• lumpenproletariat@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sure sure buddy. How many children ended up orphans thanks to the gulags? Bet they received a quality upbringing. Oh and the gays in the gulags wanted to be there right?

    That’s authoritarianism, not getting banned from a meme comm.

      • Riverside@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        To be fair, there was excess repression during the late 1930s in the USSR, but people massively inflate the numbers and won’t ever tell that only about 1/4 of prisoners in the prison system (whose acronym was GULAG) were actually politically motivated. People also don’t understand that the harsh conditions in Soviet prisons were due to a Soviet-wide famine caused by the Nazi aggression:

        • prison system (whose acronym was GULAG)

          Afaik not true. The average westerner may think so, but GULAG is an acronym for a specific part of the system.

          copypasted my earlier comment

          if you would consult the chart from chapter 10:

          The etymology of GULAG is: “the acronym of Гла́вное управле́ние исправи́тельно-трудовы́х лагере́й (Glávnoje upravlénije ispravítelʹno-trudovýx lageréj, “Chief Administration of Corrective-Labor Camps”)” emphasis mine, as it corresponds directly to the above, specifically the camps under the O.G.P.U. These are where those with harsher sentences were sent, as seen in the chart (3-10 years)

          • Riverside@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I know, I know you from hexbear (this is my alt), I just try to engage with the highest level of intellectual honesty possible when I’m in lib instances because people have the idea that there’s no honest analysis of the repressions within ML circles when it’s exactly the opposite way.

    • Riverside@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      And here we go with the cold-war propaganda :D called you from the first second.

      Anarchism in Spain led to many, many more gays in concentration camps and murdered than in prisons in the former USSR because anarchism cannot historically defeat fascism! That’s the authoritarianism you should be focusing on, especially in 2026 as we see the rise of fascism once again

      • lumpenproletariat@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        It’s called history, I thought you studied it? :D or do you neglect the parts of history that showcase how bad authoritarianism is.

        If anarchism is to blame for a different system that came after it than Marxist-Leninism is to blame for the capitalist shithole that is Russia today.

        Go choke on a boot, I got better things to do than argue with you.

        • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ignoring the part where they’re 100% right about spanish anarchists throwing people in camps because it’s inconvenient for your bullshit lol, try again

        • Riverside@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 hours ago

          If anarchism is to blame for a different system that came after it than Marxist-Leninism is to blame for the capitalist shithole that is Russia today

          Literally yes, we Marxist leninists study history in order to prevent the same mistakes. That’s why we have entire books devoted to the topic such as “Socialism Betrayed” analyzing the history and mistakes of the socialists in the USSR that led to its dissolution. Imagine engaging in honest criticism of your own ideology.

          Still, Marxist Leninism brought 70 years of development and human rights to a former absolutist monarchy and saved its inhabitants from extermination at the hands of Nazism, and it still survives in many countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos or freaking China.

            • Riverside@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              China is socialist, not yet communist, but it did and it does follow the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

                • Riverside@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  If you were aware of the multiple tendencies within Marxism you wouldn’t write such uneducated takes. Example: the mensheviks in Soviet Russia arguing for a prolonged existence of capitalism during the industrialization of the country.

                  Marx himself believed that socialism was only possible after a capitalist phase and that it was precisely capitalism’s tendencies that would make socialism appear, and in turn give way to communism eventually. It was literally Lenin’s contribution that proposed Socialism directly from a feudal economy (early 20th century Russia and China), and argued for Bolshevism as opposed to Menshevism.

                  God forbid China finds a way to socialism with a mixed market economy. Regardless: seeing your quarrels with markets and billionaires, you surely are a staunch supporter of the Soviet model and the Cuban project?

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    25 minutes ago

                    Marx himself believed that socialism was only possible after a capitalist phase and that it was precisely capitalism’s tendencies that would make socialism appear, and in turn give way to communism eventually.

                    (Emphasis mine.)

                    This isn’t quite true. Marx believed revolution would happen in developed capitalist economies first, but not that this was absolute. See his famous letter to Otechestvenniye Zapiski:

                    Be that as it may, as I do not like to leave anything to “guesswork”, I shall speak straight out. In order to reach an informed judgment of the economic development of contemporary Russia, I learned Russian and then spent several long years studying official publications and others with a bearing on this subject. I have arrived at this result: if Russia continues along the path it has followed since 1861, it will miss the finest chance that history has ever offered to a nation, only to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist system.

                    Marx did cross out this paragraph, but you can see that Marx did not hold such a rigid, formulaic view of the progression in modes of production. That said, whatever came to Russia even without going through capitalism would still have needed to go through socialism to reach communism, they just did not need a period of bourgeois domination and profit above all.