• bearboiblake@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    any marxist who thinks that the USSR or China is an example of a successful revolution is either ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, a tankie.

    they had some early successes but were immediately co-opted. motherfuckers need to learn about permenent revolution.

    now neither country is socialist, both are imperialist and well on their way towards fascism

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The vast majority of Marxists globally are either “ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, tankies” then. The idea that the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist is an extremely fringe opinion among all of Marxists, typically limited to Trotskyists, themselves limited to Western Countries and devoid of any revolutions.

      Oh, you mentioned Permanent Revolution. I take it you’re a Trotskyist, then? That explains your stance, but I really don’t see why Permanent Revolution is relevant in any way, the theoretical basis relied on the assumption of the Peasantry as incapable of being truly aligned with the Proletariat and thus eventually would become counter-revolutionary. This ended up being false, and Socialism stabilized in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and more, effectively debunking its relevancy.

      In China, the Trotskyists wished to martyr China by attacking the Kuomintang and the Japanese Imperialists both, rather than allying with the KMT before overthrowing them. Had the Trotskyists had their way, China would remain a colony.

      Today, the Russian Federation certainly is Capitalist and extremely Nationalist, but the PRC is still Socialist. I wrote a post on some common problems that some people run into when trying to determine Mode of Production. I also made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you want to check it out. I think you’d benefit, especially since you took more of an adventurist route.

      • bearboiblake@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        i’m not going to get into a debate about it, because i have better things to do, sorry.

        i would agree that the USSR was socialist, but very quickly stopped being so, and now it is capitalist. that’s not what i call a success.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Fair enough, but I would say that examining what went right and what went wrong is an imporant duty for any socialist examining ybe USSR not just dismissing it outright. Many of the issues and problems with Soviet Union can be applied to any country building socialism as can many of the benefits. So we must learn what to keep and what to leave aside.

          And for what it’s worth, I reccommend that first link I sent. I think what I described in that could be useful for you.

          • bearboiblake@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            i still think you’re assuming what my actual, real-life views are from a silly what-if scenario! i am never gonna be in control of anything more powerful than a barbeque.

            but if somehow i got to mind control the president or something, yes, i’d take advantage of that brief control to eliminate as many capitalists as possible

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 minute ago

              You can’t just kill Socialism into existence, though. That’s Idealism, not Materialism. That removes the entire process of Historical Materialism, and erases the foundations of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to Utopianism. I recommend reading or revisiting Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.