I think people who’ve enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
“Communist governments” have never been truly communist. Well the big ones that we know at least, I guess smaller folks like indigenous people or other ancient form of living were why more communist.
All the “communist governments” that one thinks about under that term were/are just non fair dictatorships that claim to be fair
AES countries never reached Communism, yes, but they were very much real attempts at building Socialism. A lot of bad came from them, yes, but so did a lot of good. It’s important to critically analyze them as such.
Well, of course! We have to learn from every failure any human has done in the past, else we don’t get smarter.
Yes, which is why I take issue with the idea that these were not “true Communists.” Some may have taken advantage of their positions, yes, and none of these attempts were or are perfect, but by and large these have been countries made up of the masses attempting to build Communism. The idea that all attempts were merely hijacked by opportunists is an easy way to avoid actually having to analyze them critically. It’s a sort of analytical non-starter.
That is only your view, I can easily say that they were not true communists and still analyse why they were not a true communist systems. If I would say they where truly Communist systems, I would just lie and there would not be failures to analyse since it should have worked since they were truly communist systems.
That’s a lot of nonsense if you aren’t going to actually analyze anything.
What is “true” Communism?
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
I suspect “true” Communism is something you’ll only find on the pages of a book. Because in reality it goes from being a revolution, to a party, to cliques, to a power struggle, to a purge, to a dictator. And people get shot, tortured, beaten and sent to death camps every step of the way.
The point I’m making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren’t just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It’s hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren’t followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
Thinking in terms of right and left as string with two poles is what causing all this mess Like if there would only be two views about any topic and if you are thinking “left” at one topic you have to think “left” on very different topics as well. Kinda strange in my opinion.
About this followup of revelations: you can not simply suddenly force your opinion on how humans have to live on a crowd, well, without violence, fear monger or blackmailing.
I like the way nordic european countries handle politics. They have some of the greatest democracies and many very social laws that help the poor to live normal lives. You should visit those once.
Good message overall, but man what a terrible choice to depict the left
How so? What do you disagree with?
Only that there are also a lot of commies who would exterminate a whole lot of centrists.
“We are gonna make mankind happy even if we have to exterminate half of it!”
Is happiness the reason why almost everyone living in communist countries in 1900s wanted to change the system or gtfo?
Centrists: My 3-year old child can tell that both of these characterizations are bullshit. Why cannot you?
because we tend to be smarter than a 3-year old, i mean, the republicans have openly said that they will abolish democracy in America, but “centrists” seem to think it’s a joke
This is just an anecdote of course, but I figure myself a centrist and don’t think it was a joke.
Weird, republicans say the same about democrats
ya, but the difference is that democrats aren’t unveiling “the roadmap to abolish democracy” as a policy guide, and well, actions speak louder than words (unless you are a republican, then you will gladly side with Epstine-McHittler)
Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people “kulaks” and such.
They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.
Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That’s how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.
And you have those hammer and sickle on the “far left” pic.
Yes, and they destroyed most of the Baltic intelligentsia via exile to Siberia.
Forcefully relocated Ukrainians, Germans and Poles to purify post war borders which helped to turn Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine into nation states.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
No need to single out Baltics really. The same happened everywhere.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Let’s please remember that inside USSR the first such movement to gain traction was the one of NK’s unification with Armenian SSR. And also the first one to be met with force. Independent Azerbaijan basically took the matter where USSR’s central government left it.
Dunno why I’m trying to make a case of NK’s independence being as solid as that of Baltic countries or something. It’s not about laws, but about strength anyway. All the “international institutions” have made it clear that any principle is sold cheap.
the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Actually since middle 30-s Soviet ideology started turning in that direction. During WWII this, of course, accelerated with war propaganda.
Its almost as if the USSR was just fascism with red trim.
Almost like Fascism was a branch of Italian Socialism.
Only fascists pretend that fascists were socialists.
Its almost as if mussolini got kicked out of the Italian socliast league specifically for not remotely socialist.
Movements don’t rise from nothing. His first supporters were card carrying members of the Italian Socialist Party. “Kicked out” of a party you replace is a weird way to say it.
His first supporters were nothing of the sort and the fascists fought the socialists.
If fighting socialists disqualifies you as a socialist, then there would be no socialists.
I agree. However, fascsists aren’t socialists. If it isn’t socialism for everyone it isn’t socialism at all.
The national socialists had to change their name from what it was previously. Hitler wanted to use “socialist” as a buzzword to trick idiots.
I agree, but the author used hammer&sickle as the illustration of “far left”.
Its the symbol of communism, as opposed to the USSR alone.
It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
*Serfism
Cool story, still a poor argument.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
because ironically the author of the meme made the best of fucks up made an unironic meme, Tankies are just Nazis wearing red.
Evaluating groups based on their goals rather than their methods is a problem. The Far Left wants everyone’s needs met, but historically (and even today in places like China) end up putting a bunch of people in camps and gulags to achieve that goal, squashing dissents to meet that goal, and banning the practicing of religions to meet that goal, kill political dissidents to meet that goal.
If the Left wants to win those Centrists they need to assert their belief in individual rights; they need to disavow the Socialists and Communists of the past and present who implemented those horrible things. When you have prominent American leftists like Bernie on record praising Venezuela; praising the USSR etc… it makes them appear equivalent.
Listening to the far left to see if you like leftist ideas it like listening to the far right to see if you like conservative ideas. Both are just going to tell you that everyone needs to die.
Try talking to a non-crazy proponent of an ideology before you come to a conclusion.
Listening to the far left to see if you like leftist ideas it like listening to the far right to see if you like conservative ideas.
I don’t know if listening to prominent politicians like Bernie Sanders who is the defacto leader of the left wing movement in the US qualifies as talking to someone who is “far left”. He seems pretty representative of that movement.
Did Bernie Sanders praise the USSR or want to put people in the gulags? I don’t remember him ever doing that. Got a link?
Here’s one of many stories discussing his 1980s era praise of the USSR. I suggest working the google for more, plentiful links.
Sander’s support for the USSR was pretty broad, full throated and unqualified. And he was very vocal about it for a long time. It wasn’t until a decade and a half after the USSR fell as he became a Presidential candidate that he started to walk back his support.
In the modern era he has had similar support for Casto era Cuba and Chavez era Venezuela.
The closest thing this article has to a quote of Bernie Sanders was.
Sanders was amazed at the open “self-criticism” of his Soviet hosts, who admitted that the USSR was 10 or 15 years behind America in medical technology.
Which is not necessarily praising the ideology of the USSR. Just that self-criticism is not something you would see in a government like the USSR and it was refreshing.
Googling: “What is Bernie Sanders position on USSR” gets me:
Sanders has often emphasized the difference between his views as a democratic socialist and communist dogma, noting that he supports democratic elections and business enterprises that were inimical to the Soviet system.
I can see how a lot of people can mistakenly thing Bernie Sanders has a full throated positive option of the USSR because of all the propaganda. Remember if Bernie Sanders says something like “I like that the USSR provides health care for it’s citizens” or “I like that Casto era Cuba has the highest literacy rates in the world”, that does not mean that Bernie Sanders is in favor of doing everything that the USSR or Casto era Cuba has done. I didn’t search for Chavez era Venezuela because USSR and Cuba things seem like a bust and I just assumed that the Venezuela thing would be more of the same. If not, let me know.
If you have a quote from Bernie Sanders saying specifically we should become authoritarian or something like that. I would like to know about it.
So your argument is:
Yes Bernie, the defacto thought leader of the “normal” left wing in the United States, has offered wide support for the USSR, Venezula, Cuba and other Socialists dictatorships; but he’s never explicitly said that we should become authoritarians; he’s just supported the policies, outcomes and goals of the nations that left wing authoritarians have built. So it’s completely unreasonable for Centrits in America to worry that he’d support a left wing authoritarian?
No, your interpretation is reactionary.
Think about it like this. Most people think boy scouts in the US are a good thing right? Let’s say we didn’t have boy scouts. And some guy said, “Hey, Nazi Germany had boy scouts and that did a lot of good things, and some bad things. Let’s make something like that, but not do the bad stuff”. Using your logic, you would say, “This guy is a Nazi because boy scouts are a Nazi thing and this will lead the US to become fascist and authoritarian”. But the thing is, you can create boy scouts without the fascism. Just like you can create single payer health care without an authoritarian leader, and you can create high literacy rates without being communist or whatever Cuba was.
I mean, if you can explain how single payer health care and literacy programs lead to authoritarian outcomes. I am very interested in hearing about that because I can’t see it.
P.S. I don’t think Bernie is the defacto though leader of the “normal” left wing, but I think he is close enough.
Reductionist, I too would like to live in Utopia.
If you live in the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Western Europe etc… you are living in the closest thing to a Utopia the world has ever known.
Come on people, this is a strawman fallacy at its finest. Let’s at least try to be objective so we can have interesting conversations, and not turn this into an eco chamber for one of the sides.
Both sides have fine people, except for those God damn commies who want to open the border and give all of the people houses, food, education, and healthcare.
I always see memes aimed at centrists to be smug and disingenuous.
I’m not a both-siders, but I was just arguing with a leftist yesterday that was saying we should jail people for voting for trump.
So I’m hesitant to pretend there are not wack jobs on the left who would happily exterminate people for their political gain.
The left absolutely has nut jobs. That’s why it’s important that us normal, reasonable left people call them out and check their shit.
The right let their right wing nut jobs take over. That’s why we’re in this mess.
The right didn’t “let their nutjobs take over,” as Capitalism has continued to decay Capitalists have consolidated power. There wasn’t a cognizant decision to shift towards fascism, but fascism itself arose as the material conditions of society declined.
Fascism doesn’t spread because “it’s an appealing idea,” fascism specifically is a result of Capitalist decline, and pretending it’s just something that happens randomly makes combatting it difficult.
You can pretend all you like the problem is that there have been leftist wack jobs that very much did exterminate people for political gain.
Things would be so much easier if we could simply argue about ideology without anyone getting the ‘clever’ idea that you can simply exterminate everyone who disagrees and end up with a harmonious society of people all working towards the same ideal.
we should jail people for voting for trump
-
Donald Trump is launching a full fascist coup on the American democratic state and if he wins he will kill millions of people, primarily those who are poc, lgbtq, and foreign born. We need to stop him at all costs.
-
Hey, listen, who you vote for is your call and I’m not here to judge. Its just an election, I don’t see why you need to make a federal case out of it.
These two views are in sharp contradiction with one another.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run. How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
What if someone told you aid to an enemy of the state is the definition of treason. The man tried to overthrow our government with an insurrection, there is no question he is an enemy of the state. (So all who have donated to his compaign and broadcasted for his rise to power have committed treason)
I don’t think we should jail Trump voters, but they should at least make aware that just because they believed his/medias lies, doesn’t make them immune from all ignorant actions. The first civil war set precedent that you don’t need to punish them, but any members who partook who held office prior to the attempt (currently still ongoing) should not be able to hold office in the future as written in the amendment MADE for insurrectionsts. (Even this seems extreme with current events)
Now as we learned from the last time, we should ignore our previous actions and follow what Robert E Lee suggested, that all statues of Trump & the confederates should be taken down (flags as well) and should not be built nor allowed outside museums/textbooks in the future.
His reason was because history showed countries heal faster that way. Ours hasn’t healed since the conferency, we did it wrong.
Make possession charges harsh, so they hide again, but next time when the NAZI flag and the KKK burning crosses came to light, they would legally shut it down before it gained traction and spread their hate so far and wide.
-
The whack jobs on the left are a vanishing minority, so if you’re pretending they’re equivalent to the right wing who actually attempted a fucking coup and want to do another one, you’re either disingenuous or an idiot.
I’ve seen far more calls from the left for actual violence since the rise of trump than probably combined the rest of my life. I agree the right wing is currently more violent, but the claim that they are vanishing, rather than rising, doesn’t match up with the reality I’ve experienced. Especially surprising to claim it here on Lemmy where I see it most.
Far-left definitely isn’t that - “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be “we’re gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious”.
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don’t think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own. It’s safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they’re already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor’s Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there’s not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There’s the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
quite the contrary.
force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.
To the contrary of your contrary. The French revolution. One of the most influential formative revolutions that helped influence and shape Karl Marx’s philosophy and much of marxist thought. Showed otherwise.
Sure sometimes Force can be needed to break free. But if you need Force to govern you are doing it wrong.
the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs. you are subestimating neocolonialism. my country has a history of being interfered with by the empire at the hint of wanting free. and that won’t narrow it down.
there is a reason one country in the planet spends almost as much as everyone else combined on their military
Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?
China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.
take a look at how quality of life, health, education and most aspects of society improves vastly under socialism.
also take a look at the time scale at which such things happen.
we also have capitalism.
But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it’s kinda the core point of Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn’t “when Stalin based”, that’s, well, Stalinism.
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let’s just stick to Russia otherwise I’ll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Where’s the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you’re going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it’s authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all “ideologies” are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I’m all for worker and local councils being the government. Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves. Then it won’t be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their “historical border claim” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country’s means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You’ve made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can’t support that claim?
But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership.
If by “well documented clear ties”, you mean “people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit”, then yes. That’s not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it’s literally the IMF’s capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it’s not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn’t stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves.
You really don’t see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn’t spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
Every single time
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it’s been applied, that it’s everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they’re not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they’re deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn’t rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand…correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I’m not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You’re being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives. Don’t bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just “the west”. And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don’t think others can’t see bullshit when you put it out.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
Why don’t you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives.
I don’t need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I’m dying to see how you call a bureaucrat “a bourgeois”.
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
And those with too much power and wealth
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It’s what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don’t agree with calling it “yet another form of capitalism” or saying that “there was a bourgeoisie” or that “there’s a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia”. And no, there weren’t people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.
Allllllll the fucking idiots of all political flavors descended on this thread, fucking hell
Dumbest takes I’ve seen in months, and they’re all different takes.
“we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.
We need part of a personal incentive
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?
To everyone upvoting this: you’re agreeing with the take of a guy saying “fascism can be both described as left and right wing and it wants to ensure the needs of the working people”
Edit: confused the above commenter with another user. Ignore this comment.
No? I’m referring to the meme up above where the sides being portrayed are far-left and far-right, and I’m inferring the ideologies they represent based on the appearance and the text of the characters within the meme (with far-left being tankies and far-right being fascists).
Lol. Had to depict the left with hammer and sickle-- a communist symbol. And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights?wprov=sfla1
As a centrist I can say with certainty that both sides are being misrepresented here.
Wrong!
Source: We’re on Lenny
It’s more often the far left I see rejecting the centrist candidates and thereby ironically helping the right wing because they refuse to comprehend the difference between right wing “exterminate everyone” and centrist “how about maybe don’t do that though”.
This is a misframing of the general Leftist argument.
The Far Left, ie Anarchists, Marxists, etc, believe the Capitalist Status Quo to be the mechanism that brings about fascism. Ie, decay of Capitalism (which is a necessary component of Capitalism itself) results in the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie to ally themselves against the proletariat, in an attempt to violently “turn the clock back.”
Historically, centrists have sided with the fascists against the leftists, which is why over time leftists have been less willing to compromise, as said compromise has resulted in backstabbing. Additionally, Centrism itself preserves the mechanisms that result in fascism, centrism just kicks the can down the road.
When put into context, the far-left is willing to do what it takes to stop fascism.
except when they instead end up actually not doing jack fucking shit about it other than attacking the leftmost available political option for not being left enough but curiously never getting around to confronting the ACTUAL FASCISTS THEMSELVES.
Which is so astonishingly unhelpful that sometimes it seems like they’re some kind of psyop or plant BY the fascists.
Maybe instead of whinging about supporting the lesser of two evils we should be focusing on PUNISHING THE GREATER OF TWO EVILS UNTIL IT FUCKING DIES so that the lesser evil no longer has cover to hide behind???
That hasn’t happened, historically, unless you’re dismissing all of the organizing and campaigning done by Leftists as “jack fucking shit.”
Liberalism leads to fascism, decay in liberal Capitalist society allows fascism to take root and spread like a mold. You cannot “beat fascism until it dies” without also beating liberalism. Liberalism will always remain the lesser evil until either fascism takes root, or socialism does. Eventually, liberalism will transform into fascism unless leftists win.
it happened in 2016 when trump won due to dipshit idealists like me who allowed hillary’s shitty behavior and dogshit strategy to disenfranchise us because we were too weak willed and petty to see the big picture.
LEARNED FROM THAT FUCKING MISTAKE, I TELL YOU WHAT.It happened in 2000 when Gore didn’t get a clear enough edge to choke out W because people fucked their votes away on the “better” option of Nader. Those 97,488 votes would’ve utterly annihilated W’s meager 537 vote lead, if only people would have gotten their shit together and realized what was at stake.
it happened in 1968 when George Wallace siphoned NINE MILLION VOTES away from Hubert Humphrey and handed our country off to FUCKING. RICHARD. NIXON. THE crook himself owes his opportunity to FUCK america raw to people failing to understand the FUNDAMENTAL MECHANICS of First Past The Post
Most notorious of all, to me, though, was in 1912 when the republican party (who were at the time the LESS fascistic and bigoted party) fucked Teddy Roosevelt out of the nomination. His founding of the tragically shortlived Progressive Party (whose policies would largely still have been a massive leap forward for quality of life among all first world nations even TODAY) split the vote and stuck us with Woodrow. Fucking. Wilson. The trump of his day. The bloviating self-entitled racist piece of shit who resurrected the ku klux klan with a screening of “Birth of a Nation” in the gods damned whitehouse, and set back civil rights by three generations by firing all persons of color from all federal administrative offices.
You could not possibly be more wrong about “that hasn’t happened historically”.
Get. Your. SHIT. TOGETHER.
and UNDERSTAND that the bluedog scum centrists will NEVER be vulnerable to the consequences of their FUCKERY
UNTIL
and
UNLESS
we exterminate their favorite token excuse, the modern post-southern-strategy Republican Party.America pulled it off before when the Federalist party got curb stomped into oblivion with several years of consistent loss. We need to do that again. Because the last thing I want to see is your ‘noble’, ‘principled’, ‘high minded’ CORPSE being shoveled into a mass grave with the rest of us at GOP-operated deathcamps.
Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
The kulaks deserved it and it was the far left that ended the Holocaust.
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as “deserved”. Any more who “deserved it”?
Saying that they didn’t deserve it on the basis of being “a social group” is the most useless thing ever. Fascists are “a social group”, and they should be liquidated just as all captitalists (including kulaks) should be.
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people “who deserve it” is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say “”“”“deserve it”“”" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn’t liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
Man that guy really went all out to assist you in making your point didn’t he?
