this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
265 points (91.8% liked)
Memes
56518 readers
627 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What "obvious reasons?" The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There's also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there's no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
Lol, you seriously think that the self-serving texts of counter-revolutionaries that ursurped control of the state are in any shape or form trustworthy? How removed from praxis and reality can you be?
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them "counter-revolutionaries" without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I've already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying "no" is not an argument, and telling me I'm removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn't the case is naked Ad Hominem.
I agree that simple claims do not make a state socialist. I never made claims to the contrary. What makes a state socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. All practical reality, contrary to your position, backs up this position.
State capitalism refers to a bourgeois economy with heavy state planning, yet capitalist control of the state and the social surplus. Think the Republic of Korea, Singapore, etc. The NEP, China's and Vietnam's socialist market economies, all of these are largely differentiated from state capitalism through the class character of the state, and having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Calling these "state capitalist" despite clear differences with the ROK, Singapore, etc. in form, direction, and results erases class from the state.
Socialist planned economies take this further, having been farther along in eliminating private property. The DPRK, Cuba, and mid-late USSR are all examples of this form of socialist economy. This is where it makes even less sense to describe these as "state capitalism," you're just using capitalism to refer to industrial production at this point. Such a clear mislabeling makes utter mud of how we view socialism.
This is not mere phraseology, but a practical investigation of what makes a class, which is defined by relation to ownership of the means of production. Administrators in socialism are not a "tiny ruling elite," they are a subsection of the broader proletariat, and share equal ownership of the means of production in practical terms, not merely formal phrasemongering.
If the CPSU were a "tiny ruling elite," they certainly sucked at being so! Certainly you can see the clear difference between salaried workers and capital owners entitling themselves to the near entirety of the social surplus?
Regarding the Russian revolution, I have read a great deal about it, as well as the period of early socialist construction, industrialization, collectivization, preparation for World War II, and the post-War economy, including reforms that weakened the socialist system and contributed partially towards its disollution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were by no means counter-revolutionaries, even if you considered the NEP to be state capitalism, they abolished this and collectivized the economy.
There's absolutely nothing backing what you've claimed. The Germans allowed Lenin to go to overthrow the Russian government precisely because they sought chaos, and even then it was dangerous for Lenin to do so as many people hated the idea. He had to travel covertly.
Regarding the Ad Hominem, no, I did no such thing.
Do you have a graph like that but for China?
Not quite. You can find data like this, but the length of time isn't nearly as long, and only really accounts for the Xi Jinping era, and is missing the data on the bottom 50%. I'm sure the data is out there, but I don't have any on hand.
More circular logic. Someone that administers the state is by definition no longer working class.
And if you abolish the typical liberal capitalist ways of wealth accumulation, then the data and ways of measuring such stops making sense, but this doesn't change the fact that the people at the top of these states comandeered vast wealth and used that for their personal benefit and pet projects. And this is also a typical characteristic of state-capitalism where the people in charge are typically living a quite low profile life outside their public persona a few cultivate for vain reasons.
And yes there was some political disagreement at the time in Germany, which also had gone though significant political upheaval recently, but to allow someone to go that you know is in favour of establishing a capitalist state when you dislike the alternative is sure sowing chaos or you could also say they wished for a counter-revolution to take place, which they got through the hands of Lenin.
Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not a job. This is the definition of class. Administrators that receive salaries for their labor and share equal ownership with the rest of the working classes are by definition working class. Simply saying that they aren't does not actually disprove this, at minimum you need to explain why the Marxist understanding of class, class interest, and the state is wrong.
I find it funny that you admit that socialism is entirely different from capitalism, and thus reduce socialism to "equalism" rather than a system with proletarian control of the state and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Disparity between administrators in socialism and the rest of the working classes is far smaller than the immense appropriation of surplus value by capitalists, precisely because the mechanisms are entirely different.
Finally, again, the USSR was not capitalist, and Lenin was not a counter-revolutionary. If your only argument that Lenin was a counter-revolutionary is because he established a socialist state and overthrew a capitalist one, then I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. Anyone can see that that's clearly silly, and you haven't provided a coherent explanation for your views behind class and capitalism.
In socialist states, ownership and control is held in the hands of the proletariat. Delegation and administration is built up precisely due to the necessity of administrative labor, this does not make salaried administrators a separate owner class. Teachers and principals are both proletarian, even if the form of labor is different, even if the pay is different, because they share the same class interests and relations to the means of production and distribution.
What makes a society socialist is proletarian control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. Plain and simple. Calling entirely different economic systems capitalist as a means to discredit socialism is a subjectivist argument, it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.
As for me "disagreeing with historical fact," I'd love an explanation of how I do that. You do seem to admit to trying to convince me, so perhaps you could play ball and actually give me some examples, arguments, and literature? I'm utterly uninterested in subjectivist declarations devoid of any actual substance, without actual examples and arguments I couldn't even be convinced by you if I wanted to be.
You are not going to convince me with more circular logic. A system's purpose is what the system does. Monopolizing state power is not putting the workers in power, it is the exact opposite.
And no I am not going to do the research for you. When someone is as ignorant of historical facts as you then I am not going to do the work for you. You are not my boss, even if you claim to represent me as a member of the vanguard party 😏
Cowbee brings the receipts, and you don't. You do understand this is an argument being made in a public forum, and not your DMs, right? I can only assume that your goal is to feel intellectually superior, and not to actually persuade anyone to adopt your point of view.
"Reciepts" to fan-fiction are worthless 🤷
So you're saying, if you declare something to be fake ('fan-fiction'), and then there's evidence ('receipts') that it's true, the evidence becomes 'worthless'?
Hmmm...
Being critical of sources is paramount in historical research 🤷
At least Cowbee has sources 🤷
But you're not being critical if you aren't giving any actual criticisms. You can't just declare stuff you have to back it up.
Monopolizing state power in the hands of the working classes is putting the working classes in power. The state is not outside of class struggle, but within it, and arises from it. None of my logic has been circular.
As for your strategy, you reveal your utter disdain for actual organizing work when you claim you would be "doing my research for me." I am openly inviting you to share what you think are good ideas, and instead you insult me. This attitude is aristocratic, the workers are not good enough for your knowledge, they just have to trust whatever it is you say, and if they don't, they are not worthy.
I never claimed to be your boss, nor am I a part of a vanguard party, as no party can declare itself as such. If you do org work in real life, I suggest you try to actually engage with those who disagree with you, or else you'll have an extremely difficult time gaining new members.
None of this was ad-hominem. I did not say your claims were wrong because you have an aristocratic viewpoint, I explained your aristocratic attitude and how that impacts potential org-work. Revolution is definitely praxis, and I'm not sure what you mean by "armchair communist," I organize in real life.
MLs organizing have established numerous socialist states, and have effectively organized anti-imperialist and decolonial movements around the world. I never said what I do on Lemmy is "organizing," that would be absurd.
As for vanguards, no, they are based on the idea that each class produces its own intellectuals, and therefore organizing them and bringing the working classes up theoretically and uniting in an all-sided political struggle is the way to establish socialism. Monarchism is entirely different, and was based on divine right with no accountability.
Taking over state power by raising a militia is not organizing. Even Castro famously agreed with that.
Sorry but more circular logic is not gonna cut it. If a group of people no matter their original class decide that they are better suited to rule than others and ursurp power then they declare themselves monarchs and certainly do not represent the working class.
Revolution requires organizing, revolution is the establishment of proletarian power. None of my logic has been circular, and what you describe has not happened in socialist states. The working classes run socialist states, and parties have never declared themselves a ruling class, nor have they been one de facto.
Usurped control of the state from...who?
From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you're ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You're referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You're also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
Again more historical inaccuracies. For example the "Soviets" back then were not the Bolshevik, even if they later falsely claimed to represent them and usurped the term.
You really need lay off on the fan-fiction and self-serving election reports literally written by Lenin himself.
I never claimed Bolsheviks and Soviets were synonymous, only that both the soviet government and provisional government existed in a dual state, and that the Soviets stood opposed to the provisional government. The Soviet government did back the Bolsheviks, and eventually came to be entirely Bolshevik.
Again historical inacurracies. Yes obviously the Soviets opposed the provisional government. But they did not try to take it over as that would have invalidated the very idea they stood for.
What happened after the November revolution is no indication of how the members of the Soviets really felt as the Bolshevik started purging people that disagred with them quite heavily.
Why would the Soviets overthrowing the capitalist government "invalidate the very idea they stood for?" The Soviets stood for worker and peasant power. They succeeded in establishing that very concept and turning it into concrete political reality. As for the idea of the Bolsheviks "purging people," you are referring to the ensuing Civil War, where the workers and peasants joined the Bolsheviks and the Red Army. Even anarchists largely joined the Red Army to fight off the Whites.
More historical inaccuracies. The first people the Bolshevik purged were people that naively thought they were on the same side.
And no, the original Soviets wanted to create self-administered communities and work-places. Taking over centralized state power makes no sense with that goal in mind.
Nothing I have said is historically inaccurate. The Bolsheviks opposed cadets, mensheviks, and other groups that wished to retain the Tsar's colonies, wanted to prolong the war, and opposed Soviet power. The Soviets were a connected system, itself a state. Overthrowing the provisional government and solidifying the Soviet state as the only state does not oppose their purpose in the slightest, and it was a decision democratically approved.
More fan-fiction and post-hoc justifications. You seriously need to read some historically accurate accounts of what happened at the time.
I have read historically accurate accounts, though you define historical accuracy by it not being written by anyone succeeding. I've also asked for sources, and you haven't brought any beyond linking the anarchist library.
History written by the winners is ok according to you as long as you agree with it. That is really funny.
Nah, history is written by both winners and losers. What's important is historical accuracy, and which class's perspective and outlook is being presented. Equating socialist historiography with bourgeois historiography is a false equivalence.
You still haven't provided any sources
Yes but they started their sentences with "more historical inaccuracies" and "more fan-fiction" for the fifth time now and surely that counts for something.
Surely none of the losers of history have ever lost for good reason and stayed mad about it. Let's all renounce modern medicine and pledge loyalty to the Khmer Rouge, because they too were crushed by the awful communists.
Lol you are a child with a children's bedtime story understanding of history
I don't know what to call this level of historical revision in service of an obscure sectarian grudge from a hundred years before you were born.