• 3 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle








  • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldTis a silly place
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    You would not expect a government based on a set of self-serving antidemocratic bureaucrats to result in such benefits

    Sure, there was genuine ideological reasons for the USSRs achievements, but you’re moving the goal-posts a bit. The original claim you were disputing was whether the USSR was authoritarian, which many people agree that it was.

    There can be genuine and successful efforts to improve people’s lives under any system, including in the USSR.

    What was imperialist about it?

    • The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and occupation of Poland
    • The Winter War against Finnland
    • The East German uprising of 1953

    are the first to come to my mind.

    It would be a lot easier to defend the USSR if they only intervened to allow the proletariat to hold referendums, but we both know this is not what happened on many occasions.

    It seems to me that Russia was continuing in the tradition Russian Empire, just under new management, and was definitely the first among “equals” in the USSR and its sphere of influence.


  • As a side note, I’ve only done very little Wikipedia level reading on anarchocommunism, and as much as I also believe people help each other willingly, I’ve yet to hear a good defence on how it would be possible with the massive populations we have now, as opposed to pre-history.

    It’s all well and good that there are federated groups, with free association, but this is fundamentally ignoring that not all regions are equally blessed in resources.

    If you have money, well then you need a centralised or decentralised way of miniting the money.

    If you don’t have money, well, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that people will want to take care more of the people immediately around them, rather than people on the other side of the world, and since we’re not getting together on large scales to make binding decisions, then there’s no way to guarantee that everyone has a fair share.

    I’m not saying that more decentralised government wouldn’t work, but I do remain thoroughly unconvinced that free association of small groups across the entire world, would lead to much equity at all.

    And as much as we may dream, there WILL be dickheads ruining it for the rest of us. Humans are nice, but humans can also be awful. Pretending otherwise is foolish and doomed to failure.

    I’m a socialist, and am very keen to hear your thoughts :)


  • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldTis a silly place
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    In my point of view calling yourself a socialist and not being able to criticise the blatantly anti-democratic and imperial power the USSR became is weird.

    Socialism (in my view of it) necessarily requires democratic structures at work as well as government.

    Despite the USSR’s positives (all countries have them) let’s not pretend like they had a good template we should emulate (on governance and voting, that is).

    Without democracy, you’re basically hoping the people in charge are benevolent. But then when they’re inevitably not at some point, you have no way to peacefully remove them.

    Next minute you’ll be telling me China is a democracy just because they elect people the the National People’s Congress. (Another country, with many positives, which is not a democracy).

    And please do not confuse my criticism of notionally socialist states (China is definitely not), with implicit praise of the “democracy” in the United States, what they have is barely democracy.