Why do so many Leninists find it so difficult to discuss the USSR critically?

[Comrade Trollface]

There is this unfortunate tendency to dismiss many of the real atrocities of Bolshevik rule as reactionary inventions. If the Bolshevik experiment was indeed a worthwhile one, than it is one that we can learn from. And if it is something that we can learn from, then we must be able to discuss it critically and objectively rather than taking every opportunity to defend our squeaky clean fantasy of it. As revolutionaries, it is our duty to be prepared for disillusionment rather than defending ourselves against it at all costs.

Our goal is after all to build a society that is an improvement over the present order, and the USSR was in some ways markedly worse (though not by any means in all ways) than even its Tsarist predecessor. If we refuse to acknowledge and dissect the ways in which the Bolshevik state acted in a manner that was more befitting of a fascist state than a socialist one, then we are doomed to repeat the crimes and atrocities of the past in the future.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

A problem is that we (mostly the marxist-leninists) have to defend the USSR so much against the slanders we often get to say our criticisms.

[Book O'Dead]

"Why do so many Leninists find it so difficult to discuss the USSR critically?"

They do?

[electrostal]

Why do so many people find it so interesting to make such threads?
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the USSR, however yours isn't one of them. What's your point? You didn't really say anything.

Your nickname might explain everything though, in that case carry on...

[mew]

I only see Stalinists refusing to discuss the USSR critically. Maybe some other tendencies find it hard to look at pre-Stalin soviet Russia critically, though.

[Comrade Trollface]

Why do so many people find it so interesting to make such threads? Probably because of attitudes like yours.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the USSR, however yours isn't one of them.Which brings up another point. Why is it that Leninists tend to dismiss the lived experience of Soviet citizens in favor of bullshit spewed by American apologists who were given tours of Potemkin villages?
What's your point?Any discussion of the Bolsheviks' murder of leftists during the revolution, armed suppression of workers' soviets, horrendous treatment of people with disabilities, suppression of ethnic minorities, institutional antisemitism, etc is generally met with denial, accusations and outright hostility. Thanks for being a case-in-point.

[Deicide]

The USSR was a great Socialist state under comrade Stalin. They had free healthcare! Anyone could publicly criticise and denounce Stalin and the party outside the NKVD headquarters and nothing would happen to them.

If you don't agree you're a capitalist, fascist, trotskyist, bukharinist counter-revolutionary.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The USSR was a great Socialist state under comrade Stalin. They had free healthcare! Anyone could publicly criticise and denounce Stalin and the party outside the NKVD headquarters and nothing would happen to them.

If you don't agree you're a capitalist, fascist, trotskyist, bukharinist counter-revolutionary.

Do you ever say anything of any value?

[Comrade Trollface]

The USSR was a great Socialist state under comrade Stalin. They had free healthcare! Anyone could publicly criticise and denounce Stalin and the party outside the NKVD headquarters and nothing would happen to them.

If you don't agree you're a capitalist, fascist, trotskyist, bukharinist counter-revolutionary. You joke, but I hear that shit and its Trot variations all the fucking time. Its sickening.

[electrostal]

This is not a discussion, this is just flaming.

[Deicide]

Do you ever say anything of any value?

Certainly not.

[MuscularTophFan]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

I'm wondering is your tendency anti-Leninism? I don't recall ever seeing a post from you where you didn't bash Stalin or Lenin.

[Omsk]

Close this embarrassing thread, it's nothing more than a flame fest.

Oh, and thanks for the reminder guys.

[Comrade Trollface]

the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.
I don't see it that way myself. Because much of the USSR (Russian Federation Belarus, etc) seems to have kept a great deal of what was terrible about the USSR and dropped everything that was worthwhile about it. Though I will agree that the USSR was in the final summation a dismal failure as a socialist project, the aftermath of its collapse has also been catastrophic.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

Isn't it great how millions of workers lost everything they had, how so many went from living a "normal" life to having to live on the streets, how a country got sold to big corporations, how a country got controlled by the mafia. Oh what a great victory for socialism and the Russian workers!

[Book O'Dead]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

Yours are very extreme opinions.

As a general rule, socialists are radicals and always try to eschew extreme positions.

Do you know the difference between a radical and an extremist?

Very simple:

The radical, axe in hand, hacks at the root of the tree of evil, whereas the extremist sits on a branch of the same tree, sawing it off.

[MuscularTophFan]

I don't see it that way myself. Because much of the USSR (Russian Federation Belarus, etc) seems to have kept a great deal of what was terrible about the USSR and dropped everything that was worthwhile about it. Though I will agree that the USSR was in the final summation a dismal failure as a socialist project, the aftermath of its collapse has also been catastrophic.
Russia and Belarus have but Poland, Baltic states, Czechia, Slovakia and other eastern European countries are all free of being colonies of Soviet Imperialistic empire. Remeber the Soviet Union was an imperialistic empire that promoted a pro-Russian agenda. Whenever Soviet Union sent troops into a place they would steal all of the the resources in that area and haul them off back to Moscow.

[Comrade Trollface]

The radical, axe in hand, hacks at the root of the tree of evil, whereas the extremist sits on a branch of the same tree, sawing it off. The problem of course is that sometimes the tree kills a bunch of people coming down. And, having had much deeper roots than anyone had imagined, grows back in a few years.

That stretched metaphor describes both the establishment and collapse of the Bolshevik state rather well.

[Omsk]

Russia and Belarus have but Poland, Baltic states, Czechia, Slovakia and other eastern European countries are all free of being colonies of Soviet Imperialistic empire. Remeber the Soviet Union was an imperialistic empire that promoted a pro-Russian agenda. Whenever Soviet Union sent troops into a place they would steal all of the the resources in that area and haul them off back to Moscow.

Absolutely not, you know nothing of the subject you are talking about.

The Soviet Union of the DOTP period and of the Vanguardist time under the leadership of the party and the people never engaged in imperialist actions, nor did it exploit the peoples democracies, in fact, it helped them greatly, take for an example, Albania.

In fact, the Soviets didn't even impose socialism on the countries the Red Army liberated, : What is surprising is not that so-called "totalitarian" methods of winning friends and influencing people were displayed in these lands during and after their liberation, but that dictatorial devices were not employed more extensively. Moscow had the power (at the risk, to be sure, of a rupture with the Atlantic Powers) to give unqualified support to Communist groups and to Sovietize this whole vast region. With judicious moderation, it refrained from doing so. In no case did its program precipitate civil war within the lands freed by the Red Army, despite widespread resentment at requisitions by Soviet troops who lived off the land.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 526

Or this: I visited Rumania after the Russian occupation. All the government authorities and the common people testified to the fact that Russia gave freedom to the democratic elements in Rumania to govern themselves.
I also visited Finland. An election was held after the Russians had freed it from the Germans. As far as I could find out, no one charged that the election had been influenced by the Russians. The electoral results showed the Finnish Communists to be in the minority. Similarly in Hungary and Austria, the Soviets permitted governments to be formed which are not communist by any stretch of the imagination.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 99

More reading material for you people: ...But I can till you something about what it was like when the Red Army conquered Rumania and from this you may… be able to piece together a pattern of a destiny soon to unfold throughout the Balkans.
In Dorohoi and Botosani, two prefectures in Rumanian Moldavia which had been held by the Russians since April, 1944, I talked to mayors and to village officials, to trade unionists and to farmers, to Jewish refugees from Antonescu's concentration camps and to a Rumanian chief of police, to representatives of several large American business organizations and to a mother superior in a Rumanian convent.
All these people, some with satisfaction and others with regret, agreed on one thing: they said the Russians had not instigated any revolutionary movements. They said the Red Army had observed the Molotov declaration with disciplined correctness--and we saw the declaration posted wherever the hammer and sickle flew.
There appeared to be no open effort by the Red Army to propagandize the masses in favor of communism or socialism. Pictures of the King and Queen and of the late Dowager Queen Marie still hung on the walls of official buildings, while Stalin's portrait was strangely absent, except in offices of the Red Army. On the surface of things, nothing suggested that the inhabitants did not enjoy a degree of liberty which, considering that Rumania was still a country at war against Russia, was astonishing. In fact, many of the Rumanians apparently wanted to fight on the winning side now. The handsome young Russian commandant of Dorohoi told me that peasants were coming to him every day, asking to enlist in the Red Army.
"The loyalty of the population is remarkable," said he. "Men wish to become soldiers and women wish to join up as nurses. We have to refuse as politely as we can."
Snow, Edgar. The Pattern of Soviet Power, New York: Random House, 1945, p. 28

But the USSR after Stalin changed the policy,and turned the peoples democracies into anti-socialist revisionist states which were just dominions of the Moscow revisionists. Sometimes, they had to do it with force, like in Hungary 1956, where they removed the ML leadership by staging a 'revolution'.

[Book O'Dead]

The problem of course is that sometimes the tree kills a bunch of people coming down. And, having had much deeper roots than anyone had imagined, grows back in a few years.

That stretched metaphor describes both the establishment and collapse of the Bolshevik state rather well.


And when did the "Bolshevik state" collapse?

[Comrade Trollface]

And when did the "Bolshevik state" collapse?http://tinyurl.com/7ac5nar :rolleyes:

[Positivist]

Do you ever say anything of any value?

He puts funny things in his signatures!

[Raúl Duke]

There is this unfortunate tendency to dismiss many of the real atrocities of Bolshevik rule as reactionary inventions. If the Bolshevik experiment was indeed a worthwhile one, than it is one that we can learn from. And if it is something that we can learn from, then we must be able to discuss it critically and objectively rather than taking every opportunity to defend our squeaky clean fantasy of it. As revolutionaries, it is our duty to be prepared for disillusionment rather than defending ourselves against it at all costs.

Our goal is after all to build a society that is an improvement over the present order, and the USSR was in some ways markedly worse (though not by any means in all ways) than even its Tsarist predecessor. If we refuse to acknowledge and dissect the ways in which the Bolshevik state acted in a manner that was more befitting of a fascist state than a socialist one, then we are doomed to repeat the crimes and atrocities of the past in the future.

You're being a bit unfair...not all Leninists are closed to the idea of being critical of the USSR.

To some extent, they're somewhat right to be cautious of propagandist slander.

But I do agree with you in spirit. There are some Leninists who are quick to dismiss things as "non-sense" just because it clashes with their ideal of the USSR even when back with a lot of evidence. The USSR was not ideal and it did not work, in the end it collapsed and during its existence it failed to properly apply socialism (and many theories abound on this part: degeneration, revisionism, it was state-capitalist, whatever). Plus they were pretty heavy-handed with the way they dealt with cultural manners (i.e. "everything has to be socialist realism and simple, no abstract art or what not!") at times.

Lets take the last thread about the Crimean Tartar population transfer...some Leninists preferred to excuse this act of 'genocide' rather than look at it critically. Hell, even top Soviet officials said "it was kinda tragic" but "things were hard back then" rather than just sticking with "they're all Nazi sympathizers" which some few members did basically said and excused the population transfer on those grounds. However even in that thread some Leninists were critical of the action so not all Leninists are batshit insane...but the insane ones do abound even here.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This thread is probably the best example why many Leninist can't be critical about the USSR, everytime some anti-communists just come and start spreading nonsense and we have to counter that.

[Comrade Trollface]

That is a pitiful excuse.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That is a pitiful excuse.

Oh.

[magicme]

the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

I'm confused as to why you'd think that but probs you know more about it than me. I'm thinking it might not be a good idea for workers to celebrate it on May Day though; all the relatives of the people killed in the wars that followed the collapse and the tens of thousands of eastern European women who've been pimped abroad as sex slaves might find this victory for socialism a little hard to stomach.

But yes, if anyone wants to critically examine the Soviet Union I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm not absolutely sure how relevant it is for modern day wannabe revolutionaries though. Like if we have a revolution in England next week there isn't going to be a large peasant population to think about while in the Soviet Union this was a big issue.

[MuscularTophFan]

Isn't it great how millions of workers lost everything they had, how so many went from living a "normal" life to having to live on the streets, how a country got sold to big corporations, how a country got controlled by the mafia. Oh what a great victory for socialism and the Russian workers!
Any defeat for authoritarianism and imperialism is a small victory for socialism. If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea. North Korea is just like the Soviet Union. North Korea is another facko "socialist free democratic workers states" that want's to spread it's imperialism to South Korea just like how the Soviet Union spread it's imperialism to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Caucasus Mountains, Mongolia, etc.

As for Russia you can't expect a rural poor country that has suffered centuries of authoritarianism to suddenly graduate over night into a free democratic society. The problem is that it's almost built into the Russian mindset to have a "strongman" type of leader to rule over them.

[electrostal]

If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea.
Are you Glenn Beck or something?
Who has ever claimed such a thing? Come on now, cite some Soviet propaganda on "glorious workers paradises".

[Comrade Trollface]

If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea. To be fair, the Soviet workers who got to visit the DPRK back in the day generally found it to be monumentally creepy. The ones that I've talked to have anyway. The DPRK is at least as much a product of the ideological legacy left behind by Imperial Japan and internalized by the current ruling class as it is of Leninism.

[Prometeo liberado]

After reading as much as I can stomach I have to ask, by "critical" do you mean your point of view?

[Comrade Trollface]

no, I just mean any point of view that at the very least takes into account, rather than glosses over, the atrocities committed by the Bolshevik state.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Any defeat for authoritarianism and imperialism is a small victory for socialism. If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea. North Korea is just like the Soviet Union. North Korea is another facko "socialist free democratic workers states" that want's to spread it's imperialism to South Korea just like how the Soviet Union spread it's imperialism to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Caucasus Mountains, Mongolia, etc.
Are you saying that during it´s 70 years existence the Soviet Union was just like North Korea is today? Does this apply to every republic of the SU?:rolleyes:


As for Russia you can't expect a rural poor country that has suffered centuries of authoritarianism to suddenly graduate over night into a free democratic society. The problem is that it's almost built into the Russian mindset to have a "strongman" type of leader to rule over them.
what a prejudical and sweeping generalisation about Russians:laugh:

[Rafiq]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.

Long live Yeltsin, hero of Socialism!

The collapse of the SU was a failure for socialism. Not because the DU represented it or was a champion of such, but because it signified the collapse of the Left. You're a moron if you think otherwise. How exactly did workers benefit from it's collapse? Did a proletarian dictatorship replace it? No? Ah! Silly me! You're conception of failure is abstract GARBAGE that's in origin straight out of your ass.

As for your first little segment... That's an old Libertarian (U.S.) saying. We do endorse a big and powerful proletarian state. You'd have the workers on their knees begging for the benevolence of the former ruling class! You're afraid of power is all. You despise the power of the working people. Because you're a Chomskyan scum.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Why do Libertarians find it so hard criticizing Spanish Anarchists or Makhno? For the same reason. It's called bias. Stupid question.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

This thread is probably the best example why many Leninist can't be critical about the USSR, everytime some anti-communists just come and start spreading nonsense and we have to counter that.

We counter it in a simple matter: Accept it was a failure, but better explain and criticize the SU in a particular pragmatic sense devoid of moralism and emotionalist nonsense. Then we'll see whose the dreamer.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[MuscularTophFan]

Are you saying that during it´s 70 years existence the Soviet Union was just like North Korea is today? Does this apply to every republic of the SU?:rolleyes:
Both Soviet Union and North Korea are authoritarian states that have propagandized themselves as "socialist states."

All of those so called "republics" of the Soviet Union where colonies.



what a prejudical and sweeping generalisation about Russians:laugh:
Authoritarian rule leads to authoritarian thinking.

[Comrade Trollface]

Why do Libertarians find it so hard criticizing Spanish Anarchists or Makhno? I know, right? There was really no excuse that I can think of for Makhno's depredations against the Mennonites, and the CNT-FAI should have seized any and all gold reserves in their sphere of influence and bought their own guns.

[Commiekirby]

I know a lot of Leninists like myself that criticize the USSR, especially for it's totalitarian swing under Stalin so... your questions seem slightly away from the facts. Just sayin'.

[Rafiq]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2472714)
Isn't it great how millions of workers lost everything they had, how so many went from living a "normal" life to having to live on the streets, how a country got sold to big corporations, how a country got controlled by the mafia. Oh what a great victory for socialism and the Russian workers!
Any defeat for authoritarianism and imperialism is a small victory for socialism. If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea. North Korea is just like the Soviet Union. North Korea is another facko "socialist free democratic workers states" that want's to spread it's imperialism to South Korea just like how the Soviet Union spread it's imperialism to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Caucasus Mountains, Mongolia, etc.

As for Russia you can't expect a rural poor country that has suffered centuries of authoritarianism to suddenly graduate over night into a free democratic society. The problem is that it's almost built into the Russian mindset to have a "strongman" type of leader to rule over them.

Explain how the Russian federation isn't "Authoritarian" or Imperialist.

If you're talking of such in the abstract, is the victory of the Taliban over the U.S. A victory for socialism? Is the victory over Israel by Hamas a victory for socialism?


And secondly, you're no socialist. You're a moralist anti authoritarian who supports things on the basis of how "Authoritarian" they are, and not their class composition.

Don't see how you'll crawl out of this hole, debate wise. This is a grade A deadlock for you. Nothing you can say can possibly, logically justify the nonsense you spewed, unless you change the subject and blow things out of proportion, instead of addressing what I put forward against you. We already know you support "democratic Russia".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

I know, right? There was really no excuse that I can think of for Makhno's depredations against the Mennonites, and the CNT-FAI should have seized any and all gold reserves in their sphere of influence and bought their own guns.

We're talking about stereotype wise. Most Libertarians don't, just as most Leninists don't. There are exceptions. In your case, you sprewed it only for the sake of debate. You'll find Leninists of all flavors criticizing actions of the USSR, hell, probably they all do. But criticizing it in itself isn't common.

Example: You'll admit the Cnt made mistakes, but not that they were a catastrophic failure. You'll admit Makhno made mistakes, but not that he was a warlord rapist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Positivist]

I'm confused as to why you'd think that but probs you know more about it than me. I'm thinking it might not be a good idea for workers to celebrate it on May Day though; all the relatives of the people killed in the wars that followed the collapse and the tens of thousands of eastern European women who've been pimped abroad as sex slaves might find this victory for socialism a little hard to stomach.

But yes, if anyone wants to critically examine the Soviet Union I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm not absolutely sure how relevant it is for modern day wannabe revolutionaries though. Like if we have a revolution in England next week there isn't going to be a large peasant population to think about while in the Soviet Union this was a big issue.

Oh trust me he doesn't know more about it than you.

[Raúl Duke]

Why do Libertarians find it so hard criticizing Spanish Anarchists or Makhno? For the same reason. It's called bias. Stupid question.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I'm actually quite open to criticizing Makhno harshly and to be critical of mistakes done by the Spanish anarchists...

What everyone needs to learn is to stop over-generalizing.

Leninists are people too, some are quite nice in a personal level.
Sure, there are some that jerk off to Stalin posters while wearing ridiculous red army replica gear but on the other side we got a few idiot anarchists as well. People are people, some/many suck and some are pretty cool dudes.

[Comrade Trollface]

I know a lot of Leninists like myself that criticize the USSR, especially for it's totalitarian swing under Stalin so... your questions seem slightly away from the facts. Just sayin'.

Trotskyists criticizing Stalin but giving the pre-Stalin regime a free pass. Heh. Reminds me of an old Soviet joke.

Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?
A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

[MuscularTophFan]

Long live Yeltsin, hero of Socialism!

The collapse of the SU was a failure for socialism. Not because the DU represented it or was a champion of such, but because it signified the collapse of the Left. You're a moron if you think otherwise. How exactly did workers benefit from it's collapse? Did a proletarian dictatorship replace it? No? Ah! Silly me! You're conception of failure is abstract GARBAGE that's in origin straight out of your ass.
Uh Soviet Union was a right wing regime. Lenin was a right winger and enemy of socialism. Any collapse of authoritarianism is a victory for the left. Libertarians where influential in the 1905 revolution and somewhat influential in the 1917 revolution. Libertarians where the first to be targeted by the Bolshevik regime when it took power. Also you don't need to be so kiddish that you have to resort to name calling in order to get your point across.

Anyone who supports authoritarianism and statism is just begging for their own enslavement.


As for your first little segment... That's an old Libertarian (U.S.) saying. We do endorse a big and powerful proletarian state. You'd have the workers on their knees begging for the benevolence of the former ruling class! You're afraid of power is all. You despise the power of the working people. Because you're a Chomskyan scum.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Power corrupts. History has shown this time and time again. You authoritarian statists just seem to can't get it though your heads.

[Comrade Trollface]

In your case, you sprewed it only for the sake of debate. 1) You don't know me, sucker. So don't front like you do.
2) I'd like to see some Leninists at least "sprew for the sake of debate" instead of getting their hackles up whenever someone brings that shit up. But going back through this thread, there hasn't even been much of that. Pretty telling, eh?

You'll admit the Cnt made mistakes, but not that they were a catastrophic failure. You'll admit Makhno made mistakes, but not that he was a warlord rapist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2Start your own thread if you like, but lets please keep this on topic.

[MuscularTophFan]

Explain how the Russian federation isn't "Authoritarian" or Imperialist.
I never said the Russian federation wasn't authoritarian and imperialist. Soviet imperalism is just as bad as federation imperialism under Putin.


If you're talking of such in the abstract, is the victory of the Taliban over the U.S. A victory for socialism? Is the victory over Israel by Hamas a victory for socialism?
None of those groups you just listed support the workers democracy or socialism. I oppose Taliban imperialistic authoritarian government just as a I oppse Hamid Karzai authoritarian government.


And secondly, you're no socialist. You're a moralist anti authoritarian who supports things on the basis of how "Authoritarian" they are, and not their class composition.
You can't be a socialist and support authoritarianism.


Don't see how you'll crawl out of this hole, debate wise. This is a grade A deadlock for you. Nothing you can say can possibly, logically justify the nonsense you spewed, unless you change the subject and blow things out of proportion, instead of addressing what I put forward against you. We already know you support "democratic Russia".
Nothing but a giant ad hominem attack.

[Commiekirby]

I wouldn't call myself a Trotsky Supporter through and through, if you really require criticisms of Early Bolshevik actions then I despise how many movements like the Anarchists were deemed as "not correct" and either disregarded or punished equally like the Reactionaries.

Also, amusing joke.

[Rafiq]

Uh Soviet Union was a right wing regime. Lenin was a right winger and enemy of socialism. Any collapse of authoritarianism is a victory for the left. Libertarians where influential in the 1905 revolution and somewhat influential in the 1917 revolution. Libertarians where the first to be targeted by the Bolshevik regime when it took power. Also you don't need to be so kiddish that you have to resort to name calling in order to get your point across.

Anyone who supports authoritarianism and statism is just begging for their own enslavement.


Power corrupts. History has shown this time and time again. You authoritarian statists just seem to can't get it though your heads.

Thanks for dodging all of my points. Of course a moron like you would think power corrupts. You're an Idealist, is all.

Power has never "corrupted". It has always been utilized in the exact way it was supposed to in accordance with material conditions.

No amount of history sais otherwise. I dare you to name one occurance, be it the Soviet Union or Mao's China, and I'll slam into your face your own bull shit.

You're a menshevite piece of shit. Scum like you paved the way for kornilov, would have gave the Bourgeousie political power and would have "let them grow and develop" like the Mensheveki scum wanted.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Teacher]

I defend the Soviet Union because in my opinion it was the first socialist society, and it is therefore slandered and lied about by bourgeois leaders and historians. The idea that "Stalin and Mao killed [insert impressive sounding number]" has become the most powerful tool in the propaganda arsenal of anti-communists. All one needs to do is mention Stalin and Mao and supposedly the debate is over. Communism is evil. QED.

Well, I think much of the factual basis for many of these anti-communist horror stories does not exist. I think the primary purpose of these stories is to discredit the entire idea of communism and workers power. Many on the left are convinced of these myths too, as this board clearly demonstrates. The saying that some leftists "support all revolutions except the ones that happen" seems pretty accurate to me at times.

The struggle for a new society is going to be brutal, ugly, and full of trial and error. People are going to die. Bad things are going to happen. Every communist revolution that ever happens is going to commit many mistakes. But I agree with the goal so I defend them from lies and try to explain their failures.

[Comrade Trollface]

I wouldn't call myself a Trotsky Supporter through and through, if you really require criticisms of Early Bolshevik actions then I despise how many movements like the Anarchists were deemed as "not correct" and either disregarded or punished equally like the Reactionaries.

Also, amusing joke.Wasn't so much talking about you as making a surmise about some of the Leninists that you were referring to.

[Commiekirby]

It doesn't appear as such but alright and what? Am I supposed to go hunt down and drag them to go talk to you?

[Comrade Trollface]

Well, I think much of the factual basis for many of these anti-communist horror stories does not exist. I can tell you a few about some of my relatives. I can vouch for those. Take a great uncle of mine for example. He was a Marxist who had immigrated to the US in Tsarist times and returned some years after the revolution to help build Socialism. This gentleman had become a master builder in the US so when he returned to his homeland, he was made a construction foreman. And some years later he was honored with the job of overseeing a construction crew working on one of those palaces of revolutionary labor that were then in vogue. Everything was going swimmingly until one day, one of the his men lost his footing and fell to his death. A tragedy, but certainly not an unusual one in that business.

Now you have to realize that this happened around 1939. So of course, the poor stupid bastard was thrown into a concentration camp and eventually shot. For being a FINNISH saboteur. Which is pretty funny considering the fact that his only 'crime' had been a prolonged residency in the USA. But they were gearing up for the Winter War, so it was as good a story as any.

This was far from an unusual incident. But no one talked about it much until after the fall of the USSR. Everyone was too afraid. And isn't that a pretty horrifying thing in and of itself? Being afraid to even discuss your stolen and murdered love ones because it might bring the fucking eye of Sauron swinging in your direction? Holy fuck!

[MuscularTophFan]

Thanks for dodging all of my points. Of course a moron like you would think power corrupts. You're an Idealist, is all.
No I'm a realist. Get it right.


Power has never "corrupted".
Prove it.


It has always been utilized in the exact way it was supposed to in accordance with material conditions. No amount of history sais otherwise. I dare you to name one occurance, be it the Soviet Union or Mao's China, and I'll slam into your face your own bull shit.
No it's utilized for whatever political ideology is currently in power.



You're a menshevite piece of shit. Scum like you paved the way for kornilov, would have gave the Bourgeousie political power and would have "let them grow and develop" like the Mensheveki scum wanted.

Your are leninist stalinist scum. If you where alive in the Soviet Union you would have been the biggest supporter of red terror and the great purge. If you where alive during the great terror in France you would have been advocating for executing anyone you deemed "enemies of the revolution." Violence leads to more violence. It's a culture of death.

[MuscularTophFan]

I defend the Soviet Union because in my opinion it was the first socialist society,
The Nazi party was officially titled the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Does that mean Nazis or Soviets where socialists just because they have the word "socialist" in their name? Soviet Union was declared socialist by the two largest propaganda outlets in the world and you fools continue to believe it.

[Art Vandelay]

I can tell you a few about some of my relatives. I can vouch for those. Take a great uncle of mine for example. He was a Marxist who had immigrated to the US in Tsarist times and returned some years after the revolution to help build Socialism. This gentleman had become a master builder in the US so when he returned to his homeland, he was made a construction foreman. And some years later he was honored with the job of overseeing a construction crew working on one of those palaces of revolutionary labor that were then in vogue. Everything was going swimmingly until one day, one of the his men lost his footing and fell to his death. A tragedy, but certainly not an unusual one in that business.

Now you have to realize that this happened around 1939. So of course, the poor stupid bastard was thrown into a concentration camp and eventually shot. For being a FINNISH saboteur. Which is pretty funny considering the fact that his only 'crime' had been a prolonged residency in the USA. But they were gearing up for the Winter War, so it was as good a story as any.

This was far from an unusual incident. But no one talked about it much until after the fall of the USSR. Everyone was too afraid. And isn't that a pretty horrifying thing in and of itself? Being afraid to even discuss your stolen and murdered love ones because it might bring the fucking eye of Sauron swinging in your direction? Holy fuck!

Then he misunderstood.

[Art Vandelay]

No I'm a realist. Get it right.


Prove it.


No it's utilized for whatever political ideology is currently in power.



Your are leninist stalinist scum. If you where alive in the Soviet Union you would have been the biggest supporter of red terror and the great purge. If you where alive during the great terror in France you would have been advocating for executing anyone you deemed "enemies of the revolution." Violence leads to more violence. It's a culture of death.

I agree with Rafiq in this matter, whether or not you know it, idealism runs through your subconscious. But as far as your arguments go, I just wanted to let you know that you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Teacher]

Now you have to realize that this happened around 1939. So of course, the poor stupid bastard was thrown into a concentration camp and eventually shot. For being a FINNISH saboteur. Which is pretty funny considering the fact that his only 'crime' had been a prolonged residency in the USA. But they were gearing up for the Winter War, so it was as good a story as any.

Assuming this entire account is true then it was a very sad event, and not at all uncommon as you pointed out. For me the question to answer is why such things happened. The fact is, there were real saboteurs and counterrevolutionaries. Many people took advantage of the climate of fear to take our their bosses or get revenge on someone they didn't like.

How is a socialist state supposed to deal with these problems? How does a revolution defend itself? It is not an easy question, especially when faced with so many dire threats as the Soviet Union was. Eventually, many of the worst abusers were arrested and executed themselves.


This was far from an unusual incident. But no one talked about it much until after the fall of the USSR. Everyone was too afraid. And isn't that a pretty horrifying thing in and of itself? Being afraid to even discuss your stolen and murdered love ones because it might bring the fucking eye of Sauron swinging in your direction? Holy fuck!

Without being able to comment about this specific case, people definitely felt comfortable criticizing the government in the Soviet Union.

[Comrade Trollface]

How does a revolution defend itself?The revolution had already been murdered in this manner years before, so your question is moot. If 'the revolution' has to resort to methods that make socialism less livable than capitalism, then said 'revolution' can go and shit in the sea. Any state that terrorizes its population in that manner needs to be destroyed ASAP.
Without being able to comment about this specific case, people definitely felt comfortable criticizing the government in the Soviet Union.Yeah, after we plugged up all the wall sockets. And even then we whispered.

[Comrade Trollface]

The fact is, there were real saboteurs and counterrevolutionaries.How can we even know that? And how do we isolate them in the sea of the state's innocent victims? The only confirmed saboteurs and counterrevolutionaries were the shitbags in power. When the US government does anything like this you probably shit a brick. But paint it red and anything goes.
Many people took advantage of the climate of fear to take our their bosses or get revenge on someone they didn't like.Hah! So the absurd apologism begins. Do you deny that people who had spent considerable time overseas were marked for 'special attention'?

[Teacher]

How can we even know that? And how do we isolate them in the sea of the state's innocent victims?

Because there were extremely widespread reports of sabotage and espionage. Do you think the capitalist powers were simply leaving the Soviet Union alone? Do you think the Soviet state had no enemies, internal or external?

The Germans were down the road preparing to wage war on the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy against Europe. The imperialists had intervened in the Russian Civil War. Doesn't it kind of defy logic to think that there weren't major espionage activities going on in the Soviet Union?

Those who took advantage of the climate of fear and killed good communists and tried to undermine the credibility of the state through terror were shot. Yagoda, Ezhov, etc.


Do you deny that people who had spent considerable time overseas were marked for 'special attention'?

I'm sure they were.

[Comrade Trollface]

The Germans were down the road preparing to wage war on the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy against Europe. You mean Stalin's dear allies and partners in the pillage of Poland? They didn't break the pact until Stalin demonstrated what the great Purge had done to his troop morale and preparedness. With the Red Army's dismal performance against little Finland. You want to talk 'saboteurs?' Stalin was saboteur-in-chief! And when Hitler finally did invade, Stalin was caught with his pants down. That alone should demonstrate how heavily a German invasion wighed on Stalin's mind in those days:rolleyes:
Maybe if he had spent more time preparing for that contingency instead of randomly terrorizing the people of the USSR, the Nazis wouldn't have cut through his frontier like it was butter.

But then if he hadn't gutted his officer corps before invading Finland, it is quite possible that Hitler wouldn't have opened a front with Russia just then. If that is indeed the case, then Stalin's stupidity and blood-lust might well have led to Hitler's downfall. Because who knows what would have happened if that Devil's pact had held? I have some ideas but you'll have to start an alternate-history thread to get them out of me.

[Peoples' War]

I'm a Leninist, and I consider myself critical of the Bolsheviks at times.

What specific things are you referring to?

[Prometeo liberado]

Of course a moron like you

I'll slam into your face your own bull shit.
Its always so interesting when a certain user(argh!!!) forgets his ridalin.

[Comrade Trollface]

I'm a Leninist, and I consider myself critical of the Bolsheviks at times.

What specific things are you referring to?
Oh, too many to list. But off the top of my head- the Bolsheviks' murder of leftists during the revolution, armed suppression of workers' soviets, horrendous treatment of people with disabilities, suppression of ethnic minorities, institutional antisemitism, etc

[Book O'Dead]

Oh, too many to list. But off the top of my head- the Bolsheviks' murder of leftists during the revolution, armed suppression of workers' soviets, horrendous treatment of people with disabilities, suppression of ethnic minorities, institutional antisemitism, etc

Liar. You're slandering the October Revolution and its leaders in more ways than one. But just to cite one instance:

There never was "institutional antisemitism" in the USSR. That was the Nazis.

[Comrade Trollface]

There never was "institutional antisemitism" in the USSR. That was the Nazis. Have ever actually talked to any Soviet Jews about this before? You're like a white person denying that institutional racism exists in the US. Or a Zionist denying that it exists in Israel Go shit in the sea!

[Book O'Dead]

Have ever actually talked to any Soviet Jews about this before? You're like a white person denying that institutional racism exists in the US. Or a Zionist denying that it exists in Israel Go shit in the sea!

I don't need to have talked to anyone to know that institutional racism did not exist in the USSR. It's just one of your fictions in order to keep ragging on a country and on a history you seem to know nothing about.

Here are three links, each leading to a revision of the Constitution of the USSR.

I demand you provide any article in any of them where antisemitism is institutionalized.

1924: http://www.answers.com/topic/1924-constitution-of-the-ussr

1936: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

1977: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html

[Halleluhwah]

I don't need to have talked to anyone to know that institutional racism did not exist in the USSR. It's just one of your fictions in order to keep ragging on a country and on a history you seem to know nothing about.

Here are three links, each leading to a revision of the Constitution of the USSR.

I demand you provide any article in any of them where antisemitism is institutionalized.

1924: http://www.answers.com/topic/1924-constitution-of-the-ussr

1936: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

1977: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html
I don't see what you're proving here. I'm pretty sure the United States constitution doesn't say "Police should harass and when possible brutalize black people."

[MuscularTophFan]

Liar. You're slandering the October Revolution and its leaders in more ways than one. But just to cite one instance:

There never was "institutional antisemitism" in the USSR. That was the Nazis.
Yeah that's some serious bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot#Speculation_about_a_planned_deport ation_of_Jews

[MuscularTophFan]

the Constitution of the USSR.

You mean the same Constitution of the USSR that says there is freedom of religion in the country?

Yeah a Constitution can say one thing but implementing it is another.

[Comrade Trollface]

Here are three links, each leading to a revision of the Constitution of the USSR.
LOL
I demand you provide any article in any of them where antisemitism is institutionalized.:laugh: You have to be kidding me. What are you smoking?
That is not how institutional racism works. For one thing, there were university admissions quotas against the Jews. The existence of these was widely known and clearly established.

Both of my parents were excellent students But my mother was prevented from studying journalism. And my father had a great deal of difficulty finding a medical school that would take him, eventually finding a provincial one where a distant relative managed to pull some strings.

[Book O'Dead]

Yeah that's some serious bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot#Speculation_about_a_planned_deport ation_of_Jews

That was not institutional antisemitism.

Institutional antisemitism is embodied in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

The purge of Jewish doctors in the USSR, though likely motivated by antisemitism, was the product of Stalin's paranoia, not of any built-in programme for their extermination.

To put on the same level what Soviet antisemites did to Russian Jews with what happened in Nazi Germany is wrong.

[Book O'Dead]

LOL:laugh: You have to be kidding me. What are you smoking?
That is not how institutional racism works. For one thing, there were university admissions quotas against the Jews. The existence of these was widely known and clearly established.

Both of my parents were excellent students But my mother was prevented from studying journalism. And my father had a great deal of difficulty finding a medical school that would take him, eventually finding a provincial one where a distant relative managed to pull some strings.

Oh, I see more clearly! You've reduced your personal grievances into a set of rhetorical attacks on the USSR and its founders.

[Comrade Trollface]

Dude- you've just demonstrated that don't even know what institutional racism is. You're way over your head. You're embarrassing yourself.

[MuscularTophFan]

That was not institutional antisemitism.

Is there anyway I can down grade someone's reputation?


The purge of Jewish doctors in the USSR, though likely motivated by antisemitism, was the product of Stalin's paranoia, not of any built-in programme for their extermination. To put on the same level what Soviet antisemites did to Russian Jews with what happened in Nazi Germany is wrong.
Stalin planned on taking all of the Jews in the Soviet Union and putting them in gulags to suffer and die. That is the SAME thing Nazi Germany die you stupid fool.

[Zav]

It's political pride, and it isn't just M-Ls. Ask me to be critical of Anarchist Catalonia. I probably won't do it. It is to me the equivalent of the USSR to Leninists.


Is there anyway I can down grade someone's reputation?
Yes. There is a set of scales next to the post number. You can add or detract points equal to your rep power (I think) but can only use it once or twice a day.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Any discussion of the Bolsheviks' (1)murder of leftists during the revolution, armed (2)suppression of workers' soviets, horrendous treatment of people with disabilities, suppression of ethnic minorities, (3)institutional antisemitism, etc is generally met with denial, accusations and outright hostility. Thanks for being a case-in-point.

Well, although i am suspect of your social-fascist, trotskyist opportunist behaviour and blatant provocative username:

1) Leftists who disagreed with the most conscious part of the working class were not murdered. Leftists who held infantile positions, such as the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks that used armed revolt on July 6th in Moscow and Petrograd 1918 against the government, were merely given a warning and a few weeks in prison for their dangerous and infantile behaviour. In August 1918 when the SR though murdered the CP member Semjon Urizki and severely wounded Vladimir Lenin in an assassination attempt, over 1,300 plotting members of the SR and Mensheviks were executed by the government.
2) Within the civil war and invasion of the Soviet Union by 16 different imperial armies between 1917-1922, the Industrial Production under the control of the workers soviets, decreased times 7, after which the Bolsheviks saw the need for the restoration of currency and a capitalist mixed economy.
3) This is ridiculous, the Tsarist government institutionalised anti-semitism to try to divide the working class and save the monarchy, the Bolshevik Party and Vladimir Lenin strictly denounced anti-semitism. The rest you write are completely idiotic statements.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Stalin planned on taking all of the Jews in the Soviet Union and putting them in gulags to suffer and die. That is the SAME thing Nazi Germany die you stupid fool.

I guess that means Stalin's longtime support for Jewish peoples' was all a sham. The Jewish Oblast, which was created in 1934 as a Homeland to the Jewish people, was just one big concentration camp. Albeit residents had a great standard of living relative to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union also wasn't the 2nd country to recognize Israel.

Oh, and I guess Stalin didn't have affairs with numerous Jewish women, as Beria claimed.


You mean the same Constitution of the USSR that says there is freedom of religion in the country?

Yeah a Constitution can say one thing but implementing it is another.
A constitution is a respectable declaration of ordinances of a country. For your claim to be true, that would mean that the entire Bureaucracy knew that the rule didn't apply. I personally doubt the Soviet Bureaucracy conspired against its people, but if you want to be equivalent to one of these 9/11 inside job kooks, then let it be to you. Just keep it out of intelligent discussion.


You're a class A troll.

The Nazi party was officially titled the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Does that mean Nazis or Soviets where socialists just because they have the word "socialist" in their name? Soviet Union was declared socialist by the two largest propaganda outlets in the world and you fools continue to believe it.
Do you even know the ideological beliefs of the Nazis? I also don't mean the obvious stuff, rather the more distant aspects. They followed the tune of ownership of the means of production by the nation.

They considered themselves so extreme, that they thought they shouldn't be characterized as either Right or Left wing, rather a 3rd Position.

I mean, it is easy for people to write little twaddles on these forums.
Saying the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist purely because the German National Socialist party had Socialist in their name, or that the German Workers Party(which dissolved and turned into the National Socialist party) sounds Socialist, falls into the classification of twaddling. If you're going to continue on these forums, at least make some good points.

[electrostal]

It's political pride, and it isn't just M-Ls. Ask me to be critical of Anarchist Catalonia. I probably won't do it. It is to me the equivalent of the USSR to Leninists.
That is ridiculous.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Not being critical of anything is idiotic. I doubt there are any serious Leninists who think that the USSR was a shining beacon of success. However, it wasn't a complete failure either. A revolution was carried out in a spectacular manner, though mistakes were made, no doubt. (when and what mistakes were made depends on who you ask.) However I doubt any serious communist simply isn't critical of the USSR.

[Omsk]

Not a single one of you great "critics" responded to my post. Not a surprise.

The thing is, we are critical of the USSR, every single one of us, some criticize the stagnation period, some comment on the invasion of the social-imperialists on Hungary, some think they abandoned world revolution with peace with the imperialists, etc, etc. We are critical of those things, but we are not critical of the victories in the 1917-1953 period, the class struggle and the real "work" that happened than, the revisionists lived from the work of those before them.

[Rafiq]

No I'm a realist. Get it right.

You're a "realistic" if what is "real" is your ideological fantasy land. You have no right to claim the "real" world for your own ideological perversions, sorry, you Idealist shit.



Prove it.


You're the one who asserted power corrupts, so it's not up to me to "prove it". But we could start by saying that never in history has power "corrupted".


No it's utilized for whatever political ideology is currently in power.


You previously denied that you were an Idealist, and now you're saying that "power" is utilized to meet the ends of not class interests, not material interests, but "Political Ideology" (Which is a component of Liberalist terminology).

You're wrong. It's utilized on behalf of class interests, and Ideology is a mere reflection, or embodiment of those interests. There can be no question you're an Idealist, that was already established when you vocalized your support for the Russian Federation because it was, according to you, "less authoritarian". You even went as far as to say it was a victory for socialism.


Your are leninist stalinist scum. If you where alive in the Soviet Union you would have been the biggest supporter of red terror and the great purge. If you where alive during the great terror in France you would have been advocating for executing anyone you deemed "enemies of the revolution."

It's because I'm a consistent communist. If I say I want proletarian revolution, and that I want to see the destruction of Bourgeois society, I better be able to accept any means in sustaining such. It is a very, very serious demand which requires very serious actions in order to protect, or sustain such a demand (terror).

Yes, I support terror. Not only would I have supported the Great Terror in France, or Red Terror under Felix Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka, I would furtherly advocate such tactics be utilized after a future revolution. You don't need to play this game where "Oh, I found you out, you support terror!" I do support Terror, and that's not a secret for anyone on this forum.


Violence leads to more violence. It's a culture of death.

"violences" are not equal. The violence of the revolution must crush the violence of the former ruling classes. Without terror, there can be no revolution, without a revolution, there can be no terror.

[Comrade Trollface]

some criticize the stagnation period,It was actually a nice change of pace from the mass terror/murder of the Stalin years. There was still unconscionable repression, the sort of thing that we'd all raise hell about if it happened in an avowedly capitalist country, but it was much more livable. There was even a brief window where they let some of us leave.

[Ocean Seal]

Leninist and other pro-statists are extremely similar to religious fundamentalists. Instead of believing in god, Leninist believe the big and powerful almighty state must do all of the thinking and for them.

The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever.
Scumbag MuscularTophFan.
Calls Leninists religious fundamentalists...
"The Soviet Union was abysmal failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest victories for socialism ever"
Speaks in absolutes

How exactly was its collapse a victory for socialism? Did socialism emerge from the ashes of the SU, or anything close to it? Honestly, while we are doing likenings you sound like the typical Fox News correspondent on Obama. He wants the state to take over and think for you... First they'll give you free toothbrushes, and then flouride follows.

[Ocean Seal]

What a shit post.


I never said the Russian federation wasn't authoritarian and imperialist. Soviet imperalism is just as bad as federation imperialism under Putin.
So why do you celebrate it as a victory for socialism? Nothing you said there was consistent.



None of those groups you just listed support the workers democracy or socialism. I oppose Taliban imperialistic authoritarian government just as a I oppse Hamid Karzai authoritarian government.
Again inconsistent. If you do truly support the less "imperialistic" and "authoritarian" side, and laud even small differences as enormous victories for socialism, then you should exclaim that the victory of the Taliban would be an enormous victory for socialism.




You can't be a socialist and support authoritarianism.
Whatever liberal.


Nothing but a giant ad hominem attack.
Because your shit posts made you have it coming.

[Comrade Trollface]

I'd prefer it if you avoided flaming on this thread. And if you cannot that you at the very least try to make it amusing and interesting to read. There is nothing more dull than watching someone inarticulately froth at the mouth.

[Omsk]

It was actually a nice change of pace from the mass terror/murder of the Stalin years. There was still unconscionable repression, the sort of thing that we'd all raise hell about if it happened in an avowedly capitalist country, but it was much more livable. There was even a brief window where they let some of us leave.

You wouldn't recognize class-struggle if it kicked you in the head.

But enough, your liberalism is to obvious at this point, you are no leftist.

[Comrade Trollface]

You wouldn't recognize class-struggle if it kicked you in the head.

But enough, your liberalism is to obvious at this point, you are no leftist.Because class struggle is a paranoid mustachioed psychopath having millions and millions of workers rounded up and shot. Right. I guess that's the struggle of the jackbooted thug class against those insidious workers and peasants:laugh:
Oh and of course we should never neglect to leave out the important contribution of the overseas armchair Stalinist class which sends delegations over to see the Potemkin villages and write raving reviews of the glorious socialist experiment.

No, sparky. I am a member of the working class. I see and live class struggle every fucking day. It is my existential condition, you withered Stalinist windbag. Go shit in the sea.

[Omsk]

Because class struggle is a paranoid mustachioed psychopath

You are not qualified to speak about someone's psychological profile and to determine what was the state of his mind, contact me when you perform a scientific research using the required metodology and with the sufficient proof, than you can make claims like that.



having millions and millions of workers rounded up and shot.

Where, when, how many millions? Why? How? This is just demagogy of the lowest order.


I guess that's the struggle of the jackbooted thug class

A class is not measured by the uniforms or the appearance of the "class members" - in short, this is just hot air out of your mouth and angry thought's packed into tiny sentences.



against those insidious workers and peasant.


The Kulaks? They were certainly not friendly toward the common worker.



Oh and of course we should never neglect to leave out the important contribution of the overseas armchair Stalinist class


Such a class didn't, and could not exist, that is basic Marxism.


No, sparky. I am a member of the working class. I see class struggle every fucking day. It is my existential condition, you withered Stalinist windbag. Go shit in the sea.

More insults and nothing. Good.

[Comrade Trollface]

A great deal can be ascertained from studying a historical figure's actions and the reflections of his family members and close associates. Do some reading.

And thank you for demonstrating that you are as humorless as you are deluded. Don't ever change. I do recommend however that you do some cursory research about actual life in the USSR. I mean other than Party sanctioned sources. As anyone who has actually been a captive of the USSR will tell you, they were packed with self-congratulatory lies.

[Art Vandelay]

You don't lend and credibility to your argument when you equate all communists with stalinists.

[Comrade Trollface]

You don't lend and credibility to your argument when you equate all communists with stalinists.I don't. Many Trots are perfectly clearheaded about the Stalin-era and Post-Stalin regimes, but tend to soft peddle some of the horrible and inexcusable things that the Bolsheviks did before Stalin out-Bolsheviked the whole lot of them. But there are some who, instead of making lame excuses, examine the whole period more or less objectively with a mind to avoiding such a disastrous path in the future. Those are the ones that I like most.

[Omsk]

A great deal can be ascertained from studying a historical figure's actions and the reflections of his family members and close associates.


What did you read? Which family members? Which associates?


I do recommend however that you do some cursory research about actual life in the USSR. I mean other than Party sanctioned sources. As anyone who has actually been a captive of the USSR will tell you, they were packed with self-congratulatory lies.

I know a lot of such captives, those who are not nationalists or right-wingers mostly talk about how life changed, and that it became better, much like in the countries of Eastern Europe after WWII.


Party sanctioned sources

I read works written by contemporary communist authors, anti-communists, non-political scholars , historical figures, etc etc. I actually didn't read more than 50-100 reports from Soviet institutions.

[Engels]

Where, when, how many millions? Why? How? This is just demagogy of the lowest order.


Stalinists and their fetish for terror...
When Marx said that the bourgeoisie must be crushed, he was not referring to their physical liquidation. But then you know that already and yet you keep apologising for the actions of a paranoid counter-revolutionary.

It was some time ago, but I have read on this very forum that even using information from the Soviet Archives, the death toll from the purges crosses 1 million at the very least.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't. Many Trots are perfectly clearheaded about the Stalin-era and Post-Stalin regimes, but tend to soft peddle some of the horrible and inexcusable things that the Bolsheviks did before Stalin out-Bolsheviked the whole lot of them. But there are some who, instead of making lame excuses, examine the whole period more or less objectively with a mind to avoiding such a disastrous path in the future. Those are the ones that I like most.

To quote Zizek, it seems "you want a revolution, without a revolution." One more for ya: "A revolution is not a tea party." The libertarian/authoritarian scale is a false dichotomy. It would be the equivalent of you coming on here and raging on about "totalitarianism." As communists, we base our support of the Soviet Union (we all support it for varying periods of time) on its class character; not some abstract liberal ideal of how "authoritarian" something is. Check out what your buddy Makhno was up to around the time of the Bolsheviks seizing state power and let me know how "libertarian" he was.

[MuscularTophFan]

You're a "realistic" if what is "real" is your ideological fantasy land. You have no right to claim the "real" world for your own ideological perversions, sorry, you Idealist shit.
Everything I advocate for is part of a long term goal. I know all to well it will take a long hard struggle before the world I advocate for can be achieved. You on the other hand are the real idealist.


You're the one who asserted power corrupts, so it's not up to me to "prove it". But we could start by saying that never in history has power "corrupted".
If power never corrupted everyone would be equal.



You previously denied that you were an Idealist, and now you're saying that "power" is utilized to meet the ends of not class interests, not material interests, but "Political Ideology" (Which is a component of Liberalist terminology).
Each country dominated by the current political ideological regime only utilizes only to that regimes ideological ends. Anywhere the Soviet army went it would install puppet governments loyal to Moscow. Stalin himself said that ideological war with the west was the difference between who's armies could occupy which territories and countries.


You're wrong. It's utilized on behalf of class interests, and Ideology is a mere reflection, or embodiment of those interests. There can be no question you're an Idealist, that was already established when you vocalized your support for the Russian Federation because it was, according to you, "less authoritarian". You even went as far as to say it was a victory for socialism.
It was a victory for socialism. Any collapse of any authoritarian regime is a victory for socialism. It smashed and destroyed the colonial system of the Soviet Union. Russia has been getting more authoritarian lately and thus requires a popular revolution of the Russia people to get rid of dictator Putin.



It's because I'm a consistent communist. If I say I want proletarian revolution, and that I want to see the destruction of Bourgeois society, I better be able to accept any means in sustaining such. It is a very, very serious demand which requires very serious actions in order to protect, or sustain such a demand (terror).

Yes, I support terror. Not only would I have supported the Great Terror in France, or Red Terror under Felix Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka, I would furtherly advocate such tactics be utilized after a future revolution. You don't need to play this game where "Oh, I found you out, you support terror!" I do support Terror, and that's not a secret for anyone on this forum.
Yes I knew you where an authoritarian from your first post. You are sounding just like a proto-Stalin.



"violences" are not equal. The violence of the revolution must crush the violence of the former ruling classes. Without terror, there can be no revolution, without a revolution, there can be no terror.
Violent revolution only gives power away to another ruling class to take it's place. The only way everyone can truly be free is if all states are abolished and all power goes to collective communities run by the workers.

[Comrade Trollface]

To quote Zizek, it seems "you want a revolution, without a revolution." One more for ya: "A revolution is not a tea party."So you're saying that you can't have a revolution without a systematic elimination of leftists who aren't in your party, followed immediately by an elimination of dissident voices in the now unopposed ruling party? I just don't buy that.


The libertarian/authoritarian scale is a false dichotomy.It obviously isn't.
It would be the equivalent of you coming on here and raging on about "totalitarianism." Having such an inhuman level of state intervention in your life is no way to live at all.
As communists, we base our support of the Soviet Union (we all support it for varying periods of time) on its class characterSo you support the USSR because it was composed of workers who were ruled over with an iron fist by a tiny bureaucratic elite with a dictator at the top of it? Why is that superior to any other mode of oligarchy/ dictatorship? Where does your love for the Soviet ruling class come from? Obviously not from any love for Soviet workers. A love of the ruler demonstrates a clear disdain for the ruled.
not some abstract liberal ideal of how "authoritarian" something isHow is a state that grinds its people under the iron heel any better than a capitalist who dies the same?

[MuscularTophFan]

How exactly was its collapse a victory for socialism?
The collapse of imperialism and authoritarianism is a victory for socialism. And since the Soviet Union was the largest most powerful imperialistic empire on earth it's collapse benefited greatly to socialism.


Did socialism emerge from the ashes of the SU, or anything close to it?
No.


Honestly, while we are doing likenings you sound like the typical Fox News correspondent on Obama. He wants the state to take over and think for you... First they'll give you free toothbrushes, and then flouride follows.
The problem has and always be the state. State capitalism as it currently exists is enslavement of humanity. State "socialism" is an oxymoron because socialism can not exist with the state. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin, both are pro-statists just like you. You are part of the problem.

[Ocean Seal]

I'd prefer it if you avoided flaming on this thread. And if you cannot that you at the very least try to make it amusing and interesting to read. There is nothing more dull than watching someone inarticulately froth at the mouth.
Well that's the first time in a while that someone has accused me of flaming. I'm sorry for disarming the wonderful posts that someone as bright as Muscular Toph Fan put out to this board. Does it not strike that someone comparing authoritarians to religious fundamentalists without even so much as postulating a clever reason might be flaming. Ironically it strikes you as flaming for me to point out how inconsistent he is being and how his worldview is not that of a socialist libertarian or authoritarian, rather that of a liberal. These are still things that you can address and refute my friend, if you wish to defend him. And while he is a sinking ship, even for the likes of you, it seems like that would be the more productive thing.


As for it being inarticulate, and dull, I will inform you that you don't have to read my posts, there is an ignore button my dear friend, it is for those who don't like to see their unlearned orthodox worldview exposed.

[MuscularTophFan]

What a shit post.


So why do you celebrate it as a victory for socialism? Nothing you said there was consistent.
I've already said this several times in other posts. Soviet Union was the largest imperialistic power on earth at the time and the collapse of imperialism and authoritarianism is a victory for socialism.




Again inconsistent. If you do truly support the less "imperialistic" and "authoritarian" side, and laud even small differences as enormous victories for socialism, then you should exclaim that the victory of the Taliban would be an enormous victory for socialism.
Taliban are more imperialistic and authoritarian. Taliban never once controlled all of Afghanistan but the Taliban claim and want to control all of Afghanistan. Taliban also adovocate for totalitarian form of government that advocates putting homosexuals to death and stripping women of all of their rights. The Taliban are enemies of socialism just like every other pro-statists.





Whatever liberal.
Oh look another ad hominem attack.



Because your shit posts made you have it coming.
You seem upset.

[Tim Finnegan]

you Idealist shit.
You really suck at insulting people.

[Deicide]

There was a time when I held the belief that the USSR was indeed an impediment to Socialism. Not because of ''imperialism'' or ''authoritarianism'', but because a proportion of Socialist and Communist parties, or movements, tended to be either aligned with or were just blatant mouth pieces/puppets for the interests of the 'Marxist-Leninists' in the Kremlin. And that tended to shape discourse and action. Thus its collapse could be seen as a ''victory'' in this sense. However, I'm currently not so sure.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I have no problem discussing the USSR critically.

[Ocean Seal]

The collapse of imperialism and authoritarianism is a victory for socialism. And since the Soviet Union was the largest most powerful imperialistic empire on earth it's collapse benefited greatly to socialism.
Pray tell then, do you support the Great Depression? Because the Great Depression meant the collapse of quite a few national economies strongly linked with imperialism. And out of it emerged the Russian Federation, you know an actually imperialist nation. And again as Rafiq pointed out, to be logically consistent you would have to praise any sort of victory for religious fundamentalists as "benefitting greatly to socialism" because they represent the collapse of the "most powerful imperialistic empire on earth". My friend before we go any further I would like to ask the most important question: What is imperialism?



The problem has and always be the state. State capitalism as it currently exists is enslavement of humanity. State "socialism" is an oxymoron because socialism can not exist with the state. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin, both are pro-statists just like you. You are part of the problem.
So the problem isn't capitalism, rather its the state? Curious. Are you going to tell me that you can construct a socialist society in your mind, and that if the manifestation of a socialist society doesn't fit your pre-conditions it is not socialist? And yet you deny being an idealist. Moreover, how can you deny being an idealist when you push the idea that I advocating a revolutionary workers state am part of the problem, when in fact I am merely a worker attempting to organize a revolution against capital. Shouldn't that pave the road for your liberal utopia? Unless you think that the revolution will take the path which people believe that it will... Which would make you an idealist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm a Leninist, and I view the USSR very critically.

I don't want to get dragged into this, because it is obvious this thread has completely went to shit (as these types of threads always do) but I would just like to make a point that I haven't seen made here yet.

So, I will start out saying my bias because there are new members in this thread that may not know my position. This post is coming from the viewpoint of a left communist following a strict Bordigist line opposed to Stalinism and Trotskyism (more to Stalinism than Trotskyism). I am a Leninist, understanding the importance of the vanguard party, etc.

What I would like to bring into this discussion is an evaluation of the material conditions of the time in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution. The Bolsheviks, almost off the bat, faced counter-revolutionary sabotage and assassination of Bolshevik leaders. Russia was also seriously underdeveloped (although it was starting to industrialize before the revolution) and after the Bolsheviks came to power 14 countries invaded Russia to destroy the revolution. In these conditions, it would be utopian and borderline idiotic to believe that a stateless and decentralized society to exist. There is no way in hell that would have happened if the revolution was to survive.

I would get into Stalin, why he represented a negation of socialism, etc. but I really do not want to get into that discussion at all.

[MuscularTophFan]

Pray tell then, do you support the Great Depression? Because the Great Depression meant the collapse of quite a few national economies strongly linked with imperialism.
Great Depression helped strengthen and increase the amount of authoritarian dictatorships on earth.


And out of it emerged the Russian Federation, you know an actually imperialist nation.
The Great Depression happened in 1930s. Russian Federation was created in 1991.


And again as Rafiq pointed out, to be logically consistent you would have to praise any sort of victory for religious fundamentalists as "benefitting greatly to socialism" because they represent the collapse of the "most powerful imperialistic empire on earth".
Religious fundamentalists are statists and thus the enemy.


My friend before we go any further I would like to ask the most important question: What is imperialism?
Imperialism is states imposing your views on a certain foreign population.



So the problem isn't capitalism, rather its the state?
Capitalism has never existed anywhere on earth. What we have is state capitalism. The state is the biggest obstacle for socialism.


Curious. Are you going to tell me that you can construct a socialist society in your mind, and that if the manifestation of a socialist society doesn't fit your pre-conditions it is not socialist? And yet you deny being an idealist when in fact I am merely a worker attempting to organize a revolution against capital.
You advocate for a violent revolution and want to install a new regime to replace the old one. What you are advocating for is the enslavement of the human race.


Shouldn't that pave the road for your liberal utopia?
Stop using the term liberal. I am by no means a liberal and your use of the term makes you look uneducated.



Unless you think that the revolution will take the path which people believe that it will... Which would make you an idealist.
No I believe that in the long term socialism will be achieved. My current goal is abolishing all authoritarian states and than finally abolishing all states all together. I am not idealistic. I know all to well my goals won't be easy and it won't be quick.

[Omsk]

My current goal is abolishing all authoritarian states and than finally abolishing all states all together. I am not idealistic. I know all to well my goals won't be easy and it won't be quick.

You are quite the ambitious fellow, huh? Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.

[seventeethdecember2016]

You are quite the ambitious fellow, huh? Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.
Unlike most Revolutionaries, he uses the word 'I' which assumes that he will try to achieve it singlehandedly. This is also coming from a guy that claims to be a Libertarian Socialist that condemns Imperialism.

Oh the irony!!!

[MuscularTophFan]

You are quite the ambitious fellow, huh? Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.
Thought history there have always been two groups of people. The authoritarian statists. Statists have gone by many different names throughout the century such as kings, emperors, the Church, Jacobins, fascists, nationalist, nazism, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Castroism, Guevarism, Juche, Titoism, hoxhaism, moderate, conservative, liberal, etc. All have the same goal which is the enslavement of the human race in the name of the almighty state.

And than there are those that advocate for socialism, equality, democracy, such as libertarians, anarchists, and syndicalists.

Socialism will be achieved. Equality will be achieved. Statelessness will be achieved. It's only a matter how much time it will take for these goals to be achieved.

[Rafiq]

Everything I advocate for is part of a long term goal. I know all to well it will take a long hard struggle before the world I advocate for can be achieved. You on the other hand are the real idealist.

Firstly, you view communism as a sort of an end goal, no? That alone makes you an Idealist. Tell me, do you know what the word means?



If power never corrupted everyone would be equal.


What a ludicrous things to say. Power has never corrupted, and no one is equal. That alone puts your argument to rest. I'll use an example. The Bourgeois class doesn't "corrupt" power, they utilize it to defend their own class interest. Indeed, in capitalism, when a "progressive" reformist comes to power, they turn neoliberal. This shouldn't be attributed to some kind of abstract, magical "power", but the unfortunate fact that in capitalism, capital utilizes and devours all corners of society to use at disposal. Such is the origin of the power corrupts myth.



Each country dominated by the current political ideological regime only utilizes only to that regimes ideological ends.

Name me one time in history when "Ideological ends" have changed, but the class composition before it didn't. You can't. You're just declaring things without providing examples. Ideology is a reflection and an embodiment of class, not the other way around. Material conditions always precede ideology, and anyone who proposes otherwise is a grade A Idealist.


Anywhere the Soviet army went it would install puppet governments loyal to Moscow.

This was, then, Imperialism. It existed to feed Soviet Capital, not enhance or protect the "ideology" of Moscow. Indeed, just a quick look at Soviet History will automatically tell you that they were never ideologically consistent, just as no agent of capital (state) is. Ideology changed in accordance with material conditions. That's how it's always been.


Stalin himself said that ideological war with the west was the difference between who's armies could occupy which territories and countries.

What makes you think that I care about what came out of his mouth? He indeed bastardized materialism and denounced what made Lenin a distinguished Marxist theoretician. He destroyed Marxist Orthodoxy.

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union was Imperialist. However, that doesn't tell us anything about whether power "corrupts" or whether the fall of the Soviet Union, which signified NeoLiberalism's triumph, the triumph of the Bourgeois class and the international defeat of the proletariat and the Left, was a "victory" for socialism. It wasn't. Had a proletarian dictatorship followed the fall of the Soviet Union, it would have. That's not what happened. And you know that! As a matter of fact, you praise it's defeat not because it was a victory for the international proletariat, but because, to you, a less "Authoritarian" regime followed. You're nothing more than a potential dog of the bourgeois class.



It was a victory for socialism. Any collapse of any authoritarian regime is a victory for socialism.

Again, this is abstract garbage. A collapse, in our world, signifies something to come replace it. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Russian federation are one and the same.

Let us use your definition of "Authoritarianism". The excessive use of Authority, no? So was the fall of Anarchist catalonia a victory for socialism? Was Makhno's defeat a victory for socialism?

Was the defeat of the French state on behalf of Nazi Germany a defeat for socialism?


You'd better answer that. See how you're abstract garbage rots to shit?


It smashed and destroyed the colonial system of the Soviet Union.

Again, what followed the destruction of the Soviet Union? Before Putin, there existed several wars in Chechnya. As a matter of fact, RF's foreign policy is virtually the same as the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. It would seem, you just have an affinity for Liberalism. And besides, even this ignores what is important and significatn: It signified the international defeat of the Left and the a new Bourgeoisie in Russia. You supposedly oppose the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution (Day becamz da new capitaliszts!!!!111), over the Tsar, simply because in your mind this was just a "newer version of capitalism" (Which is bullshit, for hte most part, but we will ignore it). You then again praise the dissolution of the USSR because the USSR, to you, was "Imperialist" and "Authoritarian" (qualities existent in the Russian Federation).

And this allows us to draw to our final conclusion: You don't give a shit about socialism or the revolution, you care about things based on how "Authoritarian" or "Libertarian" they are. You'd have the proletariat begging like dogs for the benevolence of the class enemy!


Russia has been getting more authoritarian lately and thus requires a popular revolution of the Russia people to get rid of dictator Putin.

Who are the Russian people? Neoliberals? Russia has stayed exactly the same as it has in the 1990's, "Authoritarian" wise. The only difference would be that it appears Putin and his administration are a bit more intelligent in defending the interests of the Bourgeois class then what preceded him. Of course, you'd wet yourself to the mere sight of Yeltsin, so who am I kidding?


Yes I knew you where an authoritarian from your first post. You are sounding just like a proto-Stalin.


Then stop flattering me.


Violent revolution only gives power away to another ruling class to take it's place.

Which is why I fully support a new ruling class: The proletarian class, which must rule over all others in order to abolish itself. Why do you think the violence occurs? For no fucking reason? It exists to defend the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the new ruling class. Indeed, it is only this class which can do away with all other classes. It's dictatorship is of necessity.


The only way everyone can truly be free is if all states are abolished and all power goes to collective communities run by the workers.


Which would, of course, result in mass genocide, famine, and an automatic re establishment of the capitalist mode of production. "Collective communes" in no way are capable of doing away with the remnants of Bourgeois society and indeed do not signify the defeat of the capitalist mode of production.

Think of it like the criminal world. If you don't ruthlessly use power, you'll be crushed by someone who will. The point, though, is that power can be ruthlessly utilized to abolish class society, and thus put an end to this.

Now, of course, what you propose sounds "better", that doesn't make it correlate with material conditoins, and it doesn't make it possible either. You seem to eb under the impression that whatever is "Better" (Morally) is more efficient, functional. When the contradictions in this allow us to see that you are in no position to tell us what is "Morally superior", (no one is), and that morals are products of material movement, not causes. Meaning (amoral) action gives birth to different morals, not the other way around.

[Rafiq]

You really suck at insulting people.

Will you piss off already? I know you've been destroyed by me several times over and that I rendered you incapable of debate with me, but you don't have to desperately resort to snips of my post which have absolutely nothing to do with the content put forward in them, and attempt at making a clever remark.

You want to debate? Fine. Go ahead. But I don't give a shit about you, so any other communication between us two I won't tolerate.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yer gonna slap me silly, are ye?

[Ocean Seal]

Great Depression helped strengthen and increase the amount of authoritarian dictatorships on earth.

As opposed to those genuine democratic states which existed before the great depression.


The Great Depression happened in 1930s. Russian Federation was created in 1991.
I'm well aware, I was pointing out two things...



Religious fundamentalists are statists and thus the enemy.
So are Russian kleptocrats, yet you cheer them on.



Imperialism is states imposing your views on a certain foreign population.
And I'm the uneducated one...


Capitalism has never existed anywhere on earth. What we have is state capitalism. The state is the biggest obstacle for socialism.
According to you capitalism has never existed. If you do nothing else please elaborate on this point. Surely it won't show that you are indeed a liberal.


You advocate for a violent revolution and want to install a new regime to replace the old one. What you are advocating for is the enslavement of the human race.
Alex Jones would be proud.



Stop using the term liberal. I am by no means a liberal and your use of the term makes you look uneducated.
Liberal as in liberty, isn't that what you want, to get rid of authoritarianism? Hence your society would be a liberal society.




No I believe that in the long term socialism will be achieved. My current goal is abolishing all authoritarian states and than finally abolishing all states all together. I am not idealistic. I know all to well my goals won't be easy and it won't be quick.
Idealist is not necessarily a synonym for idealistic.

Idealism-any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.

Which if you look at what you write is exactly what you preach.

[Tim Finnegan]

Eh, to be quite frank with you, I'll take an idealist over a vulgar materialist any day of the week.

[Art Vandelay]

So you're saying that you can't have a revolution without a systematic elimination of leftists who aren't in your party, followed immediately by an elimination of dissident voices in the now unopposed ruling party? I just don't buy that.

You are quite the sensationalist aren't you?


It obviously isn't.

Yes it is but whatever, I am not wasting much more of my time on you; its not my job to end your ignorance.


Having such an inhuman level of state intervention in your life is no way to live at all.

Inhuman level of state intervention? Hmm, well for one, you would have a tough time proving this, seeing as humans have had states (of varying levels of intervention since primitive communism gave way to slave societies) but leaving that aside, your comment was nothing more than thinly veiled liberalism. Whether or not you know it, your comment implicitly rehashes the human nature argument; which I only wanted to point out since this, is supposed to be, a forum for revolutionary leftists.


So you support the USSR because it was composed of workers who were ruled over with an iron fist by a tiny bureaucratic elite with a dictator at the top of it?

Yes this is exactly why I support the USSR :rolleyes:. With such ridiculous arguments it is tough to take you seriously.


Why is that superior to any other mode of oligarchy/ dictatorship?

I certainly promote a dictatorship; the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Ocean Seal]

Eh, to be quite frank with you, I'll take an idealist over a vulgar materialist any day of the week.
Except I don't simplify things into vulgar materialism, in that I don't believe that the world is at least (without going into general determinism) headed on a wholly economically deterministic path. There are other variables, however those variables are constrained by material conditions. Quite like particles moving around, one cannot help but think that the motion of a given particle will be determined without an analysis of its surrounding environment. People are no different, obviously they make choices, and the sum total of them creates history, however on the collective scale their choices are going to be heavily influenced by their surroundings.

[Art Vandelay]

Capitalism has never existed anywhere on earth. What we have is state capitalism.

Did I really just read what I think I read. Is this guy even thinking before he fucking types?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Did I really just read what I think I read. Is this guy even thinking before he fucking types?

I swear that this is straight from Chomsky too.

[Caj]

I swear that this is straight from Chomsky too.

Yep:


There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

I swear that this is straight from Chomsky too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC1sHqS9RoI

:laugh: Can't believe I used to eat this shit up; since when has capitalism become a synonym for an absolute free market economy (which would never be able to exist anyways).

[MuscularTophFan]

Firstly, you view communism as a sort of an end goal, no? That alone makes you an Idealist. Tell me, do you know what the word means?
Tell me do you know what the word "statist" means? Because that's what you are.



What a ludicrous things to say. Power has never corrupted, and no one is equal. That alone puts your argument to rest. I'll use an example. The Bourgeois class doesn't "corrupt" power, they utilize it to defend their own class interest. Indeed, in capitalism, when a "progressive" reformist comes to power, they turn neoliberal. This shouldn't be attributed to some kind of abstract, magical "power", but the unfortunate fact that in capitalism, capital utilizes and devours all corners of society to use at disposal. Such is the origin of the power corrupts myth.




Name me one time in history when "Ideological ends" have changed, but the class composition before it didn't. You can't. You're just declaring things without providing examples. Ideology is a reflection and an embodiment of class, not the other way around. Material conditions always precede ideology, and anyone who proposes otherwise is a grade A Idealist.



This was, then, Imperialism. It existed to feed Soviet Capital, not enhance or protect the "ideology" of Moscow. Indeed, just a quick look at Soviet History will automatically tell you that they were never ideologically consistent, just as no agent of capital (state) is. Ideology changed in accordance with material conditions. That's how it's always been.

Power has an always will be used against the interests of the people. Wars are waged by the state against the interests of the common man.

the ideology of the soviet union was one of enslavement and imperalims all under the propaganda illusions of "socialism." It was an ideological driven regime. It did everything it could to try to defend itself from both internal and external forces.




Again, this is abstract garbage. A collapse, in our world, signifies something to come replace it. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Russian federation are one and the same.

Let us use your definition of "Authoritarianism". The excessive use of Authority, no?

So was the fall of Anarchist catalonia a victory for socialism? Was Makhno's defeat a victory for socialism?
fall of anarchist catalonia was a defeat for socialism. How could you claim otherwise? Stalinists and fascists defeated socialism in Spain.


Was the defeat of the French state on behalf of Nazi Germany a defeat for socialism?
First of all Nazi Germany was an imperialist totalitarian state. The long term goals of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Empire, was the complete subjugation of the human race under their rule. Thankfully neither powers got along with the other which allowed the western powers to whip out Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. If Nazi Germany had won it probably would have went to nuclear war with Japan whipping out the human race. The collapse of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy where great victories for socialism.





Again, what followed the destruction of the Soviet Union? Before Putin, there existed several wars in Chechnya. As a matter of fact, RF's foreign policy is virtually the same as the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. It would seem, you just have an affinity for Liberalism. And besides, even this ignores what is important and significatn: It signified the international defeat of the Left and the a new Bourgeoisie in Russia. You supposedly oppose the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution (Day becamz da new capitaliszts!!!!111), over the Tsar, simply because in your mind this was just a "newer version of capitalism" (Which is bullshit, for hte most part, but we will ignore it). You then again praise the dissolution of the USSR because the USSR, to you, was "Imperialist" and "Authoritarian" (qualities existent in the Russian Federation).
How was the collapse of the Soviet Union a defeat for the left? Lenin and Stalin where both right wing dictators who held on to power though propaganda and terror. Yeah that's sounds really "leftists." Both of them where enemies of socialism. I guess maybe in your perverted mind the Soviet Union was the campaign of left wing movement and workers socialist paradise. Maybe you should move to North Korea. I heard it was also a socialist workers paradise!


And this allows us to draw to our final conclusion: You don't give a shit about socialism or the revolution, you care about things based on how "Authoritarian" or "Libertarian" they are. You'd have the proletariat begging like dogs for the benevolence of the class enemy!
And you support the enslavement of the human race in the name of "socialism."




Who are the Russian people? Neoliberals? Russia has stayed exactly the same as it has in the 1990's, "Authoritarian" wise. The only difference would be that it appears Putin and his administration are a bit more intelligent in defending the interests of the Bourgeois class then what preceded him. Of course, you'd wet yourself to the mere sight of Yeltsin, so who am I kidding?
The collapse of the Russian Federation would be a victory for socialism as well. I never said i support the RF I just said I support the collapse of all authoritarian states.





Which is why I fully support a new ruling class: The proletarian class, which must rule over all others in order to abolish itself. Why do you think the violence occurs? For no fucking reason? It exists to defend the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the new ruling class. Indeed, it is only this class which can do away with all other classes. It's dictatorship is of necessity.
And that's when your authoritarianism shows it self. The society you are advocating for is no better than the previous society. There will still be poor and still be a rich elite class. You have just repalced it with a different dictator and a different ideology.





Which would, of course, result in mass genocide, famine, and an automatic re establishment of the capitalist mode of production. "Collective communes" in no way are capable of doing away with the remnants of Bourgeois society and indeed do not signify the defeat of the capitalist mode of production.
It would be really nice if you actually had some evidence to back up your insane claims.



Think of it like the criminal world. If you don't ruthlessly use power, you'll be crushed by someone who will. The point, though, is that power can be ruthlessly utilized to abolish class society, and thus put an end to this.
Humanity will eventually evolve beyond the use of power to obtain things.

[electrostal]

The collapse of the Russian Federation would be a victory for socialism as well.No it wouldn't, lol. It would most likely be a victory for darkest extremism and reaction, and a clusterfuck of various tin-pot "countries" involved in various conflicts.
Look at what happened to Yugoslavia ( which by 1990 wasn't a socialist country). It surely must have been a victory for socialism.:rolleyes:


I never said i support the RF I just said I support the collapse of all authoritarian states.
Collapse of a state and the withering away of the state in general are completely different things.

[Caj]

The long term goals of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Empire, was the complete subjugation of the human race under their rule. Thankfully neither powers got along with the other which allowed the western powers to whip out Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.

:laugh: It's like reading a fucking US high school history textbook!

[Art Vandelay]

Tell me do you know what the word "statist" means? Because that's what you are.



Power has an always will be used against the interests of the people. Wars are waged by the state against the interests of the common man.

the ideology of the soviet union was one of enslavement and imperalims all under the propaganda illusions of "socialism." It was an ideological driven regime. It did everything it could to try to defend itself from both internal and external forces.




fall of anarchist catalonia was a defeat for socialism. How could you claim otherwise? Stalinists and fascists defeated socialism in Spain.


First of all Nazi Germany was an imperialist totalitarian state. The long term goals of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Empire, was the complete subjugation of the human race under their rule. Thankfully neither powers got along with the other which allowed the western powers to whip out Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. If Nazi Germany had won it probably would have went to nuclear war with Japan whipping out the human race. The collapse of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy where great victories for socialism.




How was the collapse of the Soviet Union a defeat for the left? Lenin and Stalin where both right wing dictators who held on to power though propaganda and terror. Yeah that's sounds really "leftists." Both of them where enemies of socialism. I guess maybe in your perverted mind the Soviet Union was the campaign of left wing movement and workers socialist paradise. Maybe you should move to North Korea. I heard it was also a socialist workers paradise!


And you support the enslavement of the human race in the name of "socialism."



The collapse of the Russian Federation would be a victory for socialism as well. I never said i support the RF I just said I support the collapse of all authoritarian states.




And that's when your authoritarianism shows it self. The society you are advocating for is no better than the previous society. There will still be poor and still be a rich elite class. You have just repalced it with a different dictator and a different ideology.




It would be really nice if you actually had some evidence to back up your insane claims.


Humanity will eventually evolve beyond the use of power to obtain things.

Dude, just stop.

[seventeethdecember2016]

:laugh: It's like reading a fucking US high school history textbook!
Don't give him that much credit. Most history textbooks are well written and often have a strong base.

That gentleman neither writes well nor does he have a strong base.

Edit: Excuse me, he has no base.

[MuscularTophFan]

As opposed to those genuine democratic states which existed before the great depression.
Democracy can't exist as long as the state exists. Some states however are less authoritarian than other states.




So are Russian kleptocrats, yet you cheer them on.
I don't cheer them on. You are putting words into my mouth. I cheer the collapse of the Soviet Empire just like I will cheer the collapse of the Russian Federation.




And I'm the uneducated one...
Yes you are if you support enslaving the human race.



According to you capitalism has never existed. If you do nothing else please elaborate on this point. Surely it won't show that you are indeed a liberal.
Capitalism doesn't exist but state capitalism does exist. Capitalism could never maintain it self as a system. The state has in the USA for centimes been very influence in the economic system of the country. People constantly use the terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" but they don't know what the flying fuck they are talking about half the time. That also applies to using the world "liberal" without evidence that my words and actions apply to the term you are using.



Alex Jones would be proud.
You are the one calling me a "liberal." Are you sure you aren't a right winger?




Liberal as in liberty, isn't that what you want, to get rid of authoritarianism? Hence your society would be a liberal society.
Liberals support state capitalism which I am opposed to.





Idealist is not necessarily a synonym for idealistic.

Idealism-any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.

Which if you look at what you write is exactly what you preach.
Everything I preach is realistic and based off rational thinking and thought. It's just a matter of how much time before these goals of a anarcho-syndicalist society can be achieved.

[Comrade Trollface]

Well, Hitler and Stalin did carve up Poland together. An aggressive military pact. With Hitler. That puts him on a very small list that is exclusively comprised of reprehensible people made even more reprehensible by virtue of being on that list.

[MuscularTophFan]

No it wouldn't, lol. It would most likely be a victory for darkest extremism and reaction, and a clusterfuck of various tin-pot "countries" involved in various conflicts.
Look at what happened to Yugoslavia ( which by 1990 wasn't a socialist country). It surely must have been a victory for socialism.:rolleyes:
The more states that break up allows for more central authority of the people's of those places. So the break up of the Russian Federation would indeed help lead the way of more local governance of the many different ethnic groups of Russia. Yugoslavia collapsed because one ethnic group dominated many others ethnic groups.


Collapse of a state and the withering away of the state in general are completely different things.
Both are interlinked and part of the long terms goal of the abolishment of all states.

Tell me was the emancipation proclamation and abolishment of slavery two completely different things?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Well, Hitler and Stalin did carve up Poland together. An aggressive military pact. With Hitler. That puts him on a very small list that is exclusively comprised of reprehensible people made even more reprehensible by virtue of being on that list.
Why do you insist on writing this on every thread?

[Halleluhwah]

Tell me was the emancipation proclamation and abolishment of slavery two completely different things?

Ok so almost everything of yours I've read in this thread was stupid, but this one is literally incomprehensible. What the fuck kind of analogy are you trying to draw here?

[MuscularTophFan]

Ok so almost everything of yours I've read in this thread was stupid, but this one is literally incomprehensible. What the fuck kind of analogy are you trying to draw here?
Short term goals are linked with long term goals. The short term goal of emancipation proclamation was abolishing slavery in southern states. The long term goal was abolishing slavery nationwide in the USA which was achieved by 1865.

Everything I advocate for in the long term is for socialism. The sort term goals is abolishing states allowing for direct democracy and allow collective communities to form in order to achieve the society I want.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Tell me do you know what the word "statist" means? Because that's what you are.



Power has an always will be used against the interests of the people. Wars are waged by the state against the interests of the common man.

the ideology of the soviet union was one of enslavement and imperalims all under the propaganda illusions of "socialism." It was an ideological driven regime. It did everything it could to try to defend itself from both internal and external forces.




fall of anarchist catalonia was a defeat for socialism. How could you claim otherwise? Stalinists and fascists defeated socialism in Spain.


First of all Nazi Germany was an imperialist totalitarian state. The long term goals of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Empire, was the complete subjugation of the human race under their rule. Thankfully neither powers got along with the other which allowed the western powers to whip out Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. If Nazi Germany had won it probably would have went to nuclear war with Japan whipping out the human race. The collapse of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy where great victories for socialism.




How was the collapse of the Soviet Union a defeat for the left? Lenin and Stalin where both right wing dictators who held on to power though propaganda and terror. Yeah that's sounds really "leftists." Both of them where enemies of socialism. I guess maybe in your perverted mind the Soviet Union was the campaign of left wing movement and workers socialist paradise. Maybe you should move to North Korea. I heard it was also a socialist workers paradise!


And you support the enslavement of the human race in the name of "socialism."



The collapse of the Russian Federation would be a victory for socialism as well. I never said i support the RF I just said I support the collapse of all authoritarian states.




And that's when your authoritarianism shows it self. The society you are advocating for is no better than the previous society. There will still be poor and still be a rich elite class. You have just repalced it with a different dictator and a different ideology.




It would be really nice if you actually had some evidence to back up your insane claims.


Humanity will eventually evolve beyond the use of power to obtain things.

Holy fucking shit. Am I really fucking reading this mind-numbing, stupid shit? Why the hell did you even join a forum for the revolutionary left? Seriously, this has nothing to do with your anarchism and anti-Leninism, as we have those on the site that can back their claims and debate well. This just has to do with the fact that you are a complete fucking moron. Oh my god...Seriously?

[MuscularTophFan]

Holy fucking shit. Am I really fucking reading this mind-numbing, stupid shit?
Ad hominem attack


Why the hell did you even join a forum for the revolutionary left?
Because I'm a leftist.


Seriously, this has nothing to do with your anarchism and anti-Leninism, as we have those on the site that can back their claims and debate well.
Yeah because endless Ad hominem attacks on me from Leninists/Stalinists is really backing of your claims right?

Everything I said is true:

Capitalism has never existed.
Every country has some form of state capitalism.
State socialism can not exist and is a contraction.
Statism is enslavement.
Libertarian socialism is a long term goal.
Leninism/Stalinism are both right wing ideologies and totalitarian in nature.
Direct democracy should be applied directly to individual stateless communities.


This just has to do with the fact that you are a complete fucking moron.
So I guess Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. are all complete fucking morons too right?


Oh my god...Seriously?
Another ad hominem attack

[Book O'Dead]

Everything I said is true:

Capitalism has never existed.
Every country has some form of state capitalism.
State socialism can not exist and is a contraction.
Statism is enslavement.
Libertarian socialism is a long term goal.
Leninism/Stalinism are both right wing ideologies and totalitarian in nature.
Direct democracy should be applied directly to individual stateless communities.


So I guess Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. are all complete fucking morons too right?

I am neither a Leninist or a Stalinist or an Anarchist or whatever, and I think you're an opinionated, ignoramus.

[La Guaneña]

Have you ever read Lenin? Or Marx, for that matter?

I can't believe this shit right here.

[Drosophila]

Everything I said is true:

Capitalism has never existed.

Christ, you sound like some anarcho-capitalist. Of course it has existed. It has existed in a majority of the world for decades.


So I guess Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. are all complete fucking morons too right?Thomas Jefferson? Adam Smith? What the hell? Have fun being restricted.

[Caj]

Hey, MuscularTophFan, you should stop accusing other users of directing ad hominems at you, as you clearly don't even know what that term means. Nobody is saying that your arguments are shit because you're an idiot, which would be an ad hominem. On the contrary, they are saying you're an idiot because your arguments are shit.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Everything I said is true

Wrong


Capitalism has never existed.

Capitalism does not equal absolutely no state intervention in the market. It involves generalized commodity production, wage labor, the operation of exchange-value, money as the general equivalent, etc. This has existed and exists now.


Every country has some form of state capitalism.

You just contradicted yourself. "Capitalism has never existed, except this form of capitalism."


State socialism can not exist and is a contraction.

Actually, I agree with you here. Marx had always used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably to mean a classless and stateless society, Kautsky and Lenin were the real revisionists on this.

(contradiction I think is what you meant btw)


Statism is enslavement.

You claim you're not a liberal?


Libertarian socialism is a long term goal.

...what?


Leninism/Stalinism are both right wing ideologies and totalitarian in nature.

Straight from your boy Chomsky, right?
Not even bothering with this one.


Direct democracy should be applied directly to individual stateless communities.

I am guessing you are one of those "leftists" (if you could call yourself that) that believes all the characterizations of socialism is "workers' control" right? Well, your wrong. Socialism/Communism is the destruction of the anarchy of capitalist production, the abolition of private property, the abolition of money, etc. etc. Socialism has nothing to do with "direct democracy" at all. Direct democracy could prove to be an effective means to the ends, but it is not an ends in itself.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm a leftist.

:laugh::laugh:

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalism doesn't exist but state capitalism does exist. Capitalism could never maintain it self as a system.
Could I just have a minute to ask why you think that this is state capitalism rather than capitalism? And of course why you took the liberty to redefine what capitalism is?

[Peoples' War]

Dear MuscolarTophFan,

READ A FUCKING BOOK!! Jesus H. Christ, I'd rather listen to Ayn bloody Rand than you, you fucking eejit. Seriously, do tell me the sources where you learn most of the dumb as shit you spout....I'd love to hear. This is a fucking spectacle to read.

I used to be a naive, and impressionable youth, who took to Stalin, and the propaganda of the "Communist" right, but I read and read and asked questions. From my VERY SHORT time at revleft, I learned a great deal, and began to question my ideas and the actions of Stalin.

BUT WHY CAN'T YOU LEARN? WHY CAN'T YOU READ?!!!

Just read some Marx and Engels, some Lenin, some ANYONE!!!

[seventeethdecember2016]

Muscolartophfan is just a gentleman who follow his own theoies. He has to go further and justify his theories by denouncing all left wing ideologies, calling them right winged and whatnot, as his own concepts are abstract.
I mean he's been calling Lenin and Stalin right wingers, while portraying Smith and Jefferson Left wingers.
He claims that states are evil, yet he advocates it as he claims Libertarianism has to be achieved 'through a long process.'

We can nitpick at other's theories, but all theories, which ignore Materialism, are inherently flawed.

Let him just spew his nonsense, as long as he doesn't flamebait others.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Double post.

[Rusty Shackleford]

There is this unfortunate tendency to dismiss many of the real atrocities of Bolshevik rule as reactionary inventions. If the Bolshevik experiment was indeed a worthwhile one, than it is one that we can learn from. And if it is something that we can learn from, then we must be able to discuss it critically and objectively rather than taking every opportunity to defend our squeaky clean fantasy of it. As revolutionaries, it is our duty to be prepared for disillusionment rather than defending ourselves against it at all costs.

Our goal is after all to build a society that is an improvement over the present order, and the USSR was in some ways markedly worse (though not by any means in all ways) than even its Tsarist predecessor. If we refuse to acknowledge and dissect the ways in which the Bolshevik state acted in a manner that was more befitting of a fascist state than a socialist one, then we are doomed to repeat the crimes and atrocities of the past in the future.



give me numbers. give me facts. not demagogy


by no means was the fSU perfect or even an advanced socialist state. the first half of its existence was basically back to back rebuilding after war and after that it was a massive resource investment into weapons in case of a possible third war. even then, quality of life, education, housing, agriculture, science and so on saw great advances during soviet times. though that is a process of human existence itself, it did accelerate during planned socialism.



EDIT: wow, i didnt realize this was an 8 page thread. i think im going to read thought the entire thing because this is all just lol. thank you revleft for restoring my faith in you! <3 trolls

[Rusty Shackleford]

Any defeat for authoritarianism and imperialism is a small victory for socialism. If Soviet Union was such a "glorious workers paradise" as you say why not support North Korea. North Korea is just like the Soviet Union. North Korea is another facko "socialist free democratic workers states" that want's to spread it's imperialism to South Korea just like how the Soviet Union spread it's imperialism to Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Caucasus Mountains, Mongolia, etc.

As for Russia you can't expect a rural poor country that has suffered centuries of authoritarianism to suddenly graduate over night into a free democratic society. The problem is that it's almost built into the Russian mindset to have a "strongman" type of leader to rule over them.
you do realize there is only one korea with two states? the north wanting to unify korea is not imperialist. the east germans wanting to unify with the west germans was not imperialist.

[electrostal]

Did the GDR really wanted to unite with the West, though? Wasn't the slogan "the Wall will stay for a thousand years"?
I mean DPRK constantly talks about reunification and i'm not quite sure this was the case with GDR.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Did the GDR really wanted to unite with the West, though? Wasn't the slogan "the Wall will stay for a thousand years"?
I mean DPRK constantly talks about reunification and i'm not quite sure this was the case with GDR.
They had constant talks, and the biggest proponents for it was the Soviet Union. Read some dialogues from that time and you'll see for yourself.

Back then, the Soviet stance was that Germany would Unify, but it had to leave both NATO and the Warsaw pact, making it a neutral player.

Gorbachev, the dirty swine, however ended that stance when he, in the middle of a discussion, had a 'revelation' and agreed that Germany would Unite and still be part of NATO.

[Omsk]

The quote was : "The Wall will be standing in 50 and even in 100 years, if the reasons for it are not yet removed." (Berlin, 19 January 1989)

It was a famous quote from Erich Honecker, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the SED, and it basically means that as long as the Western government continues with it's actions, the wall will stay. You must understand the siege complex of the East Germans, the were on the edge of the revisionist world, which talked about socialism, and were really close to the NATO imperialists, so a war was a huge danger, and in my opinion, the wall prevented such a conflict. (Border clashes, diversions and terrorist groups were common before the wall was built.)

This is a short, but relevant part of his (Honecker's) report. (15. June 1971.)

- From the report of the Central Committee to the VII congress of the SED.

Our course is directed to continue to comprehensively strengthen the German Democratic Republic. (Rough translation from German.)

This may be short, but it serves as a fine conclusion to this question you asked - they were realistic revisionists, they had no illusions, and they knew that such an even would no happen soon.

The unification was their long-term objective, but they realized it would require a chain of events, and that it is unlikely. Much like the "Korean Unification".

[m1omfg]

Russia and Belarus have but Poland, Baltic states, Czechia, Slovakia and other eastern European countries are all free of being colonies of Soviet Imperialistic empire. Remeber the Soviet Union was an imperialistic empire that promoted a pro-Russian agenda. Whenever Soviet Union sent troops into a place they would steal all of the the resources in that area and haul them off back to Moscow.

Is that why the vast majority of people in Communist Czechoslovakia could go on a holiday to Bulgaria or Yugoslavia every year, even 2x, while many more remote Soviet (read USSR proper, not Warsaw Pact) villages still used pit latrines?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Is that why the vast majority of people in Communist Czechoslovakia could go on a holiday to Bulgaria or Yugoslavia every year, even 2x, while many more remote Soviet (read USSR proper, not Warsaw Pact) villages still used pit latrines?
He also didn't talk about how standard of living for East Germany and Czechoslovakia, along with GDP per capita, Were better than in the SU. In fact, most Soviet Republics had better GDP per capita and standard of living compared to the SU. If the SU was imperial, it sure did a bad job at exploiting their subjects.

[m1omfg]

And if the USSR treated the disabled badly, then why there were multiple models of cars for the disabled in many Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR and why were many good sanatoriums built. True, the approach back then was a bit segragationist (West was no different in that age), but they definitely didn't abuse disabled people.

[Comrade Trollface]

Apologism re: Soviet institutional oppression of the disabled is really sickening. Socialism should really do better. "In those days," by the way, runs right up to the dissolution of the USSR. So yeah.
Here's the best English-language summery that I've seen of both the good and the horrifying:
http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/936/1111

Highly recommended read.

[Rafiq]

Tell me do you know what the word "statist" means? Because that's what you are.

Stop avoiding the question. I care not for whatever ideological rhetoric you'd wish to deploy against me.


Power has an always will be used against the interests of the people. Wars are waged by the state against the interests of the common man.

I'm not surprised by this humanist garbage. There is no "The people". There is only class interest, and classes. And power is utilized to benefit whatever ruling class in existence.

Meaning the common man has no real interest. His interest is either class interest, or false consciousnesses.


the ideology of the soviet union was one of enslavement and imperalims all under the propaganda illusions of "socialism." It was an ideological driven regime. It did everything it could to try to defend itself from both internal and external forces.

Stop declaring things, will you? What the fuck? Did you just completely disregard everything I wrote destroying this obscure assertion, and pretend it didn't even exist? Well, here you go, you insufferable piece of shit. "enslavement and imperialism" didn't exist to enhance the Soviet Union's "ideology", but it's quite the contrary.


This was, then, Imperialism. It existed to feed Soviet Capital, not enhance or protect the "ideology" of Moscow. Indeed, just a quick look at Soviet History will automatically tell you that they were never ideologically consistent, just as no agent of capital (state) is. Ideology changed in accordance with material conditions. That's how it's always been.


Read it this time, you Liberal scum.

Ideology exists not as a cause of material action and movement, but as a product of such.


No amount of Chomskyan garbage will be able to counter this fact.


fall of anarchist catalonia was a defeat for socialism. How could you claim otherwise? Stalinists and fascists defeated socialism in Spain.


Because, you fucking piece of shit, Anarchist Catalonia utilized brute Authoritarianism and the excessive use of a secret police, excessive use of authority and extremely violent methods (including torture) to sustain itself. I can link you several sources that would confirm this.


First of all Nazi Germany was an imperialist totalitarian state. The long term goals of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Empire, was the complete subjugation of the human race under their rule. Thankfully neither powers got along with the other which allowed the western powers to whip out Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.

I'm starting to suspect you're nothing more than a troll. There exists no such thing as a "Totalitarian state", for one, and secondly, the Western powers you adore so much, utilized the worst forms of colonialism in the interest of their Bourgeois classes accordingly. To reject that the Western powers were Imperialist is an abomination to any existent understanding of human history.

I feel like I'm dumbing myself down even speaking to you.


If Nazi Germany had won it probably would have went to nuclear war with Japan whipping out the human race. The collapse of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy where great victories for socialism.

This fails to address my question: You said any defeat for Authoritarianism was a victory for socialism, and indeed, French was an "authoritarian" state, as was the Soviet Union. Both were followed by "Authoritarian" states, but in Russia's case, you don't seem to give a shit. So, with this in mind, you must either confess to the following:

1. You believe the Russian federation was/is not an Authoritarian or Imperialist state

2. You hold that the collapse of the French state on behalf of Nazi Germany was a victory for socialism because it was "Authoritarian", regardless of what came to replace it was also "Authoritarian".

3. That the French State was not "Authoritarian", and by definition, as a Chomskyan, you'd have no qualms with it's existence.



How was the collapse of the Soviet Union a defeat for the left?

Call it a coincidence or don't, but around the same time the Soviet Union and it'[s allies suffered a defeat, the international left, Anarchist or Marxian alike, suffered a tremendous defeat as the victory of Neoliberalism was signified. I can link you statistics of class struggle rates, if you want those too.

Or do you deny the fact that the Left, today, is less significant than it was before the 1990's?


Lenin and Stalin where both right wing dictators who held on to power though propaganda and terror.

To call Lenin a dictator is laughable. To call Stalin one is even crossing boundaries. "dictators" don't exist. Class dictatorship, on the other hand, is the only thing that exists as far as "dictation" goes. And even then it's still half assed (Humans don't have an authority over material conditions).


Yeah that's sounds really "leftists." Both of them where enemies of socialism.

I'd just like to point out that you can go fuck off with your "socialism", which is simply an obscure Liberal vulgarization of centuries of what was the embodiment of the interests of the proletariat.


I guess maybe in your perverted mind the Soviet Union was the campaign of left wing movement and workers socialist paradise.

Neoliberalism crushed the remnants of the proletarian movement, and coincidentally, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and it's allies alike, class struggle and class consciousnesses took a major blow.


Maybe you should move to North Korea. I heard it was also a socialist workers paradise!


I don't even know how to respond to this.


And you support the enslavement of the human race in the name of "socialism."


What exactly draws you to that conclusion? What draws me to the conclusion that you don't care about class struggle or the emancipation of the proletariat, and just basing your support over things on the basis of how "Authoritarian" or "Libertarian" they are, is shown clearly by your support for the Russian Federation and the Western Powers in World War two because according to you, they were "less Authoritarian" than Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.


The collapse of the Russian Federation would be a victory for socialism as well. I never said i support the RF I just said I support the collapse of all authoritarian states.


Well, I clearly mentioned that if you hold the collapse of the Soviet Union as a victory for socialism, you either adhere to two things:

1. You adhere to this in abstract, which is garbage and wouldn't be taken seiriously by any sane individual.

2. You support it's collapse which is one and the same with what replaced it, i.e. the Russian federation.

I've pointed out numerous times that if a proletarian dictatorship followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, it would indeed be a victory for "socialism" (by the way FUCK "socialism", we exist for the victory of the proletarian class over it's enemy, not the victory of a seemingly bankrupt ideology with no class character: Chomskyan Socialism). You responded by saying that I'm an evil authoritarian monster who should move to North korea... (?)

So, for you to call the Soviet Union's collapse a victory for socialism, that would indeed automatically signify that you hold what automatically followed it a victory for socialism. Because, really, ask yourself: What made the collapse possible? What was the collapse in itself? It was the victory of Neoliberalism and a new Bourgeois class. The collapse signified the victory. It was a victory for something... For who?

Tell me now, who really benefited from it's collapse? Was it the proletarian class?



And that's when your authoritarianism shows it self. The society you are advocating for is no better than the previous society. There will still be poor and still be a rich elite class. You have just repalced it with a different dictator and a different ideology.

Shut the fuck up about "Ideology". I haven't replaced anything. I haven't created any new society. I don't have a fantasy land, or a dream world that I must "achieve" (unlike you). I recognize the importance of the emancipation of the proletarian class, for it to rise over it's class enemy and crush it with whatever amount of Terror and blood that be necessary. The Proletariat constitutes a great majority of the Industrialized countries and a massive chunk of the world population itself, perhaps even a majority.

You aren't very secretive about your affinity with Bourgeois thought, are you? As if human history is simply just "New elites! new ideologies becuz peoplz with da idoelgyz wanz da powerz cuz da ideollyzcs saz so" instead of a complex entanglement of several interests and of course the warfare between several different classes. But no, to you a proletarian dictatorship amounts to nothing more than stereotypical representations of human history set forth by Bourgeois-Liberal thinkers.



It would be really nice if you actually had some evidence to back up your insane claims.


I don't know whether I should cry or laugh. I mean, to think, of all the things you've just declared without providing any sort of evidence whatsoever, you have the nerve to tell me to provide evidence for my "insane claims".

Without the utilization of power, excessively, another class, the former ruling class, will. It's quite simple.


Humanity will eventually evolve beyond the use of power to obtain things.


What bullshit. But even if you're correct (Assuming we should just blindly accept whatever you declare) that hasn't happened, yet, has it?

Now, listen, you piece of shit: If you don't properly address what I put forward, here, in this post, and yet again continue to declare more obscure ideological bastardizations against me or as a representation of history, that of which does not correlate nor does exist in direct response to the claims I put forward, I'm not going to respond to you as I feel I've been made a fool of by a troll who has nothing better to do than try to upset me, specifically.


Now, this is quite serious: I am under the suspician that this user here is nothing more than a troll utilized simply to troll me specifically. I ask the board administration to keep a sharp eye on this one... I just can't articulate the fact that a person can be so fucking stupid.

[Rafiq]

Quick, everyone evacuate this thread before you're dumbed down to the point where even Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges become complex and erudite intellectuals!

I'm sure we all have arguments of greater quality to deal with.

[electrostal]

Institutional oppression of the disabled.... :laugh:
Explain to us how were these people "oppressed" by being provided with jobs, housing, care and so on.
Of course it may not have been adequate but the arguments for "ins. rep." are very weak.

[Comrade Trollface]

Explain to us how were these people "oppressed" by being provided with jobs, housing, care and so on.
The article that I posted provides a nuanced overview of this largely ignored part of the Soviet experience. I highly recommend that everyone here read it. The disabled population was stratified depending on how 'work-capable' they were in the state's view and several other arbitrary considerations, with the lower-ranked folks being warehoused in atrocious conditions. Some people were entirely excluded from the existing system of entitlements. Children with disabilities, for example, were not provided with any 'invalid' benefits at all until 1967. The uniting theme of Soviet disability policy was to keep the disabled out of public view and to wring as much labor out of them as possible.

At times, people with disabilities were actually rounded up into concentration camps:
There was a much darker side to Soviet policy vis-à-vis disabled veterans, whose continuing need for more support was unwelcome evidence of the Soviet state's inability or unwillingness to adequately provide for all citizens' needs. During the late 1940s and 1950s disabled veterans were dispersed from Moscow and other large cities for forced resettlement in remote areas. According to Fieseler (2006:51), kolkhoz supervisors in rural areas, in order to shed inefficient disabled workers, sometimes turned them in as "parasites;" such workers were then deported, presumably to labor camps.24 Penal camps were established in the Soviet Union for disabled prisoners and disabled veterans of the Russian Civil War and the two World Wars. The most infamous of these is the Spasskaia labor colony near Karaganda, Kazakhstan, to which 15,000 disabled prisoners were sent in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Solzhenitsyn 1985). Similarly, disabled veterans of the Second World War were secretly exiled from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Leningrad oblast' to the Valaam archipelago, in the Republic of Karelia (Russian Federation). Valaam and the fate of those veterans are still shrouded in mystery (Fefelov 1986:51-57).

[Omsk]

Solzhenitsyn is funny. Welcome to the ignore list, comrade, you are the first one who got there, i'm amazed. Not even dafty made it.

[Vanguard1917]

There is this unfortunate tendency to dismiss many of the real atrocities of Bolshevik rule as reactionary inventions.

"Bolshevik rule" lasted a few years, so it's historical fallacy to blame Bolshevism for the problems associated with Stalinist dictatorship. Stalinism rose up in Russia with the destruction of the Bolshevik tradition there.

[magicme]

Apologism re: Soviet institutional oppression of the disabled is really sickening. Socialism should really do better. "In those days," by the way, runs right up to the dissolution of the USSR. So yeah.
Here's the best English-language summery that I've seen of both the good and the horrifying:
i can't quote ur link

Highly recommended read.

It was quite an interesting article but I wouldn't highly recommend it. It's pretty long and as the author says, not enough works been done on the history of soviet era medical sector for us to be able to judge it, generalise about it etc.

I'd have to really get into the sources cited to come to a proper understanding (if i can do that, at least one i'm happy with) of that article but I don't have time and I'm put off spending that time as it smells fishy.

Examples of its fishiness - the quote from a sports official taken out of context and made into the title of the article (there are no invalids in the USSR). As the article makes clear there was much provision made for invalids etc. in the USSR. Leaving aside the quality of this care (for the moment) we can probably assume that the Olympics official in 1980 was making a point based on soviet policy at this time of not fielding a team in the paralympics. So it seems a leap to take what some geezer said about something else and use this as a description of soviet healthcare.

more fishiness - it says that the successor states to the USSR have broken away from a 'bad' soviet model

"Considerable reform has been achieved in disability rights legislation, but many Soviet-era structures, institutions, and practices are still in place either de facto or de jure." - hooray, they've got more rights on their statute books. but actually maybe this wasn't such a good thing because after the fall of the USSR we see (although the article writer seems to want to blame for tragedies that took place years after the fall of the soviet union on the USSR system) children starving to death in homes etc. Something that seems absent in the picture of the soviet system.

What I learnt from the article is that mental and physical health care in the USSR left something to be desired in its provision of these things as I would have them be. But there are horror stories in every health care system and the USSR wasn't a post scarcity society so this is completely understandable.

Of course, I hope people who say they're trying to bring about communism or whatever in the future have better results and I expect they will because of material improvements. But to dismiss the soviet health policy as evil, wrong, a backwards step for the material conditions of the Soviet proletariat must comes from a massive disatisfaction with all healthcare (like what do you think it was like in asylums in the USA and Britain in the 1940s? do you think disabled veterans may have been resettled in these places too? Britain was exporting children as orphans to Australia whose parents weren't even dead, just away at the war). Or you don't know that the healthcare provisions put in place by the glorious proletariat (whose positive results may have been ruined some by managerial incompetence/stalinist bureaucracy/whatever, I dont know about all that) in the Soviet Union were much better than what came before and probably better than what's come afterwards.

I expect also why people don't want to talk about this stuff is cos it's hard to know what to think, that's just me hopefully :)

[Robocommie]

no, I just mean any point of view that at the very least takes into account, rather than glosses over, the atrocities committed by the Bolshevik state.

Look, I know this is something you specifically stated you had a problem with, but seriously, you DO know that black propaganda on the part of the CIA was a real thing that happened, right?

Like... some things got deliberately made up. Other things got twisted by the media. Not everything, but a lot. The thing that pisses off a lot of Leninists that you might be picking up on is the fact that you seem to be taking in the Western narrative of the Soviet Union uncritically. It was Ronald Reagan who called the Soviet Union the "evil empire" remember? We Leninists feel just a little stabbed in the back sometimes, because so many people who are supposedly comrades or at least other socialists will eagerly parrot the right-wing narrative of Cold War history. That's more than a little disconcerting.

In short, it's hard for us to be objective when you appear to be reading out of the Black Book of Communism.

Furthermore, a lot of us feel that it's completely idealist (meaning non-materialist) and wholly unhelpful to talk about "real" socialism as a contrast to the Soviets. That's something you hear a lot from high school Communists - that the Soviet Union wasn't REAL socialism - but in a lot of ways that's just enshrining an abstraction. The Soviet Union came about as an adaptation to its peculiar circumstances and its peculiar position in history. Everything about it was a product of its era and all prior epochs of Russian history, and talking about it like it was a result of its ideas not being pure enough is rather missing the point.

In the end, we see almost no value in condemning the Soviet's history because doing so would only serve the ends of a polemic moralism, and give more fuel to the capitalist fire, "Communism can't work, because Stalin." Instead we choose to point out the many good things about the Soviet era in order to rehabilitate in people's minds the value of proletarian revolution. We also try to be critical of the bad parts, but in a constructive way, putting it in historical context. Leninists who can't do the latter aren't Leninists, but rather romanticists.

I don't take it seriously when libertarians try and sell me on the idea that "corporate capitalism" isn't REAL capitalism. The notion of REAL socialism as an abstract theory is going to get a lot of the same cynical reaction.

[Robocommie]

Ad hominem attack


Because I'm a leftist.


Yeah because endless Ad hominem attacks on me from Leninists/Stalinists is really backing of your claims right?

Everything I said is true:

Capitalism has never existed.
Every country has some form of state capitalism.
State socialism can not exist and is a contraction.
Statism is enslavement.
Libertarian socialism is a long term goal.
Leninism/Stalinism are both right wing ideologies and totalitarian in nature.
Direct democracy should be applied directly to individual stateless communities.


So I guess Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. are all complete fucking morons too right?


Another ad hominem attack

Oh hey, check it out, it's NGNM's brother.

[A Marxist Historian]

Apologism re: Soviet institutional oppression of the disabled is really sickening. Socialism should really do better. "In those days," by the way, runs right up to the dissolution of the USSR. So yeah.
Here's the best English-language summery that I've seen of both the good and the horrifying:
http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/936/1111

Highly recommended read.

This is almost a perfect example of the contradictions of a degenerated, bureaucratized workers state.

As the article demonstrates, material provisions for the disabled were vastly better than in any capitalist society until very recently, despite relative Soviet poverty. Anyone who thinks the disabled had any of the kind of material assistance the disabled received in the USSR under Lenin and for that matter under Stalin and his successors in the USA or anywhere else in the capitalist world before the 1960s, is ignorant.

OTOH, bureaucratic oppression, isolation and stigmatization of the disabled gradually arose and got quite nasty.

Exactly what any Trotskyist would expect. Equally hard to account for for Stalinists or those who think that the USSR was just another capitalist state.

By the way, movements of "crippled war veterans" played a considerable role in the Bolshevik Revolution, so the disabled themselves played a definite role in the creation of the Soviet state.

The Russian language, BTW, is not given to "PC." The term "invalid" that the document uses can in general only be found in bureaucratic documents. The disabled themselves referred to themselves by a word whose proper translation into English is "cripple." The only word ever used in Russia or the USSR by anybody outside of bureaucratic documents.

-M.H.-

[Comrades Unite!]

My contribution to this topic will revert to the original post.

I as a Maoist consistently criticize the Soviet Union problems,now I think you will find it be more Stalinists than Traditional Marxist Leninists that pull a mad one if anyone speaks of the UNION in vain, I was called a ''Revisionist,Trot,Fascist and Counter Revolutionary'' by a bunch of idiots who couldn't define Socialism if it came up and bit them in the arse.They called me this for criticizing Brezhnev,Socialism in one Country and Stalin's harsh policy on Georgia in the early 20's.I was also chastised for critiquing Kim Jong Il.

It isn't that many that find it difficult, It may be that some people spend alot of time defending the USSR against RightWingers that they couldn't be bothered to criticize it.

[lenin1988]

The USSR would have beeb great if Stalin never got in

[Art Vandelay]

My contribution to this topic will revert to the original post.

I as a Maoist consistently criticize the Soviet Union problems,now I think you will find it be more Stalinists than Traditional Marxist Leninists that pull a mad one if anyone speaks of the UNION in vain, I was called a ''Revisionist,Trot,Fascist and Counter Revolutionary'' by a bunch of idiots who couldn't define Socialism if it came up and bit them in the arse.They called me this for criticizing Brezhnev,Socialism in one Country and Stalin's harsh policy on Georgia in the early 20's.I was also chastised for critiquing Kim Jong Il.

It isn't that many that find it difficult, It may be that some people spend alot of time defending the USSR against RightWingers that they couldn't be bothered to criticize it.

While this may be off-topic, I don't see how you reconcile your dislike of Joseph Stalin with your Maoist convictions?

Edit: "Traditional Marxist-Leninists" (whatever that means) are Stalinists.

[Comrades Unite!]

While this may be off-topic, I don't see how you reconcile your dislike of Joseph Stalin with your Maoist convictions?

Edit: "Traditional Marxist-Leninists" (whatever that means) are Stalinists.

It does not Comrade, I have met many Marxist Leninist's who disagree with Stalinist's, Stalinism is a branch off of Marxism Leninism, but then again so is Trotskyism.

Traditional Marxist Leninist's are the common ML's they ascribe mainly to Marx Engels and Lenin.

[Geiseric]

No in the context of "bolshevik leninist" (left opposition) to "marxist leninist," which was the titles in debates in the 1920s, ML definately meant one was in line with Stalin's bloc.

[lenin1988]

Im a marxist leninst who dont like stalin

[Comrades Unite!]

Im a marxist leninst who dont like stalin

Yes I have come across people who are ascribed to Marx,Engels and Lenin teaching yet they called themselves Marxism Leninism.

I personally believe that you can be a Marxist Leninist without following Stalin.(For the side note, I am a MLM and I really take very little notice to Stalin I read his works commonly but I never feel compelled by them or feel myself agreeing with him.Of course I do on occasion agree with him, In particular ''Socialism or Anarchism'' and ''On the National Question'')

[lenin1988]

But I dont mind Stalinists..They are Leftists who are Communists just like us