1336

This was from 2017. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

147 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am not advocating against revolution, I'm a Communist. If you became president of the US without revolution, you would not be able to execute any Capitalist you wanted, that's more what I am saying. Temper your dogmatism with pragmatism, read theory and study past successful revolutions, such as in the USSR, China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.

Random executions doesn't transfer political power, adventurism was debunked back when the SRs failed to lead the Russian Revolution. Execution is a tool with its own use, but it isn't the best tool in all situations.

[+] bearboiblake@pawb.social -6 points 3 months ago

yeah, the USSR and China are not examples of successful revolutions, neither of those countries are communist

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

The former Soviet Union was Socialist, and so is the PRC. They haven't reached Communism, but they are examples of Socialism if you count Marxism as Socialist. What makes you say they weren't? Most people would disagree with you, especially Marxists, so I'm not sure what your stance is.

[-] bearboiblake@pawb.social -5 points 3 months ago

any marxist who thinks that the USSR or China is an example of a successful revolution is either ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, a tankie.

they had some early successes but were immediately co-opted. motherfuckers need to learn about permenent revolution.

now neither country is socialist, both are imperialist and well on their way towards fascism

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The vast majority of Marxists globally are either "ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, tankies" then. The idea that the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist is an extremely fringe opinion among all of Marxists, typically limited to Trotskyists, themselves limited to Western Countries and devoid of any revolutions.

Oh, you mentioned Permanent Revolution. I take it you're a Trotskyist, then? That explains your stance, but I really don't see why Permanent Revolution is relevant in any way, the theoretical basis relied on the assumption of the Peasantry as incapable of being truly aligned with the Proletariat and thus eventually would become counter-revolutionary. This ended up being false, and Socialism stabilized in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and more, effectively debunking its relevancy.

In China, the Trotskyists wished to martyr China by attacking the Kuomintang and the Japanese Imperialists both, rather than allying with the KMT before overthrowing them. Had the Trotskyists had their way, China would remain a colony.

Today, the Russian Federation certainly is Capitalist and extremely Nationalist, but the PRC is still Socialist. I wrote a post on some common problems that some people run into when trying to determine Mode of Production. I also made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you want to check it out. I think you'd benefit, especially since you took more of an adventurist route.

[-] bearboiblake@pawb.social -1 points 3 months ago

i'm not going to get into a debate about it, because i have better things to do, sorry.

i would agree that the USSR was socialist, but very quickly stopped being so, and now it is capitalist. that's not what i call a success.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Fair enough, but I would say that examining what went right and what went wrong is an imporant duty for any socialist examining the USSR not just dismissing it outright. Many of the issues and problems with Soviet Union can be applied to any country building socialism as can many of the benefits. So we must learn what to keep and what to leave aside, as it remained Socialist until the very end of its existence.

And for what it's worth, I reccommend that first link I sent. I think what I described in that could be useful for you.

[-] bearboiblake@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago

i still think you're assuming what my actual, real-life views are from a silly what-if scenario! i am never gonna be in control of anything more powerful than a barbeque.

but if somehow i got to mind control the president or something, yes, i'd take advantage of that brief control to eliminate as many capitalists as possible

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

You can't just kill Socialism into existence, though. That's Idealism, not Materialism. That removes the entire process of Historical Materialism, and erases the foundations of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to Utopianism. I recommend reading or revisiting Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.