Do these people think that once you overthrow the feudal/bourgeois order, communism just somehow magically happens without the necessary productive forces?
That is basically Bordiga’s argument (ok I am oversimplifying it a bit, but they state in “Dialogue with Stalin” that “commodity production, including private property, is neither “natural” nor, as the bourgeois claims, permanent and eternal. The late appearance of commodity production (the system of commodity production, as Stalin says) and its existence on the sidelines of other modes of production serve Marx to show that commodity production, after it has become universal, just after the spread of the capitalist production system, must go down with it.” This has some anarchist energy right here).
These people never think that far. They heard the meme definition of the communist stage of development somewhere (stateless, classless, moneyless), see the USSR getting called communist by liberal media (never noticing the contradiction to the name of the Union…). Never heard of the transitional stage of socialism they then come to the eronious conclusion that USSR does not equal a stateless, classless and moneyless society, thus it can only the only other thing! Capitalism!
Hahaha! I used to say generic crap like that all the time. It was only after reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality, along with other works, that I took on a more nuanced position.
Sure, I still consider the U.S.S.R. to have been presocialist, but I could say the same for the Paris Commune: it’s a facile and uninteresting conclusion to draw about something so significant. It is far more productive to instead explore the progress that the working masses made in them.
I think people just underestimate the amount of contradictions it takes to run a new society, after a revolution. You will have internal reactionary groups trying to undermine and coup the young government. You have to deal with a really bad economy, with many people starving and production halted in many places. You have to deal with the threat of imperialist countries, as well as trying to make partnerships with them to stablish trade. You have to deal with weak government structures, which are many times susceptible to corruption. You will have to rebuild the army and defense forces and deal with traitorous officials and generals. It’s a monumental task, with many ways to fail and a few ways to succeed.
I know the Bolsheviks were ruthless on how they dealt with the crisis shortly after the post revolutionary period. But if you understand the history of which revolutions succeeded and which ones didn’t, you’ll understand why the Bolsheviks did what they did. And unfortunately, Machiavelli was right.
I’m glad the Bolsheviks were as heavy-handed as they were. It’s something they learned as a necessity from the errors of the Paris Commune. Even well into Stalin’s leadership period, I think they should’ve been even more suppressive of counter-revolutionary elements. It reminds me of the meme of a Russian elderly man saying not enough were shot during the Stalin era lol and yeah, seeing that Khrushchëv wormed his way into power and ousting some of the most revolutionary-minded Party members just so that he could carry out and blunder with his social democratic vanity projects.
This is true, but I don’t think the factors that led to the Khrushchev coup relied only on Stalin’s lack of persecution of political enemies. The very extremely centralized nature of the Soviet government, together with the excessive punishment of dissidents, led to the very dissidents hiding their true colors and conspiring against Stalin’s government. Had these people a voice to openly state their intentions, they could have been outmaneuvered, just like Stalin did to Trotsky’s coup. Understand that every action has a reaction and sometimes by trying too hard to prevent an outcome people end up causing it.
I read some theory and I don’t hate the people’s republics.
Good. Because these people also need to read theory asap.
Do these people think that once you overthrow the feudal/bourgeois order, communism just somehow magically happens without the necessary productive forces?
They do. Because they are uneducated or brainwashed and never stop to consider if their interpretation of a certain thing is actually correct.
That is basically Bordiga’s argument (ok I am oversimplifying it a bit, but they state in “Dialogue with Stalin” that “commodity production, including private property, is neither “natural” nor, as the bourgeois claims, permanent and eternal. The late appearance of commodity production (the system of commodity production, as Stalin says) and its existence on the sidelines of other modes of production serve Marx to show that commodity production, after it has become universal, just after the spread of the capitalist production system, must go down with it.” This has some anarchist energy right here).
These people never think that far. They heard the meme definition of the communist stage of development somewhere (stateless, classless, moneyless), see the USSR getting called communist by liberal media (never noticing the contradiction to the name of the Union…). Never heard of the transitional stage of socialism they then come to the eronious conclusion that USSR does not equal a stateless, classless and moneyless society, thus it can only the only other thing! Capitalism!
Hahaha! I used to say generic crap like that all the time. It was only after reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality, along with other works, that I took on a more nuanced position.
Sure, I still consider the U.S.S.R. to have been presocialist, but I could say the same for the Paris Commune: it’s a facile and uninteresting conclusion to draw about something so significant. It is far more productive to instead explore the progress that the working masses made in them.
I think people just underestimate the amount of contradictions it takes to run a new society, after a revolution. You will have internal reactionary groups trying to undermine and coup the young government. You have to deal with a really bad economy, with many people starving and production halted in many places. You have to deal with the threat of imperialist countries, as well as trying to make partnerships with them to stablish trade. You have to deal with weak government structures, which are many times susceptible to corruption. You will have to rebuild the army and defense forces and deal with traitorous officials and generals. It’s a monumental task, with many ways to fail and a few ways to succeed.
I know the Bolsheviks were ruthless on how they dealt with the crisis shortly after the post revolutionary period. But if you understand the history of which revolutions succeeded and which ones didn’t, you’ll understand why the Bolsheviks did what they did. And unfortunately, Machiavelli was right.
I’m glad the Bolsheviks were as heavy-handed as they were. It’s something they learned as a necessity from the errors of the Paris Commune. Even well into Stalin’s leadership period, I think they should’ve been even more suppressive of counter-revolutionary elements. It reminds me of the meme of a Russian elderly man saying not enough were shot during the Stalin era lol and yeah, seeing that Khrushchëv wormed his way into power and ousting some of the most revolutionary-minded Party members just so that he could carry out and blunder with his social democratic vanity projects.
This is true, but I don’t think the factors that led to the Khrushchev coup relied only on Stalin’s lack of persecution of political enemies. The very extremely centralized nature of the Soviet government, together with the excessive punishment of dissidents, led to the very dissidents hiding their true colors and conspiring against Stalin’s government. Had these people a voice to openly state their intentions, they could have been outmaneuvered, just like Stalin did to Trotsky’s coup. Understand that every action has a reaction and sometimes by trying too hard to prevent an outcome people end up causing it.
THE MAKHNO PROFILE PICTURE HAHAHAHA (Makhno got crushed easily, I think).