Far-left definitely isn’t that - “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be “we’re gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious”.
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don’t think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own. It’s safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they’re already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor’s Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there’s not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There’s the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it’s kinda the core point of Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn’t “when Stalin based”, that’s, well, Stalinism.
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let’s just stick to Russia otherwise I’ll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. 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.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Where’s the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you’re going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it’s authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all “ideologies” are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I’m all for worker and local councils being the government. 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. Then it won’t be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
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.
“we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.
We need part of a personal incentive
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?
I get your point. It’s sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don’t get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they’re so well-paid.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on?
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn’t mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren’t better than many others you don’t get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don’t see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.
Far-left definitely isn’t that - “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be “we’re gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious”.
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don’t think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own. It’s safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they’re already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor’s Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there’s not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There’s the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it’s kinda the core point of Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn’t “when Stalin based”, that’s, well, Stalinism.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let’s just stick to Russia otherwise I’ll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. 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.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Where’s the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you’re going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it’s authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all “ideologies” are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I’m all for worker and local councils being the government. 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. Then it won’t be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
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.
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?
I get your point. It’s sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don’t get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they’re so well-paid.
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn’t mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren’t better than many others you don’t get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don’t see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.