They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their “historical border claim” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country’s means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You’ve made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can’t support that claim?
But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership.
If by “well documented clear ties”, you mean “people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit”, then yes. That’s not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it’s literally the IMF’s capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it’s not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn’t stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves.
You really don’t see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn’t spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
Every single time
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it’s been applied, that it’s everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they’re not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they’re deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn’t rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand…correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I’m not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You’re being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives. Don’t bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just “the west”. And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don’t think others can’t see bullshit when you put it out.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
Why don’t you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives.
I don’t need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I’m dying to see how you call a bureaucrat “a bourgeois”.
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
And those with too much power and wealth
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It’s what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don’t agree with calling it “yet another form of capitalism” or saying that “there was a bourgeoisie” or that “there’s a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia”. And no, there weren’t people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their “historical border claim” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country’s means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You’ve made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can’t support that claim?
If by “well documented clear ties”, you mean “people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit”, then yes. That’s not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it’s literally the IMF’s capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it’s not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn’t stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
You really don’t see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn’t spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it’s been applied, that it’s everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they’re not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they’re deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn’t rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand…correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I’m not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You’re being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives. Don’t bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just “the west”. And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don’t think others can’t see bullshit when you put it out.
Why don’t you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
I don’t need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I’m dying to see how you call a bureaucrat “a bourgeois”.
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It’s what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don’t agree with calling it “yet another form of capitalism” or saying that “there was a bourgeoisie” or that “there’s a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia”. And no, there weren’t people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.