Apparently, the inability to understand the cause-and-effect of complex geopolitical issues persists to this day. "Just blame the Bolsheviks and not the national and international bourgeois" is the calling cry of the anti-authoritarians.
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:15 JST 
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:01 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
The vanguard party is meant to be made up of members of the proletariat, of people who are democratically elected from the proletariat by the proletariat to represent them and who meet the criteria of being a party member, such as having an firm understanding of Marxism and political organization, i.e., class consciousness. In other words, the most class conscious members of the proletariat will make up the vanguard party, but in a democratic way where the rest of the... 1/2
Zé Andarilho likes this. -
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:02 JST 
Daniel Düsentrieb
You see, that's were at I see the contradiction.
You can either have the proletariat as the "ruling" or self-determined class or a Vanguard Party, determining the fate of the rest of the proletariat.
You say they would be the "most class-conscious workers", but who is to determine that?
And was this the case in the Soviet Union?
Imo, during the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks simply claimed and executed their power and accused their comrades who dared to question this of being "counter-revolutionary".
However. Maybe I understand the concept of a Vanguard party wrong. But do you think that such Vanguard party should come with a tight system of reassuring their actions and the people "in charge" with the working masses, in order to keep probable power hungry individuals from said power?
Kinda like Mao's mass-line, but without Mao as an unchallenged leader and without straight-up executing people.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:03 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
Clearly, every aspect of the Soviet Union wasn't successful (such as its inability to abolish class), but the successful aspects of the Soviet Union should be replicated for future revolutionary experiments. The most obvious aspects that should be replicated are the DotP (a socialist state where the proletariat are the ruling class) and the Vanguard Party (the party made up of the most class conscious workers that leads the rest of the workers). 1/2
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:04 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
I get that you're done for today, but just in case you want to respond tomorrow (or not), it isn't 1871 anymore. We no longer have to rely on "what if" scenarios to determine the success rates of state socialism and anarchism. Both have been tried, and state socialism has proven to be more successful in terms of longevity and sustainability, making it the more preferable option for a revolutionary model.
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:04 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor Good morning.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we have to start from scratch like the comunards. We have plenty of examples from revolutionary struggles.
I would just argue that longevity is hardly a measure for success, because it says nothing about the political system itself, or it's applicability to todays conditions.
If we stay with the example of the Sovjet Union, I would not deny that it was long lived and also a significant improvement for the proletariats material conditions.
About sustainability, if the sovjet union would have remained a project lead by the proletariat and not just by the party, I would argue that its dissolution would have sparked another revolution immediately. But it wasn't and so the Russian people, used to rulership from above and lacking class consciousness, simply accepted the removal of one ruling class by another. With catastrophic consequences, destroying almost any achievements, made by the Sovjet Union.
That is why I don't see it as successful. They lost the masses as a conscious, self determined power, and this is a death sentence to any revolutionary struggle, regardless of the label
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:05 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
No, there wouldn't be a need for a state if anarchists could do that, but I'm not all that interested in "what if" scenarios. If anarchists can do it, then do it. If they can't, then their inability to do so was predicted by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:05 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor I admit I understand that, but before, let's say, 1871 any socialist revolutions had been "what if" scenarios and socialists, marxists as well as anarchists have achived much to learn from.
Anyway, I have to call it a day were I live, but thanks for the discussion
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:06 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor so if an anarchist confederation had the means of defending the revolution, would establish an economy based on the socialist principle "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" and therefore organise society, would there still be a necessity for a state?
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:07 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
The state is the big, giant difference between the representative democracy with the DotP I described and an anarchist confederation. The DotP actually has a state to defend the revolution, organize society, and construct socialism, while an anarchist confederate lacks this necessity.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:08 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
The proletariat gains political power through the party, which represents them through representatives who are democratically elected by the proletariat to speak on their behalf and can also be democratically removed by the proletariat. They aren't giving up their power.
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:08 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
I agree, I'd rather call them delegates, to avoid confusion with parliamenterism, but that is just word juggling.
This is what the early sovjets were meant to do or different approaches of council communism.
I see very little difference, besides terms, between this and for instance, an anarchist confederation.
I just disagree that this was in place in the sovjet union or is in current countries calling themselves socialist
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:09 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
Yes, the Soviet Union did have a class of Bolshevik functionaries (referred to as the "nomenklatura") who had access to privileges, resources, and benefits that were not available to the general population. The Soviet Union was in the process of trying to eliminate class, but, as briefly mentioned previously, did not achieve a classless society and unfortunately collapsed before it could.
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:09 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor but does that not contradict the very idea of the DotP? I personally don't like the term, but I understand the necessity of the proletariat claiming political power, not to give up this power in favour of party rule, how well meaning it might be.
Can you see what I mean when I say: abolishing class was lost as a goal, the moment the Bolsheviks insisted that they and only they could do or even attempt it?
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:10 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor ok, if using this terms: As the state is a tool of class oppression, it requires classes of oppressor's and oppressed. That far I agree.
I would also argue that a state always works towards this class division to preserve it's existence, and to resolve it is directly opposed to the state itself. So if one oppressing class is toppled, another takes it's place.
In theory with the so called DotP the classes just switched places. I would argue that very soon after the revolution in russia, no significant part of the bourgeoisie was present in russia, either fled or executed, the MoP taken.
Therefore with the new state in place two classes formed. One of Bolshevik party functionaries, dissolving the sovjets and centralize control over the MoP and the once more disenfranchised proletariat, while the former claimed to speak for the latter.
I assume you would most likely disagree with the last part. I would be honestly curious, how anyone can ever work towards liberation of the working class, if said working class has no control whatsoever over it?
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:11 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
You don't "speak out" for the withering away of the state. You're seem to be mistaking "withering away" with "abolition." The withering away of the state happens after class has been abolished. Class can only be abolished through a socialist state and its equalization of social conditions. Since the state is a tool of class oppression, once class no longer exists, the state will eventually wither away.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:12 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
There was never a time given for how long the DotP would have to last, only that it would have to last as long as internal and external class threats existed, and unfortunately the socialist experiments that have existed either dissolved for one reason or another before reaching the withering away phase and full communism or currently exist and are still required to exist due to internal/external class threats. 1/2
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:12 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@theDuesentrieb @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor
It's very reasonable for socialist states to punish people (regardless of whether they previously helped the revolution or not) for (either intentionally or unknowingly) initiating counter-revolutionary opposition, whether it be the anarchists seeking to abolish the socialist state prematurely or the social democrats seeking to introduce revisionism into the state. 2/2
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:12 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor well thats a convenient excuse, isn't it? If any opposition regarding the state as a political tool is silenced, who would ever dare to speak out for it's "withering", if doing so would likely come with the accusation of being "counter-revolutionary"?
With acting like that imo the Bolsheviks determined the end of the revolution, building an authoritarian state (which had its achievements nonetheless) which would either remain just this or fail and fall back into capitalism, like it happened in russia as well as china.
I find it fatal to stick to the same recipes from over a hundred years ago (not just because of the time but of the materialist conditions of the time) and repeat the same mistakes (of which anarchists made plenty as well), when building towards future revolutions.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:13 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
The withering away of the state follows the successful establishment of socialism, as the state, an instrument of class domination, becomes unnecessary. Initially, during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state is crucial for suppressing the bourgeoisie and defending the revolution. As class distinctions diminish and a classless society develops, the state will gradually lose its governance role, ultimately leading to its dissolution. #socialism #communism
-
Embed this notice
Daniel Düsentrieb (theduesentrieb@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:13 JST
Daniel Düsentrieb
@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor thats like an answer out of a book, and probably what was imagined, yet no sign of the "withering of the state" has taken place after in any big socialist revolutions, instead the state was reinforced over and over against outside threat's, which would be somewhat reasonable as well as inside dissidents. Whats not reasonable is sending anarchists and social revolutionaries to their deaths, which had no lesser part in the Russian Revolution than the Bolsheviks
-
Embed this notice
JoeChip (joechip@mstdn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 04-Mar-2025 02:58:15 JST 
JoeChip
@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor
I haven't seen a good solution to bad guys abusing an anarchist setup.
And I have yet to see MLs plausibly explain the actual mechanics of the withering of the state under a socialist DotP.
Also the whole authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian dichotomy needs some kind of radical reframing imo.
-
Embed this notice
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the