http://z13.invisionfree.com/eRegime/index.php?act=idx
HenryKrinkle posted:baby finland is probably dead lol
i talk to him a lot, he's a king of this world.
mustang19 posted:GelatinousCube posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA5IFJqjXiQTanks are probably really stinky and uncomfortable...
Yes it's like being stuck in a locker for hours at a time being jumbled around at 30 MPH.
deadken posted:how can we have a neo-trot line when we don't even know what trotskyism is
i think trot means "a leftist that i disagree with" but i, too, am uncertain
as mao identified, the problem with khrushchev's move was more that it fit in a broad pattern which made quite clear that the soviets had shifted decisively from a politics based on class struggle, to a politics based on class peace.
for example, khrushchev announced "peaceful coexistence between different social systems." but this is explicitly anti-leninist. lenin's theory of imperialism suggests that war is inevitable given the real interests of capitalism in expanding into new markets, and the insanity with which capitalist society finds itself (misdirection by the bourgeois state towards militarism more generally).
another policy which was anti-marxist was the idea that the soviet union was a "state of the whole people". but the state is a class instrument, in socialist society it is a weapon in the hands of the proletariat. it is also in transition towards dissolution by strengthening against old classes. so there is no point in time when the state is "of the whole people".
the worldview this presents is of a new bourgeois class entrenching its national power through a system of social-imperialism. as such, everything was subordinate to geo-strategic and trade relations, rather than the construction of socialism on a world-scale.
liberals across eastern europe took this as a signal that the soviet union was going to shift towards a more open style of governance, which they also associated with economic devolution, away from strict planning and towards competing firms and such. hungary's reform agenda included such a model. this model is capitalist, it's just heavily state-managed.
althought the soviet union invaded hungary, it's important to note that they did not stop the move away from planning within hungary. in fact, quite quickly the model expanded, and hungary became known for having a somewhat 'market socialist' model within the pro-soviet bloc. other countries, like poland, adopted many similar features, and all participated in the broad soviet social-imperialist bloc.
the soviet union itself also moved away from planning in many respects. for example, kosygin attempted to move towards a more 'market socialist' model. gorbachev's 'market socialist' reforms were probably at first largely an attempt to shape the soviet union into something like hungary.
so the idea that it "prevented" counter-revolution is false, the soviet union helped complete it, keeping it integrated into its superpower bloc but allowing the economy to become state-capitalist, as part of the capitalist restoration of the soviet union more generally.
prohairesis posted:baby finland plays Balance of Power games on eRegime now its cool if you're into history
http://z13.invisionfree.com/eRegime/index.php?act=idx
Jesus Christ.
Requested actions:
Sending any number of credits to UAR or Jordan
Influence Iraq to join the Palestine Liberation War (-20)
Arm UAR or Jordan military (-50)
Support Fatah (-50)
Stabilize North Yemen (-100)
Destabilize Israel (-30)
Pan-Arabist coup in Lebanon (-80)
getfiscal posted:so the idea that it "prevented" counter-revolution is false, the soviet union helped complete it, keeping it integrated into its superpower bloc but allowing the economy to become state-capitalist, as part of the capitalist restoration of the soviet union more generally.
i thought lenin called his own model state-capitalist
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
libelous_slander posted:Tanks for the thread
tanks for the tread
getfiscal posted:during the late 1940s, most eastern european countries were transitioning politically from a mix of red army administration and multiparty liberal-democracy to a system of people's democracy with socialist ruling parties. it wasn't until the early 1950s that this power was consolidated and the economy was largely under state control. when stalin died there was a general belief that some of his harsher policies would be rescinded, which they were, and the GULAG was dismantled, for example. this led to khrushchev denouncing stalin in a comprehensive way in early 1956.
as mao identified, the problem with khrushchev's move was more that it fit in a broad pattern which made quite clear that the soviets had shifted decisively from a politics based on class struggle, to a politics based on class peace.
for example, khrushchev announced "peaceful coexistence between different social systems." but this is explicitly anti-leninist. lenin's theory of imperialism suggests that war is inevitable given the real interests of capitalism in expanding into new markets, and the insanity with which capitalist society finds itself (misdirection by the bourgeois state towards militarism more generally).
another policy which was anti-marxist was the idea that the soviet union was a "state of the whole people". but the state is a class instrument, in socialist society it is a weapon in the hands of the proletariat. it is also in transition towards dissolution by strengthening against old classes. so there is no point in time when the state is "of the whole people".
the worldview this presents is of a new bourgeois class entrenching its national power through a system of social-imperialism. as such, everything was subordinate to geo-strategic and trade relations, rather than the construction of socialism on a world-scale.
liberals across eastern europe took this as a signal that the soviet union was going to shift towards a more open style of governance, which they also associated with economic devolution, away from strict planning and towards competing firms and such. hungary's reform agenda included such a model. this model is capitalist, it's just heavily state-managed.
althought the soviet union invaded hungary, it's important to note that they did not stop the move away from planning within hungary. in fact, quite quickly the model expanded, and hungary became known for having a somewhat 'market socialist' model within the pro-soviet bloc. other countries, like poland, adopted many similar features, and all participated in the broad soviet social-imperialist bloc.
the soviet union itself also moved away from planning in many respects. for example, kosygin attempted to move towards a more 'market socialist' model. gorbachev's 'market socialist' reforms were probably at first largely an attempt to shape the soviet union into something like hungary.
so the idea that it "prevented" counter-revolution is false, the soviet union helped complete it, keeping it integrated into its superpower bloc but allowing the economy to become state-capitalist, as part of the capitalist restoration of the soviet union more generally.
Panopticon posted:getfiscal posted:so the idea that it "prevented" counter-revolution is false, the soviet union helped complete it, keeping it integrated into its superpower bloc but allowing the economy to become state-capitalist, as part of the capitalist restoration of the soviet union more generally.
i thought lenin called his own model state-capitalist
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
the context is important here.
"state-capitalist monopoly" means something like we'd call our modern corporate system. so a smallish number of very large firms with a repressive bureaucratic state.
lenin is saying that communists seek to move from state-capitalist monopoly and begin to transform it towards planning. but he's saying that begins by taking existing large firms and just increasing their integration with a national plan. so his point is that this isn't some foreign process being imposed on the underlying structure of the economy in a sweeping and destructive way - it actually grows out of existing conditions. he's speaking here of socialism as the historical epoch that grows out of capitalism.
he concludes here:
But take the same institution and think over its significance in a revolutionary-democratic state. Universal labour conscription, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.
what he means is that if the soviets take power that it will begin a period of socialist construction and the beginning of the end of capitalism. the country will therefore be "socialist" insofar as it is building socialism and has the socialist worldview. this happened and socialism advanced to the point in the soviet union where the economy was planned. the country was then invaded, devastating it, and rebuilt in a very precarious way, with a ruling class that was divided over the question of advancing further with class struggle. the soviets and some of their allies then began to backslide, adopting a bourgeois outlook on politics and the economy - so even in lenin's terms here it was restoring capitalism.
Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()
elemennop posted:it's nothing, just a bunch of alcoholics sticking around the ghost of some forgotten forum
exactly, and it's the best forum on the internet
elemennop posted:i wish the rhizzone was trotskyist or anything at all really, instead it's nothing, just a bunch of alcoholics sticking around the ghost of some forgotten forum
I stick around for the Good Ass Jokes na d Catchphrases.
ggaz
Edited by toy ()
swirlsofhistory posted:Open your eyes. State-capitalism is not real. It doesn't exist. Beiliving is for babies.
it's real and it's really good just like ghosts that drive cars in oakland.
wasted posted:If the Left Camp expects us to keep draining the Western imperialists' treasuries we will need some more support. We also expect a denunciation of Syria's passive complicity in Zionist aggression as standing in opposition to the position of the Left-aligned nations, rather than in coherence with it. This is a key issue for those of us in the Non-aligned Movement. We appreciate the support of the Socialist Camp, particularly the Soviet Union and Republic of India, but we are fully extended and are seeing no gains from continuing expense of the war. We need the participation of Iraq and Syria. We need financial and military support for UAR and Jordan. The Arab people want the war to end soon, and they want a victory.
Requested actions:
Sending any number of credits to UAR or Jordan
Influence Iraq to join the Palestine Liberation War (-20)
Arm UAR or Jordan military (-50)
Support Fatah (-50)
Stabilize North Yemen (-100)
Destabilize Israel (-30)
Pan-Arabist coup in Lebanon (-80)
i found the winning choice
AmericanNazbro posted:swirlsofhistory posted:Open your eyes. State-capitalism is not real. It doesn't exist. Beiliving is for babies.
it's real and it's really good just like ghosts that drive cars in oakland.
wow, really don't appreciate your racist description of me from the last time i was on that side of the bay
elemennop posted:i wish the rhizzone was trotskyist or anything at all really, instead it's nothing, just a bunch of alcoholics sticking around the ghost of some forgotten forum
looks like SOMEONE doesnt ahve access to the hidden PDF sharing forum. 
LaserJew posted:libelous_slander posted:Tanks for the thread
tanks for the tread
So long and tanks for all the fish
Panopticon posted:let me in, i've got some good shit
Those PDFs are NOT hidden.
elemennop posted:i wish the rhizzone was trotskyist or anything at all really, instead it's nothing, just a bunch of alcoholics sticking around the ghost of some forgotten forum
maybe we should have a separate subforum for more serious discussion
