“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds,excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).
“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds, excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).