The USSR wasn’t far-left, either. It was Communist in name-only. A country led by an authoritarian tyrant isn’t communist unless you warp the definitions from Marx and other theorists so far that they’re unrecognizable. But the capitalist countries loved that Communism became synonymous with authoritarianism: made it easier to paint all those power-grabbing countries with the same brush while also presenting left-wing organizing as the enemy.
When they set up a country with a dictator. Like, the beginning. It was never about putting workers in charge. That was, similar to how the Nazi party recruited socialists and labor, a farce. They used the idea of communism to rally support, then had an authoritarian government seize control and ownership of everything. The fact that they could own all property and capital and deal it out to their cronies in a faux show of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” just showcased how little they actually cared about appearing Communist once they seized total power.
I’ve read that things actually got better after the revolution, people got less hungry, homelessness dropped, education went up. It’s hard to read between the lines when there’s so much propaganda going on.
If it’s true that Stalin’s rule was authoritarian then how do you avoid that? I can only think of constant revolutions until someone gets into power who’s true to Marx’s teachings. Maybe technology could play a part through implementing direct democracy, but that’s still in the realm of science fiction with the technology we’ve got.
One person having executive authority is the problem. We don’t need a president, we need a council. Minimum of 9 people, but always an odd number of people to avoid deadlock, or make all decisions unanimous and they aren’t allowed to filibuster or argue in bad faith. They don’t leave consultation until they come to a unanimous decision in the second case.
I think you missed a few newspapers on 26/12/1991
The USSR wasn’t far-left, either. It was Communist in name-only. A country led by an authoritarian tyrant isn’t communist unless you warp the definitions from Marx and other theorists so far that they’re unrecognizable. But the capitalist countries loved that Communism became synonymous with authoritarianism: made it easier to paint all those power-grabbing countries with the same brush while also presenting left-wing organizing as the enemy.
When exactly did it start to be authoritarian? After Stalin died?
When they set up a country with a dictator. Like, the beginning. It was never about putting workers in charge. That was, similar to how the Nazi party recruited socialists and labor, a farce. They used the idea of communism to rally support, then had an authoritarian government seize control and ownership of everything. The fact that they could own all property and capital and deal it out to their cronies in a faux show of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” just showcased how little they actually cared about appearing Communist once they seized total power.
I’ve read that things actually got better after the revolution, people got less hungry, homelessness dropped, education went up. It’s hard to read between the lines when there’s so much propaganda going on.
If it’s true that Stalin’s rule was authoritarian then how do you avoid that? I can only think of constant revolutions until someone gets into power who’s true to Marx’s teachings. Maybe technology could play a part through implementing direct democracy, but that’s still in the realm of science fiction with the technology we’ve got.
One person having executive authority is the problem. We don’t need a president, we need a council. Minimum of 9 people, but always an odd number of people to avoid deadlock, or make all decisions unanimous and they aren’t allowed to filibuster or argue in bad faith. They don’t leave consultation until they come to a unanimous decision in the second case.
Yeah that’s for sure