Fair enough, I mostly agree. I can imagine that China, Vietnam, and Laos are on the list because of, uh, capitalist roading, and the DPRK is nationalist to a reactionary degree and kind of culty, but what criticism would you apply to Cuba? Do they do capitalist roading too? I don’t hear much about them in that regard.
Is it your stance that every nominally Marxist country is actually Marxist? That there are no revisionist countries even though, for example, the USSR spent most of its existence being revisionist?
I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history.
The more accurate lesson would be that communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War; the countries didn’t just implode of their own accord. Now, it’s fair to criticize them for this, if you have an ideology all about material conditions and then you aren’t able to survive those conditions, you probably messed up, but I think that’s a very different assertion from “communism doesn’t work”.
You probably want to replace “atheism” with “antitheism” in that context. I would disagree either way, but I think you’d have a point with antitheism.
I apologize about the language bit. I rarely get a liberal arguing about this who wouldn’t use such a term as “comrade” derisively.
Anyway, I explained the reason I shared it, which is that it is:
showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
But that’s not precisely what you asked for, I just don’t have a good source on your real question.
As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.
Let me start by saying that the general idea of this response is fair, but I checked and I think it’s only 3 books, two of which are novella-length at best (I think the Losurdo one is a bit longer). I would furthermore like to encourage you to click on the link and glance at The Soviet World because it has a nice hyperlinked table of contents and most of the individual sections, clearly labeled by topic, are just a few pages each.
Is this the sort of thing you’re looking for?
Within a few weeks after the 13th Congress Pravda published Stalin’s report…. Stalin’s report also contained an attack on Zinoviev, though without naming him:
“It is often said that we have the dictatorship of the party. I recall that in one of our resolutions, even, it seems, a resolution of the 12th Congress, such an expression was allowed to pass, through an oversight of course. Apparently some comrades think that we have a dictatorship of the party and not of the working class. But that is nonsense, comrades.”
Of course Stalin knew perfectly well that Zinoviev in his political report to the 12th Congress had put forward the concept of the dictatorship of the party and had sought to substantiate it. It was not at all through an oversight that the phrase was included in the unanimously adopted resolution of the Congress.
Zinoviev and Kamenev, reacting quite sharply to Stalin’s thrust, insisted that a conference of the core leadership of the party be convened. The result was a gathering of 25 Central Committee members, including all members of the Politburo. Stalin’s arguments against the “dictatorship of the party” were rejected by a majority vote, and an article by Zinoviev reaffirming the concept was approved for publication in the Aug. 23, 1924 issue of Pravda as a statement by the editors. At this point Stalin demonstratively offered to resign, but the offer was refused.
-Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 144
This is from an explicitly anti-“Stalinism” book showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
For the record, I do think that historical texts by “comrades,” as you sneer, can be interesting and insightful, but I mostly concern myself with texts by liberals (or otherwise anti-communist ideologies) because I know those are the only ones that won’t be rejected out of hand.
Schools are either public institutions (tools of the existing state) or private (tools of capitalists), workplaces could not more obviously be the responsibility of capitalists, by sects I assume you mean religious sects, and those are famously also tools of the state for the oppression of enemies of the state or the scapegoating of minorities.
This “human nature” thing your on is a non-answer, it’s a declaration of defeat without the slightest bit of critical inquiry.
It’s like looking at the genocide in Palestine, being asked the question of “What can we do about this violence?” and saying “Well, my brother gave me indian burns growing up, so I guess violence is human nature and therefore there is nothing we can do”
You’ll probably need to think beyond liberal dogma if you want to solve a problem with liberalism. “Paying for something is speech and therefore unimpeachable” is an insane thing to take as a fundamental element of how society is run when the end result is so obviously and demonstrably the rich using that ruling (which was always made for them) to buy elections.
People want to find some policy wonk solution to these fundamental problems (“Oh! Sortition fixes everything! Wait, maybe a parliamentary system. Ooh, ooh, how about . . .”) but they are just red herrings, silly schemes that distract you from critical thought about the assumptions that brought you here.
If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?
The general line according to Stalin (e.g. in “Foundations of Leninism”) was that there should be thorough and exhaustive debates among those with differing opinions within the Party but that, once a resolution was reached by a vote following the debate, further fighting on the topic as a Party official was essentially a form of wrecking, though of course matters were revisited periodically (for good and for ill). Even if you disagreed, you were then expected to go along with whatever the motion was in the interest of the integrity of the Party as an actor. This was “Diversity of opinion, unity of action” [edit: I got the motto slightly wrong, see cowbee]
I don’t really have a developed opinion on it (I guess I should have left this to cowbee for that reason) but I definitely have sympathy for this approach when I look at it in the context of glory hounds like Trotsky being constantly contrarian for the sake of political brinkmanship instead of, you know, acting in good faith and believing in things besides that he should be top dog. There shouldn’t be tolerance for people like that, and the long-term harm that Trotsky’s opposition bloc did to the SU is hard to fathom.
where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks
citation needed
I disagree about sortition, but I appreciate pushing back on elitist, misanthropic bullshit like you did. I think elections with a strong ability to quickly recall faithless representatives is a much better solution because it involves the decision-making of the whole community, rather than a community member chosen at random.
Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.
I’ve always really loved Zarbon. He has a cool design that fits his snobbish attitude and then when he sacrifices his looks to transform into his grotesque true form, to was a good foreshadowing of Frieza.
Also the Ginyu Force, of course. Ginyu himself is great and even the oft-overlooked Guldo is pretty interesting (and DBZ needs more weird bullshit powers like his).
Sees the state oppress workers on behalf of the capitalist class
o wow, almost as bad as they have it under gommunism. Wonder what it could be, since it can’t be money 🤔
Footnotes first:
It’s hilarious to imagine what kind of Marxist retains the magnitude liberal brainworms you display there. Would you like to tell me what sect you identify with? I’m just fascinated to find out, since your line of reasoning is completely against ML ideology. Are you one of Richard Wolff’s spawn, maybe?
I’m sure you feel like a big boy but I’m familiar with the prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate, don’t worry
What the hell are you talking about here? The Gilded Age was a ~30 year period in America following the Civil War where the government went full classical liberal on its non-regulation of the economy, which produced all the famous robber barons like JP Morgan, from which we inherit the classic image of such figures, which went on to inform basically every political cartoon ever along with the mascot of Monopoly. It spawned or popularized immensely infamous practices such as “company towns” and “scrip”, along with its own genre of literature (see Stephen Crane). It’s fine to not be educated on such matters but it’s literally the most well-known era in American history other than the Great Depression or a war (back when America’s domestic society was even culturally involved in wars).
N/A
Whoops, no citation, not even a name. Don’t give a shit. CTH moderated itself pretty well, the admins just hated it (and the neoliberal userbase of broader Reddit).
I never called TD people Nazis. This is an irrelevant tangent, what I was talking about was the nature of reactionary cesspits in general, not Nazis specifically. I don’t care what flavor of reactionary someone is, I don’t like any of them.
Anyway, most of your post is just listing informal fallacies and I have no interest in entertaining high-school level bullshit when it’s tediously rendered, so I’ll just pick out a few more parts:
Just to clarify, my point of the laissez-faire comparison is not that using that term makes you a libertarian, but that it was interesting how it corresponded to the very libertarian-like ideology you expressed in your arguments. More on that later.
even if we disregard that this is a big “chrust me” (anecdotal evidence does not lead to meaningful conclusions - bring data or arguments, otherwise you’re just calling your reader gullible/stupid with this sort of anecdote)
It’s ridiculous to dismiss cth out of hand as an “anecdote” when it represents years of interaction on the website with what was, for a period of a bit more than a year, the largest extremist community on the website and easily, easily the most active. Treating it as a though it were a single data point equivalent to other extremist subreddits would in fact be warping the information available against what would be a reasonable representation of its magnitude. TD is the only stronger example due to how long it was active unless you want to get into the old Reddit Lore of fatpeoplehate or whatever.
The admins are not your parents. “ADMINS, I CAN’T CONFRONT THE NAZI BY MYSELF” is not support to marginalised groups, it’s to act like a Reddit baby. A kid sees the ant in the kitchen and says “MUM! I SAW AN ANT! KILL IT!”; the adult crushes it.
Also, stop dealing with marginalised groups as if they were “fragile little things, who can’t defend themselves unless big admin patronises them”. That’s perverse incentive - you’re disempowering them. You might have “good intentions” doing so but perhaps you should pave Hell with them.
This – and how you talked about the Nazi bar issue before – is a strange case of equivocation that seems almost deliberately obfuscatory. If I could crush the mosquito myself, I would, but because this is a forum and I am merely a normal user, I cannot and the community cannot ban them. The admins are the only people who have that power, so the best course of action (since a poll would be open to manipulation and those fuckers at beehaw wouldn’t even blink before doing so) is to have admins use their power with the consent of the governed and for the governed to become ungovernable if the admins act unilaterally against the popular consensus.
In a similar way, patrons running the Nazis out of the bar would be illegal on many levels. The owner is the only one who is legally protected in doing so because it is his property, so he can pick up his bat and say in so many words “Leave or I will consider you a trepasser and beat you to a pulp” where a patron would be easily charged with a crime for making such a threat. Now, could the patrons act illegally and take things in their own hands anyway? Sure, but just like the difference between real futball and a Fifa video game, breaking the law in reality is possible while breaking the rules in a “programmed space” generally isn’t. I could hypothetically strike a Nazi with a hammer, cops be damned. I cannot ban a Nazi here if the site does not give me permission, it literally just can’t be done.
I fully support arming minority communities in real life. There is no way to smuggle a banhammer to a non-mod.
Also, the idea that supporting minorities is “babying them” is just asinine. Sitting by as they are attacked is not an example of being an ally, and forcing them to fend for themselves in the interest of what may as well be “protecting their honor as warriors” doesn’t do shit except consign them to miserable lives of fighting in their own defense no matter how successful they are. That is why, in civil society, the main thing social minorities typically fight for are legal protections that make it so they can avoid those fights or make them easier to win! Black people in general don’t seek to repeal the 1968 Civil Rights Act because the concept of a hate crime is “patronizing” to their ability to … what? Go catch racial aggressors on their own? Fuck off with that “the Democrats are the real racists” shit. The Democrats are indeed real racists, but so are Republicans.
By the way:
perverse incentive
Are you really going to tell me you’re not some kind of Hayekian? Between your general lines of reasoning, your sophomoric list of wikipedia fallacies, and turns of phrase like this, you really, really seem to be a libertarian.
Thankfully they had the evidence pinned for some time:
Beehaw is a community of individuals and therefore does not have any specific political affiliation.
Later:
Some of the instances that we have chosen to defederate with have explicit political stances and ideologies. Their political stance and ideology had nothing to do with the choice to defederate. The choice to defederate was based on the amount of hate speech present on the instance and/or explicitly endorsing it.
And there’s more but you can just read it yourself:
https://beehaw.org/post/524300?scrollToComments=true
Obviously I support cracking down on hate speech, you can see my activity throughout this thread, which consists entirely of me doing that while taking maybe two or three asides to knock beehaw when someone else mentioned it. What I don’t support is taking the absurd position that it’s not a political stance.
Of course, this all works as an excellent bit of smoke and mirrors for an audience of credulous radlibs to whom you don’t want to confess you are splitting with instances that are decidedly to your left – such as Hexbear.net , the only instance which actually has site-mandated use of self-identified pronouns, which was put on the blacklist pre-emptively before it had federated with anyone (and it still hasn’t) for reasons that the userbase are left to conclude are “hate speech” or its “endorsement”.
Note that, by laissez faire approach, I don’t mean “do nothing at all”; that’s incompetence, and incompetent admins go fuck themselves, as you said. For me, laissez faire means “keep a close watch on the situation, and intervene if necessary, but otherwise let the userbase handle it”.
“If necessary” is doing all of the work there. By your meaningless definition of the word, I agree that’s a good approach, but you’re letting insinuation occupy the entire point in dispute. We both know what “laissez-faire” actually means, and I think the Gilded Age showed us what a shit approach it is.
And in this case you got a rather engaged community, who’s most likely prone to engage those Nazi, and tell them to fuck off. Is admin intervention necessary in this case?
Yes, it is. I am quite familiar with how these dynamics work – I followed r/cth for about a year before it was quarantined. It was probably the most-hated sub of its time outside of literal Nazi subs (remember TD was long-inactive at that point). People complained about it all over the place for a variety of reasons, both good and bad faith. With all the controversy, do you know what it never was before it got quarantined? And honestly not even before it was banned? Neutralized. The vocal hatred against it fed its growth, and the userbase was quite aware of this fact and took advantage of it actively. When it was finally banned, the slide in Reddit’s entire user culture on the popular and political subs was palpable, and that transformation took maybe a month.
Now, unlike the Reddit admins, I won’t equivocate between TD and cth, they were not the same in a pat little horseshoe theory conception because horseshoe theory is horseshit. That said, it nonetheless stands as a glaringly obvious counter example to your flimsy market solution – as does most of Reddit’s history before that, with various places much worse than cth festering quite aggressively until the admins banned it, either for their own reasons – like cth – or external political reasons starting from jailbait to fatpeoplehate through to WatchPeopleDie.
I’m not sure if a laissez faire approach would be a good approach in this specific case, but it’s generally a good “default” - often people managing communities cause more harm than good when they’re trying to proactively solve issues that didn’t appear yet.
Market solutions rarely work except for the rich and their lackeys, and the people who propose relying on them without any specific evidence should be regarded with suspicion. I’ve heard these libertarian spiels a thousand times before and, well, the only mistake I’ve ever made with libertarian ideology is not having enough contempt for it – which I say having never respected it to begin with.
That’s a great point - the reversibility makes the option less drastic. Still annoying for legitimate users and admins of other instances.
Oh, it’s annoying is it? That’s such a shame, that it’s annoying. I’ll be sure to tell the minorities pushed out of the Nazi bar that preventative measures are possible but really should not be implemented because they would be annoying.
Please, give a stronger tell that you don’t give a shit for the people this more gravely impacts that you acknowledge how reversible this is and yet think that it’s still too much of a hassle because it’s annoying.
And I said nothing because it was an entirely correct thing to do
I’m unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.
As some guy said, “Revolution is not a dinner party” and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: “The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist.”