.ml people will stand by people resisting the imperialism of one country, and then condemn people resisting the imperialism of another, and still won't realize they are effectively nationalists.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Liberals will invent fanfiction about Marxists before genuinely trying to engage with Lenin's analysis of Imperialism or attempt to have a genuine conversation about it.

[+] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz -6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Marxists are great people. Leninists have fantastic ideas. And Marxist-Leninists betray everything Marx and Lenin stood for.

"Socialism in one country" is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.

Karl Marx died an anarchist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

No, lol. Marx wanted a fully publicly owned and planned economy free of class antagonisms, Anarchists want decentralized networks of communes. These are very different systems with very different analysis.

Socialism in One Country is correct, Trotsky wanted to abandon building Socialism essentially and just keep trying to do revolutions elsewhere. The correct path is to not abandon building Socialism, while still supporting Socialist movements elsewhere.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

“Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.

Declassified CIA report:

Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, including Domenico Losurdo.

Karl Marx died an anarchist.

This is laughably false by simply reading what Marx actually wrote.

[–] Akuji@leminal.space 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Declassified CIA report:

Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

Davel, you do know that this is not a statement by the CIA, but a comment collected from an undisclosed USSR informant?
If we take these unevaluated comment reports as what the CIA thought, they would have changed their mind some time later.

Comments on the Current Soviet Situation:

Stalin was a fanatic, an all-powerful dictator with a persecution complex and a mania for greatness. He wanted to see his goals accomplished during his life- time. If he were still alive, the Soviet Union would be either on the brink of or in the midst of a catastrophe. It is hoped that the present authorities will permit their pursuit of their aims to be tempered by reason, and a recognition of the realities of life. They are normal people, not sick, and see that resistance to change must be considered. As Bukharin and Rykov proposed, many of the changes made by the Soviets can be retained; the others can be abandoned gradually, It is important to make concessions to the peasantry, and the authorities appear to have chosen that road. Malenkov's speech of 8 August 1953 is regarded as a change from an unreasonable to a reasonable policy, Freedom, of course, is the most important thing and the regime can scarcely grant that and retain power. The disappointment to those who regard Malenkov's speech as the beginning of a new era will be terrifying and may have consequences.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that report wasn’t an honest assessment but rather the cold war talking points to be used for cold war propaganda. The CIA is as much in the job of disinformation as it is in information. Contemporary Western academic historians, having access to declassified US & USSR documents from the time, have published accounts that put these cold war cartoon villain narratives to bed.

[–] Akuji@leminal.space 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My country has been Gladioded, no need to convince me that they're manipulative fucks 😜
My issue isn't about which is closer to the truth, but about using these documents as a proof, as the CIA admitting this or that. I've seen many otherwise well informed MLs frame it that way, and it's a bad look since it make them appear as willingly obtuse or disingenuous. Both the quoted documents are just collected intelligence, and certainly not from an internal source from the politburo which, by the CIA's own admission, they weren't able to infiltrate. And you said it yourself, there's many historians that did their job well; quoting them instead of some unverified crap would be more convincing.

Edit:

By the way, while looking at my notes on the topic, I found something I saved from "Titoism and Soviet Communism". Given the nature of this document, an analysis for "those who need to know", it's actually closer to a statement about what they thought of the USSR under Stalin at the time.

About "Stalinism" (their word, not mine):

This term is used to denote the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin as dogmatically interpreted by Stalin, and as imposed by him on the International Communist Movement.
The term denotes in particular the theory and practice connected with Stalin's personal dictatorship -- "one man rule" -- over the CPSU, the Soviet State, and -- under the guise of "the leading role" of the CPSU -- over the International Communist Movement as a whole.

Edit 2: said document https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A073800530001-4.pdf

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay. We try to do that, but…

Domenico Losurdo, 2008, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
Grover Furr, 2014, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands Is False

[–] Akuji@leminal.space 3 points 2 days ago

That's... unfortunately true. But at least, it has the advantage of being difficult to attack for an intellectually honest person.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/xfzvrx/karl_marx_was_not_just_an_anarchist_he_was_one_of/

Please judge this source by the content of the writing and the sourcing of its own arguments rather than by the hosting medium.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago

Even if it were true that Marx threw out his entire life’s work and became an anarchist on his deathbed, how did the Paris Commune turn out? Why has no anarchist society lasted more than a few months before collapsing from within, or from without by capitalist/imperialist forces? Anarchism has not and can not succeed in the world we presently live in, if for no other reason than they cannot defend themselves against the imperialist forces of the monopoly capitalists who want to profit from everything everywhere.

From Michael Parenti’s 1997 book Blackshirts and Reds:

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.