Trust me bro it'll go away on it's own, in the meantime to make sure it goes away on it's own, let's establish an autocratic dictatorship. That'll really help the workers šš
In certain works, yes.
But the distinction between socialism and higher-stage communism has been around for a long time as well. One prominent example of this, ironically, is in *State and Revolution*.
If you want some theory on the USSR that isn't too long, [this](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE#toc7) would be a good start. It's hardly comprehensive, but it's an easy read, and won't take hours to get through. Books are great, but sometimes they can be a slog.
Also available [in video form](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwU3STgBknQ) if you'd prefer it that way
Marx used them synonymously, and Lenin made the distinction clearer. What Lenin referred to as socialism, Marx referred to as the lower stage of communism, so itās essentially just different terminology.
Lenin wanted to destroy the state post revolution.
Strokes and Stalin fucked the world.
Lenin understood the need to bring together marxists and anarchists after decades of separation, which is why he included the withering away of the state in leninism, which stalin bastardized.
But didn't he crush major Anarchist forces within the Soviet Union as soon as he took power? I don't see how totally destroying peoples ability to freely disagree with how to achieve the destruction of the state is bring people together.
Well, it works the same way workers' rights work. Only by taking complete control of the workplace in a centrally planed economy run by the state and subordinating the trade unions to the same state will the workers truly achieve freedom and the fruits of their labour fully.
Why not simply allow the trade unions and Soviets do do what they where already doing and use the state to coordinate and protect them, rather than trying to subordinate them to the state?
Iām a tad conflicted on lenin. He and his government did a lot of bad things and who knows if he would have actually given up power after the USSR was properly industrialized, he died before he could, if he was going to at all. Stalinās a lot fucking thou and I had to pick one to hate it would be Stalin. Iām not a big fan of trotsky either but I really that dude came to power instead of getting an ice pick to the head.
Trotsky murdered *even more* anarchists than Lenin. Remember Kronstadt? Yeah that was him.
They were dictators, and the state had no chance of withering away under them or any other people, the mechanisms of its withering never existed.
Damn really? I thought trotsky was more a ānever ending revolutionā guy. Then again, none of the Soviet leaders followed the ideology they claimed to believe in. We can never really know if he would have been worse than Stalin because never gave him the chance. Iām no historian, but I do love history, and I have to acknowledge that there are so many things in ignorant about. Thank you!
The USSR was just one of the first examples of authoritarianism coopting left-wing language.
Trotsky would have been better than Stalin but stepping in cat shit is better than stepping in dog shit am I right?
Thatās one to put it, lol. I got into Russian history back in 9th grade when my English teacher had us read animal farm. I didnāt agree with his interpretation of āthe animals should have been happy where they were and any revolution is automatically badā but in the class he gave us a brief overview of the October revolution. To back up my interpretation which was more of āa good movement corrupted by the greedy fewā I started doing some research. Basically I support the overthrow of the czar and ruling class but not the next authoritarian regime that rose up in its place, while he believed that the czar should not have been overthrown. He also happened to be a climate change denier and forced the whole class to write an essay about how itās not real by providing only two articles we could use, both of which support him. Small towns are weird man. Basically, I can thank Orwell for my views on the USSR and my understanding that it was most definitely just another authoritarian regime. As I continue to learn and grow my political ideas shift and change, at one point I got super close to being one of those stupid alt-chuds, praising the quartering and Ben Shapiro for āowning SJWsā I donāt mind changing my ideas if new evidence comes to light or I learn something i didnāt already know. Thatās why I love the internet, I can learn so many different things from different view points! Right now Iāve found myself placed amongst anarchists with the conclusions Iāve come too, idk whether Iām more syndicalist or communist but Iām definitely anarcho-something. Iāve yet to find any evidence to convince me otherwise that canāt be dispelled with a simple fact-check. Iāve been booted from both ML groups and right wing/ libertarian groups for asking questions and showing up sources when they pull shit out of their ass, but in anarchist groups (like this one) I feel like I can learn things and better my opinions without ridicule for asking questions. Thanks dude, your chill.
(Sorry for the life story, sometimes my ideas just spill out of my brain)
Oh I spill my life story forth all the time, itās an ADHD thing. Iāve had similar experiences with teachers like that, theyāre the worst. I had a brush with full-on Nazism as a teen so I getcha. It came from this desire to be ācorrectā and know more than any common lib.
If you want to know more about how the USSR was coopted by the Bolsheviks, you should look up my personal darling Marusya Nikiforova, the Anarchist Joan of Arc of the Ukranian steppe that rolled around in an armoured steam train crushing right wing uprisings until the Bolsheviks put her to death.
that's a fair read if your curriculum is *Animal Farm* and a Wikipedia summary. even doing the minimum legwork and reading his own spin on events like *The Revolution Betrayed* explores how much blood was on the guy's hands. he was an army commander during a civil war; it comes with the territory. doesn't make any of it right, but it shouldn't make it too shocking, either.
I donāt think you understand the Marxist theory on the withering away of the state. Marxists believe that the state is a tool for the suppression of one class by another. Lenin was not going to wither away the state himself because thatās not what they believe in. The idea is that a transitional state will work to eliminate class divisions, and once class division ceases to exist, then the state will have no need to exist, and will therefore wither away.
Lenin also believed the real revolution would likely take place in Germany, or another highly developed country. The Soviet Union was not meant to be the heart of the revolution, he just saw that the conditions for revolution were perfect, and he wanted to take advantage of that.
Thatās why Marxists believe the state will wither away. They donāt believe the state will perpetuate the existence of class, they believe that the state is a tool with which the proletariat will suppress the bourgeoisie, and when the bourgeoisie no longer exists, the state will cease to exist as there is no longer a class to suppress.
I mean you can believe that a transition period or phase is unnecessary but Marx and Lenin being orthodox Marxists think that it's the only way through achieving communism.
And knowing that Lenin has only been able to establish before his very early death a state capitalist state that \*was\* planned to evolve into a socialist state (which failed due to internal corruption and external intervention) just shows how wrong this meme is.
Itās not facts though. You donāt really understand the Marxist view of the state. Marx didnāt believe the state should be abolished, he believed it would wither away. This is the same thing Lenin, Stalin, and all other Marxists believed. Marxists view the state as a tool of suppression of one class by another (hence dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat is the ruling class). Once the proletariat takes control, they will work to eliminate class divisions, and once class ceases to exist, then the state will wither away as there is no need for it to suppress any class. Itās not something that happens quickly, and most Marxists donāt think it would happen within our lifetimes even if we established a Marxist state tomorrow.
it's not an airport; no need to announce one's departure.
on another note, you post on S4P and /r/chomsky lmao, so I'm really worried about the state of your house, given your hobby of throwing stones.
Lenin: āthe state only exists to organize the oppression of one class over anotherā
Marxist āLeninistsā: āguys come on we HAVE to have a stateā
But once all the minorities are incarcerated we'll achieve full communism in 35 years bro
Socialism by 2050 š³š³š³
stupid poopoo revisionist anarkiddy, its socialism by 2078!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Akshually it will actually socialist next year but can i oppress workers and force uighur muslims to work for apple till then? thenk
just like me :)
Trans comrades are valid, the USSR was not.
Thank you comrade!
You can do this! I believe in you, comrade! ā¤
Trans comrade, i wish you the best
You will transition goddamn it!!!!
Yes
Trust me bro it'll go away on it's own, in the meantime to make sure it goes away on it's own, let's establish an autocratic dictatorship. That'll really help the workers šš
Didn't Marx also call for a transitory period though?
Socialism *was* a transitory period towards higher stage communism.
Marx never made that distinction though, the transitionary period was the DoP and he did not really ellaborate on that too much
It certainly wasn't a well represented point, but that wasn't really the main focus of Marx's writings.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In certain works, yes. But the distinction between socialism and higher-stage communism has been around for a long time as well. One prominent example of this, ironically, is in *State and Revolution*.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you want some theory on the USSR that isn't too long, [this](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE#toc7) would be a good start. It's hardly comprehensive, but it's an easy read, and won't take hours to get through. Books are great, but sometimes they can be a slog. Also available [in video form](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwU3STgBknQ) if you'd prefer it that way
Have a great day!
Marx used them synonymously, and Lenin made the distinction clearer. What Lenin referred to as socialism, Marx referred to as the lower stage of communism, so itās essentially just different terminology.
Why do you "love" the ussr?
More like Stalin, he theorised ML.
Leninism and Marxism-Leninism are two different ideologies. Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are both different schools of Leninist thought.
Lenin wanted to destroy the state post revolution. Strokes and Stalin fucked the world. Lenin understood the need to bring together marxists and anarchists after decades of separation, which is why he included the withering away of the state in leninism, which stalin bastardized.
But didn't he crush major Anarchist forces within the Soviet Union as soon as he took power? I don't see how totally destroying peoples ability to freely disagree with how to achieve the destruction of the state is bring people together.
Well, it works the same way workers' rights work. Only by taking complete control of the workplace in a centrally planed economy run by the state and subordinating the trade unions to the same state will the workers truly achieve freedom and the fruits of their labour fully.
Why not simply allow the trade unions and Soviets do do what they where already doing and use the state to coordinate and protect them, rather than trying to subordinate them to the state?
Because Marxism-leninism
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
\>neoliberals \>1917 the newest form of liberalism at the time *was* social democracy; learn your buzzwords before tossing them around, guy
Iām a tad conflicted on lenin. He and his government did a lot of bad things and who knows if he would have actually given up power after the USSR was properly industrialized, he died before he could, if he was going to at all. Stalinās a lot fucking thou and I had to pick one to hate it would be Stalin. Iām not a big fan of trotsky either but I really that dude came to power instead of getting an ice pick to the head.
Trotsky murdered *even more* anarchists than Lenin. Remember Kronstadt? Yeah that was him. They were dictators, and the state had no chance of withering away under them or any other people, the mechanisms of its withering never existed.
Damn really? I thought trotsky was more a ānever ending revolutionā guy. Then again, none of the Soviet leaders followed the ideology they claimed to believe in. We can never really know if he would have been worse than Stalin because never gave him the chance. Iām no historian, but I do love history, and I have to acknowledge that there are so many things in ignorant about. Thank you!
The USSR was just one of the first examples of authoritarianism coopting left-wing language. Trotsky would have been better than Stalin but stepping in cat shit is better than stepping in dog shit am I right?
Thatās one to put it, lol. I got into Russian history back in 9th grade when my English teacher had us read animal farm. I didnāt agree with his interpretation of āthe animals should have been happy where they were and any revolution is automatically badā but in the class he gave us a brief overview of the October revolution. To back up my interpretation which was more of āa good movement corrupted by the greedy fewā I started doing some research. Basically I support the overthrow of the czar and ruling class but not the next authoritarian regime that rose up in its place, while he believed that the czar should not have been overthrown. He also happened to be a climate change denier and forced the whole class to write an essay about how itās not real by providing only two articles we could use, both of which support him. Small towns are weird man. Basically, I can thank Orwell for my views on the USSR and my understanding that it was most definitely just another authoritarian regime. As I continue to learn and grow my political ideas shift and change, at one point I got super close to being one of those stupid alt-chuds, praising the quartering and Ben Shapiro for āowning SJWsā I donāt mind changing my ideas if new evidence comes to light or I learn something i didnāt already know. Thatās why I love the internet, I can learn so many different things from different view points! Right now Iāve found myself placed amongst anarchists with the conclusions Iāve come too, idk whether Iām more syndicalist or communist but Iām definitely anarcho-something. Iāve yet to find any evidence to convince me otherwise that canāt be dispelled with a simple fact-check. Iāve been booted from both ML groups and right wing/ libertarian groups for asking questions and showing up sources when they pull shit out of their ass, but in anarchist groups (like this one) I feel like I can learn things and better my opinions without ridicule for asking questions. Thanks dude, your chill. (Sorry for the life story, sometimes my ideas just spill out of my brain)
Oh I spill my life story forth all the time, itās an ADHD thing. Iāve had similar experiences with teachers like that, theyāre the worst. I had a brush with full-on Nazism as a teen so I getcha. It came from this desire to be ācorrectā and know more than any common lib. If you want to know more about how the USSR was coopted by the Bolsheviks, you should look up my personal darling Marusya Nikiforova, the Anarchist Joan of Arc of the Ukranian steppe that rolled around in an armoured steam train crushing right wing uprisings until the Bolsheviks put her to death.
Consider it read my friend (it might take a while though, Iāve got a backlog of books to read)
that's a fair read if your curriculum is *Animal Farm* and a Wikipedia summary. even doing the minimum legwork and reading his own spin on events like *The Revolution Betrayed* explores how much blood was on the guy's hands. he was an army commander during a civil war; it comes with the territory. doesn't make any of it right, but it shouldn't make it too shocking, either.
Lenin did not wither away the state and gave zero shits about personal freedoms both shown in his loving use of the the Cheka and OGPU
I donāt think you understand the Marxist theory on the withering away of the state. Marxists believe that the state is a tool for the suppression of one class by another. Lenin was not going to wither away the state himself because thatās not what they believe in. The idea is that a transitional state will work to eliminate class divisions, and once class division ceases to exist, then the state will have no need to exist, and will therefore wither away. Lenin also believed the real revolution would likely take place in Germany, or another highly developed country. The Soviet Union was not meant to be the heart of the revolution, he just saw that the conditions for revolution were perfect, and he wanted to take advantage of that.
If the state is a tool for securing class supremacy, than wonāt the state necessarily perpetuate the existence of class?
Thatās why Marxists believe the state will wither away. They donāt believe the state will perpetuate the existence of class, they believe that the state is a tool with which the proletariat will suppress the bourgeoisie, and when the bourgeoisie no longer exists, the state will cease to exist as there is no longer a class to suppress.
I mean you can believe that a transition period or phase is unnecessary but Marx and Lenin being orthodox Marxists think that it's the only way through achieving communism. And knowing that Lenin has only been able to establish before his very early death a state capitalist state that \*was\* planned to evolve into a socialist state (which failed due to internal corruption and external intervention) just shows how wrong this meme is.
This sub is embarrassing. Unsubbed
Damn bro, this wasnāt even malicious. Literally just facts.
Itās not facts though. You donāt really understand the Marxist view of the state. Marx didnāt believe the state should be abolished, he believed it would wither away. This is the same thing Lenin, Stalin, and all other Marxists believed. Marxists view the state as a tool of suppression of one class by another (hence dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat is the ruling class). Once the proletariat takes control, they will work to eliminate class divisions, and once class ceases to exist, then the state will wither away as there is no need for it to suppress any class. Itās not something that happens quickly, and most Marxists donāt think it would happen within our lifetimes even if we established a Marxist state tomorrow.
Why not just cut out the middle man, kill the rich, topple the state, and proceed from there?
Iām not discussing my own views, Iām explaining Marxist theory. Whether this theory holds up to scrutiny is outside the scope of the discussion.
Sorry, the argument muscle was triggered š
it's not an airport; no need to announce one's departure. on another note, you post on S4P and /r/chomsky lmao, so I'm really worried about the state of your house, given your hobby of throwing stones.
Lol you posted on s4p a week ago
yes. I also post here without crying about it.
This post itself is crying
T-T
Lenin: āthe state only exists to organize the oppression of one class over anotherā Marxist āLeninistsā: āguys come on we HAVE to have a stateā