The USSR isn't socialist. You can't refute this

The USSR isn't socialist. You can't refute this.

youtube.com/watch?v=06-XcAiswY4

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zm-B7YOcD_A
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://constitutii.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1936-en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii-sbk24PZAhVq4IMKHTAQAm4QFjAAegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw0mJINB_GwAmH-x0lde-uvH
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Stagnation
youtube.com/watch?v=GWX7CQBDraw#t=386s
youtube.com/watch?v=DZhqPC6d_DA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The Bolsheviks had a counter revolution and shut down all the worker control and worker councils and put in what Lenin called state capitalism. Since 1918 there hasn't been a shred of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The USSR was fucking lit tho post-WWII.

I'd give my left nut to live in 70s USSR over 2018 America.

True. The state owns the means of production, so therefore it simply cannot be socialist.

>NOT REAL SOCIALISM

sage

youtube.com/watch?v=zm-B7YOcD_A

OP BTFO

Chomsky is a dime a dozen Menschevik Zionist shill.

Stalin did nothing wrong

It started out socialist and it only took a year or two for them to realize that it wasn't working. Lenin was literally forced to enact some non socialist policies or else the entire country was going to collapse. And it was socialist by definition. Kys wth your muh not real socialism faggotry. Just because it didn't achieve the anarcho commie wet dream (shocker) doesn't mean the entire thing was not socialist.

argue against it.

That's an entirely different video and not arguing against the points he made above.

>realize that it wasn't working.
Source?

You are wrong. Bolsheivks got rid of the socialism because they felt that Russia wasn't ready for socialism so they got rid of the existing socialism and instated State capitalism until they could transition to socialism again which they never did.

Oh and even if it wasn't socialist, the fact that supposedly every time you try to impose socialism, it supposedly goes to state capitalism is enough of a reason never to try it again.

>Since 1918 there hasn't been a shred of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The 1936 ussr Constitution confirms they were socialist through the toilets deputies.

>The USSR isn't socialist.
I don't totally disagree with this. The USSR survived total political and economic collapse to the extent that it was fascist rather than communist.

Communism is too retarded to be a superpower or even a real threat to anybody.

No socialism has existed about 40 times where it never went to state capitalism. That only happened because the Bolsheviks had a counter revolution and won.

>be socialist
>start socialist revolution which takes lives of millions
>oops we're actually not ready yet guys lmao
You're retarded

Then Stalin ended the NEP and launched his five year plans, which began the march towards socialism. There were no "NEPmen", no kulaks, no speculators who made profit from other people's labor in the post-NEP period. They were either forced to give up their speculation, or were deported to Siberia. So how can you call the 1930s USSR state capitalist?

Lol meant toilers,I'm phonefagging. Might as well be toilets deputies

Sauce?

Yeah but it wasn't socialism. It was state capitalist. They gave all the power to the state. That's against everything Marx wrote and believed in. Proof.


"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with."

So is /leftypol/ just making their own discussion threads on Sup Forums now?

Pls keep your infighting on other chan

The state controlled the means of production and the workers never owned them.

Marx literally said that a dictatorship is necessary before the "end of history" utopian society. Read your own book

>anavar
>implants

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://constitutii.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1936-en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwii-sbk24PZAhVq4IMKHTAQAm4QFjAAegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw0mJINB_GwAmH-x0lde-uvH

ARTICLE 1: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist,
state of workers and peasants.

This is a good enough list.

New Harmony, Indiana (1825–1827)
Oberlin Colony (1833-1843)
Utopia, Ohio (1844-1856)
Socialist Community of Modern Times (1851-1864)
The Paris Commune (1871)
Home, Washington (1895-1919)
Equality Colony (1900-1907)
Strandzha Commune (1903)
Saint Petersburg Soviet (1905)
The Soviet Union (1917-1918)
Alsace-Lorraine Soviet Republic (1918)
Spartacist uprising (1918-1919)
Free Territory of Ukraine (1918-1921)
Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919)
Bavarian Soviet Republic (1919)
Limerick Soviet (1919)
Bremen Soviet Republic (1919)
Biennio Rosso (1919-1920)
Ruhr Uprising (1920)
Kronstadt rebellion (1921)
Life and Labor Commune (1921-1937)
Anarchist Shinmin (1929-1932)
Revolutionary Spain (1936 – 1939)
Peasants Associations in Korea (1945-1950)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1992)
Rural China (1948-1950)
Hungarian Revolution (1956)
Republic of Cuba (1959-Present)
May 1968 events in France (1968)
Czechoslovakia under Dubček / Prauge Spring (1968)
Chile during Allende's government (1970-1973)
Jamacia under Manley (1972-1980)
New Jewel Movement / PRG in Greneda (1973-1983)
Seychelles under René (1977-2004)
People's Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1989)
Marinaleda, Spain (1979-Present)
Burkina Faso under Sankara (1983-1987)
Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-Present)
Oaxaca Commune (2006)
Democratic Federation of Rojava – Northern Syria (2013-Present)

Whats with all these commies on Sup Forums atm? Don't you have leftypol where you can wank off to your sjw fantasies?

Go figure a fucking commie can't even make a decent slide thread.

SAGE

Dictatorship of the proletariat is the entire class of proletariat as a whole. You can't refute what was written above. It's as clear as day. Marx was against state ownership.

>They gave all the power to the state

Marx wanted big government and nothing outside of it. Government and state are not the same thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Stagnation

It's NEVER real socialism. Prove me wrong. Pro tip: the Nazis cant

>the USSR wasn't REAL socialism™
>WE WUZ KILLIN NATSIZ N' SHEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

Wow the biggest commie sympathizer of all time using the "totally not communism" argument. I thought someone with as much renown as him would at least be above it.

Source?

Literally all eventual failures, conquered countries, and meme micro nations and communes. Literally any ideology will work if you only have a population under 1,000.

This thread is proof that not only is OP wrong, his views are harmful to the movement.

The "real Communism has never been tried" shit is ridiculous and stupid, and these anons are right for shitting on you. It's no different from ancraps claiming "real Capitalism has never been tried".

You are discrediting Communism. You are a de facto agent of imperialism, whether you realize it or not.

Its literally the model marx layed out, you want the workers to own the means of production? You are completely free to set up a business model like this under capitalism. Go for it

He is not a fan of communism. He is arguing against it because it hurts his own ideology when retards say the was USSR a failure of socialism.

The workers controlled the state. Workers elected their managers. Workers elected representatives to their local Soviets, who then elected representatives to higher-level Soviets, who finally elected representatives to the Supreme Soviet.

This changed after Stalin's death. The bureaucracy became an independent force, pursuing its own interest. By this point, it was only a matter of time before the whole system would collapse. .

>USSR
>Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
>not socialist
k

They have millions are you dumb. Spain had 8 million. Rojava has 5 million. Yugoslavia had 22 million.

Where is this list from

In nearly every one of these states, the "people" did not own 100% of the means of production, therefore they are not "socialist."

>rojava
I thought leftists stopped caring about them after they allowed U.S. to build imperial bases there

But i guarantee once you've realise how much effort and risk goes into building a business from the ground up, you're views will have changed.

>Its literally the model marx layed out,

I just posted where Marx said state ownership is horrible.

Discord raid

>Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
>not democratic
k

sauce on that ho?

Marx is talking about the bourgeois state here. Obviously no socialist or communist supports the monopolization of economic life by the bourgeois state.

Engels criticizing left idealists like yourself:

>Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

>Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

>Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

>only 2 go to the present

Government's that have heads of state and heads of government. The ussr had a head of state in order to create communist culture outside of government (in praxis). At the end of ch2 of the manifesto Marx lists 10 things that need to be done to form the basis of government. Some are give mes,but they all require bigger government to enact.

Ffs read the material

>Gommies don't know the ussr called itself socialist and think it's up for debate
>Haven't read manifesto

It has to dominate the economy. If it's 95% worker ownership and there are some private mom and pop stores it's obviously socialism.

It''s some trap hooker from the UK. I didn't save the source.

...

What a ridiculous list. The Alsace-Lorraine Soviet Republic lasted only 11 days before it was crushed by France. How can you built real socialism in 11 days?

>>Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
>>Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
>>Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

None of these say State ownership is socialism. What are you trying to prove by posting this.

How do communists solve the problem of self-employed people working on their computers for corporations in foreign countries?

They all failed because they got bombed by outside forces. Not really a failure of socialism.

thats because real communism/socialism can't exist in the real world.

In name only, who inforces it? The state. Who controls it? The state.
If you want to implement an altra-authoritarian system they state has to be in control otherwise it will fall apart. Theres no other way. You want to force the people into something? whos doing the forcing? The state.

You're ideal only works if humans have a literal hivemind, and we don't. Its fantasy

Socialists don't care about people who self-employed.

I posted the list above of places where it has.

>Talking about fantasy
>Anarcho-capitalist

Are you joking. Anarcho-capitalism is laughed at more than Communism for being utopian by literally everyone.

The rest all either turn into monarchies like Cuba and Korea, turn to capitalism and private incentive like Vietnam and China,or balkanize. The periods of most intense indoctrination are the worst off.

The state controlled everything in the USSR. That's state ownership.

>"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with."

youtube.com/watch?v=GWX7CQBDraw#t=386s

Before it's collapse, socialists claims the USSR was an example of a successful communist state. After it collapsed, they claimed the USSR wasn't real communism.

youtube.com/watch?v=DZhqPC6d_DA

Um, no sweetie.

Cuba is nearly 100% state ownership, so that shouldn't be on the list.
Why is May 1968 on that list when that was just protests?
Sankara brought everything under the control of the state.
Rojava is an agent of U.S. imperialism.
Allende nationalized tons of industries.
etc.

State-owned does not equal socialism.

The time it takes to shoot business owners in the head and take control is about 3 minutes.

Do you see those on the list. They didn't have worker ownership. They weren't socialism.

Im capitalist. Yeah getting taxes down as low as possible is the goal.
Pure Ancap turns into corporate feudalism pretty quick. I would like as long as im somewhere near the top.

Cuba has worker control and even private businesses.

>May 1968

The workers took control of production in factories

>Sankara brought everything under the control of the state.

Don't know about this. Haven't learned about it yet.

>Rojava is an agent of U.S. imperialism.

Doesn't mean it's not socialism. They are getting help while fighting ISIS. You would be a retard to not take it. The US is going to let turkey decimate them and it will another case of "LOOK SOCIALISM FAILURE"

>Allende nationalized tons of industries.
The workers took control of factories and they were killed off during the coup.

>State-owned does not equal socialism.

I know this

don't cut yourself on that edge

Why false flag?

>knows only leftist echo chamber arguments
>reads about Sup Forums on SPLC's website
>"You can't refute this!"

I was joking but still my point is made. It doesn't take long to take control of factories.

The ussr said it was socialist. Toilers deputies don't count? It's a republic kid.

LMAO commies YES! You must destroy the government in order to achieve full communism then,and only then,can you succeed. No more Stalin power grabbers.

So you would be fine if they’re super rich because they work for a foreign corporation?

>be Yugoslavia
>play both sides of the conflict
>have effective centrally planned economy
>only effective because subsidised by the capitalistic West
>have unique access to both West and East
>used by the West to counter Communism
>socialism totally works you guys

>Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
They call themselves a Democracy. It must be true!

>LMAO commies YES! You must destroy the government in order to achieve full communism then,and only then,can you succeed. No more Stalin power grabbers.

wat

I don't fit in a box properly. nationalist, libertarian, natsoc, capitalist mix
Who cares everyone's larping here

The only thing that matters is that they are the only worker. If they have some factories in China then it would be a problem but I don't know how you would figure it out.

America doesn't know I'm self employed when I'm living in America. There is no way to know.

>They call themselves a Democracy. It must be true!

Youre catching on. Just go full ancom. It'll work this time. You have pols blessing. And /k/s.

Why are you ignoring my post?

>because subsidised by the capitalistic West
Only for 10 years at the start and they cut funding. Got aggressive and start bombing Yugoslavia but the Yugoslavian economy still rose and did better than neighboring countries.

>used by the West to counter Communism

Tito had plans to turn Yugoslavia into communism when the time was right. He wrote a book about it.

Cuba is state capitalist. Raul Castro wants to go the China route. This is not debatable.

>The workers took control of production in factories
Yeah, how long did that last. You can't include days- or weeks-long occupations of factories on a list of "successful socialism." They were on strike the entire time.

>Doesn't mean it's not socialism. They are getting help while fighting ISIS. You would be a retard to not take it. The US is going to let turkey decimate them and it will another case of "LOOK SOCIALISM FAILURE"
Can you be an anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist socialist and *still* be friends with America? Nah.

That still counts as state ownership. These places weren't only worked controlled. The state was involved.

Marx never said socialism takes 3 minutes to accomplish. Actually, he said it would take a very long time to transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. You're just an anarchist pretending to be Marxist. Read "State and Revolution" by Lenin

MUH REAL COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!!!!!

t. retarded 18 year old kid in his first year of college who believes all the bullshit his aged hippie professor tells him

>Workers council's don't mean anything

Then wtf is the point

...

LMAO this

argue against it smarty pants

>Marx never said
>Read Lenin
Retard

State run workers councils lol

So how the fuck is masturbating to someone who has a cock not gay?

What exactly is your definition of socialism?

You want workers to directly control the means of production, without the state? How is that any different from having a bunch of co-ops? Co-ops aren't socialism, since they still operate on a for-profit basis.

How do you organize socialist production and distribution across a massive country like the US or Soviet Union without a state?

This is typical anarchist idealism, totally detached from the material world.

The *path* to "Real Communism" has been tried many times, but it's never quite gotten there on any notable scale.

Who else will fund the perpetually under performing governmental units?

Nigga, all the Commie East was subsidised by the West from beggining to end Read the book East- West=Zero

DPRK is 100% democratic. I would assume you'd have a favorable view of the DPRK, since they are one of the few socialist countries to implement workplace democracy.

In the DPRK, workers directly decide how their operation functions on a daily basis. How is this not workers owning the means of production?