This isn’t true, actually. AES states are democratic, you should read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
Northern European countries aren’t role models, either. They depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets, and are dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie, hence why their safety nets are declining.
so by the definition of true communism, they arent adhering to the marxist definition of communism, its merely a show of democracy controlled by an oligarchy with a single party system in the case of russia.
i dont think any monetary economic system can work long term in balance with human needs and the need of the planet to sustain us. its just not possible when there is an imaginary incentive in the form of value in 1’s and 0’s or paper, that alters our actions based on accumulation of wealth for the individual and their “tribe”, and whatever form that may take. family, friends, companies, shareholders, class, nation etc etc.
unfortunately its hard to draw a line between automated post monetary, post scarcity, post political, post religion, and a science/ fact/resource based economy/utopia, similar to the venus project, and a technofascist authoritarian state, which is seemingly where we are heading now with how AI is being used by the powers that be.
human error and our limited willingness to understand the needs of the many in the future, vs the needs of the few now will always be a buffer that keeps us behind in terms of societaly advancement in the form of full economic freedom and change, for the betterment of man, and the planet, in harmony.
the only way to advance past that is either to manipulate the genome of humans, or to merge with machines and AI so that our decisions are based on scientific merit and logic towards a value of united progress, over individual success. essentially we would have to sacrifice what makes us human, so humanity could survive in an alternate form. or become some sort of digital hive mind. or some other weird and horrifying scifi trope that i hope i never live long enough to see.
im not advocating for this, im just saying this is where the world is likely moving if we dont blow ourselves up first or wipe the slate in some way.
feel free to disagree, i love having these kinds of discussions.
They are adhering to Marxism, I am curious why you say they aren’t, and if you are getting that from Marx, or second-hand interpretations of Marx. I don’t want to get into the rest of your comment until we get past the part where you think there’s such thing as a “true communism” that, say, the PRC is not genuinely working towards.
Modern Russia’s elite and government are about as Marxist as a billionaire cosplaying as a factory worker for a photo op. Marxism is about the abolition of class hierarchies, worker control of production, and a stateless, moneyless society. Putin’s Russia? It’s an oligarch-run, state-capitalist machine where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, and the state operates more like a mafia than a workers’ paradise.
Instead of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” they’ve got a dictatorship of the oil tycoons and ex-KGB buddies. Instead of “seizing the means of production,” they privatized them into the hands of a few ultra-rich insiders. It’s not Marxism—it’s authoritarian crony capitalism wrapped in Soviet nostalgia.
as for the PRC, thats simply a similar version of state controlled capitalism, not “traditional communism” its just rebranding. nothing like what marx describes in action, unless this would be considered the necessary evil portion of the grand master plan by the powers that be, to honour a dead author and create a post scarcity communist utopia.well… i find that hard to believe, but if the people under it believe in it, i guess thats enough for them to keep the gravy train on its tracks a bit longer.
well, we are talking about modern russia, mainly. however the USSR operated under a hybrid system of marxist-leninism, with some very key changes. it was dubbed “Stalinism” a system which did not reflect in action, the ideals of marx, nor lenin, and was a system built for beaurocratic and state ownership of the means of production, not the proletariate as defined by marx or lenin. again, this is a form of state capitalism. not marxism in action or by defintion, nor leninism.
it still operated under a form of state capitalism under stalin, and through changes in leadership after stalin, had some ideological back and forth changes between stalinism and more liberal marxist leninist policies during the kruschev thaw, which then, under new leadership after kruschev, fell back on neo stalinist policies, before being dismantled by gorbachev during his resignation in 1991, thus ending the USSR, or the soviet union.
during this entire period, and through into today, it is more accurate to define russia and the USSR as a state capitalist society with power being held by beaurocrats and oligarchs. they were never able to create a marxist or leninist, socialist, communist society by the original definition, merely the ruse of one. the proletariate never ended up owning the means of production at any stage.
please refrain from using insults during discourse, this isnt reddit. this is a place of learned doctors and scholars! lol.
We were talking about the Soviet Union, that’s the one the original commenter said wasn’t democratic and that’s the one I responded to. You disagreed with my comment, but without actually pivoting the conversation to the RF at all, just assuming we were talking about the RF and not the USSR.
Either way, the Soviet Union was Socialist. It was not a divergence from Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, the foundations of the economy were in public ownership of the Means of Production. “Stalinism” generally refers to advocacy for Socialism in One Country as opposed to Permanent Revolution, not the entire economic foundations of the Soviet Union.
The Proletariat owned the Means of Production through the Public Ownership model. This is Marxism not from Stalin, not from Lenin, but Marx and Engels themselves. Marx was not an Anarchist that wanted decentralization, rather, Marx advocated for full centralization of the Means of Production.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
i really shouldnt have to explain to you the difference between marxism, marxist leninism, and stallinism, and how those differentiate, and how the bastardisation of marxism lead to a different form of “communism” and the beaurocratic centralisation of power in the USSR, and how that corruption lead to the fall of the USSR. the very fact that they did not operate under the pure principals of marxism, but used it as a cover to centralise power, using it as propaganda for the people to feel united, drives my point further.
the USSR did not operate off of pure marxism. please read into this before making swathing statements about my “ignorance”
marx wanted the means of control, controlled by the proletariate, not the state. which is what happened in the USSR. so, not marxist communism, just a bastardised alternative to convince the people to hand over power to the state.
however we are talking about modern russia. not the USSR.
Again, we were talking about the Soviet Union. You misunderstood and pivoted to the Russian Federation without telling anyone, but if you go up the comment chain the original comment was about the Soviet Union. Anyways…
Marxism - The overarching family of Marxist tendencies chategorized by Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Scientific Socialism, and Marx’s Law of Value.
Leninism - The term for the specific strategic and tactical advancements of Lenin upon Marxism, such as analysis of Imperialism, the Vanguard party platform, national liberation in the Global South, and much more.
Marxism-Leninism - The subset of Marxism that accepts Lenin’s contributions and upholds AES. By far the most common form of Marxism.
Stalinism - usually a reference to support for Socialism in One Country over Permanent Revolution.
Either way, you’re entirely wrong about what led the USSR to dissolve, and the nature of its economic model.
The USSR was Socialist, because Public Ownership was primary in the economy. The Proletariat controlled the Means of Production through the public sector. Marx was not an advocate for decentralization, but centralization over time as large industry formed and could and must be planned centrally.
The USSR dissolved for numerous reasons adding up, some of the larger reasons were the liberal economic reforms of Gorbachev and later Yeltsin, as well as needing to spend a much larger portion of their GDP on the millitary to keep parity with the US.
Your central argument is genuinely that the Workers in the Soviet Union, despite being taught Marxism in school, were too stupid to realize that they were not living in a Marxian system. This is wrong on both fronts, the Soviet citizens had a much better understanding of Socialism as people living in it, and the system itself did follow Marxist principles.
The State is the only method for which all of property can be held in public. “Statelessness” refers to the stage in upper-Communism where all property is publicly owned, and the elements that reinforce class society like armies and private property rights no longer have any reason to exist. Government will continue to exist even in Communism, as will social workers, yet this would be considered “stateless” by Marx as the oppressive elements of government whither away by virtue of having no reason to exist.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
We weren’t talking about the Russian Federation, but Soviet Union. The RF is Capitalist, sure, but the USSR was absolutely Socialist.
As for the PRC, it is Socialist, and does follow what Marx described. Are you getting this from actually reading Marx, or second-hand?
For starters, Marx described the economy of a post-revolutionary state to nationalize the large trusts and gradually fold the smaller firms once they get large enough. This is mentioned many times, from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, to my favorite concise explanation in Engels’ Principles of Communism:
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
The PRC mirrors this. The vast majority of large firks are under public control, and the vast majority of the private sector is made up of self-employed people or small firms. If the CPC attempted to forcibly acquire them without letting them develop, they would be committing an error by Marxist standards, unless they truly had good reason.
Key industries like finance and steel are publicly owned as well, if you control the rubber factory you control the rubber ball factory without needing to own it directly.
Removed by mod
This isn’t true, actually. AES states are democratic, you should read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
Northern European countries aren’t role models, either. They depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets, and are dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie, hence why their safety nets are declining.
so by the definition of true communism, they arent adhering to the marxist definition of communism, its merely a show of democracy controlled by an oligarchy with a single party system in the case of russia.
i dont think any monetary economic system can work long term in balance with human needs and the need of the planet to sustain us. its just not possible when there is an imaginary incentive in the form of value in 1’s and 0’s or paper, that alters our actions based on accumulation of wealth for the individual and their “tribe”, and whatever form that may take. family, friends, companies, shareholders, class, nation etc etc.
unfortunately its hard to draw a line between automated post monetary, post scarcity, post political, post religion, and a science/ fact/resource based economy/utopia, similar to the venus project, and a technofascist authoritarian state, which is seemingly where we are heading now with how AI is being used by the powers that be.
human error and our limited willingness to understand the needs of the many in the future, vs the needs of the few now will always be a buffer that keeps us behind in terms of societaly advancement in the form of full economic freedom and change, for the betterment of man, and the planet, in harmony.
the only way to advance past that is either to manipulate the genome of humans, or to merge with machines and AI so that our decisions are based on scientific merit and logic towards a value of united progress, over individual success. essentially we would have to sacrifice what makes us human, so humanity could survive in an alternate form. or become some sort of digital hive mind. or some other weird and horrifying scifi trope that i hope i never live long enough to see.
im not advocating for this, im just saying this is where the world is likely moving if we dont blow ourselves up first or wipe the slate in some way.
feel free to disagree, i love having these kinds of discussions.
They are adhering to Marxism, I am curious why you say they aren’t, and if you are getting that from Marx, or second-hand interpretations of Marx. I don’t want to get into the rest of your comment until we get past the part where you think there’s such thing as a “true communism” that, say, the PRC is not genuinely working towards.
Modern Russia’s elite and government are about as Marxist as a billionaire cosplaying as a factory worker for a photo op. Marxism is about the abolition of class hierarchies, worker control of production, and a stateless, moneyless society. Putin’s Russia? It’s an oligarch-run, state-capitalist machine where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, and the state operates more like a mafia than a workers’ paradise.
Instead of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” they’ve got a dictatorship of the oil tycoons and ex-KGB buddies. Instead of “seizing the means of production,” they privatized them into the hands of a few ultra-rich insiders. It’s not Marxism—it’s authoritarian crony capitalism wrapped in Soviet nostalgia.
as for the PRC, thats simply a similar version of state controlled capitalism, not “traditional communism” its just rebranding. nothing like what marx describes in action, unless this would be considered the necessary evil portion of the grand master plan by the powers that be, to honour a dead author and create a post scarcity communist utopia.well… i find that hard to believe, but if the people under it believe in it, i guess thats enough for them to keep the gravy train on its tracks a bit longer.
Someone who’s so ignorant of geopolitics that they don’t know about the fall of the USSR should not be so arrogant
well, we are talking about modern russia, mainly. however the USSR operated under a hybrid system of marxist-leninism, with some very key changes. it was dubbed “Stalinism” a system which did not reflect in action, the ideals of marx, nor lenin, and was a system built for beaurocratic and state ownership of the means of production, not the proletariate as defined by marx or lenin. again, this is a form of state capitalism. not marxism in action or by defintion, nor leninism.
it still operated under a form of state capitalism under stalin, and through changes in leadership after stalin, had some ideological back and forth changes between stalinism and more liberal marxist leninist policies during the kruschev thaw, which then, under new leadership after kruschev, fell back on neo stalinist policies, before being dismantled by gorbachev during his resignation in 1991, thus ending the USSR, or the soviet union.
during this entire period, and through into today, it is more accurate to define russia and the USSR as a state capitalist society with power being held by beaurocrats and oligarchs. they were never able to create a marxist or leninist, socialist, communist society by the original definition, merely the ruse of one. the proletariate never ended up owning the means of production at any stage.
please refrain from using insults during discourse, this isnt reddit. this is a place of learned doctors and scholars! lol.
We were talking about the Soviet Union, that’s the one the original commenter said wasn’t democratic and that’s the one I responded to. You disagreed with my comment, but without actually pivoting the conversation to the RF at all, just assuming we were talking about the RF and not the USSR.
Either way, the Soviet Union was Socialist. It was not a divergence from Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, the foundations of the economy were in public ownership of the Means of Production. “Stalinism” generally refers to advocacy for Socialism in One Country as opposed to Permanent Revolution, not the entire economic foundations of the Soviet Union.
The Proletariat owned the Means of Production through the Public Ownership model. This is Marxism not from Stalin, not from Lenin, but Marx and Engels themselves. Marx was not an Anarchist that wanted decentralization, rather, Marx advocated for full centralization of the Means of Production.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
i really shouldnt have to explain to you the difference between marxism, marxist leninism, and stallinism, and how those differentiate, and how the bastardisation of marxism lead to a different form of “communism” and the beaurocratic centralisation of power in the USSR, and how that corruption lead to the fall of the USSR. the very fact that they did not operate under the pure principals of marxism, but used it as a cover to centralise power, using it as propaganda for the people to feel united, drives my point further.
the USSR did not operate off of pure marxism. please read into this before making swathing statements about my “ignorance”
marx wanted the means of control, controlled by the proletariate, not the state. which is what happened in the USSR. so, not marxist communism, just a bastardised alternative to convince the people to hand over power to the state.
however we are talking about modern russia. not the USSR.
Again, we were talking about the Soviet Union. You misunderstood and pivoted to the Russian Federation without telling anyone, but if you go up the comment chain the original comment was about the Soviet Union. Anyways…
Marxism - The overarching family of Marxist tendencies chategorized by Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Scientific Socialism, and Marx’s Law of Value.
Leninism - The term for the specific strategic and tactical advancements of Lenin upon Marxism, such as analysis of Imperialism, the Vanguard party platform, national liberation in the Global South, and much more.
Marxism-Leninism - The subset of Marxism that accepts Lenin’s contributions and upholds AES. By far the most common form of Marxism.
Stalinism - usually a reference to support for Socialism in One Country over Permanent Revolution.
Either way, you’re entirely wrong about what led the USSR to dissolve, and the nature of its economic model.
The USSR was Socialist, because Public Ownership was primary in the economy. The Proletariat controlled the Means of Production through the public sector. Marx was not an advocate for decentralization, but centralization over time as large industry formed and could and must be planned centrally.
The USSR dissolved for numerous reasons adding up, some of the larger reasons were the liberal economic reforms of Gorbachev and later Yeltsin, as well as needing to spend a much larger portion of their GDP on the millitary to keep parity with the US.
Your central argument is genuinely that the Workers in the Soviet Union, despite being taught Marxism in school, were too stupid to realize that they were not living in a Marxian system. This is wrong on both fronts, the Soviet citizens had a much better understanding of Socialism as people living in it, and the system itself did follow Marxist principles.
The State is the only method for which all of property can be held in public. “Statelessness” refers to the stage in upper-Communism where all property is publicly owned, and the elements that reinforce class society like armies and private property rights no longer have any reason to exist. Government will continue to exist even in Communism, as will social workers, yet this would be considered “stateless” by Marx as the oppressive elements of government whither away by virtue of having no reason to exist.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
Given your demonstrable lack of knowledge about the basics, you shouldn’t be trying to opine on that kind of thing.
We weren’t talking about the Russian Federation, but Soviet Union. The RF is Capitalist, sure, but the USSR was absolutely Socialist.
As for the PRC, it is Socialist, and does follow what Marx described. Are you getting this from actually reading Marx, or second-hand?
For starters, Marx described the economy of a post-revolutionary state to nationalize the large trusts and gradually fold the smaller firms once they get large enough. This is mentioned many times, from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, to my favorite concise explanation in Engels’ Principles of Communism:
The PRC mirrors this. The vast majority of large firks are under public control, and the vast majority of the private sector is made up of self-employed people or small firms. If the CPC attempted to forcibly acquire them without letting them develop, they would be committing an error by Marxist standards, unless they truly had good reason.
Key industries like finance and steel are publicly owned as well, if you control the rubber factory you control the rubber ball factory without needing to own it directly.
What would you have the PRC do instead?
All communist states that survived early CIA coup plots were/are dictatorships
Those aren’t/weren’t communist so per the post their leaders worked for the CIA