Dictatorship of the Proletariat

If the Soviet Union was a workers' state, then why were workers banned from forming unions or going on strike?

Attached: 9714df019f62e28bcd2eaceeb9245b3701f304291993caef17f2f601ba832c50.gif (498x498, 612.95K)

Other urls found in this thread:

workersliberty.org/story/2012/05/02/trade-unions-and-soviet-state
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre
workersliberty.org/story/2018-03-29/21-lies-obstensible-left-tells-itself-israelpalestine
libcom.org/history/1932-vichuga-uprising
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

revisionist bureaucrats

One might assume that, if a workers needs are being properly met, he has no need to complain anymore.

because any spontaneous initiative by the working class might have returned the country back to the rule of the 'Stache God

If he has "no need" to, then why ban it?

This

It's not merely about "revisionist bureaucrats", Lenin himself said striking workers ought to be shot on the spot.

Source me up.

If a strike in a bourgeois dictatorship is an attack on the class interests of the bourgeoisie and for the class interests of the workers, a strike in a workers' state is an attack on the class interests of the workers and for the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Source?

Attached: 1441127422638.jpg (600x733, 27.23K)

Look up the whole history of Solidarnosc. Polish ship workers upset with working conditions so they go on strike and form a union which was illegal to do. Caused a whole bunch of problems for the Polish state.

Only if we assume that the USSR was indeed a government of the workers organized in soviets, which it was until Stalin came about. holy shit you're posting under a trot flag you should know this

Attached: eTao69u.jpg (622x455, 33.88K)

The Soviets were absorbed by the government and transformed into a tool of state power in the span of a few years. By the early '20s they were no longer a collection of organizations defending workers and their rights, but merely a relay of bureaucrats in enforcing official policy. Workers were not allowed to form independent unions and strike actions were mercilessly put down.

workersliberty.org/story/2012/05/02/trade-unions-and-soviet-state

In socialism, a strike fucks up other workers because surplus is already equally allocated. Can't have more of the cake just because you feel like it.

In capitalism, surplus goes to the private owner, so there is a reason to strike because the owner withholds the value of the labor product from the workers.

I'm just countering the flawed premise that the ability to form unions and strike is somehow the basis on which a workers' state should be judged. At which points and whether the USSR was a workers' state is a different matter entirely.

Then what the fuck is the "basis" on which a state can be considered a workers' state if workers have no autonomy? A bunch of bureaucrats solemnly declaring that it is?

Have you considered the pursuit of the class interest of the international proletariat in suppressing the international bourgeoisie and liquidating it as a class?

Interesting website. Some of their other articles:

The last article unironically defends the Bay of Pigs invasion because it targeted a "totalitarian regime". "Critically support the CIA against Cuban imperialism" is what they literally believe.

More about the scumbag that website fellates.

Truly a hero of the international proletariat!

— Lenin in a 1920 telegraph to Vladimir Smirnov, regarding labor agitation in the Ural region

How do you do that without workers' ability to defend their interests and conditions autonomously?

Address the point at hand or fuck off.

cheka'd

Attached: b7d.png (1000x1000, 65.78K)

Attached: b869a9a6e974c41eb8c0921caed97571aef5d98f717a793be051e7b494114cd9.jpg (1200x600, 207.11K)

I wipe my ass with your pro-Vietnam war, pro-Bay of Pigs invasion imperialist rag of a website.

just as the bourgeois class is not unified, nor is the proletarian class naturally unified. It is disunited and if it remains as such, the advocacy of sectional interests, that is the isolated interests of a section of the proletariat, will necessarily be the downfall of any revolutionary workers' state.
We must understand trade unionism and strike-action is not an end in itself, it is a weapon, a form of sabotage.
Let us suppose that a section of the proletariat advances their interests, autonomously forming a union and going on strike. This throws a spanner in the works of the functioning of the economy of the workers' state. What in a bourgeois state is a revolutionary action, in a revolutionary state becomes reactionary as by halting the functioning of what amounts to the proletarian war machine against the bourgeois class is acting in the direct class interest of the bourgeois class.

This is precisely why it is of utmost importance for a dictatorship of the proletariat to maintain the unity of the working class in their shared class interest; the revolution.

As if the CNT/FAI weren't on multiple occasions deliberately sabotaged by their communist "allies"

Attached: disgust.jpg (620x400, 29.43K)

Just because it is featured in the Blag Boog doesn't mean it isn't true.

Only to stop them from sabotaging themselves.

Attached: e3e2dfeaf8a0e2421136152492d60560ba3aa2250b6afc940cb2fd0976dac4e1.png (595x649, 352.07K)

So you basically admit that workers have even less rights and autonomy under a so-called workers' state than under a bourgeois regime?

Can you imagine yourselves making these arguments outside of this board, to a group of workers in any industrialized state? Why in the fuck would they want to live in a "workers' state" where something like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre happens and you respond with that?

It's no wonder the pro-USSR left died off in the West, no working person would want to give up the existing bourgeois order for the world you defend.

Anti-USSR crowd aren't leftists.

Thank you for proving my point, idiot. Did you even read the meme-tier text snippet you just posted? For fuck's sake… Tankiës are so Zig Forums-tier in their argumentation, it's embarrassing.

Attached: 28765f9c7b29c72632473920591f464df8c470005163ca99da0fd767e317dfd3.png (275x283, 89.11K)

And neither are the international proletariat, I guess.
Enjoy your 300-member cult LARP party.

okay

They prevented them from sabotaging themselves by gunning them down and rounding them up and torturing them. And the communists tactic's really worked didn't they. That's why Spain became a workers paradise after the civil war and not a fascist shithole. Because the communists were so effective.

One of my favorite anecdotes about the Spanish Civil war, and one of the most indicative of the differences between Communism and Anarchism is the two large hotels in Barcelona and Madrid. In Madrid, where the communists held power the Fanciest hotel in the city was turned into a residence for the top party officials. In Barcelona, the fanciest hotel in the city was turned into a massive soup kitchen where everyone could come and eat for free.

Attached: cnt.jpg (1024x768, 165.21K)

Did you check the actual sources WITHIN that book? Instead of sourcing that shitty book itself?

wew

Shut the fuck up, liberal.

tankies truly are subhuman scum

Don't forget this fucking article too:

workersliberty.org/story/2018-03-29/21-lies-obstensible-left-tells-itself-israelpalestine

FUCKING LOL WHAT A FUCKING EMBARRASSMENT.

ANARKIDDIES NEED TO EAT FUCKING LEAD.

...

You're so fucking incapable of addressing the actual point that you have to dig into that website to find bad takes to deflect from your own ignorance. You're pathetic, my dude.

These rights and this autonomy have been won by over a century of militant struggle and the looming threat of revolution by the working class, they are not freely given and characterising them as features of the bourgeois dictatorship is exceedingly liberal.
The proletarian class when revolutionary is no longer trying to wrest scraps in order to weaken the bourgeois order, but rather is engaged in a life or death struggle for the complete liberty, that is the abolition of private property all together. Workers must be disciplined and united in order to win as they are all soldiers of the revolution. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat/Workers' state is merely the exercise of this disciplined violence against the bourgeois state/s, no more, no less. Unless you consider the discipline, unity and solidarity too high a price to pay, then you reject revolution all together, as a revolution, a workers' state which does not advance by all means necessary the class interest of the proletariat is one which consigns itself to the most brutal suppression by the bourgeoisie.

One does not 'live' in a workers' state. It is a weapon and a ceaseless struggle for the destruction of the old order. The revolution is not a dinner party faggot. Solidarity, revolutionary unity and discipline are achieved by making everyone aware of the gravity of the task ahead of us.

Attached: baa5b9330c452929f2bfefe54c6145435f44c5f1571f70d1f2c8de0d779c1345.png (996x1020 214.28 KB, 220.5K)

?

There aren't even proper citations in the bullshit opinion piece you posted. It may as well be conjecture.

That's true — people who assume current liberties (including the mere right to vote) are an inherent feature of Western parliamentary regimes are wrong, they were the result of decades of democratic and labor struggles. That doesn't change the fact that this progress was secured and the right to strike is now enshrined in the law of most Western countries. Yet you openly aim to destroy that legacy of labor struggles — that is an objective regression and there is no reason workers should support such an initiative.

What's your point? That Soviet workers had the right to form independent unions and were allowed to go on strike?

The end goal of all union activity is something akin to the soviet union, when the state itself represents the workers. I don't give a shit about your western propoganda, and am certainly not reading any more of your anarkiddy/trotskyite bullshit.

It represents them so well that it has to abolish their to right to organize and go on strike. :^)

are you braindead?
things have a class character, there is nothing difficult to understand about strikes in a workers' state being objectively in the interest of the bourgeoisie. Sabotage against the workers' state is acting in the class interest of the bourgeoise. We cannot permit sabotage just as no army can permit sabotage within its ranks as those who do so are directly aiding the opposition.
kys liberal, literally every 'argument' you have made is that of a bourgeois advocate.

Because they can take it up with their council, which serves as the union. Would you really tolerate massive strikes when you have enemies on literally every border?

I'm still waiting for a source that the soviets banned unions and strikes, because OP hasn't posted anything yet

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre
Wouldn't have happened if Stalin was still in power.

One of my favorite anecdotes about the Spanish Civil War is how Anarchists would rape nuns and burn down churches, while Communists were fighting and dying on the front lines against Franco's fascist hordes.

Church getting btfo was one of the few things Anarchists did right.

Look at solidarnosc. One of the biggest strikes in Polands history was illegal

A communist revolution doesn't. A regime who criminalizes independent unions and strike actions does.
This is a very polite way to say that any criticism of or opposition to government policy should be interpreted as — typical of state-socialist regimes' misuse of "bourgeois" or "reactionary" as empty buzzwords.
Ah yes, of course — the Soviet Union was just the objective result of objective class struggle, and workers who objected to Bolshevik authoritarianism can be brushed off as voluntarist obfuscation.

t. Union Sacrée-supporting "socialist" from WW1 France

The catholic church were fascist collaborators, anarchists were just doing their part to maintain internal security :')

Burning churches is larping if you don't do anything else in the meantime. The church didn't own the army

That happened in the 80's in a time of crisis, what are you trying to prove?

They should have done that after the war was finished. While Communists were doing most of the actual fighting, the Anarkiddies just dicked around in the back line doing useless bullshit that contributed nothing to the war effort.

That striking was illegal you brainlet

No fucking shit, but again, no one defends the eighties.
Now tell how you feel about the leader behind this movement you stupid anarcoliberal

Catholic church in Spain were fascist sympathizers and were kidnapping children. The concern was more pressing than just dismantling a reactionary institution.

I look forward to your explanation of how a communist revolution can be successful while permitting strikes to cripple it.
This is awfully phrased but it seems to be another iteration of your repertoire of, "sure its sabotaging the revolution but i swear its not counter-revolutionary :^)"
I have already stated at the very beginning that my objection is to the infantile notion that strike action and trade unionism aren't counter-revolutionary in a workers' state. Still your non-argument is appreciated.
The revolution is intrinsically authoritarian you wishy-washy liberal faggot

Can you even rebut anyone's point without resorting to childish guilt by association?

Good quote. That's Michael Parenti, right?

Did I ever refuted anyone of that guy's point? I never said it wasn't illegal or that it wasn't good. But the guy leading the whole thing was an anti communist reactionary, proving that the banning strikes (btw again he only pointed out poland) isn't that bad of a praxis. In this case was totally justified, but it's more of a coincidence than a rule

Not him, but can you name any other examples besides something that happened when the eastern bloc was in decline or like in the middle of a war?

You're conflating "communist revolution" and "state-socialist regime" on purpose. A communist revolution by definition involve strike actions. What is a revolution after all if not a generalized insurrectionary strike? Strikes don't "cripple" a revolution, they are the revolution. On the other hand a state that cripples workers' ability to defend their interests thereby ceases to be a workers' state.

Attached: 9973c1552f4866965922f441c5fbda243895f3c6fd6778ccdc781f81f0c1f223.png (470x440, 210.27K)

No matter how you look at it, those soldiers would have been more useful on the front line. It doesn't matter how many churches you burn down if Franco wins and re-builds them at a later date anyway.

The 1932 Teikovo strike in Russia? The 1953 Berlin strike in East Germany? The 1956 Poznań strike in Poland? You know, when tanks were called in and dozens of demonstrators massacred?

For some reason Solidarnosc has been mentioned twice when asked for evidence of the USSR banning strikes, but this is besides the point.
Let us look at what those strikes achieved. They aided in the bringing down of the PRL and the reassertion of a bourgeois liberal regime in Poland. Moreover they occurred despite being illegal. This alone tells us that the legality of strike action is irrelevant, they remain a weapon which can be used against a state, and in the case of Solidarnosc, in the interest of the bourgeois class.
What is of greater importance is of course the reasons for which workers wanted to strike in the first place. Now we must consider the extent to which they were liberal saboteurs acting consciously in the bourgeois interest and the extent to which workers were acting in their sectional self-interest to better their conditions and unconsciously being liberal saboteurs. It is not difficult to see why the latter occurred, the eastern bloc, the legacy of october failed, it did not defeat the capitalist west, it fell into a long decay trying to outlast it instead. Nonetheless in the case of the former we must as communists understand the necessity of suppressing ruthlessly such sabotage in a revolutionary workers' state.

You must have imagined this since i have not once mentioned any 'state-socialist regimes' whatsoever.
Correct, strike action against the bourgeois state.
A revolution is the forcible overthrow of the old order which requires the workers' state to eliminate all vestiges of the bourgeois state and liquidation of the bourgeois class.
you're either desperately strawmanning or seem to have deluded yourself into believing that i condemned strike action as such. This is not the case. I've consistently reiterated that strike action against the bourgeois state is revolutionary and strike action against the workers' state is counter-revolutionary. This is not a difficult notion.
The workers' state is a workers' state as long as it advances the class interest of the proletariat, that being communist revolution through proletarian dictatorship to liquidate the bourgeois class and abolish private property, it ceases to be a workers' state when it is no longer doing this.
Your naive idea of workers' interests places 100,000,000 different individual workers' interests in conflict with eachother and asserts their inalienable right to pursue them indiscriminately.
There are many reactionary workers, the fascist hordes and the bourgeois interventionist armies have always been in most part made up of workers. Some of the ignorant and lied to, some of them convinced reactionaries, some of the coerced into suppressing a communist revolution, yet you would assert their inalienable right to defend their individual interests and declare that a workers' state which defends itself from reaction through violence and revolutionary justice is no longer a true workers' state for it has forsaken the consultation of every worker's sectional interest.

According to your own anarchist sources, the 1932 Teikovo strike was not repressed by tanks and nobody was massacred.

libcom.org/history/1932-vichuga-uprising

The Berlin and Poznan strikes were reactions to Khruschevite anti-socialist revisionism. Their violent suppression was absolutely a crime. But those protests wouldn't have happened in the first place, had the Khruschevites not pursued a right-wing deviationist line.

The class interests of the proletariat include the ability to defend their rights through independent unions and strike actions. Anything else is mental gymnastics designed to allow party cadres and bureaucrats to snatch power away from autonomous workers' organizations.
Organized workers don't suddenly become "reactionaries" simply because the government that represses them call itself revolutionary. If workers are striking to protest their working conditions, they're not coming out in support of capitalism or fascism — they're engaging in class struggle.