothing. But the extent of the analysis of Stalinism being “this happened because Stalin bad” isn’t Marxist, it’s lazy and peak lib.
70% cherry picking here. Uzbekistan is the way it is because of its remoteness and lack of exploitable natural resources not because of some state level benevolence. Look at what the Soviets did to Kazakhstan (RIP Aral Sea)…no matter how you spin it there is a huge chasm between the ideals of the USSR and the way its leaders exercised their power and authority.
Look at what the Soviets did to Kazakhstan
Poor fucking Kazakhstan, the country in central Asia with the highest human development index and quality of life by a huge fucking margin. You guys are a joke.
You trying to justify that a society can exist without any degree of bureaucracy, and somehow the existence of administrative personnel earning normal wages totally means that there’s an oppressive class and an exploited one.
lol
Figured you wouldn’t even try to respond to the arguments seriously. That might involve critical thought, which is dangerous to the party line, right?
Saying that there was anything remotely resembling genocide in the USSR is ahistorical anti-communist bullshit.
“When you murder tens-to-hundreds of thousands of a given ethnicity, and deport an even larger number (a practice known as ethnic cleansing and generally considered a key piece of genocide) when attempting to reshape ethnic borders to your liking, it’s nothing even remotely resembling genocide.”
Least genocidal tankie.
Thank you for not responding to all parts of my comment when I bring actual fucking data that you can’t contest because you haven’t read a book.
“When you murder tens-to-hundreds of thousands of a given ethnicity, and deport an even larger number (a practice known as ethnic cleansing and generally considered a key piece of genocide) when attempting to reshape ethnic borders to your liking, it’s nothing even remotely resembling genocide.”
When you don’t discriminate or target by ethnicity because of paranoia during the unjustifiable Big Terror, when there’s no previous incidents against a given ethnicity and no later attempts to hurt a given ethnicity, then no, you can’t call it genocide, I’m sorry. You can condemn the big terror for what it was, but you can’t call it genocidal because there was no continuous attempt against any given nationality.
When you don’t discriminate or target by ethnicity
Jesus Christ. And you accuse me of not reading. Come back after you’ve read a bit about Stalinist era massacres instead of tankie hagiography glossing over the details of the NKVD hunting down people with Polish surnames to execute.
classless society without exploitation of surplus value
To quote your daddy Engels (from a wholly different context, but it fits):
These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
greatest union membership in the history of humanity
And that “union” was better to agree with the party, or else…
That actually matches with what the Nazis did to unions.
