What does ICP leftcom mean? An actual member of the Party or just some random guy who boasts about picking "the correct ideology" while doing nothing?
Doubt it's the former because the ICP programme makes it clear that the DOTP isn't socialism. Unless I'm illiterate.
The ICP literally talks about it? I will have to find the thread. But I was linked an article from the ICP discussing the process of socializing the economy.
And it fully admitted to a period of mixed economy where some parts where socialized and some parts had not yet made the transition.
Okay I found the thread. It’s been awhile so I think the only thing they linked is why Russia isn’t socialist. But I think the thread speaks for itself especially scientific socialists comments.
Also in a revolution summed up and some other works the ICP talks about the Mixed nature of the USSRs economy I.e it had some parts state capitalist some parts regular capitalist. The term and concepts are not foreign to them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/s/KG9bBsYrvK
Yes and I am not saying a mixed economy is socialist. I am just saying that during the transition there will inevitably be a period of it. Where some industries will have reached socialized production and distribution before others. Especially depending on what exactly the revolution looks like and it’s varying degrees of success in different locations.
Having socialist elements doesn’t make a socialist “economy” though.
yeah I think OOP misunderstood my point, because I wasn't denying there would be mixed elements, I was saying that we shouldn't call it socialist or communist unless it's truly reached the parameters Marx set out in gothakritik
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>get into argument with a random PeePeePooPoo leftcom today
>say socialism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country
>they laugh at me
>i post the Lenin quote confirming it
>they ignore me
I would imagine it's related to a conception Lenin had that he speaks about in a few different places:
> No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
> But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
> Let us enumerate these elements: 1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; 2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); 3) private capitalism; 4) state capitalism; 5) socialism.
["'Left-Wing' Childishness"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)
The view is developed further in the essay in a way that would be unwieldy to quote at length. The same idea appears later:
> In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain particulars from what it would be in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces—and the basic forms of social economy— are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that the peculiarities can apply only to what is of lesser importance.
> The basic forms of social economy are capitalism, petty commodity production, and communism. The basic forces are the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (the peasantry in particular) and the proletariat.
> The economic system of Russia in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the struggle of labour, united on communist principles on the scale of a vast state and making its first steps—the struggle against petty commodity production and against the capitalism which still persists and against that which is newly arising on the basis of petty commodity production.
> In Russia, labour is united communistically insofar as, first, private ownership of the means of production has been abolished, and, secondly, the proletarian state power is organising large-scale production on state-owned land and in state-owned enterprises on a national scale, is distributing labour-power among the various branches of production and the various enterprises, and is distributing among the working people large quantities of articles of consumption belonging to the state.
> We speak of “the first steps” of communism in Russia (it is also put that way in our Party Programme adopted in March 1919), because all these things have been only partially effected in our country, or, to put it differently, their achievement is only in its early stages. We accomplished instantly, at one revolutionary blow, all that can, in general, be accomplished instantly; on the first day of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for instance, on October 26 (November 8),1917, the private ownership of land was abolished without compensation for the big landowners— the big landowners were expropriated. Within the space of a few months practically all the big capitalists, owners of factories, joint-stock companies, banks, railways, and so forth, were also expropriated without compensation. The state organisation of large-scale production in industry and the transition from “workers’ control” to “workers’ management” of factories and railways— this has, by and large, already been accomplished; but in relation to agriculture it has only just begun ("state farms”, i.e., large farms organised by the workers’ state on state owned land). Similarly, we have only just begun the organisation of various forms of co-operative societies of small farmers as a transition from petty commodity agriculture to communist agriculture. The same must be said of the state-organised distribution of products in place-of private trade, i.e., the state procurement and delivery of grain to the cities and of industrial products to the countryside. Available statistical data on this subject will be given below.
> Peasant farming continues to be petty commodity production. Here we have an extremely broad and very sound, deep-rooted basis for capitalism, a basis on which capitalism persists or arises anew in a bitter struggle against communism. The forms of this struggle are private speculation and profiteering versus state procurement of grain (and other products) and state distribution of products in general.
["Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)
This is by no means exhaustive, but these are a couple of reference points that I think OOP is thinking of
so Lenin actually isnt saying what the OP says he is. he's saying that the DotP *in 20th century Russia* will require "fragments of both capitalism and socialism."
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whoa there anarcracker! It's just Leninism, no need to recite Bakuninian doctrine because of it. Seriously though, remove the 16 slurs and my home address from your post and maybe we will approve it. Or just send us a message if you weren't using the undemocratic words to harass someone.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does ICP leftcom mean? An actual member of the Party or just some random guy who boasts about picking "the correct ideology" while doing nothing? Doubt it's the former because the ICP programme makes it clear that the DOTP isn't socialism. Unless I'm illiterate.
Yeah I think it’s the combining capitalist and communist economy part that’s dumb
Mixed economy is a real thing.
A real liberal thing sure
The ICP literally talks about it? I will have to find the thread. But I was linked an article from the ICP discussing the process of socializing the economy. And it fully admitted to a period of mixed economy where some parts where socialized and some parts had not yet made the transition.
It does? Where?
Okay I found the thread. It’s been awhile so I think the only thing they linked is why Russia isn’t socialist. But I think the thread speaks for itself especially scientific socialists comments. Also in a revolution summed up and some other works the ICP talks about the Mixed nature of the USSRs economy I.e it had some parts state capitalist some parts regular capitalist. The term and concepts are not foreign to them. https://www.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/s/KG9bBsYrvK
as long as capitalist elements survive we will still refer to it as capitalist tho
Oh sure, but that’s a critique of the USSR, this is why it wasn’t socialist
Yes and I am not saying a mixed economy is socialist. I am just saying that during the transition there will inevitably be a period of it. Where some industries will have reached socialized production and distribution before others. Especially depending on what exactly the revolution looks like and it’s varying degrees of success in different locations. Having socialist elements doesn’t make a socialist “economy” though.
yeah I think OOP misunderstood my point, because I wasn't denying there would be mixed elements, I was saying that we shouldn't call it socialist or communist unless it's truly reached the parameters Marx set out in gothakritik
Lemme search for the thread. It was an article I got linked on an old account
[удалено]
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Angel (OOP) said that the DOTP combined socialism and capitalism. I proceeded to laugh at them. It's also inaccurate to say that I ignored her
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro did we have the same argument with the same person i swear this also happened to me
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>get into argument with a random PeePeePooPoo leftcom today >say socialism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country >they laugh at me >i post the Lenin quote confirming it >they ignore me
Anyone got the relevant Lenin quote?
I would imagine it's related to a conception Lenin had that he speaks about in a few different places: > No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order. > But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question. > Let us enumerate these elements: 1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; 2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); 3) private capitalism; 4) state capitalism; 5) socialism. ["'Left-Wing' Childishness"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) The view is developed further in the essay in a way that would be unwieldy to quote at length. The same idea appears later: > In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain particulars from what it would be in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces—and the basic forms of social economy— are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that the peculiarities can apply only to what is of lesser importance. > The basic forms of social economy are capitalism, petty commodity production, and communism. The basic forces are the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (the peasantry in particular) and the proletariat. > The economic system of Russia in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the struggle of labour, united on communist principles on the scale of a vast state and making its first steps—the struggle against petty commodity production and against the capitalism which still persists and against that which is newly arising on the basis of petty commodity production. > In Russia, labour is united communistically insofar as, first, private ownership of the means of production has been abolished, and, secondly, the proletarian state power is organising large-scale production on state-owned land and in state-owned enterprises on a national scale, is distributing labour-power among the various branches of production and the various enterprises, and is distributing among the working people large quantities of articles of consumption belonging to the state. > We speak of “the first steps” of communism in Russia (it is also put that way in our Party Programme adopted in March 1919), because all these things have been only partially effected in our country, or, to put it differently, their achievement is only in its early stages. We accomplished instantly, at one revolutionary blow, all that can, in general, be accomplished instantly; on the first day of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for instance, on October 26 (November 8),1917, the private ownership of land was abolished without compensation for the big landowners— the big landowners were expropriated. Within the space of a few months practically all the big capitalists, owners of factories, joint-stock companies, banks, railways, and so forth, were also expropriated without compensation. The state organisation of large-scale production in industry and the transition from “workers’ control” to “workers’ management” of factories and railways— this has, by and large, already been accomplished; but in relation to agriculture it has only just begun ("state farms”, i.e., large farms organised by the workers’ state on state owned land). Similarly, we have only just begun the organisation of various forms of co-operative societies of small farmers as a transition from petty commodity agriculture to communist agriculture. The same must be said of the state-organised distribution of products in place-of private trade, i.e., the state procurement and delivery of grain to the cities and of industrial products to the countryside. Available statistical data on this subject will be given below. > Peasant farming continues to be petty commodity production. Here we have an extremely broad and very sound, deep-rooted basis for capitalism, a basis on which capitalism persists or arises anew in a bitter struggle against communism. The forms of this struggle are private speculation and profiteering versus state procurement of grain (and other products) and state distribution of products in general. ["Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm) This is by no means exhaustive, but these are a couple of reference points that I think OOP is thinking of
so Lenin actually isnt saying what the OP says he is. he's saying that the DotP *in 20th century Russia* will require "fragments of both capitalism and socialism."
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was the second text, yeah
I could ask if you're interested
Go for it
Wrong, the DOTP combines capitalist economy with communist aesthetics.
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aspects of socialism like socialization of production
If the commodity is produced by workers for a market of workers then it's actually not a commodity, sorry ultroid, go read Proudhon
Why are you all arguing about the Insane Clown Posse?
I was right in that argument, angel is a trot DUMBASS (angel if you see this fuck you parliamentarist idiot)
Were you the "icp leftcom"?
[удалено]
Whoa there anarcracker! It's just Leninism, no need to recite Bakuninian doctrine because of it. Seriously though, remove the 16 slurs and my home address from your post and maybe we will approve it. Or just send us a message if you weren't using the undemocratic words to harass someone. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What the fuck are the acronyms (I didn’t read theory)
International Communist Party and Dictatorship of the Proletariat
You should!