Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Jackie 🌹

@IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter

Keep in mind that most countries where ostensibly socialist revolutions took place were underdeveloped, essentially emerging from feudalism. In addition, the Bolsheviks and their supporters worldwide were themselves not really advocates of things like worker's self management or participatory democracy.

I would argue that "Communism" as seen in practice was, in reality, a form of Jacobinist developmentalism, near-totally divorced from the actual intentions or beliefs of the first socialists.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:13 | Wall-to-wall | Open on todon.nl
13 comments
Jackie 🌹

@IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter

The USSR was communist in the same way Robespierre's France was democratic.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:17 | Open on todon.nl
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

The USSR wasn't communist. It was a socialist country that was aspiring towards communism.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:19 | Open on mastodon.social
Jackie 🌹

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I dispute this.

The USSR should be understood the way it was, not the way it claimed to be. Isn't that the spirit of historical materialism anyways?

Given the historical development of the USSR, it would be most accurate to say it was distinct from socialism, state capitalism, and communism. It was a hierarchical, state society where the working class had essentially no power over the economic process. The process of accumulation in the USSR was significantly different from both socialism and capitalism.

The USSR was the result of a Blanquist coup by a developmentalist and fierce clique of highly dedicated revolutionaries, and from the start was a perversion of the democratic vision of proletarian rule envisioned by Marx and Engels.

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I dispute this.

The USSR should be understood the way it was, not the way it claimed to be. Isn't that the spirit of historical materialism anyways?

Given the historical development of the USSR, it would be most accurate to say it was distinct from socialism, state capitalism, and communism. It was a hierarchical, state society where the working class had essentially no power over the economic process. The process of accumulation in the USSR was significantly...

4 Dec 2024 at 13:31 | Open on todon.nl
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

I understand the USSR the way it was, and it was socialist. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange either directly or through the state, and the USSR had collective ownership of those things through the state, making them socialist. There are many different versions of socialism. Just because the USSR didn't adhere to your specific preferred version of socialism doesn't make it not socialist.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:44 | Open on mastodon.social
Jackie 🌹

@Radical_EgoCom @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

Is America even a little socialist for owning the public libraries and parks?

4 Dec 2024 at 13:48 | Open on todon.nl
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Jackie

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter

Parks and libraries aren't means of production, so no.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:50 | Open on mastodon.social
Homem-Povo :v_com: replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom @burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter I think there's more to this than that, because there can be public companies that actually own the means of production in capitalism, and that wont make it "a little socialist". Take public transportation, water and sewer systems, electricity, schools, etc.. All of those can be run by the State when there is no private initiative to endeavour in those areas, but if it's just to fill the gap, then it is still very much capitalism.

I guess besides the objective fact/requisite of owning the means of production, a socialist State must aim to evolve to communism. Perhaps we can say it is a subjective requisite of the concept? I'm not saying that the USSR wasn't socialist in those terms, I'm just adding to your point.

@Radical_EgoCom @burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @FisherPeter I think there's more to this than that, because there can be public companies that actually own the means of production in capitalism, and that wont make it "a little socialist". Take public transportation, water and sewer systems, electricity, schools, etc.. All of those can be run by the State when there is no private initiative to endeavour in those areas, but if it's just to fill the gap, then it is still very much capitalism.

6 Dec 2024 at 13:23 | Open on ursal.zone
Citoyen_De_Catharsis ⏚

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter Robespierre was way more democratic than Staline USSR, there is no point about this

4 Dec 2024 at 13:26 | Open on mastodon.xyz
Jackie 🌹

@Citoyen_DC @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter

Yeah, the Stalin period is a whole can of worms on its own.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:32 | Open on todon.nl
Citoyen_De_Catharsis ⏚

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter Robespierre had been killed because he pushed for more democratic system, end of the monarchy and more equal society. "La terreur" was a special moment of counter-revolutionnary riots, not representative of his fights

4 Dec 2024 at 13:44 | Open on mastodon.xyz
Jackie 🌹

@Citoyen_DC @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter

Exactly the same argument is made to defend Lenin and Stalin.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:44 | Open on todon.nl
Jackie 🌹 replied to Jackie

@Citoyen_DC @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter Lenin directly modeled his actions on Robespierre, and there was even a statue of Robespierre built in the early USSR.

4 Dec 2024 at 13:45 | Open on todon.nl
Citoyen_De_Catharsis ⏚ replied to Jackie

@burnoutqueen @IndyHermit @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter Lenine's politic wasn't the same as Staline's... Moreover, displaying a root doesn't mean copying it

4 Dec 2024 at 15:18 | Open on mastodon.xyz
Go Up