TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
it was slightly better at being capitalist, well for a while?
Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Yep.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
yes. i thought you'd mourn the demise of the russian soviet socialist republic. fucking crypto-brezhnevite
I can only presume you are taking the piss, as usual.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The highlighted bit, is really the only point I was making.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i can only presume you're still drinking it
You trot loon.
My East Berlin friends are still furious that their DDR qualifications werent recognised following reunification; believing it was nothing but wessie arrogance and spite.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
surely it was?
I dont know much about the subject but ime education in the east was just as good as in the west.
Interestingly, I heard on the radio the other night a report about the upcoming elections in Belarus. Now that the Russians are washing their hands of Lukashenko, it seems he's turning to the EU, who have told him to clean his act up (as if they can talk). So the opposition candidates were expressing amazement that they can do and say pretty much what they want now. After interviewing some politicos, the British reporter went out on the streets to see what passers by thought. Amusingly, no matter how leading the questions, they couldn't find anybody who was overtly critical of the current regime (despite no regime goons being anywhere in sight.) Some expressed satisfaction that they didn't have to worry about the safety of their kids while they were out in the evening, that their living standards hadn't nosedived like that of the people of Russia and Ukraine, and said straight out that democracy isn't everything.* Of course, they've got in mind their aforementioned neighbours who quickly found out that in the former Russian/Soviet empire democracy means theft of the country's assets on a gigantic scale, mass poverty, the return of once-banished disease, a level of large and small scale crime not seen in living memory, and a situation where trying to organise to improve your lot could easily see you murdered, either by the state directly or by its mafia allies. A few years ago Mrs L, who is employed selling machinery, went on a works jaunt to Minsk and elsewhere in Belarus. She met both opponents and supporters of the regime, often sitting together at the same table. Before she left, somebody pressed upon her a video about the opposition protests after the last, apparently rigged, election. Albeit it was in Belarussian, but it gave us the impression that they made the mistake of putting what appeared to be a sixteen year-old girl in charge of the 'democratic revolution.' Which, you never know, may have been its downfall...
* Note to idiots: I am not suggesting Lukashenko's regime is socialist, nor that it isn't implicated in repression, asset theft and international crime.
So is Cuba, China, korea, 'russia'.
Not wanting to get into what is or isn't 'real socialism,' but those states dismantled the old capitalist state and got rid of the old property relations. Venezuela hasn't.
Yes. Considerably better.
Wasnt it all censorship and propoganda though?
I think we are probably the freest people ever, right now in the West. But you can't argue with what DotCom said about the rest of the world starving so we can be rich.
There was plenty of censorship and propaganda, although, as somebody above has mentioned, the difference between the USSR during and after Stalin, in terms of repression, was vast.
Having said that, it seems that little in the way of world literature was censored. They were more interested in preventing their own dissidents from being published. A problem to be sure, but no real obstacle to cultivating a well-educated population.
Free in what way? What does freedom even mean?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
No.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
It was me and I'm not much of a fan of "Stalinism" but the improvements in living standards between 1945 and 1991 and especially compared to countries of a similar level of development are undeniable.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
did they? Not according to 'Marxism'. [Will the real Marxism please stand up.]
A mode of production was defined by Karl Marx by the class relations. The relations between those who controlled the means of production, and those who are producers.
So in feudal society, the Kings and the Lords etc, were basically a Mafia system. They went round to the peasants saying, give us some of your food, and we will protect you. The peasants said who from, and the Lord said, well me for a start.
Over time this became ingrained by custom and religion. However, great swathes of the means of production, the land came to be owned by the church. The Kings and the Lords controlled the land individually, the church bureaucracy collectively. However, the mode of production whether taking place under the control of the church, or under the control of the Kings and the Lords, was the same mode of production, feudalism.
Likewise, in capitalism , the non-Soviet bloc countries, the means of production were controled by individuals, in the Soviet bloc countries, the means of production were controlled by a bureaucracy, but in both cases the class relations remained the same, it remained capitalism, surplus value was still extracted from the producers.
The economy didn't even exist in isolation, in the Soviet bloc countries. It was still tied into the global capitalist economic system, by its military competition. In order to compete with the economies of the West ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, the Soviet bloc countries bureaucracy had to extract more and more surplus value.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I haven't read all the comments, but in my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous to belittle how revolutionary state capitalism was for capitalism. In the 19 twenties and thirties, in particular, state capitalism seemed to negate "the tendency for the rate of profit to fall", depression.
this is why Stalinism had so much influence over the international working class, and surprisingly over capitalism itself. In my opinion, it started a trend/mimicking, which saw a massive increase of state direction of capital throughout the world. For example, it is a little trumpeted fact, that after the Second World War, Japan's super economy was almost entirely built upon state direction of capital.
A lot of the terrible things that happened in Russia, which have been attributed to vindictiveness, political expediency etc, were actually Stalin mimicking capitalisms development. If you take all the barbarity of the land enclosures, imperialism, slavery of British capitalism, and condense them down into a 10 year period, they would look pretty horrific. This is what Russia had to do, in order to ward off military subjugation. It had to take one of the most backward countries in the world, and turn it into a world superpower. A pretty amazing achievement.
Now, again, in my opinion, if you crunch the numbers, I don't think Stalinism was as bad as Hitler's fascism, as far as dictatorships are concerned. BUT! Again, it is my personal opinion, but I think Stalinism is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. This is because it "deflected" the international working class and international revolution into a cul-de-sac, from which it has never really extricated itself.
PS. Sorry for the shorthand. Those who have read Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, and Cliffs theory of Permanent Revolution Deflected, Will understand the references I am making. Though I don't think Cliff appreciated the full consequences of his insight.
this is why Stalinism had so much influence over the international working class, and surprisingly over capitalism itself. In my opinion, it started a trend/mimicking, which saw a massive increase of state direction of capital throughout the world. For example, it is a little trumpeted fact, that after the Second World War, Japan's super economy was almost entirely built upon state direction of capital.A lot of the terrible things that happened in Russia, which have been attributed to vindictiveness, political expediency etc, were actually Stalin mimicking capitalisms development. If you take all the barbarity of the land enclosures, imperialism, slavery of British capitalism, and condense them down into a 10 year period, they would look pretty horrific. This is what Russia had to do, in order to ward off military subjugation. It had to take one of the most backward countries in the world, and turn it into a world superpower. A pretty amazing achievement.
Now, again, in my opinion, if you crunch the numbers, I don't think Stalinism was as bad as Hitler's fascism, as far as dictatorships are concerned. BUT! Again, it is my personal opinion, but I think Stalinism is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. This is because it "deflected" the international working class and international revolution into a cul-de-sac, from which it has never really extricated itself.
PS. Sorry for the shorthand. Those who have read Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, and Cliffs theory of Permanent Revolution Deflected, Will understand the references I am making. Though I don't think Cliff appreciated the full consequences of his insight.
Typical response from an anarchist. Us proles just don't understand. At bottom, you don't even know what you want.
Indeed.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Tied up in and smothered by identity politics.
You might as well say 'wot'.
You might as well say 'wot'.
< shrugs >
Or call me a middle class fake, for identity's sake.
Or call me a middle class fake, for identity's sake.
You know full well I'm as black as you, respond to the substance not the needle
The Visteon, surely?
Don't call me Shirley.
I may not have letters after my name, but I have enough experience to know full well how society functions, for others. I'm currently, economically, at the bottom of it, one day might be one or two rungs up (but within the same class), and I know full well what management is in that context; i.e I run around fixing the inefficient problems created by someone else's incompetent decisions while in his own self-interest he gets paid more. And not just in that sphere I really dislike my lack or power and control, would relish the opportunity to make him (and others) dance while shooting a pistol at his feet, but would rather be somewhere else, as do other monkeys in better paid jobs who don't get as dirty as me or have handmaid's knee. For me it's power. Power over you own time. To do what you want. That is fulfilling. I hear talk of meetings and the like, but I haven't heard anything convincing on how these new structures can prevent the reassertion of differences in how power is articulated. That is, the needs and potential of the majority are realised, rather than those of a finger-wagging minority. And in other societies where some attempt has been made to radically alter it, there were still many people who couldn't haven given two shits about it, whether authoritarian or otherwise, and participated out of self-interest, initially without being converted to such things as communism. How are you going to deal with those people?
Of course there is another way, but it has yet to be realised, and it is better to not be a blind optimist. Last night in fact, during our break we had a lively discussion on the future arrival of a global federation of anarchist communes, but sadly, have no idea on how to get there.
Why do you feel like you've got no power or control over your life? You sound like your wingeing tbh. You are obviously quite clever and educated. Your never going to have total choice over what you do all the time cos shit needs to get done to earn a living. If you want more power get a promotion, or start your own business, or just work for the money and do what you want in your own free time (cos we've got loads of that).
Seems to me at the moment that cos families and communities are so fragmented and big just not enough people realise it's actually in there self interest to look after each other. Not just in terms of money for benefits or healthcare, but actually look after the older neighbours or people who are sick or kids in care. The dole means fuck all. You can get money but still have fuck all, no hope or future or community.
I don't really give a shit about getting rid of all people in positions of power, cos decisions need to be made and not everyone wants to make them anyway. I wouldn't personally. I just think our society is fucked up in how it rewards people. People caring for others like HCAs and nurses and foster carers and teachers should be paid a fuck load more and people working in offices a fuck load less cos I know which one is harder.
Yes, I know the state capitalism argument. But to argue that these states were not established in a genuine attempt to etablish socialism, however misguided, and that the absence of private capitalists didn't make for a different (not necessarily better) society, is absurd.
Similar threads
