anarcho_blinkenist

What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?

you've still not made any actual assertions. "The internal collapse of the USSR" makes it seem like you're gesturing toward having some actual knowledge, which you're refusing to disclose, instead making smug assertions that this hidden vague knowledge that you refuse to declare means you're right. So, what does "the internal collapse of the USSR" actually mean to you? What are you imagining (the pictures and words in your brain) when you say "the internal collapse of the USSR," and what were the causes in your opinion for whatever you're imagining?

It doesn't seem like you actually know what you're talking about, because you're desperately avoiding making real substantive statements in any of these comments, instead throwing tantrums when pressed on what you actually think. Tell us your actual positions, without petulant 'McCarthy-if-he-was-a-redditor' tantrums, or otherwise stop pretending to have any.

But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.

okay, then tell us why you think it collapsed? These vague insinuations and gesturing don't prove your point, they make it seem like you're unsure of the basis of your own assertions.

Edit: And for the record, the first ever experiment of a modern socialist country in history, with no earlier examples to work off of, succumbing to a series of both external and internal contradictions doesn't say anything concretely about the viability of socialism as a whole. In fact, their massively successful strides toward constructing new relations of society, and the betterment of living standards for the vast masses of its people, and the provided security of housing, employment, nutrition, community, and healthcare which was established after fully collectivizing and industrializing (industrializing in 1/10 of the time it took the west to industrialize, without the fundamental basis of primitive accumulation through global colonialism, settler-colonialism, genocide, chattel slavery, child labor, aggressive wars, and malthusian sanitation practices that under-girded the western industrial revolution; and doing so after suffering such destruction in WWI and the civil and counter-revolutionary-interventionist war no less) proves there are extremely strong cases for it being a model of success to learn from and build off of, while learning from its shortcomings and mistakes.

The "middle class" never existed. The "middle class" is an invented wedge to split the working class and try to turn segments of itself, against itself. It has no material basis. It is the 'myth of upward mobility under capitalism' distilled into a propaganda phrase to obscure the dualistic and antagonistic class relations in capitalist society between the PROPERTIED and UNPROPERTIED (those who own capital and those who do not), and the contradictions and conflicts therein.

It is false consciousness; personified by and in the 'middle manager' who is PROPERTYLESS (proletarian), but paid more and promised the "opportunity of more to come" to align themselves with the interests of the PROPERTIED, and take on the role of a low-level overseer -- to function as both a compliance enforcer and a mediative focus-dulling pain-sponge standing in the middle of, and soaking up the conflict between, the ONLY REAL TWO CLASSES IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY: The Worker, and the Capitalist.

"Middle class" is liberal sleight-of-hand in its core and conception, and a term to be derided and discarded in all use, except as a magnifying glass to show the ways capitalism distorts and deceives about the real nature of its own properties and relations; and how the ruling class generates and contributes to the development of false consciousness through their reframing of production's own characteristics, in order to reify into political "identities" to be captured and capitalized upon those roles which naturally manifest out of the laws of functional industrial-productive logistics, ie. the need for 'managers' to administrate complex or large-scale productive and distributive tasks. This serves double roles in the laws of colonial and imperial relations in places like the USA, as this distinction is also in practice highly racialized and rooted in the ongoing historical unfolding of these basal-and-superstructural systems of exploitation.

Make note of the conspicuous absences and obfuscations when duopolist-exploiter X or Y says they "fight for the middle class;" that they are not fighting for you or me in the working class, but pandering to those "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" that they've bought off enough or otherwise tricked into this false consciousness, to give them their ever-shrinking electoral margins they require and fight each other over so they don't have to pay any mind to the working class masses who make up the majority; because they in reality work for the big bourgeois, the capitalists, and the petty-bourgeois "small business tyrants" who think of themselves as capitalists

all at the expense of the working class domestically and abroad.

C A P I T A L I S T I N N O V A T I O N

and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sunrise_(World_War_II)
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
and https://www.historynet.com/these-nato-generals-had-unusual-backgrounds-they-served-in-the-third-reich/
and https://www.redstreetjournal.com/p/cia1
and... yknow i'd be easier to name the nazis that the US intelligence and military didn't hire. which some were instead by MI6 and Mossad, like the pioneer of the gas vans Walter Rauff [Archived]
And for good measure: just a few of the industrialists and political elite of the US capitalist class who financed and were deeply connected with the Nazis and the German capitalist class for whom fascism were the anti-communist market-seizing attack dogs. ("first they came for the communists...")

I suggest Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution to break people out first, less scary than Lenin, and a I think a "woman's touch" does a thing for peoples minds under patriarchal norms, with the assumption that they're somehow less capable of all of the things they're afraid of. It was critical in my political education when I was starting off grabbing from everywhere to see what gripped the road I saw us flying down (Conquest of Bread sucked, never read more 'kum-ba-ya' utopian idealist tripe in my life, and I could tell that having barely even read much Marx at that point); and Reform or Revolution is more focused on dismantling the single topic. From there, once the reader are forced to mull on that reform will never save us, haunted by their discomfort and spurred by the sprouting seeds of their discontent the only logical next step is to try to find out "okay, well then what is to be done?"

But you have to give a background lesson first if the book/site of it you send them doesn't explain in the preface, the whole thing that in the context of her book "Social-democrat" meant socialists in general; both revolutionary and the Bernstien-type 'voting in socialism through reform' revisonists; because this was in like 1900, before the failure of the second international and resultant split of the communists. It's only after all of that and the 3rd international and the betrayal of Rosa and the communist KPD by the reformists that that the "social democrats" came to be understood as we know them today, reformist welfare liberals (which, incidentally, thoroughly and undeniably vindicates Luxemburg, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, et al and their criticisms of reformism).

Marx has been blunted and made tame and by those who haven’t read him.

You might say they have "Turned Marx Into A Common Liberal"

1. That's not what entryism is. Entryism isn't "voting democrat candidates who support xyz in primaries." Entryism is infiltrating an organization's membership with communists(or what have you), with the intent to change the basic proportional makeup of its membership ranks, and so change its interior political composition, and so its exterior action.

2. Entryism is explicitly and categorically denounced by every serious ML as having proven historically and politically ineffective at best, and actively counterproductive and opportunist at worst and most common by far; and has been in explicit terms criticized as such for a century. Saying "Surely you've heard of entryism?" to Marxists is like saying "Surely you've heard of filling masks with lavender to keep away the miasma?" to an epidemiologist.

3. The point mentioned in #2 is by a factor of 100 extra true for an organization like the democratic party, which is (just like the Republican party) a monstrous behemoth of leagues of multi-generational dynastic establishment careerist ghouls, thieves, racketeers, and murderers from multi-billionaire elite university family empires; whose entire operations are financed, advised, organized, and run by and for the richest imperialists in the world, with uncountable streams of both open channel money and dark money from private billionaires, banks, industrial monopolies (fossil fuels, pharma, agribusiness, etc.), arms dealers, conglomerate Super PACS, shady Think-tanks and "NGOs," and the Israel lobby. Obama's cabinet was hand-picked by Citigroup. Biden has appointed all the most heinous neocons and war criminals he could find, even bringing back convicted massacrists like Elliot Abrams; and hiring the most corrupt people he could find, such as a Chevron lawyer who defended the destruction of the Amazon and poisoning of Indigenous people to head his Environmental executive. All while outflanking the Republicans on the right of many issues including immigration.

**

The Democrats actively benefit just like the Republicans from hyper-restricted 2-corporate-party system, proven by them, currently as we speak, sending out leagues of dark-money Super-PAC-financed lawyers to every state they can to try to purge 3rd parties off the ballots; actively killing democracy. This is their goal and interest, because it is the goal and interest of their donors. They have no interest in a different or better world and never will. Even someone as milquetoast as Bernie ran into endless smears and obstruction and undermining and got nowhere and has capitulated more and more to the right wing by hitching his boat to this circus. The liberal darlings "the squad" have each capitulated or even become active careerists and attack-dogs for the establishment imperialists against alternatives and progressives, barring Ilhan Omar who has faced endless shit and isolation even from the rest of that coward group of "progressive" dems, to say nothing of the establishment that actually runs the show with their army of equally-careerist factory-stamped liberal interns at their beck and call, pipelined from upscale colleges with PoliSci degrees to do whatever bidding they want.

The Democrats are not going to change for anyone but their donors and have proven it for decades; and they are structurally incapable of being budged internally toward anything remotely resembling democracy or socialism. Entryism to the democratic party is beyond a dead end. It would It would be more effective and principled to vote third party and continually elevate a working class party (Like the PSL) and visibly starve the democrats of votes for their failures and betrayals and making it known that is the reason; which would force a political reorientation of the democrats if they ever want power again. This necessary reorientation is impossible within the Democratic party structures, so the ruling class would have to figure out to desperately float a reformist "labor party" or "progressive party" to capture people being funneled to the PSL socialists, and this reformist party would receive an influx of the less-far-right careerist liberals from the Democrats fleeing to the new party "like rats from a sinking ship;" while the Republicans and remaining establishment Democrats proper inevitably join together in a coalition like David Lloyd George's Conservative-Liberal coalition, or like Macron's doing with the fascists in France. It's not even much of a leap for them compared to the existent state of things

they've already been converging for decades and most of us have already come to feel the effects of it.

And this way by elevating the PSL, a real working class party who have a broader picture for revolutionary change than limiting to parliamentary dog-and-pony shows against the richest most evil people on the planet, you're actually helping the ground-up elevation of meaningful on-the-ground working class politics which speak to the 35-50% who are so disillusioned and disenfranchised by the lies and corruption and bloodthirst of the corporate-imperialist duopoly-of-exploiters that they don't even vote

and activating them into actual meaningful political movement-building and action with a revolutionary long-term perspective, while forcing the establishment's hand to intercede how it can, highlighting the contradictions and failures of the system. Instead of finding new ways to capitulate to it (which are actually the same ways people have been capitulating to it for a century).

That's the cool part about the struggle against capitalism: Workers' labor and consciousness of how it is used and and withheld is the single most powerful tool within this locus of control, as said labor is the very foundation of the economic system. And the most cost-and-time-effective and reliable acts within this locus to reasonably change circumstances such as better pay and conditions are also the most effective ways of challenging capital itself, like unionizing and organizing direct action with a wider group to support you and together shoulder the burden and the associated risks of daring to raise your head against your masters.

It works double as a prime tool for furthering class-consciousness and class-solidarity (which capitalists already have with each other when push comes to shove). Which then makes continuance of this, and the spreading of this knowledge, capability, inspiration to other shops even easier. From experience, this costs much less time, effort, and spirit, and is much better at solidifying and maintaining better conditions (and not just for yourself but for everyone), than hurling yourself individually into the carousel-blender of endless additional gig work while everyone else is also made to do that individually, forever, in isolation from each other and utter hope-death, which helps this all perpetuate itself.

I've seen it happen where just the mere fact of a union vote being filed and date set results in an instant pay raise among discussion from bosses of "We're a family though! This will put others between us and things won't stay friendly! MUH OPEN-DOOR POLICY!! BUT WHAT ABOUT UNION DUES!?!" Granted, I've also seen it where bosses just close down that shop-branch and reopen elsewhere (sometimes under a new name to avoid legal ramifications for blatant union-busting) because they're so disgustingly rich and so scared of other branches catching wind and joining in, that it is deemed less costly than simply recognizing the will of their workers. So there is risk to be considered, hence the need to build awareness and solidarity among a wider organized group and in your community (and definitely also other branches/departments of your company, but with the care that it's harder to know who to trust in the early stages than among direct coworkers. Punishment for union-advocacy may be illegal, that doesn't mean the bosses won't try to find ways to do it if they don't think you've the support to make them pay for it).

But the defeatist and false, purely bourgeois-implanted notion that the only thing within one's locus of control as a worker is to sell yourself HARDER and make capitalists RICHER in the race-to-the-bottom death-spiral of moribund capitalism is exactly how things get this bad and continue to for working people and oneself. Workers are in reality much more powerful (and more numerous) than the capitalists who require us. That is why they need us to think we have no other or better option, and poison the well to have us perpetuate our own and each others' defeatism and compliance.

in short: Solidarity Forever

And it's written in buzzfeed listicle format! Engels truly ahead of his time.