I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but since the USSR was a historical failure and Marxists claim China isn’t actually Communist but Capitalist, can’t we say the same for Marxism? An interesting historical curiosity, but it was never actually implemented and thus can’t be said to have ever taken off.
Both Georgists and Marxists get to complain about how things would be so much better if someone would actually just do it the right way for once. I say this as a left leaning Georgist Libertarian, to my heart in the right place Marxist cousins.
IDK why are you being downvoted here. Here’s not a tankie perspective.
USSR was a historical failure
Was Rome a historical failure? The USSR was a controversial state. Stalin did seize the power, but probably not for his own benefit. I wonder how tankies can defend him as he killed almost as many communists as Suhatro. What I find the main reason for being a communist after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is that they built a state where the main goal in life wasn’t the pursuit of wealth. People felt much more secure than in the modern states, though without the latest advancements in technologies.
China isn’t actually Communist but Capitalist
Well, politically they are in the middle: they do exercise something that is similar to New Economic Policy - a short-term return to capitalism. For USSR it was for 7 years, for China it’s over 50 years.
I know that a lot of tankies will defend China, but I’m not among them as I’ve been there recently. People literally sleep at their work desks as the commute is 50km, you can’t put your child in a kindergarten without a bribe and the famous help from the government is 100kg of watermelons per family in Inner Mongolia. It’s not a shit hole either though: if I had to choose between South Korea and China to live, I’d choose China.
was never actually implemented
Marxism is vaguely defined to be claimed as if it was or was not implemented. I prefer to think about Marxism as a lens I see the world through.
I knew I would be catching plenty of downvotes, but I am glad to get a non-tankie perspective. I even agree with some of it.
Rome lasted between 400 and 1500 years depending on the measurements, so it is hard to make the parallel with the USSR. There are many similarities, the Caesars and Stalin, impact on political philosophy, etc, but the scales are still orders of magnitude apart. Stalin may have had the best of intentions, but as you said, his means could never be justified by any ends.
As a concept, Communism is indeed a state where the main goal isn’t about the pursuit of wealth and is very admirable. Once we have obtained a Star Trek level of post-scarcity advancement, I expect the end result will look very much like Communism. I also see the politburo and Party living in wealth while many commoners starved or rationed in basically every Communist country ever.
The Tankies blame this on the Capitalists besieging them, and that plays a role, but the hardship is never shared equally at the top. Post-revolution Castro never went hungry, Stalin never stood in a bread line, Mao never wanted for anything. That to me is a betrayal of the ideology.
For every Lenin there is a Stalin, for every French Revolution a Napoleon. There seems to be an inherent vulnerability to revolutionary political actions to co-option by charismatic strongmen. That is not to say other democratic states are safer, the corruption is just usually different. The US legalized it and called it lobbying, and I won’t even start on regulatory capture by capital. It still has never fallen to a dictator (quite yet).
I prefer to think about Marxism as a lens I see the world through.
I like this. I leaned Marxist in my younger days, but as I don’t think an actual Marxist Utopia is possible at our civilization level, I would at least prefer if the government only exists to provide for defense, the common good, and ensure a level playing field for the market while staying out of everyone’s personal life. Thus libertarian wanting universal healthcare, UBI, and strong monopoly busting and protections of the commons.
I don’t think the timeframe is any good at identifying the failure. I’m not sure that Rome has seen as many historical events as the USSR: two world wars, television, nukes, space, computers to name a few. The correct answer here is that we can learn from experiments such as Rome, Paris Commune, and the USSR. We can’t learn from Putin though, assuming we both don’t want to build a relatively stable authoritarian proto fascist regime.
Stalin never stood in a bread line
Realistically, how do you imagine that? Because I can’t: you’ve built an authoritarian state with one party on the top, the country is not in the best condition. right now. There is no place for martyrdom here, you are obliged to rule the state while the things are as they are. I do not agree to shit on Stalin/Castro/Mao for exercising more lavish lifestyle than the common people. I can agree to shit on them for creating the system where they are the center of the country though.
On a side note, do you know the story of Vasily Stalin? He was Stalin’s son and he did not have such privileges.
There seems to be an inherent vulnerability to revolutionary political actions to co-option by charismatic strongmen.
Historical irony here is that Lenin himself discusses this in “What is to be done?”, giving the example of Napoleon if I’m not mistaken. He’s all for democracy though.
staying out of everyone’s personal life
The first thing Bolsheviks did, was cancelling the persecution by political reasons (being gay included) and legitimizing abortions.
Overall I see that although you identify as a right winger, we don’t have that different world view and how the world should be. I very much appreciate you being honest. Such threads make me love humanity more
This short video on obstacles to the China path in Latin America gets into exactly what we’re talking about, the abolition of the rent-seeking parasitic sector of the economy that the Chinese revolution abolished.
The USSR was a historic success. The dissolution of the USSR is one large failure, but doesn’t negate the century of success after success in proving socialism works, siding with national liberation movements, and advancing the needs of the working class. The USSR worked, economically, its dissolution was more of a political failure than one pointing to Marxism not being able to work.
The PRC is socialist, those who say it’s capitalist typically conflate markets for capitalism, when the process of sublimating private property is a gradual one once the large firms and key industries are siezed. Both the USSR and PRC are examples of socialism working.
Marxism was implemented, and still is. Rather, Marxism-Leninism is a tool for analysis and revolution, to bring about socialism, and is has many historical successes, and continues to succeed today. Marxism-Leninism is the guiding ideology of the largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity.
So no, you can’t really say the same of Marxism as you can of Georgism. Marxism works, still works, and will continue to work. Georgism was a curiosity for a while and fades while Marxism-Leninism became the defining ideology of the 20th century, and will continue to prove even more relevant thanks to the rise of the PRC over the US.
The vast and rapid modernization and industrialization of Russia at the start was a success, but my opinion is that Marxist-Leninism stopped in the USSR when Stalin seized the country and turned it into a crony dictatorship. I don’t believe that lasted long enough to be truly called a success, as it immediately fell to the authoritarianism it overthrew from the monarchy.
If you don’t think that Stalinism was the death of Marxist-Leninism in the USSR then the bread lines, famines, forced labor and relocation, imperial expansionism, etc. as broadly reported by those that lived there and lived through it are a product of socialism. I also believe that would count as failures of socialism and not proof of success.
I agree with you that the PRC is still nominally socialist, but believe they also went Stalinist instead of Marxist-Leninist. I would call them Stalinist Communist rather than socialist. I also do not think the juice was worth the squeeze with the number of dead in the revolution and aftermath, but there is no telling what an alternative would have looked like so that is just, like, my opinion man. I personally don’t consider China as a socialist success story, but instead another warning example for how easily Communism can be corrupted/captured from within.
I totally give you that Marxist-Leninism was the defining ideology of the 20th century, but I’d call it the fuse that lead to “Communism” the failed authoritarian ideology. Like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is to WWI. That is a hell of a lot more than Georgism ever got, to be sure, but would still say there has never been a successful Marxist country because they never remain Marxist for long.
“Stalinism” isn’t an ideology. Stalin had his own policies during his time as the leader of the Soviet Union, especially Socialism in One Country as opposed to Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution, but Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by him. There was no betrayal of Marxism-Leninism until the Khruschev era, where reforms began to work against the centralized socialist system, leading to the utter disasters of the later Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras and the dissolution.
The PRC is Marxist-Leninist. There’s no such thing as “Stalinism,” to begin with, but you can’t use Stalinist to describe the PRC anyways because there’s no Stalin, so you can’t even use it to describe Stalin’s specific economic policies. Either way, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government. The revolution saved countless lives and doubled life expectancies, same as in Russia.
I really don’t know what you think Marxism-Leninism is. If you want, I have an introductory reading list you can check out. It also isn’t just the guiding ideology of the USSR and PRC, but other countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and more, with similar success stories.
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but since the USSR was a historical failure and Marxists claim China isn’t actually Communist but Capitalist, can’t we say the same for Marxism? An interesting historical curiosity, but it was never actually implemented and thus can’t be said to have ever taken off.
Both Georgists and Marxists get to complain about how things would be so much better if someone would actually just do it the right way for once. I say this as a left leaning Georgist Libertarian, to my heart in the right place Marxist cousins.
IDK why are you being downvoted here. Here’s not a tankie perspective.
Was Rome a historical failure? The USSR was a controversial state. Stalin did seize the power, but probably not for his own benefit. I wonder how tankies can defend him as he killed almost as many communists as Suhatro. What I find the main reason for being a communist after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is that they built a state where the main goal in life wasn’t the pursuit of wealth. People felt much more secure than in the modern states, though without the latest advancements in technologies.
Well, politically they are in the middle: they do exercise something that is similar to New Economic Policy - a short-term return to capitalism. For USSR it was for 7 years, for China it’s over 50 years.
I know that a lot of tankies will defend China, but I’m not among them as I’ve been there recently. People literally sleep at their work desks as the commute is 50km, you can’t put your child in a kindergarten without a bribe and the famous help from the government is 100kg of watermelons per family in Inner Mongolia. It’s not a shit hole either though: if I had to choose between South Korea and China to live, I’d choose China.
Marxism is vaguely defined to be claimed as if it was or was not implemented. I prefer to think about Marxism as a lens I see the world through.
I knew I would be catching plenty of downvotes, but I am glad to get a non-tankie perspective. I even agree with some of it.
Rome lasted between 400 and 1500 years depending on the measurements, so it is hard to make the parallel with the USSR. There are many similarities, the Caesars and Stalin, impact on political philosophy, etc, but the scales are still orders of magnitude apart. Stalin may have had the best of intentions, but as you said, his means could never be justified by any ends.
As a concept, Communism is indeed a state where the main goal isn’t about the pursuit of wealth and is very admirable. Once we have obtained a Star Trek level of post-scarcity advancement, I expect the end result will look very much like Communism. I also see the politburo and Party living in wealth while many commoners starved or rationed in basically every Communist country ever.
The Tankies blame this on the Capitalists besieging them, and that plays a role, but the hardship is never shared equally at the top. Post-revolution Castro never went hungry, Stalin never stood in a bread line, Mao never wanted for anything. That to me is a betrayal of the ideology.
For every Lenin there is a Stalin, for every French Revolution a Napoleon. There seems to be an inherent vulnerability to revolutionary political actions to co-option by charismatic strongmen. That is not to say other democratic states are safer, the corruption is just usually different. The US legalized it and called it lobbying, and I won’t even start on regulatory capture by capital. It still has never fallen to a dictator (quite yet).
I like this. I leaned Marxist in my younger days, but as I don’t think an actual Marxist Utopia is possible at our civilization level, I would at least prefer if the government only exists to provide for defense, the common good, and ensure a level playing field for the market while staying out of everyone’s personal life. Thus libertarian wanting universal healthcare, UBI, and strong monopoly busting and protections of the commons.
I don’t think the timeframe is any good at identifying the failure. I’m not sure that Rome has seen as many historical events as the USSR: two world wars, television, nukes, space, computers to name a few. The correct answer here is that we can learn from experiments such as Rome, Paris Commune, and the USSR. We can’t learn from Putin though, assuming we both don’t want to build a relatively stable authoritarian proto fascist regime.
Realistically, how do you imagine that? Because I can’t: you’ve built an authoritarian state with one party on the top, the country is not in the best condition. right now. There is no place for martyrdom here, you are obliged to rule the state while the things are as they are. I do not agree to shit on Stalin/Castro/Mao for exercising more lavish lifestyle than the common people. I can agree to shit on them for creating the system where they are the center of the country though.
On a side note, do you know the story of Vasily Stalin? He was Stalin’s son and he did not have such privileges.
Historical irony here is that Lenin himself discusses this in “What is to be done?”, giving the example of Napoleon if I’m not mistaken. He’s all for democracy though.
The first thing Bolsheviks did, was cancelling the persecution by political reasons (being gay included) and legitimizing abortions.
Overall I see that although you identify as a right winger, we don’t have that different world view and how the world should be. I very much appreciate you being honest. Such threads make me love humanity more
Both of those claims are false.
This short video on obstacles to the China path in Latin America gets into exactly what we’re talking about, the abolition of the rent-seeking parasitic sector of the economy that the Chinese revolution abolished.
The USSR was a historic success. The dissolution of the USSR is one large failure, but doesn’t negate the century of success after success in proving socialism works, siding with national liberation movements, and advancing the needs of the working class. The USSR worked, economically, its dissolution was more of a political failure than one pointing to Marxism not being able to work.
The PRC is socialist, those who say it’s capitalist typically conflate markets for capitalism, when the process of sublimating private property is a gradual one once the large firms and key industries are siezed. Both the USSR and PRC are examples of socialism working.
Marxism was implemented, and still is. Rather, Marxism-Leninism is a tool for analysis and revolution, to bring about socialism, and is has many historical successes, and continues to succeed today. Marxism-Leninism is the guiding ideology of the largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity.
So no, you can’t really say the same of Marxism as you can of Georgism. Marxism works, still works, and will continue to work. Georgism was a curiosity for a while and fades while Marxism-Leninism became the defining ideology of the 20th century, and will continue to prove even more relevant thanks to the rise of the PRC over the US.
The vast and rapid modernization and industrialization of Russia at the start was a success, but my opinion is that Marxist-Leninism stopped in the USSR when Stalin seized the country and turned it into a crony dictatorship. I don’t believe that lasted long enough to be truly called a success, as it immediately fell to the authoritarianism it overthrew from the monarchy.
If you don’t think that Stalinism was the death of Marxist-Leninism in the USSR then the bread lines, famines, forced labor and relocation, imperial expansionism, etc. as broadly reported by those that lived there and lived through it are a product of socialism. I also believe that would count as failures of socialism and not proof of success.
I agree with you that the PRC is still nominally socialist, but believe they also went Stalinist instead of Marxist-Leninist. I would call them Stalinist Communist rather than socialist. I also do not think the juice was worth the squeeze with the number of dead in the revolution and aftermath, but there is no telling what an alternative would have looked like so that is just, like, my opinion man. I personally don’t consider China as a socialist success story, but instead another warning example for how easily Communism can be corrupted/captured from within.
I totally give you that Marxist-Leninism was the defining ideology of the 20th century, but I’d call it the fuse that lead to “Communism” the failed authoritarian ideology. Like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is to WWI. That is a hell of a lot more than Georgism ever got, to be sure, but would still say there has never been a successful Marxist country because they never remain Marxist for long.
Stalin did not “sieze the country and turn it into a crony dictatorship.” You can read works like *Soviet Democracy, This Soviet World, and Is The Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union. The Soviets had a robust system of democracy. It didn’t “fall into authoritarianism,” it entered into a state of siege in all sides from capitalist invaders and as such had to defend itself. You should really read about the soviet government structure and democracy.
As for your lightning round:
Bread Lines - it’s a good thing to feed people in times of crisis. The US did it too, and that was a good thing.
Famine - famine was common in Russia before collectivization, which ended famine in the USSR.
Forced labor and relocation - this part is an issue, but it isn’t intrinsic to Marxism or socialism, and was phased out over time.
Imperial expansionism - the USSR was not imperialist. It did expand, but expanding itself is not a bad thing, especially when the majority of people who lived in the Soviet Union said they were better off then.
“Stalinism” isn’t an ideology. Stalin had his own policies during his time as the leader of the Soviet Union, especially Socialism in One Country as opposed to Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution, but Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by him. There was no betrayal of Marxism-Leninism until the Khruschev era, where reforms began to work against the centralized socialist system, leading to the utter disasters of the later Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras and the dissolution.
The PRC is Marxist-Leninist. There’s no such thing as “Stalinism,” to begin with, but you can’t use Stalinist to describe the PRC anyways because there’s no Stalin, so you can’t even use it to describe Stalin’s specific economic policies. Either way, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government. The revolution saved countless lives and doubled life expectancies, same as in Russia.
I really don’t know what you think Marxism-Leninism is. If you want, I have an introductory reading list you can check out. It also isn’t just the guiding ideology of the USSR and PRC, but other countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and more, with similar success stories.