this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
320 points (83.3% liked)
Fediverse
28480 readers
768 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone is organizing any revolution, otherwise it just won't happen.
The Soviets formed the basis of the Democratic process of the Soviet Union. The Worker's Councils weren't killed and forgotten, they were replaced.
It's cool if you want to deviate from Marx's analysis of Capitalism and go for a vibes-based approach, but people who take Marx seriously can plainly see that even if the USSR was flawed, it was Socialist.
History tells us otherwise. You might be confusing revolutions with coups.
In the beginning of the Russian revolution, they had power. Come the Bolsheviks and they ceased to have power, they became mere propaganda appendices of the party.
The USSR was most of all one thing: The continuation of Russian imperialism with a new coat of paint.
It does not. Revolution occurs without prompting, yes, but there will always be a group of the most radical within the larger group, the group taking the majority of the action.
As for the Workers Councils, yes, they were replaced with the Union system.
As for Imperialism, I absolutely agree that it was expansionist, and follows the Liberal definition of Imperialism. This isn't good! However, if you're focusing on Lenin's definition, Castro had this to say: "if the USSR was imperialist then where are it's private monopolies? Where is its participation in multi-national corporations? What industries, what mines, what petroleum deposits does it own in the underdeveloped world? What worker is exploited in Asia, Africa or Latin America by Soviet capital?"
The reason most Marxists accept Lenin's definition of Imperialism as a sort of bourgeois/proletarian relation at international scale, is because countries in the Global South can't become Socialist until they throw off the thumb of Imperialism, and Imperialist countries won't become Socialist until they stop being Imperialist.
Again, liberal meaning of Imperialist? Yes, absolutely. Expansionist? Yes, absolutely. Marxist definition of Imperialism? Eh, closer to no than yes.
The USSR absolutely wasn't perfect, it was highly flawed, just as we should expect the first major Marxist state in history to be. We can learn from what worked and what didn't.
That certainly wasn't the Bolsheviks in Russia. They weren't the sailors of Kronstadt, they weren't the workers in the factories.
If the Mongol empire was imperialist, then where are its private monopolies?
Are you saying that before capitalism, there could not possibly have been empires, or imperialism? If that's the case, then, again, that's rhetorical slight of hand, serving nothing but the confusion of the masses instead of their radicalisation.
...also just as an aside much of Russia is absolutely underdeveloped, and yes that's where the natural resources are.
Oh and by golly did Anarchists learn from it. For one, that you should never turn your back to a Marxist-Leninist.
The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary party, yes. Among the entire revolution, they were among the most radical. In any revolution, there will be a group that is the most radical and moving the most, even if they don't formalize it. Do you expect everyone to be an Anarchist before the revolution?
As for the Imperialism bit, you're being even more dishonest than usual, haha. I explicitly said that it was expansionist and Imperialist in the liberal sense of the word. That doesn't mean wrong! This is silly, the rest of your paragraphs are nailing down on a point I never made.
As for the jab about Anarchists, Marxists can't trust Anarchists either, infighting is always a 2 way street among leftists. You may be interested in reading this meeting between Lenin and Kropotkin. Kropotkin criticizes Lenin, and Lenin criticizes back, it's a really interesting meeting and neither makes themselves a fool IMO.
"radical" in what sense? As in "fuck over everyone who brought about the February revolution, do a coup in October and call it a revolution?"
...yep, Anarchists back then hadn't yet understood that there's no way around power getting to ML's heads. Maybe not individually but structurally it's going to happen one way or the other. I do acknowledge that Lenin said that under no circumstances must Stalin be allowed to be his successor -- he still became his successor. That's why centralisation of power is inherently counter-revolutionary. Power corrupts, and power attracts the already corrupted. What you're left with is a mess.
No, as in the ones pushing the revolution the hardest, and typically the ones with the strongest level of understanding of leftist organizational theory, be it Marxist or Anarchist or even whatever else.
You're free to make that critique, I would just hope that you can actually make concessions just like Marxists do when it comes to unifying theory and practice.
I already made that critique: If your means employ authoritarianism and domination, then your ends will never be a classless society, for you are fuelling the very beast of domination and oppression. Giving it another coat of paint or another justification does not change its character. It's like saying "but my anger is righteous!" instead of realising that anger is always blind, unproductive, irrational, self-destructive to the individual and society. You're much better off taking a step back, take breaths until you've collected yourself, and then start to strategise with a cool head.
It's why I gave (dunno if in this conversation but definitely in this thread) Council Communists the non-tankie pass. I think they're a bit uptight, just like Syndicalists, but whatever that I can deal with.
By your definition all states are authoritarian, it doesn't matter if I want a democratic state or not, that's authoritarian in the eyes of an Anarchist.
Council Communists get a pass because they are relegated purely to academia and never to praxis, seemingly.
The anarchist definition of state is a very different one from the Marxist and also from the dictionary one ("people, organisation, territory"). You can usually freely replace "state" in Anarchist texts with "hierarchical power". I myself don't like and don't use the anarchist definition as there's better terms it's just unnecessary confusion. Has its historical reasons, but we're usually not ones to pray to ashes instead of passing on the fire so why should we be doing it there.
And, sorry, but no, it isn't Anarchists who are couping liberal democracies. That'd be Bolsheviks.
Council communists would have a better track record if they realised that they are Syndicalists, which have plenty a track record. Until that happens, it'll continue to be methadone therapy for recovering MLs.