In the USSR the serfs were still serfs even if they weren’t called that, the workers still didn’t own the means of production, and there was still a tiny room of delusional shit sticks making all the decisions, often wildly irrationally.
Better than one guy doing it, but no more, or not much more communist than the UK or France.
There were numerous struggles and issues with the USSR, of course. There was corruption, especially among the Politburo. The focus on heavy industry over light industry, though favorable during WWII, resulted in fewer luxury commodities, which resulted in liberalization and collapse.
Fundamentally, it is entirely silly to say that the USSR wasn’t leftist. It absolutely was, even if it was highly flawed and imperfect. In fact, it’s useful to analyze what went right (free eduaction, high home ownership, generous social safety net) and what went wrong (corruption, lack of luxury commodities, etc.) so as to come up with a better system.
That is, unless you think Marxism isn’t leftist, and think only Anarchism counts as leftist, in which case I really don’t know what to tell you.
That’s certainly a statement, backed up by nothing but posturing and not an ounce of analysis.
If you can meaningfully explain how Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not Marxists, I’d be very surprised, but I am willing to hear your case. What do you believe would have been the Marxist structure? The same as the USSR, just without the corruption? Is it just vibes and aesthetics?
The justification for replacing the factory committees with the union system is because the factory committees were focusing competitively on local issues, rather than cooperatively at a national level. I don’t believe this makes it less leftist. This improved productivity in a time when the factories were more chaotic.
How would you propose the Bolsheviks could have handled the situation in a more thoroughly Communist manner, given what they had to work with at the time?
I am not defending it, I am asking what you would have done. I gave their justification for going with a different Socialist system, and you haven’t explained what you would have done, which is all I am asking for.
Marx was, and I couldn’t stand reading that bastard because of how he talked about the ‘lumpenproletariat’, that shit made my blood boil, so maybe I’m missing something, pretty vague on specific structures of post revolutionary organization. More about what communism was and how to get it.
And its very cute to say the state is the workers, but when they have to switch to building impractical useless products to keep up with the irrational demands of the state, or be punished I think its pretty clearly unmasked as a lie, and blatantly insane to still claim.
I’m not claiming any one group or ideology owns the Russian revolution-it was a big tent, it was a big fight, and it took place over, at any given moment, at least half the day. Which is wild. I’m saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. They knew they were reactionaries. And they killed the communists.
What made you upset about the Lumpenproletariat? Either way, Marx describes a bit about what a Socialist state might look like in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but is careful not to actually decide anything or give a template.
I understand that you are saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. The Bolsheviks claimed the Anarchists were counter-revolutionaries. What evidence do you have that the Bolsheviks were against implementing Socialism and eventually Communism?
Reactionary is specifically used for enemies of the revolution, not the ones carrying it out.
I am not defending the killing of the Anarchists, but questioning the language of “reactionary” as used by you.
In the USSR the serfs were still serfs even if they weren’t called that, the workers still didn’t own the means of production, and there was still a tiny room of delusional shit sticks making all the decisions, often wildly irrationally.
Better than one guy doing it, but no more, or not much more communist than the UK or France.
The USSR was a Worker State, owned and run by the workers. Soviet Democracy was the base model of decision making, along the formation of Democratic Centralism.
There were numerous struggles and issues with the USSR, of course. There was corruption, especially among the Politburo. The focus on heavy industry over light industry, though favorable during WWII, resulted in fewer luxury commodities, which resulted in liberalization and collapse.
Fundamentally, it is entirely silly to say that the USSR wasn’t leftist. It absolutely was, even if it was highly flawed and imperfect. In fact, it’s useful to analyze what went right (free eduaction, high home ownership, generous social safety net) and what went wrong (corruption, lack of luxury commodities, etc.) so as to come up with a better system.
That is, unless you think Marxism isn’t leftist, and think only Anarchism counts as leftist, in which case I really don’t know what to tell you.
The Bolsheviks killed all the communists. Including the Marxists.
That’s certainly a statement, backed up by nothing but posturing and not an ounce of analysis.
If you can meaningfully explain how Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not Marxists, I’d be very surprised, but I am willing to hear your case. What do you believe would have been the Marxist structure? The same as the USSR, just without the corruption? Is it just vibes and aesthetics?
Marxist? Maybe. But they skirted around the edges and avoided any unpleasant communism.
As shown by the fact they basically dismantled all the soviets and turned them into some parliamentary shit?
The justification for replacing the factory committees with the union system is because the factory committees were focusing competitively on local issues, rather than cooperatively at a national level. I don’t believe this makes it less leftist. This improved productivity in a time when the factories were more chaotic.
How would you propose the Bolsheviks could have handled the situation in a more thoroughly Communist manner, given what they had to work with at the time?
Dude I’m not going to keep arguing with someone who tries to defend that shit.
I am not defending it, I am asking what you would have done. I gave their justification for going with a different Socialist system, and you haven’t explained what you would have done, which is all I am asking for.
Marx was, and I couldn’t stand reading that bastard because of how he talked about the ‘lumpenproletariat’, that shit made my blood boil, so maybe I’m missing something, pretty vague on specific structures of post revolutionary organization. More about what communism was and how to get it.
And its very cute to say the state is the workers, but when they have to switch to building impractical useless products to keep up with the irrational demands of the state, or be punished I think its pretty clearly unmasked as a lie, and blatantly insane to still claim.
I’m not claiming any one group or ideology owns the Russian revolution-it was a big tent, it was a big fight, and it took place over, at any given moment, at least half the day. Which is wild. I’m saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. They knew they were reactionaries. And they killed the communists.
What made you upset about the Lumpenproletariat? Either way, Marx describes a bit about what a Socialist state might look like in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but is careful not to actually decide anything or give a template.
I understand that you are saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. The Bolsheviks claimed the Anarchists were counter-revolutionaries. What evidence do you have that the Bolsheviks were against implementing Socialism and eventually Communism?
Reactionary is specifically used for enemies of the revolution, not the ones carrying it out.
I am not defending the killing of the Anarchists, but questioning the language of “reactionary” as used by you.