• prenatal_confusion@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Thanks for a proper response. More than others in this thread are capable of.

    The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.

    And yes it was their expressed and I believe trat they were truthful about that to create a communist state. But there were power struggles and the clear ideas became unclear and what remained (intentionally or not) was the name of the goal justifying all the horrible things.

    Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.

      This is a bit confused. The USSR did eventually form a Beaurocratic section over time, especially towards the 80s until its dissolution, but to call it a “class” is not quite accurate. In The State and Revolution, Lenin does a good job of explaining what even constitutes a State, in explaining the economic basis for the “withering away of the State.” The Soviet model functioned like this graphic:

      Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.

      Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.

      • prenatal_confusion@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.

        sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)

        i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment. i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)

          There were a multitude of factors that led to collapse. Generally, WWII was fought with the blood of the Soviet people, it thoroughly destroyed them, and in the process of building back beaurocracy snuck in and allowed the USSR to be killed from the inside.

          i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment. i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.

          My problem with your point is that it’s a common misconception by leftists who haven’t usually studied theory much, they just know that Communism as a status is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. The issue with that outlook is that it entirely ignores the theory of development that is core to Marxism, Communism as a status is not the goal because it sounds good, but because it’s the natural progression beyond Capitalism and Socialism.

          Put another way, Communism isn’t an idea that you build, that’s Utopianism. If you drop a bunch of future Communists off onto a planet with nothing else, they will still go through primitive communism, feudalism, Capitalism, and back to Socialism and then Communism! That’s the point I am trying to get across, you can’t skip stages because the next is born from the previous!