weshallovercum

joined 4 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago (1 children)

the eye-talians have gone too far smh

1
submitted 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I'm going to give a Marxist economic explanation for why Communist countries don't implement basic things like direct democracy at all levels, freedom of speech, freedom of association/assembly etc.

It's important to have a scientific understanding of why these countries are the way they are. Blanket denunciation of authoritarianism is not enlightening and won't prevent us from repeating the mistakes.

So basically, socialism is about abolishing money and commodity-production. As long as money exists, you can use money to command labour. As long as the state is the source of money, the state can simply print money and exploit people by taking their labour using the free printed money. All communist countries do/did this.

Another source of exploitation is subjective prices. As long as prices are subjectively set by the state through price controls (rather than objectively calculated using labor-time), it's very easy to set up imaginary prices that don't reflect the true amount of work put in by the workers. All communist countries do/did this.

As long as money exists, the salaries are also subjective. Unproductive bureaucrats can pay themselves well without doing any productive labor. The bureaucrats form a pseudo-class that protects its own material interests, which are now directly opposed to the working class.

As long as money exists, you will have a black market. The capitalist mode of exchange can be reintroduced very easily, by simply stealing from factories or shops and reselling. By the 1980s, the USSR had a gigantic shadow economy run by secret black market millionaires who paid off the bureaucrats.

As long as subjective prices are used, it is very difficult to accurately and efficiently plan the economy. If prices do not reflect their labor content as they do in capitalist economies, then it's not possible to decide which investment is truly cheaper. Hence, plans were based on crude quantitative planning of "this many cars" or "that many shirts", rather than financial planning that minimized total labor cost. Financial planning is only possible with objective prices.

The suppression of wages ( made possible as no objective measure of value is used) turns the Communist countries into "sweatshop economies" like those in Africa or Asia. Cheap labor provides an incentive to hoard labor for production rather than removing labor through mechanization, which is what would happen if labor is expensive. This removed a major incentive for economic growth.

Lessons learnt :

  1. Communist countries did not abolish exploitation. DRILL this into the head of every single ML or Tankie. They did NOT end exploitation. This is an objective fact.

  2. The economic base (exploitation) creates the superstructure ( police state, suppression). There is no practical reason to maintain a police state when exploitation doesn't exist.

  3. Ideally you must abolish money and commodity-production. Replace with labor-vouchers.

  4. If step 1 is not yet possible/feasible, at least still ensure that prices are objectively calculated based on labor-time, rather than subjectively set through price controls or subsidies. This can be done either by markets("market socialism"), parecon, Lange model etc.

  5. The authoritarianism is officially justified through the siege mentality of capitalist oppression and counterrevolution. This is a bad faith argument especially for nuclear armed USSR and NK, who will ever invade a nuclear armed state?

  6. Communist countries implemented gun control. This is best and clearest sign of the nature of these states. If there was no exploitation and no classes, why was the state afraid of arming the people?

  7. However, it is still a real fact that capturing and retaining power is not an easy task, and that hierarchical organizations have been more successful at this. Anarchists have not yet proven by practice that they are capable of capturing and holding power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago

The kulaks posed immediate physical danger of starving the Soviet people from their lack of cooperation. The landlords were actively suppressing the peasants.

Who makes said rules?

The rules come from the constitution voted upon by the people.

Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian

Tell me how would an anarchist society enforce laws then? And how would an anarchist society ensure every individual would have equal power?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago (2 children)

As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian.

Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian.

anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation

So your violence is good because its done in a supposedly spontaneous manner, but violence by MLs is bad because it is more organized? Murdering people without a trial, without following any pre-defined rules(a.k.a no rule of law) is not authoritarian. But executing people after a trial, in accordance with rule of law is authoritarian?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago

Well, actually that's the point of my question. I wanted to show anarchists that authoritarianism implies some kind of moral judgement where some actions are authoritarian and some aren't. And since morals are inherently subjective, that means authoritarianism itself is a subjective term.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago (11 children)

So now the question becomes, why is it OK for anarchists to use authoritarian methods to deal with reactionaries? Why was it OK for the Catalonian anarchists to execute priests, implement discipline in the factories etc? I don't disagree with what the Catalonian anarchists did, but it strikes strange that no one sees it as example of authoritarianism. Whenever anarchists were in messy situations, they used violence and subjugation as much as MLs do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 years ago

All religions are equally unvalid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 years ago (2 children)

When someone makes a bullshit idealist argument you respond with a bullshit idealist argument, because they can neither be proved or disproved anyway. Like tell them that communism is human nature because families existed before capitalism and families share their resources or some other nonsensical argument like that. Basically beat them with their own idealism until they have to resort to using materialism

 

Like allowing multiple political parties, full freedom of speech and assembly, abolishing the police, ownership of weapons, direct democracy etc.

The common justification is that they were in a dire situation where allowing too much freedom would allow counterrevolutionaries and foreign imperialists to sabotage and destroy them. I find this unconvincing, to what extent is security better than freedom? To what extent can the current leadership be trusted to "protect the revolution" than possible others better suited who couldnt take power?

Even then, why did the Soviet Union and other communist countries not democratize after WW2 when they arguably established sovereignty with their nuclear weapons?

Just as the capitalist ruling class preferred fascism to losing their power to communists, it seems the Marxist-Leninist rulers preferred capitalism to a more democratic form of socialism.

We see this happen now in Cuba, the last bastion of Marxism-Leninism, where the ruling class has been gradually introducing privatization and market reforms rather than allowing things like open elections, freedom of speech etc. Under capitalism, they can still rule.