• PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    was literally ruled by gangs and otherwise criminal mob. It had nothing to do with any doctrine

    Yes it does happen when capitalism is introduced, it’s a feature of expanding capitalism, either colonial or imperialist.

    • CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      i fail to see the connection. Literally the same kind of chaos occured when the revolution happened in 1917. Not to mention, that for capitalism to be “introduced” it should be foreign in the first place. USSR, especially late one was quite capitalistic itself, albeit with it’s own uniquie flavor.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Literally the same kind of chaos occured whet the revolution happened in 1917

        Seriously you don’t see any difference in popular revolution overthrowing centuries long tyranny and literal foreign agents overthrowing a state contrary to people wishes and establishing comprador tyranny?

        USSR, especially late one was quite capitelistic itself

        I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.

        i fail te see the connection

        Considering the above, it does not surprise me anymore.

        • CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          i’m not talking about the overthrowing itself, but rather about what came after. Before leninists established their rule, there was a period of anarchy, just like there was in the 90s, not to mention that for people of a less internationalist view, USSR rule was just as tyrannical.

          I am starting to suspect you see history not as dialectical process but as set snapshots.

          you’d have to explain to me how my words you quoted made you think what you thought. The way USSR was at the end of it is a result of dialectical process.

          What i said there is, while (after NEP) the banking system was nationalized and even small enterprises shut, enterprise is still an enterprise, even the nationalized one. USSR before perestroika is basically a country-wide corporation, and after perestroika it’s just a plain capitalist country, so i don’t see why you oppose ussr to capitalism, when saying that “capitalists came and forced ussr to crumble”. I know that soviet propagenda would claim otherwise, but capitalists were inside all along, they just had monopoly on everything, and were referred to as government.

          Call me dumb or whatever for all i said, but i think that eversince people understood that money should circulate rather than be hoarded and kept, anything we do is inherently and unavoidably capitalistic, thus categorizing a subset of people as “capitalists” in opposition to other subset is inherently wrong.