Sure, don’t see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.
The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator… i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communist, since the state is forcing a person’s means of production to remain in the state’s power.
There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.
The USSR was democratic. The ability to choose between parties is less important than the ability to influence policy. The Soviets practiced Soviet Democracy, as elaborated on in the infographic below and the book Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, “dictatorship” doesn’t really apply.
In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn’t invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism’s trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The “stateless” aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.
The Soviet Union wasn’t Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.
I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this or not, but I’m a Marxist, I’ve seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you’ve linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia’s page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).
Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn’t a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?
As I said, the argument was if the USSR was autocratic. Noone disagrees rather or not they were socialists nor they make offical statments they intended on working toward communism.
But its very clear that the leadership was very autocratic and anti-democractic and only accepted undying loyalty.
It isn’t clear at all, actually, and your dedication to vaguely gesture at Wikipedia articles doesn’t discredit that. I don’t see how not allowing liberals, fascists, or Tsarists into government is synonymous with “only accepting undying loyalty.”
I mean, im not the one trying to make a claim that they were democratic while forbiding any ideology that opposes theirs. The mental gymnastics involved here could be the next Olympic event.
Fascism, Capitalism, and Monarchism should be allowed within a Socialist system why? The economy was far more democratic than under the Tsars or under the current Russian Federation. Democracy doesn’t have to include freedom for fascists, the bougeoisie, or monarchists, and in fact shouldn’t for the Proletariat to have full control.
Sure, don’t see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.
The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator… i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communist, since the state is forcing a person’s means of production to remain in the state’s power.
There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.
As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, “dictatorship” doesn’t really apply.
In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn’t invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism’s trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The “stateless” aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.
The Soviet Union wasn’t Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.
Sure…sure… theres democracy… so as long you align with the party’s ideology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this or not, but I’m a Marxist, I’ve seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you’ve linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia’s page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).
Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn’t a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?
As I said, the argument was if the USSR was autocratic. Noone disagrees rather or not they were socialists nor they make offical statments they intended on working toward communism.
But its very clear that the leadership was very autocratic and anti-democractic and only accepted undying loyalty.
It isn’t clear at all, actually, and your dedication to vaguely gesture at Wikipedia articles doesn’t discredit that. I don’t see how not allowing liberals, fascists, or Tsarists into government is synonymous with “only accepting undying loyalty.”
I mean, im not the one trying to make a claim that they were democratic while forbiding any ideology that opposes theirs. The mental gymnastics involved here could be the next Olympic event.
Fascism, Capitalism, and Monarchism should be allowed within a Socialist system why? The economy was far more democratic than under the Tsars or under the current Russian Federation. Democracy doesn’t have to include freedom for fascists, the bougeoisie, or monarchists, and in fact shouldn’t for the Proletariat to have full control.