Yes, I want what the Soviet Union claimed they wanted not what they got. You know, like any syndicalist worth her salt.
I’m not claiming that communism is bad, I’m saying that over centralization in the hands of a single party has done more harm to communism than MLs would like to believe.
Yes, I want what the Soviet Union claimed they wanted not what they got.
The original USSR was predicated on peaceful coexistence with European neighbors. Lenin’s climb to power came on the back of an enormous anti-war movement, protesting the catastrophic loss of life during WW1.
What they got, instead, was a western sponsored counter-revolution via the White Terror, followed by a decade of border wars, and climaxing in a Second World War thanks to an unprompted invasion by Germany. By the time the wars were over and a lasting (abet tense) peace had been brokered with western nations, the Khrushchev Era of the USSR largely was this.
Workers soviets prospered immensely during the 60s and 70s. The Soviet block finally got to taste the fruits of the industrial revolution, complete with cheap nuclear power and high speed mass transit and surplus agricultural produce thanks to industrial fertilizers. Quality of life in the USSR easily rivaled western peers in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. And their exports spared populations from Bangladesh to Cuba to Cambodia to Korea from engineered famines.
I’m saying that over centralization in the hands of a single party has done more harm to communism than MLs would like to believe.
I would argue feuding partisan factions in western states have done more to harm than anything a unified worker’s government has ever inflicted.
What good is a two-party system when each party claims the other is going to end democracy if their rival wins?
Yes, I want what the Soviet Union claimed they wanted not what they got. You know, like any syndicalist worth her salt.
I’m not claiming that communism is bad, I’m saying that over centralization in the hands of a single party has done more harm to communism than MLs would like to believe.
The original USSR was predicated on peaceful coexistence with European neighbors. Lenin’s climb to power came on the back of an enormous anti-war movement, protesting the catastrophic loss of life during WW1.
What they got, instead, was a western sponsored counter-revolution via the White Terror, followed by a decade of border wars, and climaxing in a Second World War thanks to an unprompted invasion by Germany. By the time the wars were over and a lasting (abet tense) peace had been brokered with western nations, the Khrushchev Era of the USSR largely was this.
Workers soviets prospered immensely during the 60s and 70s. The Soviet block finally got to taste the fruits of the industrial revolution, complete with cheap nuclear power and high speed mass transit and surplus agricultural produce thanks to industrial fertilizers. Quality of life in the USSR easily rivaled western peers in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. And their exports spared populations from Bangladesh to Cuba to Cambodia to Korea from engineered famines.
I would argue feuding partisan factions in western states have done more to harm than anything a unified worker’s government has ever inflicted.
What good is a two-party system when each party claims the other is going to end democracy if their rival wins?