I think the picture speaks for itself. I've never seen something so unserious.
Do they think we think communism is hereditary?
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
100 points (99.0% liked)
Slop.
448 readers
614 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
uhhhm Russians are genetically predisposed to communism
they're genetically predisposed to hate freedom and the free west, communism is just one of their fake bullshit disinformatsiya stuff they came up with to undermine us because of their reckless hate. like, you've got kinda the right idea but you still seem to think this communism thing is serious
They think Lenin's cook (Putin's grandad) was Machiavellically directing the USSR from the shadows.
He put communism in the food.
I heard they put chemicals in the water that was turning the frogs into communists. They want to poison the Evropa water with communism!
Yes the DPRK is a hereditary communist monarchy /s
There's a very piercing criticism of soviet nostalgia buried in the fact that so many of the people who would rip the union to shreds were in positions to do so before the Soviet Union fell. That criticism doesn't extend to "Putins ancestors were alive in Russia at the same time as Lenin"
Not to mention Spiridon Putin and his four sons (V. Putin father and three uncles) fought in the siege of Leningrad, where two of them died and one got maimed. They were heroes.
many of the people who would rip the union to shreds were in positions to do so before the Soviet Union fell
"The people with the power to do things are the ones who got things done" isn't really that strong of an argument to me, of course it wasn't a janitor and a nurse who were behind the counter-revolution in the late 80s and early 90s. There's also a bias in cherrypicking older people currently in power and trying to find links to power in the USSR (as exemplified by the "Lenin's cook" argument).
But yes, in a situation of huge crisis and quick change towards capitalism, it is to be expected that some of the people who were in power at the time were the ones who benefitted most, I don't see it as a particularly strong indictment against the Soviet Union.
I think Keld is saying there’s a criticism to be levied that people like Gorbachev and Yeltsin and all of their accomplices in destroying the Soviet Union were allowed to rise to top positions in the first place, perhaps in place of other people who would not have done what they did.
Just so.
Edit: That the deputy director of some oil company made money off its privatisation is not inherently shocking, but that the guy who oversaw its privatisation was a high ranking and long time member of the communist party and government says something about the nature of that party and government.
There was also a huge shakeup under Gorbachev and his bloc, who put anti-communists in power everywhere they could and made sure to install lackeys who were willing to dismantle the system, then enacted privatization schemes that let them and their allies loot everything. A whole lot of people who got into positions of power after '85 would have specifically been chosen to facilitate liberalization and so they would naturally tend to be liberal ghouls eager to loot and enrich themselves.
And that's even before one gets into the second economy and the corruption it spread through officials that enriched themselves by facilitating smuggling and graft.
The fact that committed liberals and supporters of capital rose to power within a government and party ostensibly in the business of advancing a communist project is an indictment of it in my eyes. It makes sense that it was the leaders of industrial projects who stood to gain from their privatisation, but it isn't great that the architects of the plundering of Russia and the other post soviet states had risen to leadership positions with the communist party, within soviet academia, or gotten posts in the supreme soviet
They suffered from the exact same problem that Western communists suffer from. People who were interested in communism as an ideological and historical project went into academia, those who were not went into industry, military, and government. Imo, the primary contradiction that a successful revolution must overcome is that which binds industry to the academy. Workers must learn how to facilitate their democracy and express their political power primarily through their knowledge and development of industry, something the USSR attempted to do but never actually succeeded at.
That is an interesting point. Mental labor and manual labor are considered as fundamentally different kinds of labor, but it’s worth questioning where this notion comes from.
Before the universities were the guilds which were (I think, not a historian) more closely bound up with production, even monopolizing their trade. Only with bourgeois development were the guilds converted into the liberal arts academies we know today, where abstract knowledge is pursued as an end in itself, and by means of pure contemplation in certain departments (ahem, the philosophers).
I don’t mean this as any kind of anti-intellectual rant, but only as a critique of the specific form taken by modern intellectualism.
Coming back to your point about workers reclaiming intellectual production, I’m reminded of the first three of Marx’s theses on Feuerbach, especially #3:
III
The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.
Although taken a bit out of context — Marx is directing this at the “mechanical” materialists — the warning still applies, that there cannot be a group that detaches itself from society and looks inward. Intellectual labor and theory production need to be kept in close contact with manual labor and material production. This is to prevent the “ivory tower” of academia, but also to restore the ownership of production by the manual laborers like you said. In a communist society there would not be such a strict separation of these two ostensibly opposite kinds of labor.
Side note, Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology by Alfred Sohn-Rethel has been on my reading list for a while, but it’s on this topic. Not sure how much Frankfurt School brainworms are in it, but it’s an important contribution nonetheless.
I will have to check it out. Thanks!
My critique is also not to necessarily disparage the USSR, as I think part of how that developed was a consequence of their place in industrial development and need to place the expediency of specialized and differentiated industrial labor processes above an idealized communist factory, which they still attempted btw. They clearly did what they could with what they had, but hell, part of the Koch fortune came from advising the USSR on oil processing, they were simply not in the economic position Marx had theorized about.
Ideally we could live in society where one could work as a factory engineer for one month, a mechanic the next, and a line worker the next, because we do not need the process efficiency that capitalism demands. The factory process becomes piecework and human again.
I'm hoping China learned something from this and doesn't let the same thing happen to them. Not sure how you stop it in a democracy, though, unless you can read someone's mind to know they're a lib.
At the very least, China didn't basically lose a generation in a recent world war. So they'll have more good people to choose from
Putin's grandma was a cook in the Kremlin. Which is reminiscent of how homeless people are the true landlords of america.
Putin's gandpa used his culinary skills to introduce the Soviets to comically oversized spoons.
That name looks familiar I think that loser is the same one guy who is obsessed with us for some reason
I made a post about them some days ago in c/effort, might explain why
I think you mean cm0002 or whatever, but there's probably more than one loser obsessed with us.
Cm just is just terminally online seeming just to cross post everything from ml to other places.
Still odd they hate ml so much when that's a large majority of their posts
Oh shit! Y'all knew this and didn't tell me‽ 
