Please argue against this point from a Marxist-Leninist lens:
Let me preface by saying, I am not an anarchist or a social democrat. While many of the perceived "failures" of the USSR were simply an honest attempt to grapple with real problems, the single party system and its control over the state was a failure. The party system creates a culture of sycophancy and yes-manism instead of a competition of ideals. It insulated the people making decisions from those for whom decisions were made. In effect, this could be perceived as a new class system based on the hierarchy of the party where the state then resembles a modern corporate structure with a total monopoly of every aspect of the people's lives. This is actually superior Capitalism as it had to be responsible for its own citizens welfare but retained may of the problems that exist in any purely top-down hierarchical structure. In a new Communist state, they should grapple with ways to efficiently make the party officials responsible to the people or at least make their competencies objectively accountable.
>>2176221I agree with both your points. I love the idea of sortition but I also think that direct democracy isn't all that difficult in our modern technological age.
I'd point towards Cockshot's system of developing state budgets through direct democratic vote. If something that complicated could happen then I have no issue believing that anything else could be handled the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkdBn6pznw >>2176255His argument about legitimacy is definitely a good reason for direct democratic measures. However most people would probably prefer most minor decisions to be in the hands of technocrats. I don't have any opinion on how to regulate washing machine gaskets and neither do you. Of course these technocrats should be kept in check by small commitees which could be selected via sortition and perform random audits of their work. IIRC Varoufakis suggested something similar in one of his books.
>>2176280You are right. I should have added this as a fourth point.
>>2176221>because I would like to keep bureaucracy and courts. Hahahahaha
>communism is when you make a world building fantasy!!Fuck off liberal. You were never an ML and never will be for no other reason besides you being a fucking liberal.
>>2176163>Cut 95% of government and party officials and replace them with artificial intelligence,specific, measurable, acheivable, relevant, timely plan to achieve this? can you REACT to resistance from party officials who don't want their job automated?
REACT
Revise as needed
Expect resistance
Avoid pitfalls
Create defenses for each success
Take control of narrative
Deepseek says:
"
From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, the critique of the single-party system in the USSR as a failure due to its alleged creation of a "new class system" and a culture of sycophancy can be addressed by examining the historical and material conditions that necessitated such a system, as well as the theoretical foundations of democratic centralism and the vanguard party.
### 1. Historical and Material Context:
The Bolshevik Revolution occurred in a largely feudal, agrarian society with a weak proletariat and a hostile international environment. The single-party system was not an arbitrary choice but a necessity to defend the revolution from internal and external counter-revolutionary forces. The consolidation of power within the Communist Party was a response to the immediate threats of civil war, foreign intervention, and the need to rapidly industrialize a backward economy. In this context, the party acted as the vanguard of the proletariat, guiding the transition to socialism.
### 2. Democratic Centralism:
The Marxist-Leninist model of the party is based on democratic centralism, which combines internal democracy with centralized discipline. While decisions are made collectively and democratically within the party, once a decision is reached, all members are expected to uphold and implement it. This structure is designed to prevent factionalism and ensure unity in action, which is crucial in a revolutionary context. The critique of "yes-manism" overlooks the fact that democratic centralism allows for vigorous debate and discussion before decisions are made, while ensuring disciplined execution afterward.
### 3. Vanguard Party and Class Consciousness:
The vanguard party is not meant to be a separate class but rather the most advanced and conscious section of the working class. Its role is to elevate the class consciousness of the masses and lead them in the struggle for socialism. The party's hierarchical structure is not akin to a capitalist corporation but is intended to be a tool for organizing and mobilizing the working class. The party's leadership is accountable to the masses through mechanisms like soviets (workers' councils), which were designed to ensure that the state remained a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than a dictatorship over the proletariat.
### 4. Critique of the "New Class" Theory:
The idea that the party created a "new class system" is a misinterpretation of the Marxist-Leninist framework. In socialism, the party and state officials are not a separate class with distinct economic interests but are part of the broader working class. Their role is to serve the people and advance the socialist project. While there were instances of bureaucracy and corruption in the USSR, these were deviations from socialist principles rather than inherent features of the system. The solution to these problems lies in strengthening democratic mechanisms and mass participation, not in abandoning the vanguard party.
### 5. Accountability and Competence:
The critique that party officials were insulated from the people and lacked accountability is valid to some extent, but it is a problem of practice rather than principle. Marxist-Leninists argue for continuous efforts to improve the accountability of party officials through mechanisms like recallable delegates, regular elections, and mass participation in decision-making. The goal is to ensure that the party remains closely connected to the masses and responsive to their needs.
### 6. Superior Capitalism?
The claim that the USSR resembled "superior capitalism" is a mischaracterization. While the USSR faced challenges in fully realizing socialist democracy, it fundamentally transformed the economic base by abolishing private ownership of the means of production and planning the economy to meet social needs. The problems of hierarchy and bureaucracy were not a result of socialism but of the incomplete transition to communism and the persistence of capitalist remnants in ideology and practice.
### Conclusion:
From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, the single-party system in the USSR was a necessary tool for defending and advancing the socialist project under historically specific conditions. While there were shortcomings and deviations, these do not negate the system's revolutionary potential. The task for future socialist states is to learn from these experiences, strengthen democratic mechanisms, and ensure that the party remains a true vanguard of the working class, accountable to the people and committed to the realization of communism.
"
Unique IPs: 18