As Capitalism decays due to Imperialism reaching its death throes, more people will begin to support Socialism and eventually a large number of tiny quantitative shifts will result in a qualitative change. There is hope.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
141 points (80.5% liked)
Memes
45704 readers
1314 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
What
Socialism is good
Soviet communism isn't socialism
Can you explain? The USSR was undoubdtedly Socialist, both Marxists and non-Marxists agree.
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production. The issue with the Soviet Union was that all means of production were controlled by the state. However there was no way in which the people controlled the state, since at least 1936 and argueably earlier then that.
Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production.
Generally agree, though it's important to also recognize that it's a transitional status towards Communism, at least in Marxist theory (which the USSR followed).
The issue with the Soviet Union was that all means of production were controlled by the state.
That's not an issue at all, centralization of the Means of Production in the hands of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is straight from Marx and Engels:
"The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand."
-Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
However there was no way in which the people controlled the state, since at least 1936 and argueably earlier then that.
This is plainly false. The CPSU was in charge, not a bourgeois class, and the people elected representatives among the workers in a process called "Soviet Democracy." Here's a handy infographic:
All in all, I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It's great for debunking popular Red Scare myths about Communism, and even includes a section for supposed "left" anticommunism. It's clear, easy to read, and doesn't require understanding any Marxist theory to enjoy, though I can also point out some good beginner texts if you want those too.
Lenin ended any oppurtunity for none CPSU members to be elected to the Soviets and banned factions in the CPSU in 1921. He then eliminated opposition with the Cheka. Even before that the Communists acted under "war communism", which meant killing anybody not 100% in line. That very much included Machnos work in setting up a Soviet Democracy in Ukraine, due to them being Anarchists. Stalin then abolished the Soviets in 1936.
The Soviet Union had a bit of it, in the very beginning, but it failed and turned into a statist dictatorship. That is why Stalin ordered the Anarchists to be killed in Spain as well, the Prague Spring got crushed due to moving into a more democratic direction as well as many other movements of worker uprisings.
Lenin ended any oppurtunity for none CPSU members to be elected to the Soviets and banned factions in the CPSU in 1921.
This is a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of the Soviets. All workers, regardless of position, could be part of Soviets, they formed the basic unit of government in general, similar to unions.
Secondly, you are writing in direct contrast to historical evidence provided by Pat Sloan, as he writes in Soviet Democracy:
"I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship is no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organization was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?"
Finally, banning factions was critical for the Soviet Union's survival. There was freedom of discussion, but wreckers and infiltrators stood serious threats of collapsing the new Socialist State. Would you have had them take the idealist route and collapse in 1923? This is an idealist, anti-Marxist view of Socialist practice.
He then eliminated opposition with the Cheka.
Yes, the Soviet Union was at war with invading Capitalist, Tsarist, and Fascist invaders and infiltrators.
Even before that the Communists acted under "war communism", which meant killing anybody not 100% in line.
No, War Communism was a specific economic structure practiced by the Soviet Union in times of war. Where are you getting these wild misunderstandings of basic terminology? Your ass?
That very much included Machnos work in setting up a Soviet Democracy in Ukraine, due to them being Anarchists.
Makhno was no hero, nor was he attacked for "soviet democracy in Ukraine." Makhno was a rapist, an anti-semite, and deliberately stood against the USSR. It was not a case of a random group of innocents being attacked by the big scary commies.
Stalin then abolished the Soviets in 1936.
No, Stalin did not abolish the Soviets in 1936. The Soviets remained until the dissolution of the USSR. This is just false, and we know it to be so based on historical record. Where did you pull this again? Your ass?
The Soviet Union had a bit of it, in the very beginning, but it failed and turned into a statist dictatorship.
Even the CIA said the USSR wasn't a dictatorship.
That is why Stalin ordered the Anarchists to be killed in Spain as well
The USSR supported the Republicans, and did so by providing weaponry.
the Prague Spring got crushed due to moving into a more democratic direction as well as many other movements of worker uprisings.
The Prague Spring was a Liberal counter-revolution that sought to reinstate Capitalism.
What you have done here is send a Firehose of Falsehood, the majority of your claims were wrong, and the ones that weren't sided with Capitalists and Fascists. You do not know what you are talking about either with respect to Marxism or to the history of the USSR.
Again, I repeat, I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It's great for debunking popular Red Scare myths about Communism, and even includes a section for supposed "left" anticommunism. It's clear, easy to read, and doesn't require understanding any Marxist theory to enjoy, though I can also point out some good beginner texts if you want those too.
Soviets were de-facto abolished after 1936 (not due to the constitution itself, rather "by tradition"). While there technically were elections, in almost all cases there was only one candidate. The three of my grandparents that I grew up with (all proudly working-class - teacher, engineer and doctor, born in 1930s), never participated in elections with more than one candidate until Perestroyka (at which point the communist project was on its deathbed).
Note that I'm not even anti-USSR, it's still markedly better than the bullshit capitalist systems. There actually was plenty of workspace democracy, and some local democracy, but I don't think we should glorify it as some bastion of democracy. There still unfortunately was a kind of ruling class - the Party and MGB/KGB (but I should note that it was much easier for a working-class person to join their ranks than it is in capitalist "democracies"). Rather, learn from what it got right, and fix what it got wrong.
Soviets were de-facto abolished after 1936 (not due to the constitution itself, rather "by tradition"). While there technically were elections, in almost all cases there was only one candidate. The three of my grandparents that I grew up with (all proudly working-class - teacher, engineer and doctor, born in 1930s), never participated in elections with more than one candidate until Perestroyka (at which point the communist project was on its deathbed).
My understanding is that the Congress of Soviets was replaced with the Supreme Soviet, the democratic structure was changed but the Soviets remained, just shifted in form, and could still be used democratically, just not in all cases. A good analogy is that most local governments in the US run uncontested.
Note that I'm not even anti-USSR, it's still markedly better than the bullshit capitalist systems. There actually was plenty of workspace democracy, and some local democracy, but I don't think we should glorify it as some bastion of democracy. There still unfortunately was a kind of ruling class - the Party and MGB/KGB (but I should note that it was much easier for a working-class person to join their ranks than it is in liberal democracies). Rather, learn from what it got right, and fix what it got wrong.
I absolutely agree! The USSR was not perfect, but lots of it worked right as you said, and it was Socialist. I am primarily trying to combat blatant anticommunist mythology, not make a claim that nothing ever went wrong ever, which would be equally absurd. That's why I stressed reading Blackshirts and Reds, which dispels the mythology and takes a critical, nuances look at the USSR.
Thanks for sharing!
My understanding is that the Congress of Soviets was replaced with the Supreme Soviet, the democratic structure was changed but the Soviets remained, just shifted in form, and could still be used democratically, just not in all cases.
I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn't feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.
A good analogy is that most local governments in the US run uncontested.
I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation (especially given the two-party system where neither represents the working class). However, aren't there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party "runs" for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).
That’s why I stressed reading Blackshirts and Reds, which dispels the mythology and takes a critical, nuances look at the USSR.
Thanks for the recommendation! I've started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I'll have to pick it up again.
I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn't feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.
That's a fair critique. The point I was trying to drive home, however, is that it was fundamentally Socialist, which I believe retained after 1936 as well.
I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation, but aren't there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party "runs" for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).
Not necessarily. There is an illusion of choice, in reality it's largely run by the DNC and GOP. There are rare, minor upsets, but the ones that pose legitimate chance to shake things up are either heavily out-financed during the election, or are shunned by the party upon reaching some semblance of power. The electoral system of the US is a filter.
Thanks for the recommendation! I've started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I'll have to pick it up again.
No problem! Thanks for your input, much more reasonable than the other commenter, and not just because we agree on almost everything.
There was semblance of socialism yes. But it wasn't a socialist government. Also is it really socialist if there are levels of people who get different levels of care, pay, and living conditions?
you are thinking of communism, which hasnt been achieved anywhere yet
Because communism counts on the assumption that humans aren't greedy fucks who are gonna abuse the system anyway they can. A place where everyone is equal? Even the ruling class? Literally impossible
communism/anarchism pressuposes a system with no leaders or ruling class.
humans look greedy as fuck because most of us live in late stage capitalism. humans are actually unique in our unprecedented ability for empathy and cooperation. (and its how we lived for most of our history)
There was semblance of socialism yes. But it wasn't a socialist government.
What does this mean? Can you offer any explanation beyond "because I said so?"
Also is it really socialist if there are levels of people who get different levels of care, pay, and living conditions?
Yes, absolutely. What gave you the idea that Socialism is when everyone gets paid the same? Marx directly argued against that, along with Lenin.
It's a joke bro
I guess to some
Lol, you are a joke
Trashy