(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Typo posted:The Polish worker's party dismantled solidarity overnight in 1981 without help from 21st century surveillance technology, the party was capable of suppressing opposition when opposition organization was literally > 25% of the entire Polish population yea gorbachev didn't have the heart to send the tanks in, for better (lots of dead eastern europeans) and for worse (probably less intense ethnic fighting in the periphery)
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:yea gorbachev didn't have the heart to send the tanks in, for better (lots of dead eastern europeans) and for worse (probably less intense ethnic fighting in the periphery) Gorbachev actively pushed for liberalization in eastern Europe -against- the wishes of communist leaders in those countries
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
That's pretty hosed up, someone should have stopped that guy. Seems like it wouldn't have been that hard
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
What a house of cards late 20th century European communism was, think about all the major western communist parties that were liquidated fully into demsoc parties either in all but name or the name as well, with only a bunch of weirdos holding a commitment to a cause. Even the lip service ended when no one was there to pay for it anymore. Gorbachev just knew which way the wind was blowing: he could have had a cruel international struggle with the communist movement itself and emerged as Stalin 2, with a massive pile of corpses guaranteed but actual success not so much, or liberalized the country to bring it closer to the ideals of the leading European communist parties themselves. He's somewhat unjustly maligned as a person IMO, as if struggling against him alone would have fixed things. Like, his only special trait was a lack of fighting spirit that opened up the country to foreign attack, a bourgeois coup. The Chinese really took the lesson about liberalization to heart, and have the advantage of being somewhat isolated from culture that treats liberal values as automatically good, their elite is content to be Chinese exceptionalist in this sense as long as it pays off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:Gorbachev actively pushed for liberalization in eastern Europe -against- the wishes of communist leaders in those countries Gorbachev is basically a direct result of Brezhnev's failures as a leader. Afghanistan and the stagnation of the 60s-70s gave the reformers enough sway to get the gensec seat after the hardcore wing gambled on Andropov and then he died. R. Guyovich posted:i'm working on it! being able to translate stuff is something i'd really like to do in future. I'd hope you swing older for the books, there's a lot of Chinese political literature from the 60s-80s that isn't translated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i'm working on it! being able to translate stuff is something i'd really like to do in future. its so hard to find actually good translations of foreign books lol. a good example is how incredible three body problem was, but the later books had a different translator and its very obvious. a lot of the emotional nuance is missing i can imagine its so much worse in a non-fiction title, where good writing is the only thing stopping it from being insanely boring
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
lol at english speakers complaining about it being hard to find translations
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
the maintenance of a united front under state directed socialism requires force to secure the submission of unorthodox socialist movements. unorthodoxy here being defined as any socialist movement not subordinate to the central committee, in a state of selfish rebellion against something if the socialist state does not force the submission of every organization within the state, the absolute, hegemonic power of the state will inevitably be challenged by the those filthy revisionists. but what if those organizations, those surely funded by foreign capitalists, refuse to submit? we will resolve such a conflict! with socialist violence! which is different from class violence under capitalist oppresaion now this might be a rather controversial suggestion, but perhaps if a socialist state cannot exist without class war on those the state was supposed to liberate from that, it perhaps ought not to exist. perhaps this contradiction of rather dramatic terms, had something at all to do with the collapse of leninism? perhaps a demand for submission results in the submitting feeling rather shafted? i do wonder. perhaps one day a tankie shall give this ignorant revisionist an answer of enlightenment. ins'Allah
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Please take your meds
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
riddle me this, what is the basic requirement for the ideological perpetuation of the capitalist order? for if the answer is 'the use of force and violence against those who challenge its legitimacy', how exactly is this different from what the CCP is doing? both are hierarchies of power demanding submission by the threat of violence, the only seeming difference being the reasons cited to convince those subject to the threat of the legitimacy of the hierarchy being established? you can call me an anarchist moron for claiming so, but you can't have a socialist party if it ends up behaving like the factory management we are seeking to replace. you can call me whatever you want, but im not going to belong to a party like that. good thing my opinions dont matter for poo poo yeah?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
*jangles gulag keys*
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
a state that permits parallel power structures quickly gets replaced by them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
a state that cannot permit their existance doesn't deserve to exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:a state that cannot exist with doesn't deserve to exist you're not even coherent now e: "deserve"? c'mon dude. Prav has issued a correction as of 17:24 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
how so? im arguing that if you cannot build a socialist state that doesnt behave like a capitalist state, you havent actually built a socialist state. if the relations of power in a socialist state remain identical to a capitalist one, whats the bloody point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
I would contend that the targets of the use of force and violence are quite different from a capitalist state to a socialist one
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would contend that the targets of the use of force and violence are quite different from a capitalist state to a socialist one Go on
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
How about we all form a drum circle around the harmonic crystals and commune in spiritual oneness with Gaia
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
submission or drum circles. choices choices
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Go on the difference between a socialist state and a capitalist state is that in a capitalist state the capitalist class oppresses the other classes, most importantly the proletariat, while in a socialist state the proletariat oppresses the bourgeois, the nobles, and all others who would oppose government by the laboring class. i don't know where you got this hare-brained idea that only capitalists should use the state to promote their class interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Gorbachev is basically a direct result of Brezhnev's failures as a leader. Afghanistan and the stagnation of the 60s-70s gave the reformers enough sway to get the gensec seat after the hardcore wing gambled on Andropov and then he died. Gorbachev was kind of an accident, the party was looking for a moderate reformer and got radical reformer with Gorbachev, they were probably looking for someone like yegor ligachev in 1985 Gorbachev was actually sponsored by Andropov and Gromyko both of whom thought the USSR needed reforms but not anything near as radical as what Gorbachev did, but Andropov died a lot earlier than expected so Gorbachev took the reins a lot sooner than was planned, so they didn't have as much time to groom/mold him as they thought they would Typo has issued a correction as of 17:43 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
He already said he's an anarchist moron and nobody is ever gonna tell him what to do, or he might get upset and hoard his grain
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
uncop posted:What a house of cards late 20th century European communism was, think about all the major western communist parties that were liquidated fully into demsoc parties either in all but name or the name as well, with only a bunch of weirdos holding a commitment to a cause. Even the lip service ended when no one was there to pay for it anymore. Gorbachev had good intentions but Communism in 1985 was not heading towards collapse or Stalin 2.0, the system was flawed but could have chugged forward indefinitely before Gorbachev blew it up by trying to transform communism into social democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
and which of those categories do the subjects of this topic belong to? or are you saying that it is indeed possible for a state to use violence against anyone its rulers decide?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:and which of those categories do the subjects of this topic belong to? or are you saying that it is indeed possible for a state to use violence against anyone its rulers decide? you're making two different arguments. It's one thing to contend that the oppression of laborers by a nominally socialist state is an indictment of its goals and methods. It's quite another to suggest that the use of force by a socialist state in and of itself is unjustifiable
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
sure, and what clinches the argument are the reasons for the use of violence. so for the only justifications given have been of the 'they didn't go through official channels' variety. and yeah, that is an indictment against the right to employ violence. if thats enough for you, i think you'll find yourself in rather dark places before too long
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
no one here knows poo poo about the details. jose about it if you want but spare us the insinuations that only you can see the true evils of the state or whatever
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Lenin was actually wrong about lots of things
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Lenin was actually wrong about lots of things / 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:How about we all form a drum circle around the harmonic crystals and commune in spiritual oneness with Gaia You can just invite me to charge up and j/o, dude. we're friends
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Regardless of how socialist China is, I'm okay with them being the new top world superpower, the USA had it's shot, we did pretty poorly, let the Chinese have a go at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Prav posted:/ That was given to me by a UKMT tory
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Prav posted:no one here knows poo poo about the details. jose about it if you want but spare us the insinuations that only you can see the true evils of the state or whatever well if you don't think the ccp ever uses violence for the reasons i've outlined, then i suppose there really isn't anything for us to talk about and i dunno what you're so cross about. it is after all only revisionists like me who think this is a thing that is happening. and no, i will not start digging up articles for you to dismiss while phoneposting
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
I think it's true that the USSR basically replaced a capitalist running things with a gov't official running things and there was little democratic control of production nor did things change all that much in the workplace for the average worker. That said reminder that in '96 the communist party in Russia ran on restoring the USSR and was popular as gently caress until the USA/Brits/etc rigged the election to drag Yeltsin's vodka bloated corpse over the line. e: If you're saying a socialist state that can't exist without resisting capitalist imperialism/fuckery shouldn't exist period then lol at that because by that logic we'd still be running around with divine right of kings. Not all violence is equal, sorry to say. Violence got you the right to vote and the implicit threat of violence from the people is why it isn't taken away - not that people don't try to disenfranchise groups they don't like, ofc. Capitalism *is* violence, constant and every day. It's not wrong to use violence to overthrow that and resist that when all peaceful means are denied to you. Reminder that the Communist Control Act is still on the US law books ie you're already a criminal in the eyes of the US Federal Government if you join or participate or support the Communist party in the USA. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 19:35 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:the maintenance of a united front under state directed socialism requires force to secure the submission of unorthodox socialist movements. unorthodoxy here being defined as any socialist movement not subordinate to the central committee, in a state of selfish rebellion against something One: there are two fundamentally opposed groups people call tankie: the revisionists, who are the leaders and supporters of the leaders of nominally socialist states, often extending to complete garbage like Gaddafi, and the anti-revisionists who were a minority faction within communism by the time they really became a thing, who tend to hold people like Stalin and Mao not so much as objects of reverence as symbols of opposition to the later rulers of nominally socialist states. Of course, this being the internet, a bunch of tankies themselves hold the confused view that tankies are one and the same, and treat Stalin and Mao as strongmen to idolize alongside Xi and Kim Jong Un and whoever, and instead imagine like trots and ancoms when they say "revisionist". But the word really refers to people in the reins of power in the socialist movement who used their power to subvert its goals to fit their own sensibilities and interests, starting from social democratic party leadership in the early 20th century and continuing in communist party leadership. Your "unorthodox socialists" wouldn't be considered revisionist by actual antirevisionists because they by definition were not in position to revise anything outside their own sects. They would be judged on the basis of what they sought to achieve in immediate, concrete terms and what it caused or might have caused, although I will admit that there's a major tendency among communists that don't work with other sorts of communists to totally misrepresent them and judge complete strawmen. Two: The socialist state is precisely *not* a united front of socialists, it's a selected group (in an ideal world, based on vision, commitment and competence) of socialists exercising a dictatorship against enemies of the institution of socialism as they see it, which includes those of the "unorthodox socialists" who aim to subvert or depose of them. United fronts between groups that have contradictory visions is a recipe for paralysis, and no one has a right to leadership on the basis that they are nominally socialist. The method of selection is a valid point of contention: we have already seen that letting a single party select all the candidates for power practically always leads to *the revisionists* winning as the original revolutionaries are too few to rule, get old, and die off while the empty space is hotly contested by boot-licking careerists who cultivate cults of personality to cover for their treachery while they're in the minority, and denounce those cults while raising their treachery as the preferable alternative once they're in power. But like even if you had multiple independent parties, formal or informal, under a mass democracy, state or no state, they would not form some functional united front pulling toward a common goal, they would politically struggle against each other and leave it to the masses to decide who gets to impose their will on the others. And if their internal and the external electoral systems allowed opportunism and foul play to rise to the top as has been the case in both liberal and people's republics, the elected leadership would be just as counterrevolutionary. Ultimately, socialists that aim to implement systems that would lead to counterrevolutionary results are outright enemies of socialism: state and law are required to fight them just as much as the bourgeoisie until the point of no return in the development of socialism has been achieved. Since you define unorthodoxy as being locked outside leadership positions rather than on concrete theory or practice that might be superior to the mainstream, I can safely say that what was behind the "collapse of leninism" was not purging and suppressing them but failure to purge and suppress *enough* (in large part due to not having or producing enough good socialists to fill necessary positions of responsibility, also making every mis-purge a painful and permanent loss). It's the masses of working people in a time of revolutionary mood and vision that are good and need to be united, not socialists. The task of a successful social-revolutionary system would be to produce a virtuous cycle where good socialists enable the revolutionary mindset of the masses to propagate itself while simultaneously learning from them and teaching them how to advance and defend the revolution, making them a fountain of good socialists and a weapon against bad socialists, further purifying the socialist leadership, allowing them to correct their mistakes on a timely basis, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
uncop posted:Of course, this being the internet
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:27 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:Gorbachev had good intentions but Communism in 1985 was not heading towards collapse or Stalin 2.0, the system was flawed but could have chugged forward indefinitely before Gorbachev blew it up by trying to transform communism into social democracy The Soviet system was producing its own gravediggers right inside the party, to the point that they happily selected one for the leader of the country. There is no way out of that except collapse or a ruthless struggle within the leadership to reorganize the system on a basis that ends the production and power of such gravediggers. The point is that if Gorbachev had managed to keep the system just chugging along, the fork in the road would just have been postponed. A system that needs overt suppression of information and internal opposition to preserve itself is not a stable one, in the long term it can only fall over to one side or the other, and the time is close once both political disillusion and economic stagnation have set in. Incidentally, that is also why the earlier declarations of the end of class struggle and peaceful coexistence with capitalism were straight betrayal that already anticipated a Gorbachev.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
So assuming that suppressing imperialists is fine, what is it exactly that gets you from that to suppressing young marxists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
uncop posted:The Soviet system was producing its own gravediggers right inside the party, to the point that they happily selected one for the leader of the country. There is no way out of that except collapse or a ruthless struggle within the leadership to reorganize the system on a basis that ends the production and power of such gravediggers. The point is that if Gorbachev had managed to keep the system just chugging along, the fork in the road would just have been postponed. A system that needs overt suppression of information and internal opposition to preserve itself is not a stable one, in the long term it can only fall over to one side or the other, and the time is close once both political disillusion and economic stagnation have set in. Incidentally, that is also why the earlier declarations of the end of class struggle and peaceful coexistence with capitalism were straight betrayal that already anticipated a Gorbachev. The Communist party had no idea they selected a radical reformer for a leader, the party wanted a moderate reformer which Gorbachev actually was between 1985-87. Gorbachev's reforms all the way up until fairly late in the game (prob post 89) didn't really touch any of the important stuff which actually mattered and it was not inevitable that a Soviet leader would have destabilized the system. quote:. A system that needs overt suppression of information and internal opposition to preserve itself is not a stable one, in the long term North Korea, Cuba and China were all arguably in worse situations than USSR in 1980, all 3 Communist parties rely on suppression of internal dissidents and suppression to survive, all three seems remarkably capable of defying constant exhortations of their inevitable collapse. The idea that the USSR was doomed is based a very "end of history" idea, versions of which exist on both the liberal and socialist side of the political spectrum, rather than actual history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 20:35
|
|