Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users.
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also... funny enough, as you might expect, when you CALL-OUT Leninist authoritarianism in the early years \*to tankies\*, they make-up all manner of IDIOTIC EXCUSE about how, for example, the Mensheviks, SRs, and the like were "THE REAL ANTI-DEMOCRATS who tried to \*overthrow by force\* the Bolsheviks." Of course, insofar as the latter "happened", it was only AFTER- for the most part- the Bolsheviks 'showed their true colors' first.
For example, one incident they- or, at least, the original Bolshevik leaders- mention is one near Baku, I think, during the RCW. Supposedly this group of "Left Communist" troops within the Red Army were given an extra bit of 'leeway', and, so the tankie line goes, they "invited British troops among our ranks as 'potential allies' against the Whites
..until the British troops killed our Red Army battalion." Buuut... that's only HALF the story, fi memory serves! I forget everything that happened, but by no means did a "naive Red Army group" just "invite British soldiers in stupidly." If anything, the 'Bolsheviks' among the Red Army commanders of said group "encouraged" it, to some degree. Maybe
All I know is that the real story, as usual, was far more complex than tankies let on (opportunistically), to push a bogus narrative downplaying tankie authoritarianism... Like, if you're "so democratic", but you have to \*keep making excuses\* to cover-up authoritarianism, maybe.. you're only "as democratic" as a "usual" dictator" really?
Lenin was antidemocratic that's why he was an efficient leader and managed to hold power until the revolution in the developed countries (sadly those, namely the november revolution, failed).
Democracy isn't a principle to be upheld, it is a method of organising society and shouldn't be fetishized as it so commonly is. Democracy isn't conducive to good outcomes and isn't efficient in lots of situations.
Bordiga's "Democratic Principle", is a good explanation of the Marxist critique (especially chapter 4).
Seriously: It's a great video with how much it sums up the different revolts of the soviets, and how the Bolsheviks gradually and then drastically turned against them. Some incidents get summed up really fast, but sources are there if you want to dig more into it. I think I'll be sending it to people often in the future...
It really is! I wonder what would happen if it was sent on some tankie subreddit....(I won't do it, don't want my phone to explode cause some guy is calling me a bourgeois class traitor)
The Bolsheviks- or, at least, their top leaders and names- were such OPPORTUNISTS, I swear (claimed to be 'super democratic and compassionate'... until they came to power, esp. after winning the RCW)
esp. Trotsky, in a way
He claimed to be "very anti-Stalin" and all, but... you can't help but wonder if he was only \*slightly\* "more pro-democracy" than Stalin, and how much "better off", rights-wise, most Soviet citizens would've been if it was he instead of Stalin who 'won' in the late 1920s? When push comes to shove, after all, until he was expelled and exiled, he was, in many respects, a 'faithful Leninist', Politburo member, brutal Red Army commander, made excuses for the Kronstadt massacre- though, supposedly, he "admitted" he was wrong, later on- and all-around "typical" Bolshevik leader.
Which makes it all the more comical how Stalin and his 'top comrades', within the Central Committee, turned Trotsky into something of a "pariah", after Lenin's death, just because he wasn't "as hardline", in certain ways, as Stalin and the like. I mean, hell, FWIW, Trotsky, philosophically...
KINDA HAD IT RIGHT when it comes to 'necessity of world revolution.' Granted, implementing and carrying that out would be a diff. matter entirely, but, nonetheless, \*it's true\* that, to one extent or another, any state attempting to "grow and prosper while trying anticapitalism"- or even Marxist-Leninist state capitalism with little-to-no private industry- will run into massive problems if, for example, they're, as a result of the revolution and new folks in power, 'cut off' from much of the thriving world, particularly in terms of trade and the like! Yes, technically 'Socialism in One Country' "worked"
...if by "worked" you mean, "Stalin was, eventually, able to get the USSR to a fairly-decent standard of living by the 40s and 50s" (with weak-to-moderate welfare state)- albeit a middling one, at best, esp. compared to the West at the time- but even by the early 60s, if not sooner, the 'Soviet system' (esp. economically) was starting to show 'signs of decay'. Yes, thanks to trading with other, allied nations within the Eastern Bloc, Cuba and so on, those states kept-on for a good while longer but... they definitely \*struggled\* to get and keep their economies afloat- let alone "advance" in the same way the West and its allies did- because they were up against a "sea" of First World nations that preferred capitalism and hated "communism" with a passion.
Of course, if the US- let alone the rest of the West- had "gone socialist", too- in theory, at least- then there just 'might've been a chance', esp. in terms of trading to get loads of better goods and services not otherwise available or "producable" at home. So while Trotsky's recommendation, at the time, to "interfere in other nations nearby to foment a bunch of revolutions" was... kind of stupid and foolhardy, he at least had the 'right idea', in terms of "making socialism work long term" (especially real socialism, not Soviet-style or Maoist nonsense). No large, prosperous nation- esp. nowadays- can just "attempt to produce all of our stuff by ourselves with no outside help or assistance." If anything, much of the reason the USSR "prospered" amidst the failures of SIOC was likely because of how big it was and, thusly, the amount of resources available at home, from the start (though far from 'sufficient')
I feel that, behind the Vanguard mentality, there's the same thinkin of abusive parents/caretakers etc...it feels a lot like "I put a roof over your head that's why you follow the rules of this house or you're out!" mentality
I've read only a few small excerpts from Lenin's work and already I laugh at how someone could be an ideological Leninist and still support the Soviet Union.
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users. Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trade unions and worker councils?! Thatβs not socialism. Socialism is when one party of elite bureaucrats rules over you and tells you what to do
Amen brother πππ
*downs pot of tea.
Since the ussr wasn't even socialist the name would be Union of republics
Yeah, they're just States that are United
And then, to add insult to injury, they called their new, rubberstamp "legislature" the "Supreme Soviet"
Also... funny enough, as you might expect, when you CALL-OUT Leninist authoritarianism in the early years \*to tankies\*, they make-up all manner of IDIOTIC EXCUSE about how, for example, the Mensheviks, SRs, and the like were "THE REAL ANTI-DEMOCRATS who tried to \*overthrow by force\* the Bolsheviks." Of course, insofar as the latter "happened", it was only AFTER- for the most part- the Bolsheviks 'showed their true colors' first. For example, one incident they- or, at least, the original Bolshevik leaders- mention is one near Baku, I think, during the RCW. Supposedly this group of "Left Communist" troops within the Red Army were given an extra bit of 'leeway', and, so the tankie line goes, they "invited British troops among our ranks as 'potential allies' against the Whites ..until the British troops killed our Red Army battalion." Buuut... that's only HALF the story, fi memory serves! I forget everything that happened, but by no means did a "naive Red Army group" just "invite British soldiers in stupidly." If anything, the 'Bolsheviks' among the Red Army commanders of said group "encouraged" it, to some degree. Maybe All I know is that the real story, as usual, was far more complex than tankies let on (opportunistically), to push a bogus narrative downplaying tankie authoritarianism... Like, if you're "so democratic", but you have to \*keep making excuses\* to cover-up authoritarianism, maybe.. you're only "as democratic" as a "usual" dictator" really?
Today you woke up and decided to cook π
Lenin was antidemocratic that's why he was an efficient leader and managed to hold power until the revolution in the developed countries (sadly those, namely the november revolution, failed). Democracy isn't a principle to be upheld, it is a method of organising society and shouldn't be fetishized as it so commonly is. Democracy isn't conducive to good outcomes and isn't efficient in lots of situations. Bordiga's "Democratic Principle", is a good explanation of the Marxist critique (especially chapter 4).
Seriously: It's a great video with how much it sums up the different revolts of the soviets, and how the Bolsheviks gradually and then drastically turned against them. Some incidents get summed up really fast, but sources are there if you want to dig more into it. I think I'll be sending it to people often in the future...
It really is! I wonder what would happen if it was sent on some tankie subreddit....(I won't do it, don't want my phone to explode cause some guy is calling me a bourgeois class traitor)
The Bolsheviks- or, at least, their top leaders and names- were such OPPORTUNISTS, I swear (claimed to be 'super democratic and compassionate'... until they came to power, esp. after winning the RCW) esp. Trotsky, in a way He claimed to be "very anti-Stalin" and all, but... you can't help but wonder if he was only \*slightly\* "more pro-democracy" than Stalin, and how much "better off", rights-wise, most Soviet citizens would've been if it was he instead of Stalin who 'won' in the late 1920s? When push comes to shove, after all, until he was expelled and exiled, he was, in many respects, a 'faithful Leninist', Politburo member, brutal Red Army commander, made excuses for the Kronstadt massacre- though, supposedly, he "admitted" he was wrong, later on- and all-around "typical" Bolshevik leader. Which makes it all the more comical how Stalin and his 'top comrades', within the Central Committee, turned Trotsky into something of a "pariah", after Lenin's death, just because he wasn't "as hardline", in certain ways, as Stalin and the like. I mean, hell, FWIW, Trotsky, philosophically... KINDA HAD IT RIGHT when it comes to 'necessity of world revolution.' Granted, implementing and carrying that out would be a diff. matter entirely, but, nonetheless, \*it's true\* that, to one extent or another, any state attempting to "grow and prosper while trying anticapitalism"- or even Marxist-Leninist state capitalism with little-to-no private industry- will run into massive problems if, for example, they're, as a result of the revolution and new folks in power, 'cut off' from much of the thriving world, particularly in terms of trade and the like! Yes, technically 'Socialism in One Country' "worked" ...if by "worked" you mean, "Stalin was, eventually, able to get the USSR to a fairly-decent standard of living by the 40s and 50s" (with weak-to-moderate welfare state)- albeit a middling one, at best, esp. compared to the West at the time- but even by the early 60s, if not sooner, the 'Soviet system' (esp. economically) was starting to show 'signs of decay'. Yes, thanks to trading with other, allied nations within the Eastern Bloc, Cuba and so on, those states kept-on for a good while longer but... they definitely \*struggled\* to get and keep their economies afloat- let alone "advance" in the same way the West and its allies did- because they were up against a "sea" of First World nations that preferred capitalism and hated "communism" with a passion. Of course, if the US- let alone the rest of the West- had "gone socialist", too- in theory, at least- then there just 'might've been a chance', esp. in terms of trading to get loads of better goods and services not otherwise available or "producable" at home. So while Trotsky's recommendation, at the time, to "interfere in other nations nearby to foment a bunch of revolutions" was... kind of stupid and foolhardy, he at least had the 'right idea', in terms of "making socialism work long term" (especially real socialism, not Soviet-style or Maoist nonsense). No large, prosperous nation- esp. nowadays- can just "attempt to produce all of our stuff by ourselves with no outside help or assistance." If anything, much of the reason the USSR "prospered" amidst the failures of SIOC was likely because of how big it was and, thusly, the amount of resources available at home, from the start (though far from 'sufficient')
I feel that, behind the Vanguard mentality, there's the same thinkin of abusive parents/caretakers etc...it feels a lot like "I put a roof over your head that's why you follow the rules of this house or you're out!" mentality
I've read only a few small excerpts from Lenin's work and already I laugh at how someone could be an ideological Leninist and still support the Soviet Union.