this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
-37 points (35.2% liked)

Memes

47087 readers
1494 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So, let me clarify, you could've wished for a proper communism without state and such bullshit, but wished for an autocracy with ambitions of world domination to be undissolved? Great job here, mate!

[–] Packet@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Idk, I think it would be a net positive for the world. As the dissolution brought a few bad things with it, like child prostitution, alcoholism on an international scale, drug abuse, corruption on a never seen before scale, and just in general things became a tiny bit worse for an average person. If anything, we do have an autocracy with ambitions of world domination brewing (ie Russia) as a direct result of the illegal dissolution. In all honesty, would be better to wish that the liberal economics reforms were never adopted, that ideally would keep things at bay.

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fair enough; although, I meant more of a communism on a world scale, with rewiring the brains of those selfish bastards that actively oppose it for their benefit, and all that jazz. So, pretty much the thing a genie's help (or something equally unbelievable) is necessary atm.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

Hey they have three more wishes, give them a second

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The Soviet Union was working towards Communism, if it wasn't dissolved then Humanity as a whole would be a lot farther along in the transition to Communism globally. The Soviet Union was not an "autocracy," nor did it have "ambitions of world domination." Such claims come from Red Scare nonsense.

I recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Youre totally right. west germany built a wall to keep people from running away to the communism utopia next door. Wait a minute...

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Socialism doesn't mean "utopia," it's a Mode of Production. Either way, there were a number of factors working in West Germany's favor over East Germany that don't have to deal with the Mode of Production:

  1. East Germany was made to pay reparations for the immense damage the Nazis dealt to the USSR (80% of combat with the Nazis was on the Eastern Front). West Germany was kept largely unaccountable.

  2. West Germany had almost all of Germany's industry, the East Germans had to industrialize and pay reparations.

  3. East Germany provided free, high quality education, whereas West Germany did not, but paid higher wages. An effective tactic was to lure educated workers from East Germany over to the West, essentially subsidizing education in the West.

All of these factors contributed to serious economic problems more caused by circumstance than Socialism.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I used germany as an example since it was the most extreme example of the USSR restricting emigration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bloc in general, the USSR prevented all emigration except under special circumstances.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, don't see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator... i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communist, since the state is forcing a person's means of production to remain in the state's power.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.

  1. The USSR was democratic. The ability to choose between parties is less important than the ability to influence policy. The Soviets practiced Soviet Democracy, as elaborated on in the infographic below and the book Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.

  1. As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, "dictatorship" doesn't really apply.

  2. In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn't invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism's trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The "stateless" aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.

The Soviet Union wasn't Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure...sure... theres democracy... so as long you align with the party's ideology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know if you've picked up on this or not, but I'm a Marxist, I've seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you've linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia's page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).

Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn't a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As I said, the argument was if the USSR was autocratic. Noone disagrees rather or not they were socialists nor they make offical statments they intended on working toward communism.

But its very clear that the leadership was very autocratic and anti-democractic and only accepted undying loyalty.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It isn't clear at all, actually, and your dedication to vaguely gesture at Wikipedia articles doesn't discredit that. I don't see how not allowing liberals, fascists, or Tsarists into government is synonymous with "only accepting undying loyalty."

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, im not the one trying to make a claim that they were democratic while forbiding any ideology that opposes theirs. The mental gymnastics involved here could be the next Olympic event.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fascism, Capitalism, and Monarchism should be allowed within a Socialist system why? The economy was far more democratic than under the Tsars or under the current Russian Federation. Democracy doesn't have to include freedom for fascists, the bougeoisie, or monarchists, and in fact shouldn't for the Proletariat to have full control.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Who is the proletariat but people? What if they wanted any of those things? Their ideas are qlworthless because they dont fit your very narrow view? You are no better than the US republicans who label everyone they dont like as "communists".

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Proletariat is the people indeed, and the people supported the purges. They had already spent years in a civil war against the Tsarists, were invaded by 14 Capitalist nations, and fascists in Nazi Germany were killing Communists from day 1. The re-introduction of Capitalism resulted in 7 million excess deaths.

Yes, Monarchism, Capitalism, and fascism are worthless.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Sounds a lot like facism in a trench coat.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, and anti-monarchism is... fascism? Do you read what you write? Again, I'll direct you over to Dr. Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Lets see here... the definition of facism

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

authoritarian: check

dictatorial leader: check

militarism: check

forcible suppression of opposition: check

subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation: check

strong regimentation of society and the economy: check

It may claim to be a turkey, but its seems to be clucking a lot like a chicken.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Certainly less authoritarian than Tsarism, Capitalism, or fascism, didn't have a dictatorial leader, genuinely served the interests of the individual and the collective, and reduced regimentation of society and the economy compared to Tsarism, Capitalism, and fascism. The only point you have was the millitarism.

Again, read Blackshirts and Reds. The Communists and fascists were entirely antagonistic and served different classes, the Communists served the proletariat while the fascists served the bourgeoisie.

The political orthodoxy that demonizes communism permeates the entire political perspective. Even people on the Left have internalized the liberal/conservative ideology that equates fascism and communism as equally evil totalitarian twins, two major mass movements of the twentieth century. This book attempts to show the enormous differences between fascism and communism both past and present, both in theory and practice, especially in regard to questions of social equality, private capital accumulation, and class interest.

The orthodox mythology also would have us believe that the Western democracies (with the United States leading the way) have opposed both totalitarian systems with equal vigor. In fact, U.S. leaders have been dedicated above all to making the world safe for global corporate investment and the private profit system. Pursuant of this goal, they have used fascism to protect capitalism, while claiming to be saving democracy from communism.

In the pages ahead I discuss how capitalism propagates and profits from fascism, the value of revolution in the advancement of the human condition, the causes and effects of the destruction of communism, the continuing relevance of Marxism and class analysis, and the heartless nature of corporate-class power.

Read it, you need to understand history.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Im tired of these wasted arguments. I agree the soviets were not fasists in the strictest sense. But my entire point is the result of the soviet model lead to the exact same autocracy authoritarian government that denied their civilians right to their own voices.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They weren't fascist in any sense. Your point isn't based on historical fact at all, you just kept linking Wikipedia articles when I was giving you sources Wikipedia cites. It was in no way the "exact same autocracy authoritarian government" or anything of the sort, you literally said fascists should have been allowed in government even when the citizens supported the purges.

This is historical nihilism, you don't care about history, you care about being right.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I said purging opposition is a facist purge. And can you really say "citizens" support it when elections were limited by choices preapprpved by the communist party? Even if it were supported by the majority... then that simply makes them no better than the nazis purging their population. Do you support genocide? It sounds a lot like you support genocide.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Removing fascists from government is fascist?

Supporting democracy is equivalent to supporting genocide?

Supporting a popular movement to remove fascists from government is equivalent to supporting genocide?

I'm convinced you don't actually read what you write at all, this is incredibly silly behavior. You're even wrong about candidates needing to be "pre-approved," that was true in some cases and false in others, and even if it was true in all cases it doesn't mean popular support for removing fascists is somehow support for genocide.

Seriously, touch grass. You don't have to read, or learn about history, as long as you make an effort to touch grass at this point.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You do know "purging" wasnt being sent off to a happy little farm, right?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Purging" normally meant "expulsion from Party membership" and carried no actual punishment. For criminals who were purged, that also included jail time or even execution. The myth that everyone purged was executed comes from the Black Book of Communism, anti-communist mythology that the creators have since denounced, and even included Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of Communism."

You can feel free to read history books like the ones I have linked.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hand wave what away? Everything I have said is consistent with what we historically know about the Soviet Union. Can you point to something you believe I disagree with? Just linking Wikipedia articles doesn't actually constitute an argument, do you think I am denying that the Great Purge happened at all?

Touch grass, please.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"Purging" normally meant "expulsion from Party membership" and carried no actual punishment. For criminals who were purged, that also included jail time or even execution. The myth that everyone purged was executed comes from the Black Book of Communism,

Your words. So you agree the great purge occured... so how are you going to explain how 1 million executions were justified and how many more does it need to be to stop being mythical?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

Don't know where you got "1 million executions." No more than 700,000 were condemned to death, and of those condemned many had their sentences reduced. Even if all 700,000 were killed, that still fits what I have actually said, you've been putting words in my mouth. Moreover, you'll want to read this excerpt from the book The Triumph of Evil, specifically page 74:

The claim that Stalin and other Soviet leaders killed millions (Conquest, 1990) also appears to be wildly exaggerated. More recent evidence from the Soviet archives opened up by the anticommunist Yeltsin government indicate that the total number of death sentences (including of both existing prisoners and those outside captivity) over the 1921-1953 interval (covering the period of Stalin's partial and complete rule) was between 775,866 and 786,098 (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). Given that the archive data originates from anti-Stalin (and even anticommunist) sources, it is extremely unlikely that they underestimate the true number (Thurston, 1996). In addition, the Soviet Union has long admitted to executing at least 12,733 people between 1917 and 1921, mostly during the Foreign Interventionist Civil War of 1918-22, although it is possible that as many as 40,000 more may have been executed unofficially (Andics, 1969).

These data would seem to imply about 800,000 executions. The figure of 800,000 may greatly overestimate the number of actual executions, as it includes many who were sentenced to death but who were not actually caught or who had their sentences reduced (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). In fact, Vinton (1993) has provided evidence indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, with only 7,305 executions in a sample of 11,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or scarcely 600/o ). In addition, most (681,692) of the 780,000 or so death sentences passed under Stalin were issued during the 1937-38 period (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993), when Soviet paranoia about foreign subversion reached its zenith due to a 1936 alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that was specifically directed against the Soviet Union (Manning, 1993) and due to a public 1936 resolution by a group of influential anti-Stalin foreigners (the Fourth International which was allied with the popular but exiled Russian dissident Leon Trotsky) advocating the overthrow of the Soviet government by illegal means (Glotzer, 1968).

Stalin initially set a cap of 186,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1937 special operation to combat this threat that was to be carried out by local 3-man tribunals called ''troikas" (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). As the tribunals passed death sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas (Knight, 1993), and there was an official request in 1938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign "quotas" of the tribunals (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). However, even if there had been twice as many actual • executions as originally planned, the number would still be less than 150,000. Many of those sentenced by the tribunals may have escaped capture, and many more may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by higher authorities before arrest/execution could take place, especially since Stalin later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period, had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished (Thurston, 1996)."

This is why relying exclusively on Wikipedia is silly, do some actual reading. A solid rule of thumb with respect to any Wikipedia article on enemies of the US is to look at where the figures and sources come from and analyze them yourself, as you can see Wikipedia made the error of conflating condemnations with executions.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

The world certainly would be a much better place now if the Soviet Union had persisted, rather than having millions die due to the reintroduction of Capitalism.

[–] Achyu 8 points 4 days ago

In my case, it would be that

  1. Stalin lived for a few more years
  2. A leftist front would get elected to form the central govt in India
  3. Land and Education reform happens in all states, while ensuring that superstition is reduced and the consitutional duty of developing Scientific temper is given a bit more focus
load more comments
view more: next ›