Cowbee [he/they]Capitalist authority vs. worker authority
Onno (VK6FLAB)… and both countries are run by despots.
To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you? Unless you’re talking about the Russian Federation, but that’s not what I was talking about in this post.
You fail to understand that the USSR ceased to exist. What remains is run by a despot, regardless of your feelings or intent.
I understand that the USSR dissolved. During its time, it was comprehensively democratic in a way that supercedes what capitalism can offer, proven in practice by the sharp decay in democratization with the reinstatement of capitalism. Is your argument that the dissolution of the USSR was unavoidable? That takes a great deal of evidence to prove.
I am attempting to point out that a document that you’re holding up as an ideal, together with what it represents and how society surrounding it was structured did not last for more than 55 years, which is less time than I’ve been on this planet.
While it might represent something that you find appealing or inspiring, it didn’t last, or said differently, it failed.
I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.
I think that you need to find a better argument to promote a worker based economy. Perhaps the co-op based system in Italy, which has lasted longer, is a more sustainable way to go.
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name]did not last for more than 55 years
It was literally dissolved illegally thanks to pressure from outside forces
Your head belongs in a toilet, shit for brains
You haven’t explained why socialism was dissolved in the USSR, though, despite gesturing towards your belief that it was an inevitability of the system to do so. This is wrong, though, contemporary analysis shows that the USSR, though slowing down in development, was still positively growing and developing, and was under no real material crisis at the time of its dissolution. It was killed politically. Without understanding the context and underlying causes, you’re just hinting that it’s related to the socialist system itself.
Why then, have the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos continued their socialist systems? How are they similar, and how are they different? Do you believe their collapse is similarly inevitable as you believe the USSR’s dissolution to have been, or is that unique to the USSR’s conditions?
As for Italy and the cooperative movement, it’s neat, but it isn’t socialism, and is in the context of an imperialist state. If Italy had cooperative ownership as the principle aspect of its economy and had given up on its imperialism, we would have an interesting discussion on socialism vs cooperativism, but that’s not the case. Australia is a capitalist settler-colony and too depends on imperialism.
Flyberius [comrade/them]Losing to a hostile force means you don’t deserve to exist, eh? By that reasoning I guess Palestine had it coming.
I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.
peo.gov.au/…/the-australian-constitution-online
It isnt brought up often because its boring
Italy always had a very strong communist and anarchist movement though, the communist party was a major political force in Italy until the 1990s. I don’t really get your point, there were also numerous attempts to reform the system before it reached the state of decline that it did. Hell plenty of people didn’t even want the USSR to stop existing they just wanted some economic reforms, there were enough sharks who smelt the blood in the water though and realised they could make a killing by selling out their country and their people.
I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.
It’s the incredible mix of being completely certain about things they’re blatantly wrong about that makes shitlibs so insufferable.
I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia ?!?! I’m genuinely a little baffled by this. Reading about it, it looks like there are some important elements of the structure of the government that aren’t part of the Constitution, most notably the office of Prime Minister not even being mentioned, but that’s extremely different from there not being a Constitution at all.
I think that you need to find a better argument to promote a worker based economy. Perhaps the co-op based system in Italy, which has lasted longer, is a more sustainable way to go.
“X country was defeated, therefore a better example of a government is a bunch of cooperatives that exist inside of an imperialist state that is building up toward being taken over by fascists again.”
I’ve got nothing against those co-ops, but this is apples to oranges and just seems like motivated reasoning.
I’d also point out that countries like Australia don’t have a constitution at all and they’ve lasted longer than that.
Are you… Feeling okay? Did it even occur to you to maybe google this bonkers claim?! Now personally I don’t feel like this neoliberal, white supremacist, settler-colonial project which was founded on a continuing genocide is much of a model for anything regardless of how long it’s lasted, but it does in fact have a fucking constitution!
What’s really depressing and frustrating about all this is that at no point will this experience ever tempt you even for a second to consider you could be wrong about other things, too. 55+ years on this earth and you haven’t bothered to learn the critical thinking skills of an eight year old.
ZeroHoraYes.
However, the country that OP is discussing ceased to exist and thus its founding documents are pretty much irrelevant.
Do you believe the constitution created the collapse of the USSR? Are you arguing against full employment guarantees, equality of the sexes and ethnicities, etc? What specifically is your point on why the USSR dissolved, do you think the democratic process by which the constitution was drafted caused it to dissolve?
Regardless of how or why it failed, the constitution and the society it represented, failed to secure the continued existence of the country.
A constitution is not the only way to form a country and the two examples you gave both ended up with a despot in charge.
You have not at all connected your claims to the evidence you believe supports them. That’s my point.
You fail to understand that the USSR ceased to exist. What remains is run by a despot, regardless of your feelings or intent.
I’d ask if you’re a fucking moron but the answer is obvious
How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.
Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.
Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?
Also, your “meme” is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn’t equate that either of them are better than the other. You’ve selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn’t prove your argument in your “meme”. It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.
How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.
Democracy means “rule by the majority,” not “choose between political parties.” Liberal democracy reduces participation in governance to choosing which party represents you, while soviet democracy integrated the public into the democratic process of governance itself. Capitalists, fascists, etc. were oppressed, of course, but this is necessary for maintaining socialism.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.
This is not reality. The people both had direct participation in the democratic process, and elected representatives that laddered upward. It functioned like so:
(Not affiliated with PCUSA).
For evidence, I’ll point you to exactly the comment you responded to:
First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Did you just brush past this paragraph?
Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?
Yes, kicking fascists and sabateurs out of the communist party was necessary. The USSR was in a state of prolonged class struggle, still grappling with vestiges of the prior tsarist system while also defending itself from imperialist aggression.
Also, your “meme” is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn’t equate that either of them are better than the other. You’ve selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn’t prove your argument in your “meme”. It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.
“My” meme (stolen from r/marxism_memes) is about comparing a democratically constructed constitution with an undemocratically constructed constitution. I didn’t equate anything, just pointed out how the soviet constitution was enormously progressive for its time and how the US Empire’s still is not even to this day. There’s no fallacy here, just a direct comparison, which is totally valid.
Man, I wished I live in your world where the USSR exists
The 1936 USSR Constitution was immediately followed by The Great Purge and only lasted 40 years
The soviet union was indeed in a constant state of turmoil and siege. From aggression by imperialists on the outside, and sabateurs and fascists on the inside that sought to reinstate capitalism, the socialists were forced to take the very real threat of infiltration seriously. In the purges, the large majority of those found guilty were expelled from the party, with executions largely reserved for those guilty of extreme crimes. Even then, excess did occur, and when the Politburo learned that the NKVD was playing it more fast and loose, they were ordered to stop.
Do you believe that there wasn’t actually a serious threat of internal espionage and conspiracy? Do you believe that all of the ruling classes that were stripped from their Tsarist privledges simply gave up after the Russian Civil War? How do you suggest the soviets respond to such threats?
As for it only lasting 40 years, the 1977 constitution was more of an expansion on the 1936 constitution than a complete rewrite. It’s progressive social guarantees remained intact.
Oh I believe it without a doubt but I also believe that this fueled excessive paranoia and plenty of innocent people were screwed over, the cold war was fucking stupid, and the fact that capitalist countries still can’t stand any country being socialist is also fucking stupid but the paranoia that the siege creates can definitely have negative consequences for people living in socialist countries and IMO is a huge source of the authoritarian nature of socialist States more than there being any intrinsic authoritarian nature to socialism, I’ve seen the same thing happen in small socialist orgs.
Edit Exploiting this paranoid aspect was also a way the FBI used to wreck revolutionary groups, the black panthers come to mind.
Systems generally develop the processes to defend themselves, so you’re correct about excess happening. However, this is in the context of siege. It’s important to recognize context.
And I did, it’s also important to not white wash everything because it harms the cause more than it helps nothing caused more disillusionment in socialism than people being betrayed by the party which promised them a utopia, I have family memebers who were socialists since the 1890s.
People were not “betrayed by the party,” and socialists haven’t promised “utopia” though. I’m not white washing everything, it’s important to get an accurate understanding of genuine successes and genuine faults.
What I’m telling you now is part of my families personal history as ordinary workers who supported the Social Democratic party in the late 19th and early 20th century People did feel betrayed by the social democrats when they supported the first world war. I know that my family members thought that universal suffrage and the ability to vote for a party that said they had the workers best interests at heart would usher in a better world. For them there definitely a utopian aspect to socialism and they thought their vote would usher in a better world. After the first world war my great grandparents were like fuck that shit, they felt betrayed and didn’t bother joining the communist party anymore.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, considering the bolsheviks supported pulling out of World War I.
Lol, the Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian social democratic party. I’m not Russian.
The bolsheviks supported pulling out of the war, and did. I’m not referring to non-communist parties, this meme itself is about the USSR. I’m not sure why you’re bringing in social democratic parties.
You do know that communist parties grew out of social democratic parties right? Seeing as my family members weren’t Russian it was kind of irrelevant for them what the Bolsheviks were doing they were sick of war, they were just were trying to scrape food together because at the end of the first world war people in continental Europe were starving and the idea of waging a class war for the radical section of the party that sent you into the war in the first place just seemed tiresome.
Anyways what I’m getting at is I kind of understand why so many people are cynical about socialism since for some people its not some crazy new radical idea, they’ve been burnt by politics before.
The Russian Social Democratic Party was a communist party, not what we think of as social democracy. I’m specifically talking about Russia, because Russia was the only country at the beginning of the 20th century to actually achieve socialism. Your family, unless I’m misreading you, isn’t what I’m talking about when advocating for socialism, because they never achieved it if they weren’t in Russia at the time of World War I.
I know what Social Democratic parties were, I’m trying to explain to you that some people were already disillusioned by what you call communist parties before the Bolsheviks had their revolution. I’m telling you I had family members who were part of the revolutionary proletariat before the Social Democratic communist split and by the time the first world war ended they were already disillusioned with the whole ideology.
Sure, but I don’t really think that’s universal.
It was a big part of why the Nazi party came to power and why so many people didn’t fight back against it people were so disillusioned with politics and the socialist parties had lost a lot of trust.
By the time fascism was on the rise they were just in survival mode because they’d already seen one war and just wanted to survive the next one. It’s was hard to get a bunch of people to fight for an idea that has screwed them over already. It definitely wasn’t the right thing to do but it turns out not every one is a hero when it comes to fighting oppressive regimes even if they don’t like them. Enough people will just keep their heads down and try to survive. History isn’t something that just takes place in books it happened to real people who also play a role in shaping its outcome.
Filler text
Gotcha. Either way, I’m aware that activism can be draining and it can be easy to become demotivated.
More than just draining politics can get you killed. I edited my other post so idk if you saw it but just out of interest are you american? You don’t need to dox yourself it’s why I didn’t tell you which country I’m talking about, but you were close to guessing which social democratic party I’m talking about.
Yea I’m not going to press you any further, I’ll edit it out of my comments. Yes, I’m a Statesian.
That’s because capitalism guarantees a certain powerful dynamic by capitalists and socialism removes the power to a select few of the population. To put it simply the power given to capitalists by capitalism is threatened by socialism which is why capitalists hate livable wages or anything that allows the sheep workers from having peace. It makes you less reliant on capitalists for everything and they can’t accept that. To make workers simple to understand they want a dependent relationship between everyone and everything and capitalists or capitalism. Kind of like a parasite but you should already know that by now.
I do, but that won’t stop some one on the internet explaining it to me for the 100th time.
Let’s be honest at this point this needs to be a public announcement every 5 minutes.
No thanks I don’t need some one constantly explaining that to me. I’d rather have some one reminding people to wash their hands.
Then you priorize the wrong problems in society. Capitalism is as horrible as the nazi regime if not worse.
ExotiqueMatterCan you point to me where in the constitution does it say that?
I don’t care about the Soviet constitution anymore dude for all I know somebody gave me a fake version to read. I remember reading it in some version of the constitution I found online like 14 years ago though so I made a joke about it. Honestly seeing how most contemporary States work having a constitutional guarantee to something doesn’t mean much anyways seeing as powerful people tend pick and chose when to enforce their own laws and that seems to be the case everywhere so I doubt it was very different in the USSR.
Anyways it would be cool if people found a way to stop destroying the environment and starting wars I’m still waiting for that political miracle.