Libertarian Socialist Rants has once again BTFO State Capitalism in the USSR by explaining the takeover of the democratic institutions by the "Socialist" bureaucracy. Later in the video, he attacks the shitty platitude of "left unity."
How will Leninists ever recover?
Other urls found in this thread:
Sorry, I just can't stand listening to his voice or looking at his ugly ass face.
BAsed. Tanktards btfo
The flag was red so it was socialist. Checkmate councilcom pamphlet.
HITLER WAS SOCIALIST
Wow every single reply to this post is shit just like the original post itself
lmao shut up state capitalist
This is insanely stupid. There are billions of problems in this world and so many capitalism related topics to rant about and so many propaganda to debunk and he rants about past?
Why! Why would someone talk about Soviets rather
Earth and humanity are being robbed of future, but ok, lets whine about past.
It's because some people want to repeat the past.
It's ultra irrelevant.
The only thing irrelevant here is your emotional, reactive response.
None of the examples of what he apparently 'has to upload instead of a critique of Leninism' are of topics he has somehow avidly avoided in the past. Did you just hear of this channel? Anyways tankies are re-surging 'online', I'm assuming that's why LSR took time to upload this video. As a supposed anarchist on a leftist chan community that repeatedly has tankies corrupting and fucking up our supposedly neutral spaces I have a hard time seeing any semblance of sense in your hysterical response.
Fuck Leninism, for a future revolutionary moment without red reactionaries seeking influence to ultimately protect capitalist relations. Learn from the past, or else you're bound to repeat it's mistakes.
When will this meme die? Socialism is the abolition of private property.
The way bolshevik turned out had more to do with the material conditions of the Russian empire than anything to do with ideology. The thing is a socialist revolution in the present, especially in a first world country, just simply couldn't look anything like the USSR. The material circumstances are just far too different to produce anything remotely similar regardless of what anybody wants. Yeah twatter tankies are pretty annoying(not every Leninist is a twatter tankie though, look how they all went after Unruhe recently), but that's a drop in a bucket compared to moderators. That's what you faggots don't seem to get, the BO doesn't just suck because he's an uptight tank, he mainly sucks because he's a moderator and what is doing is the just the natural conclusion of being a moderator.
China will be the example on this. Only time will tell. Neither of us can know for sure; you seem optimistic, but I'm rather skeptical. After all no bourgeoisie have relinquished their power willingly, so why would we expect a new quasi-empire of China to do the same? For sympathy to their workers? Sounds utopian.
Not true, since it has been easy to do ever since the invention of networked computing (so circa the 1970s).
I can't believe I'm actually going to have a one-on-one conversation with your autistic ass on this subject but I vehemently agree that moderators are a problem, on that matter you are to find no difference of opinion. But that's not something we seem to be able to deal with right now as a result to our own material conditions (nobody has had the time or experience to code the chanarcho-communist chan it seems, or even presented a formal design. Since it's not theoretically impossible I'm eagerly awaiting a programmer/web designer to eventually get to it though).
Well at least you realize moderators are a problem, so we're cool. I'm actually way more pessimistic than you, just about different things. I'm more of the opinion that there isn't going to be a revolution in all honesty.
Actually you could solve the mod issue right now. It's not even in direct conflict with the interests of the bourgeois. Conservatives are seeing that.
What I'm surprised by is how the neo-cons of America are taking the public utility approach rather than the progressive democrats. Because by acknowledging that you acknowledge online personhood and a lot of companies will be sued out of all their money giving reimbursements to banned members. It'll essentially make it easier to sue for defacement, harassment, etc and that sounds kinda sjw.
The left capitalists now are stuck choosing the private property option, which STILL could be anti moderator because have you ever had drugs in your car? Who put them there? Doesn't matter, it's your car, they're your drugs now. This'll mean far more moderation on the surface, but constantly businesses will have to suck dicks not to shut down and Facebook and Twitter can afford that, your local incel forum can't. This'll ultimately just be corporatism where every once in a while Facebook or Twitter tosses a wad of cash the government's way. Pretty much what they are trying to do in Europe.
Either way is preferable to just sitting around getting banned all the time and people crybabying about school shooters.
You know what else he can blow? My cock. In Minecraft.
I would still say by all means business that plays favorites, especially in the arts & humanities should be subject to having their paychecks docked
private property is inherently undemocratic so that still works
It seems you niggers are inclined to keep attacking successful and actually existing socialism than capitalists. Go fucking figure.
It no longer exists.
It came close with OGAS, even the CIA were thinking global capitalism would be impossible if OGAS got implement as originally described.
Democracy will be a mere consequence of the abolition of private property. Pursuing democracy before said abolition is doomed to failure.
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
no one here is suggesting that we do that
But OGAS didn't happen and we are living in global capitalism, actually existing socialism doesn't actually exist anymore.
Lol isn't it cute how one has to keep reminding online tankies of this? Like "wake up, you're in la-la land again". You literally have to force them to move the goal-post out of idealism and they just continue babbling their scripture.
Yet think it, while the Americans were busy losing the space race in 1962, Viktor Glushkov came to realization that computers are better at calculation thus why not automate the planning process, build a Internet so you can track every process turning raw materials and goods in real time.
And the officials cut funding due to fear of the cybernetic project threatening the legitimacy of the Party.
Yet doesn't it seem odd that Glushkov actually came up with a detailed plan how to get rid of money and managers while neither the Bolsheviks, Stalinists or Anarchists could?
This part of the Manifesto is making it clear that Communists want to abolish bourgeois property (private property), not one's rights to their own personal property. Notice how it says the abolition of private property, not the transfer of private property rights to the state.
It's like your friends dad who was a football star in college and never stops talking about how he took his team to the championships even though those days are long gone and now he's an ordinary wagecuck. Except they weren't involved in taking the team to the championships and all those that did take the team to the championships are in graves while their accomplishments have been reversed.
But it didn't get implemented and the "socialist states" that didn't cease to exist invited in corporations instead of adopting such cybernetic planning. I would rather organize in the world we live in than dream of the possibilities of an alternate reality.
Glushkov was dealing with reality, it was just the rotten bureaucracy holding OGAS back. The struggles in the Comecon bloc in the 1960's was not pro-capitalists so the bloc was ripe for a revolution finishing to transition.
My point is that focusing on what could have been is a waste of time, Glushkov's ideas were not implemented and instead we have what we have.
But that is what the video link in the original post does too. Saying if the anarchists back in the civil-war were in charge, things could have been better. Yet this kind of ignores that by the 1960's the Comecon bloc was in a very good position to be a real bloc of workers state if there was enough pressure and organization from below. This was why Khrushchev and Brezhnev sent the tanks in to crush worker uprisings in the Comecon bloc as they were scared that conditions were ripe for a workers revolution in their bloc.
Which is something I disagree with in the video, in that fantasizing how Catlonia could have been if the PSUC had not allied with liberals to attack the CNT-FAI and POUM is a waste of time we should move on from. It is still worth analyzing Catalonia from a historical perspective to shape future praxis, and the role of the PSUC in attacking the other socialists to appease liberals is as important to remember as how later the USSR crushed worker uprisings against the growing unpopularity of state capitalism.
If anything that supports his argument against Leninism as the actual effects of it ended up creating a bureaucracy that carried out the counter-revolution against worker uprisings to protect (state) capitalism. If they were willing to undo the collectivization carried out by the CNT, if they were willing to shut down OGAS, if they are willing to concede to capital against the proletariat then we can conclude that they are capitalism in red paint that should not be allied with.
By the 1960's you are a long way from Lenin and his NEP. The major contradiction holding the Comecon back is the theory of socialism in one country as by the 1960's the national economic interests of the members of Comecon bumps up the economic interests of the bloc as a whole. Thus the parties stop playing a progressive role in bringing modernity to Eastern Europe, as they have done that and stumble in continuing to grow the economies.
The counter argument is that when the Comecon fell, Eastern Europe regressed back to the irrelevance it suffered from before being liberated by the Soviet army. They went from leading the world in science and industry to being a massive rust belt that only export is cheap expendable labor. Even the eastern part of Germany is a shadow of what it was when it was the GDR thus the growing Ostalgie since Eastern Europe's economy has for the most part contradicted since 1990 even before the 2008 crisis.
But the NEP influenced the conditions that gave you socialism in one country and other policies that interfered with the adoption of OGAS and other worker movements within the sociert bloc. Under Lenin we saw how workers movements were subsumed for "the good of the party/revolution" such as the workers councils being beholden to the party rather than the workers. This same logic of maintaining power among the party was used by the parties in the 60's to oppose the socialist programs you have been talking about, with this in mind why shouldn't we expect similar anti-worker measures from those who subscribe to such ideologies?
NEP was dealing with the material condition of the industrial proletariat being a minority in Russia at the time. It was giving the liberated peasants slack in the idea the Russia was on the side lines and Germany was the real battleground against capitalism. From Lenin's logic, the industrial proletariat Germany would create a workers state and rescue revolutionary Russia from its backwardness.
Yet the material conditions changed in the 1960's, the industrial proletariat was no longer a minority but a majority where modernity even reached the countryside.
So when are all the anti-Bolsheviks just going to come out and admit they're all anticommunist Mensheviks? You can be critical of the CCCP if you wish, as many of it's supporters are and were. But at the end of the day, their countless failings will not change the fact they were the only socialist option for Russia.
Without Bolshevik presence, Russia would have inevitably been dominated by SR/Menshevik bourgeois reformists, or some flavor or reactionary White Army trash. So are you cowards going to admit that's what you really wanted for Russia? Or are you going to keep abstracting from the reality on the ground by making vague appeals to democracy, while ignoring what the rural Soviets were really voting for?
Changing the definition of socialism to 'workplace democracy' is also extremely harmful and the very reason why so many self-styled socialists end up being rabid apologists for capital accumulation. In my years of browsing I frequently found laissez-faire ancaps who defended money, property, and capital with a ferocity that would put the Austrians to shame on Zig Forums. And they did it under the banner of socialism. This was considered perfectly normal and if you dared to point those bourgeois cretins out you were labeled a sectarian CIA plant. Libertarian Communists have to answer for this.
None of which changes that many workers councils and other worker's organs were attacked by Lenin's government, almost certainly with Lenin's approval. Kronsdadt can be understood as a parallel to the Hungary or Czechoslovakia worker uprisings that were crushed by Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In both we saw workers being attacked by a supposedly communist leadership and branded counter-revolutionaries for wanting something more socialist than the state capitalism being pushed by the party. If such actions were taken by Lenin's government and by the nominally Leninist USSR of the 50's and 60's, why should we not expect Leninists to acquiesce to capital and attack workers opposed to state capitalism? It seems bizarre that some try to separate the "revisionist" USSR from Lenin when much of their actions can be understood as following Lenin's philosophy.
The guy who makes the video does. He evaluates the socialist character of the Bolsheviks' policy based on the degree of democracy in Russia, rather than on what they did to actually abolish private property worldwide.
The fear of Kronsdadt was the British would crush them and annex Kornsdadt as the British was waiting for the waters to thaw for their fleet to steam in. Lenin didn't think the Kornsdadt commune had any chance of standing alone against the fully might of the British Navy yet as part of revolutionary Russia the British feared Bolshevik disease where every contract with the Red Army led to capitalist armies to become radicalized as Lenin was agitating the workers and soldiers abroad.
This was not happening under Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev. Lenin was trying to ignite something like Paris May 1968 so he could pour gasoline on it (that was Lenin's publicly stated grand strategy) while the USSR did everything in its power to pour water on Paris May 1968.
If MLs want to keep the benefits of capitalist relations (industrialization, expansion of production and consumption) and the benefits of the state (large national armies and territorial sovereignty), and merely want to abrogate some of the worst excesses and cruelties, what's the point in calling yourselves "radical socialists" at all? Just become social democrats, and you can get exactly what you want without even having to instigate a violent civil war.
Maybe that's why historically so many 'communist parties' have collaborated closely with bourgeois states and social-democratic movements.
That wasn't predictable.
Dictatorship of the proletariat implies democratic (Greek for people's power) governance by workers, at the expense of the capitalist class. Leninist representation results in dictatorship over the proletariat and capital by a new class; the Party-bureaucracy. Like any class it doesn't relinquish its power freely, as that would be against its self-interest. The workers gained another form of the enemy; this time in that of 'state-capital', and Bakunin was proven right a couple of decades after he predicted how opportunists would misuse Marx' theory.
He, like so many anarchists, fails to recognize that it wasn't Stalin's stratification of the socialist state that caused bureaucracy but rather the market relations introduced by cornman, because if you have a) a socialist plan and b) de-facto market relations based on value-indicators you need a new strata of bureaucracy to act as "middle men" in this economy. He is wrong in his analysis that just state centralization caused the bureaucratic problems of the late USSR.
Also, his conception of a "bureaucrat" seems to be idealist. Is a manager, elected by an anarchist commune, not a bureaucrat, but he is indeed so if he has the same position in a Marxist-Leninist state? This is often not different from libertal notions of "legitimacy" of state agents that views elections as a inherently good notion by itself not recognizing that communists want to abolish democracy as well.
The problem was not democratic centralism. The problem was that Stalin, towards the end of his rule, was making decisions in private and not via the institutions he was supposed to use (central committee, Politburo). But you surely proved to be a brainlet by using the term "Soviet capital". The goal of Soviet economic planning was not to increase the exchange value of Soviet """capital""".
Read again, illiterate.
He sounds like one of those rich Edinburgh kids who lose their scottish accent while at public school and have to put on a plastic accent later.