|
Lenin was banking heavily on the Germans having a communist revolution. It was never meant to be Russia against the world.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
IWW Online Branch posted:At any rate what my real problem is as far the USSR goes is not the early revolutionary period, but what came later. There is a point in Soviet history where it becomes clear that any sort of advance to communism has halted and the revolutionary state has become a state in the ordinary sense. What you see in the later period of the USSR is exactly the sort of bureaucracy and officialdom that Lenin railed against in State and Revolution. I'm not an expert on Soviet society so I can't say for sure why this happened, but something clearly went wrong there. permanent. revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
All this talk about anarchists has me trying to remember that Lenin quote about it being impossible to find any 2 anarchists with the same set of politics during the revolution. I think that principle still applies today, since their opposition to things like democratic centralism means they don't have organizational practices that produce the same kind of clearly delineated party lines of, say, a PSL or SAlt. To say nothing of the fact that most anarchists you will find on the internet do not "organize" at all in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
Of course that being said plenty of Leninists online do not actually organize either, but they like to play pretend to sets of politics that had more clearly delineated party lines, making their politics a little bit more coherent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
IWW Online Branch posted:At any rate what my real problem is as far the USSR goes is not the early revolutionary period, but what came later. There is a point in Soviet history where it becomes clear that any sort of advance to communism has halted and the revolutionary state has become a state in the ordinary sense. What you see in the later period of the USSR is exactly the sort of bureaucracy and officialdom that Lenin railed against in State and Revolution. I'm not an expert on Soviet society so I can't say for sure why this happened, but something clearly went wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:All this talk about anarchists has me trying to remember that Lenin quote about it being impossible to find any 2 anarchists with the same set of politics during the revolution. I think that principle still applies today, since their opposition to things like democratic centralism means they don't have organizational practices that produce the same kind of clearly delineated party lines of, say, a PSL or SAlt. To say nothing of the fact that most anarchists you will find on the internet do not "organize" at all in the first place. Anarchists themselves readily admit this. There a Chomsky essay out there where he pretty much says that anarchism by itself is not a fully fledged ideology but more of a philosophical tendency that has attached itself to socialism in modern times because that appears to be the best way to achieve its goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Historical anarchists, specifically the late 19th/early 20th were loving awesome. Anarchists in 2020 unfortunately are not, at least in the US. Blow up some police stations and rob some banks and perhaps I'll respect the ideology more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
also there are a lot of career opportunities in law enforcement
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1206623352959451137
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Al! posted:permanent. revolution. thats not what the theory of permanent revolution is referring to. permanent revolution is/was the rejection of the orthodox marxist position that pre-capitalist societies could not have a socialist revolution and so had to progress in stages through capitalism before being able to achieve socialism and that due to this, the socialists of a pre-capitalist or pre-industrial society should basically willingly take a backseat and allow the bourgeois revolution to occur to build the material forces necessary to prepare for a socialist revolution. permanent revolution put forward that the working class could complete the "goals" or whatever you wanna call em, of the bourgeois revolution while still maintaining control by the working class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
people often think permanent revolution is an idea about the post soviet state, that its like an idea that if the revolution had just kept going then the soviet state wouldnt have degenerated. its not though, it was an idea about the state of russia pre-revolution and how a pre-industrial feudal state like russia could achieve a socialist revolution despite not having what the orthodox marxists saw as the necessary material and social basis for it
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:people often think permanent revolution is an idea about the post soviet state, that its like an idea that if the revolution had just kept going then the soviet state wouldnt have degenerated. its not though, it was an idea about the state of russia pre-revolution and how a pre-industrial feudal state like russia could achieve a socialist revolution despite not having what the orthodox marxists saw as the necessary material and social basis for it its both of those things. The Cultural Revolution was basically trying to rally the proletariat against the bureaucracy in a war-like footing to prevent calcification and Mao was a loving wimp to call it off prematurely
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
The question is how do you actually try to run the country and industrialize while all of that is going on? (That or at least attempt to conduct trade with the outside world.) Anyway, the Soviet Union evolved for hard and fast practical reasons. You needed a bureaucracy and centralization to run a war, and you needed the NEP to stablize the economy and conduct trade. The first five-year plan was an attempt to accelerate that progress but partially failed in part due to the terms of trade the Soviet Union was experiencing. I mean talking theory is fun in sort of a fan-fiction/alternative history sort of way, but when it has nothing really to do with how the world works...it probably should be de-emphasized. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
IWW Online Branch posted:Anarchists themselves readily admit this. There a Chomsky essay out there where he pretty much says that anarchism by itself is not a fully fledged ideology but more of a philosophical tendency that has attached itself to socialism in modern times because that appears to be the best way to achieve its goals. sounds like a stupid philosophical tendency then
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:its both of those things. The Cultural Revolution was basically trying to rally the proletariat against the bureaucracy in a war-like footing to prevent calcification he officially ended the cultural revolution because it was no longer effective, by 1969 it was functionally roving gangs of teens murdering random people with no oversight Raskolnikov38 posted:sounds like a stupid philosophical tendency then maybe you should read up on it some more before being so critical  there are actual political frameworks that anarchists ascribe too, like Rojava. I think anarchists tend to think there isn't only a single political system that would work, like Leninists
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
ultimately anarchists are indistinguishable from other leftists in terms of the immediate phenomenology of their goals and perspectives. they diverge from MLs in a lot of profound ways that are almost totally irrelevant in a non revolutionary context that’s kinda the problem though, they can’t be trusted to defend a revolutions intermediate stages but will almost certainly have insinuated themselves into revolutionary structures
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
hopefully bernie listens 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:he officially ended the cultural revolution because it was no longer effective, by 1969 it was functionally roving gangs of teens murdering random people with no oversight -- mao 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
great leap forward:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
i don't really think the state is the problem with the later Soviet union and if this puts me on the other side of things from my boy Lenin, that's alright. i think the problems with the later, calcified Soviet union have everything to do with the conditions of the early soviet union and not that they formed a more traditional state. the USSR was doomed after 40 years of war, unrest, etc combined with the sino-Soviet split and general failure of the revolution spreading thanks to the USA
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:i don't really think the state is the problem with the later Soviet union and if this puts me on the other side of things from my boy Lenin, that's alright. Everything basically came down to Germany. If the Soviet Union had at least one industrial power as an ally, it probably could have sustained it's otherwise unfavorable trade situation. It didn't work out, and from that point forward the Soviets were attempting to industrialize on an ad hoc basis and this is where state capitalism arguably became necessary. Obviously, the Civil War and Western intervention/sanctions didn't help the situation either. (Also, sorry, Trotsky didn't know what he was talking about and the "New Course" would have turned into a disaster. The Soviet Union in 1923 was nowhere near ready for crash industrialization and Soviet agriculture was largely still a mess.) It is also illustrative of why the PRC has industrialized the extent it has, since after Deng the PRC no longer had the same geopolitical issues as the Soviets had. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
today we ask the question "what if the germanic peoples weren't xenophobic psychopaths"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ComradePraveenK/status/1207182934035222528
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Happy birthday dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Everything basically came down to Germany. If the Soviet Union had at least one industrial power as an ally, it probably could have sustained it's otherwise unfavorable trade situation. It didn't work out, and from that point forward the Soviets were attempting to industrialize on an ad hoc basis and this is where state capitalism arguably became necessary. There's also a lot that could've happened differently in the 80s and even up to 1990 that could've saved the Soviet Union. It wasn't "doomed" from the start. Maybe the revolution would've failed or whatever, but even a degenerated workers' state ala China would be better than the full on shock doctrine of the 90s and Putinism today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
a lot of that doomed to fail stuff seems to emanate from Marxist academics who were around in the 60s and 70s and felt a sense of disillusionment with the bureaucratization and “imperialism” of the Warsaw states.I’ve always thought the imperialist bit was rich, but I think there are interesting arguments to be made about the bureaucratic nightmare of certain elements of the Soviet system as a contributor to their inability to move past a pseudo-proletarian illiberal Democratic system. it’s calcification and ubiquity definitely recreated some of the worse elements of the technocratic tyranny of western private sector - arbitrariness, long processes, artificial hierarchies the thing that others have correctly pointed out though is that all of those things weren’t nearly as bad as their western parallels, and, most importantly, the foundational mythology of the USSR was humanist and thus aspirational - reformism in the USSR towards a more socialist state was consistent with the broader ideology, whereas in the west, reformism has no coherent ideological goal beyond the perpetuation of capital interests
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Gorbachev has a lot to answer for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:the thing that others have correctly pointed out though is that all of those things weren’t nearly as bad as their western parallels, and, most importantly, the foundational mythology of the USSR was humanist and thus aspirational - reformism in the USSR towards a more socialist state was consistent with the broader ideology, whereas in the west, reformism has no coherent ideological goal beyond the perpetuation of capital interests more freedom, and liberty
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:reformism in the USSR towards a more socialist state was consistent with the broader ideology, whereas in the west, reformism has no coherent ideological goal beyond the perpetuation of capital interests It is astounding that tens of millions of people can call themselves "progressives" without a clear idea of what they're progressing towards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There's also a lot that could've happened differently in the 80s and even up to 1990 that could've saved the Soviet Union. It wasn't "doomed" from the start. Maybe the revolution would've failed or whatever, but even a degenerated workers' state ala China would be better than the full on shock doctrine of the 90s and Putinism today. Eh, by the mid-1980s they were screwed by Dutch Disease, maybe they could have avoided during the 1970s but a lot of it is just relatively mediocre leadership. Gorbachev didn't fix the issue through, and should be blamed for frittering away time on Perestroika rather than directly addressing falling Soviet hard currency reserves. I do think the Soviets were in a very difficult position, and it would have been very difficult to escape the bind they were in. Frog Act posted:a lot of that doomed to fail stuff seems to emanate from Marxist academics who were around in the 60s and 70s and felt a sense of disillusionment with the bureaucratization and “imperialism” of the Warsaw states.I’ve always thought the imperialist bit was rich, but I think there are interesting arguments to be made about the bureaucratic nightmare of certain elements of the Soviet system as a contributor to their inability to move past a pseudo-proletarian illiberal Democratic system. it’s calcification and ubiquity definitely recreated some of the worse elements of the technocratic tyranny of western private sector - arbitrariness, long processes, artificial hierarchies A big part of the issue is that Soviet terms of trade were never that great and again by the 1970s industrial growth was slowling down for rather predictable reasons. Arguably, the CMEA/Warsaw pact was so important to the Soviet Union because it at at least allowed the Soviets to trade with other states on a normalized basis. Also, as far as artifical heirachies go, I don't know what could do done about it at a certain point. What is the point of appointing bureaucrats to fire other bureaucrats? You hear this issue coming up in the US fairly often, that the problem is fundamentally about bureaucracy when in reality it is often a red herring for other fundamental issues. Honestly, I think it is just a result of a centralized system that had been around for nearly half a century at that point. Also, it should be mentioned that reformism in the West was always highly contigent on the ins and outs of the Cold War. It didn't just happen because the West suddenly became "more enlightened" from 1945 to 1980. (Btw it makes sense that the strongest social democracies in Europe were neutral states relatively psychically close to either the Soviet Union (Finland/Sweden.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It is astounding that tens of millions of people can call themselves "progressives" without a clear idea of what they're progressing towards. Capitalism, but gay people can get married.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk0QqK4b27w
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Happy birthday dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Happy birthday dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC0Om8v8H7g
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
what's cool is anarchist theorycrafting about how well in MY society it WOULDN'T be authoritarian because everyone would participate in bottom-up democracy and be polled at every stage and national plans would be devised collaboratively and officials would be recallable at any time and so on and they're just describing how the ussr actually worked https://drive.google.com/file/d/174Y2CYVVaMumINW1ApKRO5DiC7JOyCI8/view
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Gorbachev has a lot to answer for. I've yet to hold the Soviet Union together in my Crisis in the Kremlin games so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to criticism him yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Happy birthday dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM1Pc3TXDX4
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 23:12
|
|