Noam Chomsky - Lenin, the USSR, and the Predictions of Bakunin

[@stvinney]

No matter how times I listen to him speak, whether its a 2 hour lecture or just a few minutes, I don't think I've ever left without being more enlightened. The only frustrating part is what he explained in the video. You often need a lot more info to understand many of his points. In a lot of cases it goes further. You'd need to undo the "good education" and not start from scratch exactly but that good education really sticks. So much of the time the new information (truth) is rejected.

[@iotaje1]

+Route6 keith You could also read some great thinkers, like the one referenced in the video. At least that's what Chomsky did.

[@DialecticalMaterialismRocks]

he always sounds so sad and it's hard to listen

[@lynnebarnes5645]

With good reason, you can't just unknow this shit once you have looked at it.

[@ahervert551]

Bakunin was a great analyst

[@eddiejohnston1853]

@@lynnebarnes5645 Sad, but true

[@Kleermaker1000]

Lenin knew from the start that socialism in the Soviet Union had no chance. It should begin in the industrialized countries, like Germany and France and then the SU would have an opportunity to survive. But what Chomsky doesn't tell is that industrialization was necessary to survive, because the enemies already had invaded the SU during the civil war and it was obvious that they would try it again. Besides, it was the only way to build a modern state. But Lenin c.s. (Lenin was no dictator, like Stalin) had to compromise, so they introduced the NEP (New Economic Policy), which was in fact a huge concession to capitalism. Anyway, it is clear that the socialist experiment was a total loss and this was especially visible when Stalin became the absolute dictator and killer. The Russian Revolution is a complicated thing to analyze and Chomsky must know that.

[@NeptuneVA]

I really like and appreciate Noam Chomsky, but sometimes it seems true the claims that new left thinkers like Chomsky were favored and funded by the CIA via academia to promote a inoculated version of Left theory.

[@aniketsanyal5586]

good use of Fur Alina in the background. Love Arvo Part.

[@inco9943]

Why the sad piano? otherwise another good insight by the main g

[@ricochetsixtyten]

Because Stalinism was a horribly sad part of history.

[@dnehs1054]

People are easily indoctrinated, and that creates Manichaean divisions: left vs right, progressives vs reactionaries. Socialists vs Capitalists. Reality is much more complex than that. Medieval sharecropping farming, for many aspects, may have been more humanitarian than capitalistic farming. In the social arena, the Catholic Church was not reactionary but quasi-socialist. At the very beginning, a great number of Fascists were converted Maximalist Socialists. Many Capitalists were as much positivists and unreligious as the militants on the extreme left. And Lenin was not for power to the Soviets but for absolute power to a very small group of intellectuals. Aristotle classified that under Tyranny.

[@Mrgruntastic]

hey, you sound like you know your shit. Recommend some texts to me, thanks!

[@ronyobry898]

Well i wouldnt say church isnt reactionairy. The bourgoisie used it. Just look at the nearly infinite crusades the church did and destroyed so many not western cultures in the name of god. And dont let me get started with the wars. Quasi Socialist an insult. Even for europeans. Many peoples especially jews were getting purged.

[@bestwitch2931]

The great difficulty of understanding what someone’s ideology is, is that practically fascism and state socialism have allot in common. But yes I imagine your mostly correct. It’s sometimes a little more complicated. However if by socialism we mean worker ownership of the means of production it is directly contested with capitalism which is private ownership of the MOP.

[@davidbrock2871]

Agree with most of what he said. But the fall of the USSR wasn't a win for socialism. It was a win for capitalism and then totalitarian fascism.

[@knowledgeanddefense1054]

The moment the USSR centralized councils and unions and betrayed the anarchists was the moment capitalism won, it was just in a statist form back.

[@McKamikazeHighlander]

It was a victory for socialism in that no one in the West would dare take up a socislist cause while the Red Menace remained. But today, you hear plenty of socialist voices in the US and the UK, which in the past wouldve been dismissed as "commie Russian traitors". You do occasionally get that today but only from fringe far-right nutjobs

[@_s.4785]

His point is that the USSR was fascism, the fall of a fascist state calling itself socialist was a "small win" for socialism, just as the rise of lenninism and ensuing state fascism calling itself socialist was "one of the greater blows socialism ever suffered" Waste of time responding to you

[@davidbrock2871]

@@_s.4785 Wonder why you bothered then.

[@epicphailure88]

​@@_s.4785No it was socialist unless you want to be one of those that say it wasn't real socialism. Fascism is something else.

[@raymondhartmeijer9300]

still, the rise of Stalinism cannot be ignored as a sharp difference between the first decade of the revolution ('18-'28) and what the Stalin bureacracy implemented after 1928. Chomsky steps over this, but this difference is crucial. Russian historian Gary Hamburg in his lecture series emphasized this. The collectivization of the land, the 5 year plans, inc forced labour, and on top of that the purges and rewriting of history greatly contributed to the totalitarian nature of the USSR, but this only began after a period of NEP, which relaxed the party's hold on the economy. Though he is right that the soviet-councils were left out of the equation from the start by the Bolsheviks party's grip on the country

[@mathias4851]

Ye and that is tyranny with only one party standing

[@raymondhartmeijer9300]

@3brenm Well, you could argue that in the middle of a civil war, where various forces are trying to destroy your revolution, Lenin deemed some of these things as necessary, though it's correct that bc of his death and the powerstruggles within the party, Stalin ultimatly inherited the Lenin system. But we can never know what the country would've looked like if Lenin had lived for another 25 years. Sure it would've been a one-party dictatorship, but we might not have seen the purges, the collectivizations of the land nor the slave labour, ie. the day-to day tyranny on the people. More Cuba than Korea

[@raymondhartmeijer9300]

@3brenm Yes, I share that core of what socialism should be about

[@raymondhartmeijer9300]

@Republic Media (RM) well, I'm always open to new information, so thank you for the channel, I will check that out! I'm not necessarily pro- or anti-Lenin. I look at the history in a practical way. I think the revolution itself held a lot of promise, it had broad support at the time in the urban regions and War Communism was a temporarily re-organising program to quickly get resources from the land to the war effort (hence the name), the October revolution wasn't secure yet. So from that pov it was not irrational. Ofc at the same time I see the lack of (economic) democracy and repressive policies towards "state enemies" and media etc after the civil war

[@Z06Ronald]

Chomsky is a brilliant analist.

[@hoogmonster]

Possibly, but I'm pretty certain he is a brilliant ANALYST.

[@Z06Ronald]

Oops! That was a typo, you’re 100% correct. 👍

[@hoogmonster]

No worries, funny typo though ;-)

[@quinnjin2]

lol

[@TheJonnyEnglish]

@@Z06Ronald there’s an edit button now

[@jlmur54]

“So they (Lenin et al) laid the basis for a totalitarian system with an ideological doctrine behind it. When the Soviet Union collapsed I actually wrote an article saying it was a victory, a small victory for socialism. I just couldn’t get it published. Nobody knew what I was talking about.” - Noam Chomsky the most quoted and most canceled man in modern history.

[@davidvenegas6401]

2:51 Where are those images from? And what is that?

[@kierankell4495]

I think it's some people being hanged? Probably from the Russian Revolution, given what Chomsky is talking about.

[@DUFFAL02]

Why the piano?

[@darksidespainishsith0725]

makhno was unkranian (no rusian, isnt the same thing even if they speak same language) (0:37)

[@kylescott169]

Regardless they were both part of the ussr. And they were a part of Russia under tsarist rissia. The ussr split the previous tsarist state into three parts I believe, one of which became Ukrainian . The ussr still fought against them

[@quite1enough]

Isn't that ironic that a lot of streets in USSR was named after Bakunin...

[@marshallsolomon9488]

As much as I like Chomsky, his views on Lenin are delusional. I don't know how much of this clip was edited, but no mention of the White Army and the inevitability of Russian Fascism if they overthrew the soviets is so materially relevant here that it is a criminal omission on Chomsky or the editor's part. The most concise statement from Lenin on the soviets and the peasantry comes in his 1917 April Theses, number 2: 2) The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution-which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie-to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants. The Mensheviks and Social Revolutionary "compromisers" Chomsky praises were responsible for handing power over to the bourgeoisie in the first place. A society led by the soviets would never have even had a chance to happen if it weren't for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Chomsky is talking out of his ass on this one, sorry.

[@PantMal]

Did Makhno hand any power to the bourgeoisie? And if so, how? Also how did the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion help the socialist cause in any way? Did the Bolsheviks honestly do it to somehow prevent fascism in Russia?

[@tripp8833]

Chance to do what? Bolsheviks had bloodiest regime in human history.

[@randomserb761]

@@tripp8833 No, they very clearly did not. Stop lying.

[@tripp8833]

@@randomserb761 you aren't amenable to facts, so there's no point in discussing it with you.

[@randomserb761]

@@tripp8833 I am entirely amenable to facts. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qInTgoiwlNqEl6s Want to believe some of these asshats, like Chiang Kai Shek and Winston Churchill, didn't cause many more deaths than the Bolsheviks? Be my guest, but it'd mean denying established facts. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3706593 Want to believe the communist governments of the past century didn't alleviate suffering or improve quality of life? Be my guest, but it'd mean denying established facts.

[@omarmahfouz5599]

I can barely hear chomsky, its bad enough without the music

[@matthewkopp2391]

One day the Left will triumph over poor sound recordings. Unfortunately that day has not arrived.

[@bimblebom]

Whose idea was the background piano? Obscures and distracts from the audio

[@seannishi3209]

I keep meeting young American "communists" who have this revisionist idea of Russia.

[@noodles5358]

It really ticks me off hearing this kinda crap, they pick the parts of history that work for this narrative and use it to distort reality. Chomsky is much smarter then this, shame on him.

[@skafazzation666]

Noam Chomsky is an absolute enigma of a man. Anyone who has actually read Marx, Lenin, Bakunin and USSR archives and correspondence can see just how flabbergasting Noam Chomsky's position is on these topics. What a strange, strange man.

[@eidorianeagle5806]

I heard people say that he never actually tried to understand Leninism or the political war inside ussr after the revolution. Dont know why but it makes sense when you hear him speak on it.

[@knowledgeanddefense1054]

OK tankie

[@talismanbrunski2582]

nah it's pretty based imo. Mind explaining what he got wrong?

[@LinguisticLifeform]

Rather than lamely insulting the man show us the working that got you to your conclusion. Don't keep your deep and learned analysis to yourself

[@ethan37066]

god take out the music

[@cennamo66]

Chomsky is a great intellectual, but he tries to twist reality, when reality does not fit into his scheme of thought. Socialism was based on an idea of social justice. In the evolving and imperfect democratic societies it had to confront liberalism, and it was divided, roughly, in 2 groups a "minimalist" or "democratic socialism" which had to compromise with the bourgeois society and a "maximalist" socialism that wanted the destruction of capitalist society. Because with all its imperfections the democratic or liberal or capitalistic society created a middle class which had some private properties the "maximalist" socialism remained always a minority and, in western society, democratic socialism rose and, at times, came to power in the Scandinavian countries, Germany, England etcetera. So democratic socialism brought social justice, but also had to accept the democratic system and private property. Lenin and Trotsky realized that they could never come to power by legal means, but only by starting a dictatorship based on the Party. And this is what communism is, a dictatorship of a minority organized in a party which abolishes private property. An irony of history is that communism, as Chomsky said, did not triumph in industrialized societies as Marx had predicted, but in under developed agricultural, feudal societies like Russia and China, probably because in these societies the middle class did not exist.

[@tomphillips6743]

weird music

[@teesteele2357]

Arvo Part

[@leonsantamaria9845]

In every ideology have one or more, contradiccion, and imperfection...is not another ideology can change are own creation, humanity never have that supposed evolution.... great Chomsky... take care you self....👋🙂

[@josephcaruso7815]

I love Professor Chomsky.

[@nrkapa]

You anarchists critique anything and everything the USSR did but your contribute to history and betterment of life quality of the working class are almost non existent. The USSR abolished wage labour, exploitation, collectivized the means of production, had 0% unemployment, 0% homelessness, free high quality accessible healthcare and education for everyone, housing and lands were not commodities, advancements in science and technology that increased productivity meant betterment of life quality of everyone, not just the top 1%. It went from the czarist peasant most backward country in Europe to the second most powerful in the world in two decades under Stalin, won WW2 almost alone having 13.7% of their population die in the war (while the USA only had 0.3%), was subject of constant aggression, economic blockades, espionage from all of the the capitalist world the whole time it existed, innovated so much in so many fields including space exploration, medical advancements, nuclear energy, hydroelectric energy and so many others. It forced countries like Finland and Sweden to become social democracies, offering better conditions to the workers, otherwise there would have been communist revolutions there, the workers of the whole world got better living conditions because of the influence of the USSR, the fear that the capitalists had of the success of communist revolutions backed by the USSR forced them to concede workers rights, 8 hour work days, weekends, pensions, higher wages, better workplace conditions and so many other things worldwide. What did anarchism archive? Almost absolutely nothing, that's the reality we live in.

[@soniacosta8397]

Some of that achivements were done by de anarchy movements, lime the 8h labour

[@judedesaubin9956]

"The USSR abolished wage labour" - Literally false, the people of the Soviet Union sold their labour power to do work for the state and in exchange were paid in currency that they used to purchase stuff, that is literally wage labour. "Abolished exploitation" - The idea that there was no exploitation in the USSR is just so ridiculously laughable that it doesn't even need a rebuttal, literally just do basic research. "Collectived the means of production" - if by that you mean that they centralised it into the hands of an undemocratic one-party authoritarian state, than yeah, sure, they "collectivised" the means of production. "0% unemployment" - not true and also that's not necessarily a good thing, just because somebody has a job doesn't mean their life is good, especially when they are overworked in terrible conditions. "0% homelessness" - not true literally just google "homelessness in the USSR", also even if it was true people could still be living in terrible conditions. "free high quality accessible healthcare and education for everyone" - not unique to the Soviet Union and exists in many capitalist countries, also I'd hardly call a propagandistic education system that teaches everybody that Stalin is amazing and the Soviet Union is perfect to be "high quality" "housing and lands were not commodities" - true but, like anything the Soviet Union did that was good, it hardly makes the country perfect or even good and does not take away from their atrocities that were committed under the Soviet regime. "advancements in science and technology that increased productivity meant betterment of life quality of everyone, not just the top 1%." - not unique to the Soviet Union and occurred in many capitalist countries. "It went from the czarist peasant most backward country in Europe to the second most powerful in the world in two decades under Stalin," - yes, they industrialised, the same thing that the West did in the Industrial Revolution. And like in the West, it occurred on the backs of mass exploitation of the working class. I will concede that the speed at which the industrialisation occurred was remarkable and showed great planning by the state, though also involved mass oppression and was a contributing factor to the famines that occured. "won WW2 almost alone having 13.7% of their population die in the war (while the USA only had 0.3%" - they did not win the war "almost alone" - that completely ignores the successes of the Allies on the Western Front and in Africa and South Italy. Obviously far more of the Soviet population died compared to the USA as there was actually fighting in the Soviet Union. Also, the Soviet Union probably would've done better in the war and not had so many deaths if Stalin had not culled much of his top military generals and strategists, see: the show trials. "was subject of constant aggression, economic blockades, espionage from all of the the capitalist world the whole time it existed," - the west was subject to all that from the Soviet Union as well, also it doesn't make the Soviet Union good. "innovated so much in so many fields including space exploration, medical advancements, nuclear energy, hydroelectric energy and so many others." - the west did all of this as well "It forced countries like Finland and Sweden to become social democracies, offering better conditions to the workers, otherwise there would have been communist revolutions there, the workers of the whole world got better living conditions because of the influence of the USSR, the fear that the capitalists had of the success of communist revolutions backed by the USSR forced them to concede workers rights, 8 hour work days, weekends, pensions, higher wages, better workplace conditions and so many other things worldwide." - this is the most ridiculous claim (along with "eliminating exploitation") in this entire video. The advent of Social democracy and the concessions given to workers was because of people struggling within those countries for better rights, because of mass strikes and protests, from hard work done by workers, unions and many leftists of different ideologies, including marxists, anarchists and others, from the people in those countries making change happen from the bottom up, to credit it all to the "glorious soviet union" instilling "fear' in the west is ridiculous. This claim is genuinely disrespectful to leftist movements across the globe and all the struggles they went through. Workers also struggled for better conditions and rights within the Soviet Union - and all the workers movements were crushed for being "counter-revolutionary". "What did anarchism archive? Almost absolutely nothing, that's the reality we live in." - Anarchists were involved in struggles across the world that materially improved the lives of the working class. The fact that Anarchism has never truly been achieved does not mean that people cannot aspire towards it and does not discredit it in anyway. Also, a large part of Anarchism's lack of success is due to countries like the Soviet Union literally arresting and killing anarchists and stamping them out, the fact that the Soviet Union fucked over the Anarchists in Spain, and because the Soviet Union and Marxism-Leninism attempted to take over the entire socialist movement, pointing to the supposed "great success" of the Soviet Union, China and others, while unfortunately some in working class were too uneducated, blind and naive to see that those countries were in reality no better than the West. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that committed countless atrocities, massively repressed dissidence and arrested or killed anybody who opposed the state. I'm not going to throw out the ridiculous western propaganda numbers of "100 million deaths" or whatever, but declassified documents following the fall of the Soviet Union show 799,455 executions, approximately around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag, around 390,000 deaths due to the forcible resettlement of the kulaks, and up to 400,000 deaths due to the mass deportation that occurred under Stalin. That adds up to 3,289,455 deaths, and does not include the estimated 5-8 million people who died due to the Famine of 1930-1933, as you could argue that the famine is not directly attributable to the Soviet state, though the forced collectivisation of agriculture conducted by the state and general mismanagement of the agricultural industry is inarguably a significant factor that led to the famine. (P.S. I am not an Anarchist or really a Communist in anyway, just needed to argue against this ridiculous comment)

[@marcellolaginhas7370]

So all of that justifies those muderous bastards, like Lenin and Stalin? Once upon a time there was a little fellow in German who rose to power thanks to many improvements and German society. But he did a loooooooooooooooooot of bad shit soon after. Maybe thats why Operation Paperclip was acceptable, ye?

[@2x94Z]

Stalin's not gonna shag you.

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

Oh, look, a lying and/or ignorant authoritarian socialist. How surprising!

[@RevolutionarySM]

Noam Chomsky is partly right and partly wrong on the Soviet-Union. But he is to be respected as a libertarian socialist.

[@diegobotto6245]

How so?

[@Pescasaurus]

Yeah, why is he?

[@PantMal]

@@randomserb761 The Soviet Union was authoritarian from start to finish. Stop using WW2 as an excuse.

[@clockfixer5049]

PantMal god. here come the dummies knowing virtually nothing about USSR.

[@kx7500]

@@PantMal bingo.

[@rominav.931]

As a non native english speaker I understand 70% of what he says :(

[@PantMal]

I'm also non native, but I understood him 100%. What part didn't you get?

[@hoogmonster]

70% of chomsky is worth infinitely more than the 100% of lies our current 'leaders' spout.

[@markus4698]

Keep listening, it'll get better over time.

[@matthewkopp2391]

I wouldn’t want to live in the USSR under Stalin with the suppression of intellectual and artistic freedom. That said, they were orthodox Marxist, like Chomsky said. And Marx believed that socialism would only naturally arise in the most literate, class conscious and technologically advanced country in the world. Not an illiterate and underdeveloped backwater like Russia. So they set out to create a literate and technologically advanced society. And they succeeded. Now let’s pretend and propose an Alternative history. In this history Lenin and then Stalin took the libertarian socialist approach under those specific circumstances. 1. Would the Soviet Union have the fastest growing GDP in the history of the world up to that point? I would say definitely NOT. The rapid GDP growth occurred specifically by the government acting like a capitalist and taking the surplus value of the peoples labor and then reinvesting it into the economy. 2. Here is the next question would the Soviet Union been able to keep Ukraine within the union. Possibly. But it would have been far more challenging, because Ukraine was infiltrated by the OUN Ukrainian fascists with ties to the Nazi in Germany. Lenin gave a lot a self determination to Ukraine. By the time Stalin was in power there was Nazi infiltration from Vienna. I suppose the Libertarian Socialist response would be „hey man, that’s cool you all are Nazi, just be nice, please.“ 3. With the threat of the German Nazi and Hitler making no secret of his desire to invade Russia. Would a libertarian?socialist government create necessary defense. Maybe maybe not. I suppose the libertarian socialists would have the entire population vote on it. Perhaps they would say, „hey man, I know you guys like peace and stuff but this Hitler guy he is not a cool dude. Maybe we might want to make some weapons and stuff. And maybe the message back „No way dude This Hitler guy calls himself a socialist dude why would we want to fight another socialist. And Stalin be like, „Come on guys this dudes not very cool read his book man.“ And the people would be like „hey you know we can’t read we have the right to be illiterate remember? You are being illiterate-phobic.“ 4. when the moment comes and Hitler actually invades. And Stalin announces on the radio, and the population is still illiterate, and the USSR remained under developed because they voted not to develop, and they voted not to create defense weapons, and Ukraine already succeeded from the union and created an alliance with Nazi Germany. Do you think the Soviet Union would have won world war 2? I personally don’t. And that is the point. The point is the USSR was actually threatened multiple times by imperialists (the white armies) and by fascists (the OUN). As well as multiple outside threats. Much less the internal challenges of raising the literacy rate and going from feudalism to an advanced industrial society. With out the necessary rapid development everyone would be slaves to the Nazi and the Nazi would be the dominant power on earth today with German technology and Russian resources. For more information read „Left Wing communism an infantile disorder.“ by Vladimir Lenin Back to real history after the war Churchill wanted an alliance with the former Nazi to invade the USSR. With friends like that who need enemas. Khrushchev was very interested in creating modern material conditions, social liberalism, and normalized peace relations with Western Countries. How did the USA respond? By building a nuclear arsenal in Turkey and pointing it at Russia. How did the USSR respond? By building a nuclear arsenal in CUBA and pointing it at the USA. How did Kennedy and Khrushchev respond? By making peace. How did the military industrial complex respond by shooting Kennedy. (Of course I am guessing on that last part but why wouldn’t they?) The point is of course is the US oligarchy and MIC was obviously not interested in peace as they already lied to stoke tensions. They invaded Korea and burnt down most of the villages. Do you think the MIC in control of the government was all about peace in love? Now if any of the events like sanctions and overt terrorism by multiple foreign powers happened to the USA, how would the USA respond? Would they build a wall? Would they try to make sure there weren’t sabotage and spies? Of course. After Khrushchev the USSR became increasingly isolationist. The attitude after Khrushchev was screw the west leave us the F@ck alone. Until Gorbachev who began to reforms. Now look at the reforms. The USA trained their Manchurian Candidate drunken Yeltsin who illegally dissolved the union and sold away the People‘s property at a minuscule fraction of its value to predatory capitalists. They gave shares to people while they were starving and of course they sold it for food. And the entire country decent into the worst economic conditions since before the USSR. The death toll of the 1990‘s was enormous and in the end desperate to end the chaos Russia votes for a new leader Vladimir Putin. I guess Chomsky got his libertarian wish. Perhaps he needs to read a little Maslow that one might want to overcome illiteracy and starvation and homelessness before you establish your libertarian socialist Utopia.

[@EurekaRepublic89]

Imagine taking a guy who ADMITS to not understanding dialectics seriously.

[@sirvanghazi9429]

what is dialectics?

[@1997lordofdoom]

Imagine thinking you know better than Noam Chomsky, face the truth buddy, Lenin was trash and his actions ruined all the progress the world had made towards Socialism.

[@figurefiguras4104]

@@1997lordofdoom lmao what? The USSR literally helped revolutions succeed and carried and helped their economies and development efforts after the success of revolution, countries like cuba, vietnam, albania, dprk, south yemen even china owe alot of their development and aid to the USSR.

[@kylescott169]

@@figurefiguras4104 both can be true. Communism has done better then capitalism and has helped countries escape private capital. That doesn’t mean there isn’t problems with how they operate and that it shouldn’t be more in the hands of the people

[@rdrum4206]

@@kylescott169 That's true, the "communist" governments of yesterday and today are certainly deserving of many criticisms. However, to not only say "Lenin was trash," but to say he HINDERED progress towards socialism, as "1997lordofdoom" has, is utterly laughable. Truly infantile... ;)

[@dalegribble4308]

Really important

[@chryslercartography9024]

Second to Fascism? What a joke!

[@pioneirohill8493]

What about titoism ?

[@billyb6001]

Sounds like socialism to me

[@Italiansocialist2.0]

Sounds like Bolshevism...

[@billyb6001]

@@Italiansocialist2.0 that’s what I said

[@Italiansocialist2.0]

@@billyb6001 it's not the same thing

[@billyb6001]

@@Italiansocialist2.0 it was when it looked like it was working

[@Italiansocialist2.0]

@@billyb6001 Bolshevism is not socialism, is State capitalism and it's not just me who says this, but most historians...

[@anglo-irishbolshevik3425]

It's idealist to think that it's possible to go straight from capitalism to communism. To defeat the dictatorship of capitalism/imperialism there has to be period of the dictatorship by the proletariat. This period is socialism (sometimes referred to as the lower stage of communism). What happened in the Soviet Union was that after Stalin came Khrushchov who was a theoretical idealistic dim-wit who didn't know what he was doing. Khrushchov didn't understand that class stuggle still continues during socialism so he idealistic spoke about "the state of the whole period" - i.e. no more class stuggle. From that point on it was downhill until the final restoration of capitalism.

[@salj.5459]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't mean one-parry authoritarian dictatorship. It means the workers have complete control in society

[@anglo-irishbolshevik3425]

@salj.5459 Yes, Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't mean one party authoritarian dictatorship. What it does mean is one party democratically controlled by the proletariat and a dictatorship against anyone who wants to bring back the capitalist system or the capitalist way of doing things like accumulating money to exploit the labour of others.

[@AndyKaknes]

Noam Chomsky once again references Mikhail Bakunin's "predictions" of the trajectory of Marxism. Well, if I predict, that hey, the future is going to be messed up, does that prove my prediction correct? Anarchist or not, Bakunin wrote many passages that resembled what the future National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany would write. Now, how's that for a prediction?

[@oatmiser3110]

you don't even know what you're talking about, we can all tell from the lack of references buddy

[@AndyKaknes]

Bakunin, Michael. 1872a. To the Brothers of the Alliance in Spain. Bakunin, Michael. 1872b. To the Comrades of the International Sections of the Jura Federation. Bakunin, Michael. 1907. Oeuvres Tome II. Edited by James Guillaume. Paris: P.V Stock. Bakunin, Michael. 1910. Oeuvres Tome IV. Edited by James Guillaume. Paris: P.V Stock. Bakunin, Michael. 1911. Oeuvres Tome V. Edited by James Guillaume. Paris: P.V Stock. Bakunin, Michael. 1913. Oeuvres Tome VI. Edited by James Guillaume. Paris: P.V Stock. Bakunin. Michael. 1924. Gesammelte Werke, Band III. Edited by Max Nettlau. Berlin: Verlag Der Syndikalist. Bakunin, Michael. 1964. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism. Edited by G.P. Maximoff. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Bakunin, Michael. 1970. God and the State (New York: Dover Publications) Bakunin, Michael. 1973. Selected Writings. Edited by Arthur Lehning. London: Jonathan Cape. Bakunin, Michael. 1986. Obras Completas, Volumen 5. Madrid: Las Ediciones de la Piqueta. Bakunin, Michael. 1990. Statism and Anarchy. Edited by Marshall Shatz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakunin, Michael. 2001. Bakunin on Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff. Montréal: Black Rose Books. Bakunin, Michael. 2016. Selected Texts 1868-1875. Edited by A.W. Zurbrugg. London: Anarres Editions.

[@oatmiser3110]

@@AndyKaknes this man died in 1876, I don't care that you can google a list of selected works or biography🤣

[@AndyKaknes]

@@oatmiser3110 You refute my statement claiming I lack any references. I give references and you diminish this act. These references come from The Anarchist Library. There are many articles there that discuss Michael Bakunin.

[@oatmiser3110]

@@AndyKaknes The fact that you can't quote any specific book or essay with a prediction yet describe them as mere vague and obvious statements (akin to "the future is going to be messed up"), indicates to me ONCE AGAIN that you do not know what you're talking about - especially since you tried to claim that a Slavic anarchist is inline with pan-german fascists. Give it up.

[@Illopportunity248]

I don't agree with him

[@vaibhavsajith4267]

Lenin was one of the greatest theoretician of Marxism. You can cope

[@Ogryzek_IRL]

If he was the greatest then I don't want to see someone below him in that scale.

[@vaibhavsajith4267]

@@Ogryzek_IRL what

[@Ogryzek_IRL]

@@vaibhavsajith4267 i forgor

[@Lynssss24]

Ur silly and incapable of synthesizing historical context :)

[@festival4101]

nonsense.

[@dejectedqasim7753]

Some one shut this old American dude

[@ardenigleheart9467]

Cringe

[@johnrossini3594]

not a fan of ussr but anarchy does not work either

[@PantMal]

It's far more successful

[@rappakalja5295]

@@PantMal Yeah, we have dozens of successful socialist countries but not a single example of a successful anarchist country.

[@PantMal]

@@rappakalja5295 We obviously have very different definitions of the word 'successful'. What are your examples of successful socialist countries? Also, while not exactly countries right now we have Rojava and the Zapatistas which (all things considered) proved to be extremely successful, I might say.

[@oppre55]

@@rappakalja5295 the fact you think marxist projects that make "socialist" COUNTRIES is an own shows how little you care about communism or socialism as ideas and not just an aesthetic. socialism must be prefigured by the workers and defended from cooption, it cant be dictated from the top down by a vanguard or ruled by a handful of "great men", keep your liberalism away from socialism. trust the working class, educate and empower us to create and run our own society, remove the opportunity for exploitation. Do not just attempt to take over state power, create direct workers power in confederations so we can work together to challenge the current dynamic with one that can not only rival it, but will create a better future, not just more capitalism (or worse) in a red coat of paint. socialism at its core is about no bosses or rulers, just us. Everyone at the same level working together, do you want that?

[@jsmesoercy6436]

Crap... Okay having watched the video it is half right half wrong I agree with what the othernposeter some way below me has said

[@luiz918]

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian School economist, foresaw that Socialism, a socioeconomic system in which the means of production are publicly rather than privately owned, would never work, because it makes economic calculation impossible. He wrote that in his 1922 book "Socialism" and his predictions became the de facto script for basically all countries that tried to nationalize and centralize economy under the state.

[@clockfixer5049]

Mises never worked either. Funny how u lay this 'truth' here.

[@1997lordofdoom]

Lmao Mises is a joke even among Capitalists.

[@sandrocosta479]

Mises?! The guy who literally wrote that fascism saved Europe? That guy?! 😂😂😂 you're a joke for taking him and his fascist and biased view, serious.

[@alexander33221]

He was a fascist apologist..

[@sandrocosta479]

@Efren Rios what context could ever turn fascist apolitical takes into a good thing?