• ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    The USSR was bad but it wasn’t communist. For that it would have had to have been stateless and classless, definitionally.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I thought the political compass was itself just a popular perspective? It’s is a gross oversimplification of the ideas involved. Find me two leftists who even agree on what’s the farthest left.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not sure it is. Like, yes, it does exist in the Left/Right, Auth/Lib political compass, but that’s just a model. The stance has some inherent contradictions.

        And so does Right/Lib, for that matter. “Fiscally conservative/socially liberal” is a nonsense position, and those taking it tend to just be conservative in practice.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Tried a bunch, but tried wrong.

        The Lenin model of communism is inherently flawed for one simple reason. An Authoritarian Communism is an Impossibility. It cannot exist by pure definition.

        The true ideal communism is a stateless utopia.

        So yeah, the Lenin model is flawed to the point of uselessness. Or worse because any authoritarian government is going to kill its own citizens, while also being a low grade threat to neighboring countries.

        No. The only path to true communism is via democracy. And there are countries that are moving in that direction.

        • anti-idpol action@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The party was meant to just be the organizer of the workers, not the ruler. The degeneration took off only after Lenin’s death and the 4th Congress of the Comintern, which was dominated by Troika. that’s why Mayakovsky was a devout Bolshevik until Stalinzation advanced and started scrapping several progressive conquests of October, leading to his suicide at the refusal to prop up the Stalinist degeneracy.

          Also Lenin was, for instance, not a big fan of the many experimental artistic movements that flourished after the Revolution, but did not suppress them, unlike Stalin.

          He also regretted banning other parties (but which was necessitated by every single one of them taking up arms against Sovnarkom) and before his death wanted to offer Trotsky a post of Commisar of Internal Affairs in a desperate bid to curtail the bureaucracy, but Trotsky, unfortunately, refused.

          • chaogomu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Lenin betrayed the revolution. You mention the banning of the political parties. While it’s true that they “took up arms against Sovnarkom”, you’re leaving out the part where Lenin used Sovnarkom to coup the newly elected government because his party didn’t win.

            Again, Lenin was flat out wrong. But I don’t think he ever actually cared about Russia ever reaching the true Marxist communist utopia. Lenin cared about power first and foremost.

            He built up that dictatorship, and then handed it over to a monster.