4 ms·
That was state socialism, not a true communist society. Any form of repression, coercion and control are condemned by anarchists / libertarian socialists. The U
by Synaesthesia 11y ago
That was state socialism, not a true communist society. Any form of repression, coercion and control are condemned by anarchists / libertarian socialists. The USSR was certainly a state which was did of that.
The reason why the USSR was trumpeted as socialist was that it suited both sides' propaganda to do so. For the Americans, to vilify socialism, and for the Russians to give their rule the appearance of genuine socialism. When both of the major propoganda systems in the world agree on something it's bound to become a popular conception.
But let us not also forget that hundreds of millions starved in non-communist India, which suffered terrible famines up to 1948.
South and Central America was a horror chamber throughout the 1950's-1980's under violent brutal capitalist dictatorships supported by the USA. Many Asian countries too.
The rise of communism in China, although violent and of the state-socialist kind, also brought hundreds of millions out of poverty.
- PlzSnow 11y ago"That was state socialism, not a true communist society." Ah. the "No true Scotsman fallacy". It would be funny it it weren't for the countless millions of tortured and murdered women, children, peasants...
- Synaesthesia 11y agoIt's not funny. It's also got nothing to do with Libertarian socialism, which is simply a a democratic economic system. The USSR was a system with concentrated power which directed from above. Right wing Marxists such as Bolsheviks have always had deep divides with left wing Marxists and anarchists.
- vidarh 11y agoThere's no "no true Scotsman fallacy" there, given that the structure of the regime did not even fit any of the definitions of communism that the regime itself gave. Not even the Bolsheviks saw the USSR as a communist society. In fact, long after their coup, even Bolshevik ideologues were arguing about how many generations it would take before communism might be possible in the USSR. Lenin, on introducing NEP in 1921 expected it to need to be in place for decades before even trying more far reaching socialist policies, much less communism.
- PlzSnow 11y ago"The rise of communism in China, although violent and of the state-socialist kind, also brought hundreds of millions out of poverty." Indeed, absolute world poverty has halved over the last 30 years because of state-socialism. Oops sorry, it was capitalism that halved poverty, not socialism. What a mistake to make!
- UK-AL 11y ago"The rise of communism in China, although violent and of the state-socialist kind, also brought hundreds of millions out of poverty. " - Modern China's rise has come Capitalism, and liberalisation of the markets. Before the market reforms china, wasn't... great.
- Synaesthesia 11y agoNope it really wasn't. There was massive chaos during the economic upheavals of Mao. But the reduction in poverty is still an impressive achievement subsequently to that. Compared to countries like Brazil, South Africa etc which also had the oppurtunities to reduce poverty but it has increased and the economic disparity is worse than ever. Even the USA has increasing poverty.
- UK-AL 11y agoCan I have some data on this? From what I know it was the collectivisations of farmlands that caused great famines. When land rights were re-established, poverty was reduced. People had an incentive improve the land.
- Synaesthesia 11y agoWell you're right, forced Stalinist style collectivization was a murderous failure. The poverty reduction was still made by a communist regime was the point I was trying to make. It's a poor example for what I'm trying to prove, Voluntary collectivization would be what I endorse. More like the kibbutzim of Israel.