>ruins the reputation of communism in the minds of normies forever
Yeah, blame one of the most successful socialist projects who industrialised a semifeudal country and liberated millions and ended nazi germany and indirectly gave social welfare to the normies you talk about and don't blame the bourgeois anticommunist propaganda machine who would've worked the same way without the USSR
more like pseudebria
>>777815>don't blame the bourgeois anticommunist propaganda machineIT'S DA CAPITALIST/CIA/MOSSAD NOTHING BAD EVER HAPPENED IN THE USSR
>>777815If revolution had actually taken place in the first world as well during the 1910s-1940s would the USSR have made it? Did they fail because of having to go against the most powerful country in the world, or was trying to skip the line into socialism without the full development of the productive forces of capitalism the fatal flaw? (Genuine question)
>>777815go back to reddit
>>777817Not what I said, there were some bad things in the USSR, just like in any other country, but why there isn't a visceral hate for France and capitalism as there is for the USSR?
>>777822First, the second didn't happened
>>777815You know who else industrialized a semifeudal country? Every bourgeois country in the world through the capitalist mode of production.
You know who else "liberated millions" and ended nazi germany? Every bourgeois allied power.
You know who else gave social welfare to normies? Every bourgeois socialdemocrat.
>>777827Ehh the USSR killed an order of magnitude more nazis than the other allies. sure, the us was important in the pacific theatre, but of negligible impact against the nazis.
>>777827>You know who else "liberated millions" and ended nazi germany? Every bourgeois allied power.Not without the USSR lol. The other points are right but this is braindead.
>>777828>Ehh the USSR killed an order of magnitude more nazis than the other allies.You know who killed the most nazis? The bourgeois third reich which sent them to die.
>>777827>You know who else gave social welfare to normies? >Every bourgeois socialdemocrat.These concessions were only allowed to happen due to the USSR and other popular republics. The bourgeoisie knew there would be revolutions if they did not give welfare to the proletariat. Now that the USSR doesn't exist anymore see how the welfare state is decaying everywhere in Europe, even in countries ruled by the socialdemocrats
>You know who else "liberated millions" and ended nazi germany? Every bourgeois allied power.The bourgeoisie didn't liberate proletariat from their rule and fascism couldn't have been beaten without the USSR
>You know who else industrialized a semifeudal country? Every bourgeois country in the world through the capitalist mode of production.Well yeah? 100-200 years ago? They haven't industrialized much in Africa anyways (I wonder why?)
>>777831>These concessions were only allowed to happen due to the USSR and other popular republics.>The bourgeoisie knew there would be revolutions if they did not give welfare to the proletariat. That's why they abolished the monarchy themselves and tried to form a parliamentary style bourgeois democracy right before the october revolution, backed by the mensheviks.
You know who else likes social welfare? The mensheviks.
>The bourgeoisie didn't liberate proletariat from their rule and fascism couldn't have been beaten without the USSRThe USSR didn't liberate the proletariat either, they made a retreat into bourgeois liberal democracy. The proletariat can only be liberated by the end of class society and the self-abolition of the proletariat as a class.
>>777833>The proletariat can only be liberated by the end of class society and the self-abolition of the proletariat as a class.Well,.okay… I meant liberating them from the bourgeois dictatorships…
>>777834I didn't (I don't watch youtube) but I admit that I have only read the manifesto and online discussions of people who have probably watched
>>777835The manifesto is toilet paper bro, if reading Capital is too boring or difficult read the simplified version of anarchist-communist Carlo Cafiero which was approved by Marx himself with a letter of thanks
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cafiero/1879/summary-of-capital.htmits only a synthesis of the first volume, but its a good summary
>>777835Then you need to read more. Everything you're saying is retarded, it's all the same tired "THE SOVIET UNION RAPIDLY INDUSTRIALIZED" reddit ML shit we've seen time and time again.
No, the Soviet Union did not liberate workers from bourgeois dictatorship. The working class was still very much dispossessed of the means of production, still was subject to wage labour, and this is obvious if you read Capital or look into the Soviet Union's economy.
Please do read more, because right now you're adding nothing of value to online leftist discourse.
>>777838 NTA
Online "leftist" (left wing of capital) discourse is full of bullshit anyway, you can hardly ever have a productive discussion online, go talk in person or send a delegate from org to org.
Midwits waiting for the bordigy think they know everything when I know them better than they know themselves.
>>777836Okay I will thank you for the recommendation
>>777838>because right now you're adding nothing of value to online leftist discourseI don't really care
>>777817Name one bad thing they did, liberast fag
>>777854They didn't immidiately abolish commodity production
>>777840>Admittedly I'm not a Marxist or a communistWe can tell
>>777857Why would you sage my thread
>>777856Why do you hate NEP? Why do you defy Lenin? Every decision approved by Lenin is a part of in variance.
>>777862What were this guys credentials again
>>777863He had the funnies
>>777863He used to be conservative but then got a leftist girlfriend who left him after she raped her and this triggered him and started posting these comics
>>777862that MLL thing seems pretty cool how can I sign up?
>>777960>I mean ffs back in the first wave of liberal capitalist revolutions monarchists used to say that republicanism only works on a small scale and human nature requires a monarch.That's funny, can I have a source for that?
>>777969the first claim is from page 95 the American Revolution: a History
>The only existing European republican models—the Netherlands, and the Italian and Swiss city-states—were small and compact, not fit models for the sprawling new nation of the United States. According to the best political science of the day, when a largecountry with many diverse interests attempted to establish a
republic, as England had tried in the seventeenth century, the
experiment was sure to end in some sort of dictatorship like
that of Oliver Cromwell.
and the other is just how I remember my freshman year history teacher explaining Leviathan by Hobbes to us (humans are evil ergo we need a ruling class/sovereign)
Communism wouldn't even be relevant without them
>>777813I don't care for optics, but being anything but Marxist is insane and necessary to understand how the system currently works, becoming class conscious is like being born again.
The USSR assraped the middle east and all communist parties in it.
I fucking hate it so much
>>777854The russification policy that was violently carried out, with arbitrarily marking any opposition as class enemies, put national liberation directly at odds with the working class cause whose name was abused to justify this retardation
Thanks to this legacy, to this day organizing socialist or workers' movements in eastern europe might as well be plowing the ocean, no one wants to associate with anything that smells like communism
>>777981Difference is thay no one from either side has claimed to be "people's colonies", " communist commodity production" and "marxist sweatshops"
You just made them up for this meme
>>777854and another thing: actively working to suppress the CNT-FAI in Spain despite being the best-organized leftist contender in the civil war, encouraging infighting in anti-franco ranks because it was apparently preferable to let fascists in charge than anarchists
>>778002
>China exports industrial machinery to zimbabwe
Isnt imperialism about exporting financial capital? Also whats wrong with selling machinery to underdeveloped country?
>>778007
British colonies were generally not allowed to import machinery in the first place. Raw resources were shipped to the UK for processing in homeland factories and shipped back to colonial markets as consumer goods.
>>778011
didnt they destroy the indian textile industry so they could sell british made clothing there?
>>777998>>778000
>taught peasants how to read the language of the centre country>killed a few anarkiddiesSo nothing too bad then
>>777831>These concessions were only allowed to happen due to the USSR and other popular republicsA risible notion if you're vaguely familiar with the chronology of the welfare state.
Did Lloyd George create unemployment and old age pensions
before ww1 in response to the USSR? Did the British Empire really fear a social revolution in New Zealand more acutely than in Britain itself? If not, why did New Zealand - the most middle class little country in existence - go for a welfare state before Britain did? Why did retrenchment of the welfare state begin in the 1970s and 1980s when the USSR still existed, often
slowing down in the 1990s after the USSR collapsed. Why, indeed, did the bourgeoisie launch open class warfare in the same decades (restricting trade union activity etc) if the existence of the USSR was such a bulwark against such a move?
One of the worst tendencies of so-called communists is this facile attitude that every improvement that's ever come about must be attributed directly to their favorite dead states and every regression must be attributed to the passing of those states. Nothing in Marxist theory necessitates this childish mindset, it's entirely a vibes-based phenomenon.
>>777836The Manifesto isn't toilet paper, come on, the first chapter outline their conception of history pretty well, and has some bangers, though it's not as good as the first chapter of the German Ideology, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The other chapters of the Manifesto aren't as relevant today though.
Otherwise you are right, some knowledge of Capital is absolutely necessary (or at the very least Wage Labour and Capital) to really understand what Marx was getting at. I didn't read it in its entirety, but the first (value) and fourth chapters (M-C-M') are essential and completely changed the way I think about capitalism, so I think even only reading these two is fine.
The second chapter is good but somewhat outdated (money isn't a commodity anymore) and the third chapter…I honestly got filtered, it's a slog to go through and I didn't understand the point. I gave up somewhere during the next few chapters, one day I will pick it up again.
>>777854- Abolished the Soviets (workers' councils) that formed during the February Revolution.
- Nipped in the bud the most ambitious avant-garde art movement worldwide and replaced it with kitsch "socialist realism" art after 1928.
- Stalin purging all the Old Bolsheviks and killing good thinkers like Isaak Ilyich Rubin, while sparing opportunists
- Brezhnev stopping the program of reduction of labour time (the goal was to reach a 32 hour workweek) started under Khrushchev, and making the economy stagnant, setting the stage for the future collapse
- And perhaps but I'm not too familiar with this period, the War in Afghanistan, which precipitated the terminal decline of the USSR.
The USSR did some good things, but they did plenty of mistakes. Defending it blindly won't bring it back and won't help us understand what a new 21th century socialist movement should do in order to change the world for the better.
>>777857>We can tellIt's not a very good look for self-proclaimed Marxists when an anarchist know Marx's theory better than you.
>>777866I thought the author of GMIL was a woman?
>>778023>One of the worst tendencies of so-called communists is this facile attitude that every improvement that's ever come about must be attributed directly to their favorite dead states and every regression must be attributed to the passing of those states. Nothing in Marxist theory necessitates this childish mindset, it's entirely a vibes-based phenomenon.I think it is a side-effect of liberals immediately attacking anyone who likes Marx with "muh 100 trillions ded iphone vuvuzela kim jung un bad", so MLs develop these defense mechanisms. The problem is that in the process, they throw away their critical faculties and end up repeating the same readymade arguments over and over again. Also it gives rise to this "anti-imperialist" "critical support for X" mindset which has little to do with the Lenin-Hobson theory of imperialism, and ironically more with Kautsky's theory of ultraimperialism, and distract people from the actual labour movement, you know, the primary thing Marx was concerned with.
The ussr did absolutely nothing wrong, there where just a few unlucky purges
>>778474>posts without reading the threadbased
The "with communism you will finally stop being poor third world shitholes" angle no longer works today as most poor countries are growing industrially at a decent rate.
Unique IPs: 30