You must log in or # to comment.
I agree with your overall point, still I think there needs to be some context.
Here is the graph for USSR’s prison population (I could only find it in russian on yandex, because search engines are so fucked up nowadays):
USSR really did have a relatively high imprisonment rate throughout its existence, and I think its punishment-focused penitentiary system was one of its worst sides. I’m glad that other socialist states are improving theirs, and I hope one day they can reach a point where prisons in their current form would no longer be necessary.
As an aside, I find it really interesting that there was a simultaneous increase in prison population in both USSR and the US in the 80s:
While in the US it was mainly caused by “law and order” politics popularized after the revolutionary movements of the 70s, combined with privatization of prison labor, I couldn’t find any well-sourced explanations for why it happened in USSR.
USSR was on its way to falling apart in the eighties. For example, underground punk like Grazhdanskaya oborona was already around at the time (though still persecuted unlike the 90s).
Correct - both are authoritarian regimes
Can you name a non-authoritarian government?
Welcome to anarchism.
I have much more respect for this answer, which is ideologically consistent, than what I was expecting, which was for some liberal to go “Scandinavia”
Which anarchist society wasn’t authoritarian? Name specific examples.
The answer doesn’t matter much:
- Yes - democratic socialism
- No - anarchism
EDIT: misread, see reply
So you couldn’t actually name a government.
Oh, name, I thought you meant make.
No. Next question.
You also cant make one. Any actual government will be “authoritarian” because any government (by whatever name you choose) will wield state power. A good explanation is @Cowbee@lemmy.mls example of enforcing health standards during a pandemic
No. Next question.
Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet. The reality is that all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
Every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
The reality is that all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority.
Yeah, and isn’t that a problem? Like, why just take for granted that all governments we’ve tried so far are coercive, instead of trying to build one that isn’t?
What you might want to think real hard about is why hierarchies form in the first place, and what problem they solve. Then you might start to understand why every society converges on this model at a certain point or it dies out.
I’d genuinely like to hear your answer on this, because it’s something I think a lot about as an anarchist. Specifically, do you think the problem power hierarchies solve can only be solved by power hierarchies? Do you think that problem necessarily exists and needs solving in all contexts, perhaps because of some innate human nature? Who is it that has told you this is the case–that the fact that history is filled with hierarchies should be interpreted as “hierarchies are inevitable”–instead of, say, “power over others is an unhealthy coping mechanism humans have consistently turned to in the face of the unknown and maybe we should try to build a society that Doesn’t Do That before we give up and resign ourselves to benevolent kings again”?
Not all vertical organization is equivalent. Participating in any worker organization can help explain the importance of administration, and this becomes more and more critical at scale. The question isn’t “top-down” or “bottom-up,” but how to make the two united.
here is a detailed explanation for you https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/what-challenges-do-hierarchies-address
This author seems to be confused about what hierarchies are. Hierarchies have nothing to do with division of labor or expertise–you can easily have/recognize both of those things in a horizontal power structure. A hierarchy is about who can coerce whom.
In the factory example the article gives, the presence of a central organizer/administrator/delegator does not necessarily mean the factory operates hierarchically. To determine if it does, you’d need to ask, “does the organizational structure allow the administrator to have their decisions enforced via actual or threatened violence against people who dissent?” In our capitalist reality, this would be things like firing the dissenter (depriving them of basic survival resources) or calling the cops. In authoritarian “communist” regimes, this might be forced labor or re-education camps.
You can organize at scale, abstract out certain parts of the organization, etc. without this coercive element. Humans are cooperative creatures; we want to build things together, and we are fully capable of respecting each other while we do so. Why limit the bounds of our liberation by assuming we need this systemic violence to do what we already want to do?
It is you who is in fact confused about what hierarchies are because they have absolutely nothing to do with coercion, and have everything to do with division of labour and abstraction. You seem to have a personal definition of what a hierarchy is. Hierarchies do not require any violence whatsoever, and it’s a concept that applies to large range of domains outside politics such as writing computer programs. Next, you’ll be telling me that class hierarchies require threat of violence.
What is meant by power hierarchy?
Anyway, asking about a scenario:
If a pandemic happens and you have to mandate masks or would like to ask people to maintain social distancing, how would you do it? If you mandate and enforce it, you’ll form/expose the hierarchy, right?
Even if it is a majority vs minority decision, if you enforce it, it’ll show a hierarchy by means of medical expertise or ability of enforcement, right? Or is it seen as natural or justified hierarchies?Even if you elect a rep and even if you have options for recall, for your rep to take decisions, you would be giving them power, right?
Or is it whole organisation voting on each topic?do you think the problem power hierarchies solve can only be solved by power hierarchies?
What are the other alternatives that are used, which do not have hierarchies to better solve the problems?
resign ourselves to benevolent kings again"
Not benevolent kings but recallable representatives would be the goal, right?
In case of socialist experiments, when they are under imperialist threat and fear of sabotage, they may not be able to fully do that, but not benevolent kings.
If you mandate and enforce it, you’ll form/expose the hierarchy, right?
Well, depends on who “you” is and how you “enforce” it. Do you, the person given the systemic authority to do so, throw people in jail/gulags/whatever if they refuse to mask? Then yeah, that’s hierarchical. Do you, a community member, organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces until they decide to mask? OR do you, a doctor designated via the community as an expert and thus given narrow, organic, retractable social authority to do so, say “you need to wear a mask”? Then no.
organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces
How do you plan to enforce this exclusion? Putting up a sign, physical removal (violence), non physical punitive measures?
Do you, a community member, organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces until they decide to mask?
Is that not hierarchical too?
And what do you do if they do not allow themselves to be excluded from community spaces?Are you not bringing in hierarchy when you give yourself and your group the power to choose whether the person or group who disagrees should be excluded from community spaces?
And what do you do when they do not agree? Do you jail them? Do you harm them or threaten violence?
Are you not creating/exposing the hierarchy by choosing to exclude those parts of your community from community spaces for disagreeing with you?
a doctor designated via the community as an expert and thus given narrow, organic, retractable social authority to do so, say “you need to wear a mask”?
So, again a power hierarchy in the matter of medicine, where you a lay person has lesser power?
And the people opposing the masking, will not be agreeing with that doctor, right? So not designated by the all of the community as a expert in that specific topic then.
If the person acknowledged the expertise, then the issue would not persist, right?Do you threaten or propagandise someone that they would not oppose that position and obey it then? Power hierarchy again, right?
Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet
You tend to lose a bit of credibility when you start your argument with this kind of sentences. After that you would need to prove that your reasoning is at least as qualitative, as, say, Hannah Arendt’s work, and unfortunately it is far off the mark.
*weakest
Ha! They told me the odds of winning the lottery were infinitesimal and yet I have been called a lib on lemmy.ml. Nobody will believe me.
my bad, i’ll fix it
I even fixed the spelling!
Wait, now this needs some clarification. Is it anti-communists as someone who is against communists or anti-communists as people who share a hatred of communism? Because one might be downright libelous
But thanks for your reactivity, I feel like lib is a bit lazy
Just someone who is against communism. I did not intend to make it seam you hated us.
“You lose credibility when you make a thesis statement I don’t already agree with!”
It was more “you lose credibility when you make a grotesque thesis statement, both in substance and on the form”.
The form is sufficiently obvious I suppose. If I call you an edgy moron even before you disagree with me, you’re not exactly looking for a nice conversation.
On the merits of the existence of authoritarianism, dismissing the work of someone like Adorno - just like that - is genuinely hilarious.
It was more “you lose credibility when you make a grotesque thesis statement
Aka something you disagree with.
, both in substance and on the form”.
What the fuck does that even mean? You’re just trying to sound smart now.
The form is sufficiently obvious I suppose
In that they disagree with you, yes.
On the merits of the existence of authoritarianism, dismissing the work of someone like Adorno - just like that - is genuinely hilarious.
So they disagree with you
“I, the arbiter of credibility, have decided this claim is self-evidently ridiculous for reasons I don’t need to explain”
Hannah Arendt
Lol, of course
I think this comes from Giles in the novelization of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not from Arendt. But easy to confuse when you have read neither
Hannah Arendt, the woman who said Jews were to blame for the holocaust because they didnt rise up?
It’s like you don’t read these things at all?
Her definition and study of totalitarianism are still intellectually relevant, but hey, if she had a blue car instead of a red car, then of course I see your point.
Do you all go to the same school of completely missing the point and having the most ludicrous rhetorical responses?
I recommend reading Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism by Domenico Losurdo.
Okay, so it was that Hannah. Seems like you don’t see the point.
I’ve read her drivel. I just dont blindly swallow propaganda merely because I am told the person serving it is very clever. Looking at any definition or practical application of the concept of “authoritarianism” (don’t get me started on your weird sidetrack of totalitarianism) makes it clear its actual purpose is to serve as a propaganda shorthand for “badguyplace.”
Every definition is either so broad as to describe every state or so narrow as to be pointless, where you might as well just say China (or the USSR back in the day)
The ridiculous concept of looking at how a state wields power, while ignoring who is in control of the state, what support they have and to what purpose they wield said power, is asinine to say the least. Not to mention, once again, that every state wields power in an authoritarian fashion.
It was developed by Hannah Arendt so she could say “actually the Nazis and the society are totally the same and not at all like us freedom-lovers, never mind all the authority we wield to suppress our own and foreign populaces.”
That’s an amazing counterpoint, thank you.
No worries. Dismissing the very concept of authoritarianism right off the bat was a nice move, too.
Libs being confronted with the fact that propaganda terms they’ve memorized are meaningless never gets old.
You still believe in the existence of propaganda or even the concept of memory? Smh, you need to break the chains of bourgeois discourse and ascend to ad hominem attacks
I wish you Reddit losers would actually learn what an ad hominem is before you spew it everywhere.
Thank you for providing much needed levity in this thread.
That’s not an ad hominem dumbass. Neither is this.
Do you dismiss the very concept of Badguyism?
deleted by creator
Were they ?
deleted by creator
This has to be the shittiest conspiracy theory I have heard of. Amazing, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
If you don’t like the word authoritarian why did you use it? And why did you get defensive when someone agreed with your image.
Even sarcastically I don’t see what you goal here was. To say the us and the soviet union are similarly inhumane? Or the us is slightly worse?
Ok, and?
I was being sarcastic and poking fun at people using it. Congrats on taking the bait. What the picture says is that the US which libs championed as a ‘free and enlightened society’ in the 90s was incarcerating more people than USSR did during Stalin years. Rate of incarceration in USSR dropped significantly after that while it remains as high as ever in the US today.
Removed by mod
Aww, is google banned at the troll farm?
Cuba or China serving the working class?
I want a little bit of what you smoke, it’s strong.
They’re just color-changed-US. Nothing different at all.
Cuba == usa???
Zombies would starve from just being near you.
where do you get your info on cuba lmao
you’re also wrong on china but i get that one at least because there’s endless anti-china slop, but with cuba you have to be watching wildly reactionary shit to believe it’s like the us
It must be very interesting to know so little and just say things.
Yes, Cuba and China are very obviously serving the working class. Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of smoking whatever it is you smoke.
Yes, the working classes run both Cuba and China. Their economies are dominated by a working class-owned public sector, and society is oriented in a way that values the people over profit. Private enterprise exists, but only insofar as it is contributing to that overall pro-social aim, and not as a permanent fixture of society but a temporary measure.
There are no homeless in China. Cuba has the most progressive queer rights legislation.
Removed by mod
- [ ] I trust everything the US tells me about their primary enemies.
- [ ] I hate everything the US stands for.
You can only select one box, not both.
Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet.
Authoritarian AF. lmao
The reality is that all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The reality is that all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance… Every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence.
This is called authoritarianism, silly.
The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
Nobody is saying this except you. Infantile strawman.
Wow that’s such an amazing rebuttal you’ve mustered there. It’s a real testament to your intellect.
Yep that’s what I would expect. Infantile.
Infantile
Very obvious what word you just learnt
Which goes to show that “authoritarian” is just a vague, vibes based signifier with no useful purpose.
Removed by mod
Which just goes to show you love eating piss and shit.
Wow when I change the words without engaging with the matter, it turns out anything means everything
As are all states. The important distinction between them isn’t the degree by which authority is used, which is largely decided by the conditions a state is in rather than the form of the state itself, but instead is which class controls the state. The USSR was run by the working classes, the US by capitalists.
Removed by mod
I don’t really get what you’re trying to do. Capitalists and slavers aren’t an ethnicity, nor were they murdered en masse by the USSR. The USSR wasn’t genocidal.
Also not sure why you are going into a socialist community and calling socialists “fascists,” this is nonsense word salad on top of your strange and baseless jab.
Removed by mod
What hypocrisy? Your jab didn’t even leave anything to address, I had to try to fill in that gap myself. What’s your point? That socialism is secretly fascism?
Removed by mod
The working class in the usa empire mostly lives in the colonies. Labor aristocrats always “conveniently forget” about their overseas plundering.
The communist party consisted of workers. Working class is not a level of income, but a relation to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Further, the USSR saw incredibly high rates of democratic participation, both having some of the highest voting percentages and the actual highest rates of measures to vote on.
Wealth inequality in the USSR existed, but was nowhere even fathomably close to wealth inequality in modern Russia, let alone the US Empire.
Authoritarian is a meaningless word. Its just a scary-sounding descriptor that’s used to frame a designated enemy state as especially heinous. All states are authoritarian.
Our good law abiding society, their authoritarian regime
Removed by mod
Your analogy does not work. Not all states are genocidal and the term has an actual clear definition that makes it distuingushable from other mass-killings.
Authoritarian is a meaningless word… All states are authoritarian.
Lol ok. At least the second statement is accurate.
If the second one is true then the first one is true too
Storytime! Mostly because holy shit this is weighing on my mind like mad, and I need to vent. Living in USA.
Someone in my life allegedly did something bad last weekend. I found out by getting a phone call from the local jailhouse on their behalf yesterday morning. I’m their contact, found their legal help, and been drug along part of the process. Holy FUCK is it absolutely insane the shit you have to do. The predatory-ass system has you completely fucked if you’re poor. A fucking five thousand dollar payment for bail, that they allow only the panicked voice of the detainee to inform you about, so you likely jump right in and take action and pay that bail before the arraignment trial where the prices can be reduced, or he can even be up and set free. Dont have the money? That’s okay! You can pay 10% if you put some substantially valued aspect of your life up for collateral. The referenced suggestions? A house and a car. Now if they fuck up before their trial, you lose basically everything. And lord, don’t even get me started on the sentence times. Threatening the lad with twenty years for some alleged not-severe crimes, the boy hasn’t even lived for that long, so he panics and talks before we can get legal council to him. Anyone with a single look from the outside can tell he’s not getting anything near that, but they wave it over his head like it’s a looking threat he’s gotta serve.
If any of you go through this process, I swear, it becomes apparent as day that this whole thing is built to incentivize you to remain in jail. To stay as cheap prison labor or whatever it may be. This whole process is fucked. I haven’t even seen the legal fees yet.
It’s all fucked up. My brother ended up on parole and it was designed to keep him from holding down a job. He’d have random drug screenings, which meant that each morning he’d call in to the system to find out if he had a drug screening. If he did, he’d have to drive to the county where he committed the offense and was convicted (2 hours away from his home) to wait a few hours to pee in a cup. Imagine holding down a job and not knowing until day of that you’ll need to take off most of the day. And they wouldn’t even let him do his drug screenings closer to home–theory was that the county got paid per parolee.
Anyways, my brother is a jerk but the system is needlessly cruel.
Prison is just one more arm of the Capitalist Financial Extraction System. There is no crime that you can’t buy your way out of, if you have enough.
What are USA numbers now? That’s the only way this is in context.
When looking that up, I came across this tidbit of extra irony at the start of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate :
According to the World Prison Brief (WPB) the United States had the world’s highest incarceration rate from 2001 (when the US overtook Russia) through October 4, 2022 (US rate of 629 per 100,000 population at that time).
Rummaging around through other sources gives me the idea the numbers are being massaged and manipulated, and that the real numbers could be much higher, and not had [as many sources imply] a decline from around 2003-2023. I suspect it could very likely be higher than 1996, now in 2026, rather than around half of what it was in 1996 [as many sources imply].
I wonder how many on house arrest, in bureaucratic states of transition that do not get counted as incarceration (even for extended periods), kept for questioning for terrorism, crammed into slavery prisons with quotas to fulfil, in local jails, in ICE holding, in private prisons that do not call themselves part of the US prison system, in unrecorded illegal incarceration, immigration processing, etc etc etc that are not being counted.
Not to mention the sanctuary districts! [Like Star Trek Deep Space Nine warned us about, on our television sets around the world around 1996, 57th & 58th episodes (11th & 12th episodes of season 3).]
And the broader “open prison” aspects of society… even just like the prison slop in place of food.
Depending on how one cuts the pie… could arguably go right up to around 300 million.
Or, perhaps more contrived an over-reach of interpretation… around 8 billion.
Great link.
Did anyone read it before posting this Mossad-psyop image? 80% of those “incarcerated” were on probation!
woow, so much better, and how does the probation system work? How does it especially work for low-income workers and especially black people?
Probation means not incarcerated, not unbiased.
No wonder you guys are so ignorant. Anytime someone comes in talking sense, all you can see is mod removed X’s comment.
> Talking sense
> Look inside
> It’s long debunked red-scare propaganda and a chauvinist crashoutYou’re able to look inside deleted comments?
Unless they’ve been purged, which is reserved for bigotry, yes. Click the three dots. You can also use this to access moderation history for all users.
I can see their undeleted comments, but not the mod log. I’m on the Voyager app
Tough titty then
Most, yes. Click the 3 dots and go to “comment moderation history.” Bigotry, doxxing, and CP are usually grounds for permanent removal.
Apparently that feature isn’t in the Voyager app
Seems to be the case. I use the web version, and have no problems.
really telling on yourself there
I don’t mind telling on myself here. I had several comments deleted and was banned from one of your communities for arguing that it was ridiculous to wish death upon people for joining the Navy and to hate everyone else who doesn’t share that view. My ban labeled me as a “liberal Zionist.” Not once in the conversation was Israel, Gaza, Zionism or anything related to it mentioned.
So since everyone can apparently look at others’ mod logs, I now have a smear on my record because your mods don’t have any qualms about lying about people they disagree with.
You really are the worst possible ambassadors for your own ideology.
I don’t mind telling on myself here. I had several comments deleted and was banned from one of your communities for arguing that it was ridiculous to wish death upon people for joining the Navy and to hate everyone else who doesn’t share that view.
LMAO I remember that one. It was c/slop in Hexbear where you were justifying soldiers killing innocent people because they were “escaping poverty”. You literally don’t consider people outside your country as humans and you were acting like a sobbing victim the entire time.
I literally said none of that. I invite any sane person who accidentally stumbles into this thread to go read my mod log and see my comments that are being characterized as above.
Don’t be a fucking idiot, I was arguing with you in that thread. Soldiers have a choice, and they chose death for the innocent people outside Amerika, and you kept defending them as if they were just poor innocent little babies.
Removed by mod
They choose who Trump and Hegseth decide to attack?
LMFAO HOLY FUCK DO YOU NOT GET IT? If I tell you to kill someone, and you do it, are you absolved of any responsibility??? Fucking god damn you are ignorant.
I’m not getting into this again because you’re already lying about what I am saying.
No, I am right. Try and cope as much as you want, you are in fact someone who enjoys the fascist killing of the global south. You only care now because Trump is mean about it.
I don’t think killing innocent people is justified and I don’t think people outside America don’t matter.
Highlighting this bit here. You were constantly saying that “you voted for this” to everyone in that Hexbear thread, who might not even be Amerikan. This is because you literally do in fact not think that lives outside Amerika matters at all and automatically assume everyone else is Amerikan.
Your defense of them is what, that they were simply following orders?
I don’t think people outside America don’t matter.
You literally couldn’t comprehend the idea that not everyone you were talking to was American
Unfortunately for you, your moderation history is public
Yes, unfortunately I have mud on me because I was foolish enough to engage with pigs.
only capitalist pig here is you
Uhuh. I know how think that line sounds very witty but it’s completely meaningless
maybe you should reflect on why you’re a genocide supporting piece of human garbage
Maybe you should reflect on why you accuse people who don’t support genocide of supporting genocide.
yeah I’ll reflect on that if I actually do that.
I won’t hold my breath. I suspect your definition of people who support genocide is “people I accuse of supporting genocide.”
Please do hold your breath.
Yes, it’s the people with a reading group who are ignorant and not the people so historically vapid that they recently let a bunch of Epstein associates convince them to support a second Holocaust.
AFTER, mind you, getting tricked by those same pedophiles a few years earlier into supporting actual nazis in Europe, with swastikas and tiki torch marches and everything. We warned you guys then that you were being slow-boiled into fascists, but predictably you were too vain and high on nationalist bloodlust to listen. Same as it ever was.
Do you think ableism and general bigotry is “talking sense?”
Removed by mod
Thank you for providing concrete example of why gulags will indeed be necessary after a socialist revolution.
Removed by mod
ok there fash
What year? It wouldn’t happen to be immediately before, during or post ww2, would it? Because west Germany and the Gladoi-style nazification of capitalist Europe are the perfect counterpoint to show why you have to execute nazis.
They probably thought of Warhammer 40000 where 1000 psykers per day are sacrificed to the God Emperor, idk.
Or maybe USA where around 1000 people per day was dying from avoidable pandemic so that the line could go up and the answer from government was to stop counting the dead.
Our prisons have on campus, secret graveyards, too, so we really don’t know how many.
I remember the period when that number reached 3,000 and it was literally 9/11 every day. It might seem like a silly comparison, but seeing how one was immediately turned into a grotesque, maudlin display of narcissistic injury by our government to justify attocities while the other, way worse one was just inflicted on us by those same people as a matter of course. Really made me understand the reality, how some lives are valued while billions are written off. All those Palestinians are just an abstract statistic, but we must stop the world in its tracks to mourn Bryan Thompson and Charlie Kirk. It’s kind of like what this person is doing actually. “Sure my idea of normalcy floats atop an ocean of blood that i refuse to acknowledge, but the people who stepped up to change that fact committed the unforgivable crime of making the butchers bleed!”
Removed by mod
Being an anti-communist must be awesome. You can just make shit up and then, when you get pushed, quote some thinktank named something like “BillionaireFreedomFund” funded by George McBloodghoul.
Removed by mod
The Soviet Union was a socialist state. The workers ran and controlled the state and the economy to serve the needs of the people. Communism is beyond socialism, and the USSR never developed into that.
Correct, it was socialist, moving towards communism
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I don’t think it should be surprising that Marxists are on a site developed by Marxists.
Removed by mod
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, but Stalin did not really present anything radically different from Marxism, nor Lenin’s advancements understood as Leninism.
Removed by mod
Marx was not simply an anarchist. Abolition of the state, in Marxist analysis, is through the gradual collectivization of production and distribution and the eradication of class. Therefore, for a state to wither away, it must be made up of a class that seeks this as a common interest. In other words, it must be a proletarian state. As Marx referred to it, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working classes have the full control of authority.
Marxism-Leninism did not change this analysis. Instead, the development of Leninist party building strategies and theory of revolution worked out the details of actually achieving what Marx described as the historical task of the proletariat. There is no permanence to the state, such a position both goes directly against Marxism-Leninism in general and dialectical materialism in particular.
Removed by mod
Again, Stalinism isn’t a thing. What is your actual argument? The USSR was run according to Marxist-Leninist principles.
I love seeing libs seething in the morning.
The US government told u/Talcosis to reject the evidence from his eyes and ears. It was their final most essential command.
Removed by mod
Dang. What that was in reply to, got removed. I don’t remember what it was (and failed to find what it was in the modlog systems ~ remind me, how do I get to see what was removed?).
Now I’m wondering if I misinterpreted something serious as satirical or vice versa. And even wondering if my reply there could likewise get misinterpreted. IIRC, either way, that image, what it depicts, still stands… remarking on the deranged insanity of being wistful for war.
… One of these days this war’s going to be over.
Removed by mod
Do you think Karl Marx was an Israeli psyop or something? Lenin?
No
Then why are Marxists supporting the Soviet Union somehow Mossad?
Marxism is a critique of capitalism. You have to define what you mean when you use to describe the USSR
Marxism is more than a critique of capitalism, it’s also a revolutionary current in socialism, and a world outlook philosophically. You are calling us here “Mossad” for supporting the Soviet Union.
For masquerading as socialists, not for supporting the USSR
Is Bernie Sanders a true socialist? Are the Scandinavian countries true socialist countries?
How are we masquerading as socialists? Shouldn’t socialists support socialism?
Ohh now I remember you. You’re that chauvinistic racist and warmonger who wants healthcare for everyone in Amerika at the expense of the the global south’s exploitation.
Removed by mod
what the fuck are you talking about lmao
It’s a picture praising Stalin in socialism instance…
No Stalin in the picture and how does that mean it’s Mossad linked??
Stalin ruled the USSR in 1950
What are you getting at?
Stalinism and Socialism are distinct
There is no Stalinism, where do you get this idea? And again, how is this Mossad-linked propaganda?
I don’t see Stalin in the picture, but either way, most socialists worldwide support Stalin.
Stalin ruled the USSR in 1950
Stalin was General Secretary of the CPSU, sure, but the Soviet Union was collectively run. The idea that the flag of the USSR is synonymous with Stalin is liberal Great Man Theory.
The USSR was not collectively run. Lenin crushed the Soviets (worker’s councils)
No? The Soviets formed the basis of the democratic structure of the Soviet Union. The USSR had some of the highest rates of democratic participation in the entire world.
