-_-
Link so y’all don’t call me a lib again.
They also like V*ush. Think “eat the rich” is a metaphor for taxation. And say Tankies turned them from Anarcho-Communist to a Neoliberal. Think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meant the Soviet Union was fascist. Like, okay, how fucking twisted do your priorities have to be that you dunk on a state that hasn’t existed for 30 fucking years instead of, you know, your own state that is currently involved in who know how many fascist conspiracies. And that’s it. I’m not going any deeper into their timeline. I’m too tired.
yes the PLA answers to the party. it’s called not getting couped like the USSR did.
Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past!
In recent years there have been a few commentators—both at home and abroad—that have asked if what modern China is doing can really be called socialism. Some have said we have engaged in a sort of “capital socialism;” others have been more straightforward, calling it “state capitalism” or “bureaucratic capitalism.” These labels are completely wrong. We say that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism.
Definitely not state capitalism, folks. Nope! See, it’s socialism because he says it’s socialism.
I don’t know how much you’ve actually read, but the method is governance in China is not very far off from the models laid out by Marx and Lenin.
Both stated that the transitional state between capitalism and socialism would have a lot of similarities to capitalism, but with the important distinction that:
A) “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work” would be one of the guiding principles
B) The transitional state would take the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a tool for class oppression directed at the bourgeoisie/capitalists*
C) The length of the transitional state is unknown and will last until it withers away due to not being needed anymore.
*Marx makes it clear that the oppression of the bourgeoisie is not the same as their extermination. The class will be liquidated, and the primary method for that is to abolish private property and bring it all under the control of the state. While they did reintroduce private ownership of factories in 2007, all land is still owned by the state and anyone using it for private reasons pays a ground rent to the state.
Most property in China is still either owned by the state or collectives.
State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country. as my sibling commenter said, state capitalism is a stepping stone
fascism is when you can actually resist imperialism
that Molotov-Ribbentrop lie is so tiresome, completely historically ignorant
Strangely the people who go on and on about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact never ever mention the Munich agreement, nor how the western capitalist nations refused Soviet attempts at forging an alliance against the Nazis.
And now we’re at it: In 1952 Stalin proposed to reunite Germany, with no conditions on economic system and guarantees for liberal democratic rights. The only condition was that the new united Germany should be neutral.
The Western powers refused. They preferred a US-aligned West Germany.
There were serious talks of an Anglo-French-Soviet alliance against Germany but the British killed it by dragging their feet, forcing the USSR to sign a treaty with Germany to buy time.
Someone posted this excellent article on here a while back: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/26/the-hitler-stalin-pact-of-august-23-1939-myth-and-reality/
I’ve had the opinion for a while now, that Bernie’s attempts to rehabilitate public opinion around socialism have done harm as well as good (but still probably a net improvement)… the rhetoric about socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor just adds to the confusion by conflating socialism with welfare, which only reinforces the reactionary fear mongering around welfare economics without getting people to think about their social relationship to the means of production and all the class interests and contradictions that spill out of that.
I don’t see this. A ton of people who started moving left with one of the Bernie campaigns are now farther left than those campaigns. Doesn’t that suggest that those campaigns were effective at eventually leading people to a better understanding?
More than anything else in the world, the fact that they treat fascism as a socialist concept is one of the most disgusting things the public education system does. Just say you want to funnel anyone with a few IQ points into the nazis, why don’t you? Like, they are all like “oh, how scary that they were socialist, that’s horrifying and makes them weak” but also “the nazis were so strong we could only barely defeat them with the three strongest nations to ever exist. Also the soviet union was socialist and stronger than the nazis but don;t think about that holodomor 10 billion dead.” I honestly have no idea what we were supposed to take from this distorted view of history.
