Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us
He/him or they/them, doesn't matter too much
Marxist-Leninist ☭
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my Read Theory, Darn it! introductory reading list!
I don’t trust the statistics of a state that let millions inhabitants starve to death.
They didn't "let" millions of inhabitants starve to death, they did everything they could to alleviate it. Russia was notorious for frequent famine and starvation prior to collectivization of agriculture, and ended famine once and for all once it had. That's a major contributor to the doubling of life expectancies in Russia:
Moreover, contemporary historians rely on statistics provided by the soviets, fact-check them, and find them to be very reliable.
How exactly was the normal worker in control of production? Wasn’t it more like production was in the hand of the state, which in fact was very hierarchical?
As I explained earlier, and will copy again, the state was run by the working classes. Socialism is not the absence of hierarchy, you're thinking of anarchism. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action (as I'll show at the end). Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Several elections which I attended will show concretely how soviet democracy functions. Four election meetings were held simultaneously in different hamlets of Gulin village, which had no assembly hall big enough for all. One of these meetings threw out the Party candidate, Borisov, because they felt that he neglected their instructions; they elected a non-Party woman who had displayed energy in improving the village and were praised by the election commissioner—himself a Party member—for having discovered good government timber which the Party had neglected. The central meeting in Gulin expected 235 voters; 227 appeared and were duly checked off by name at the door. There ensued personal discussion of every one of nine candidates, of whom seven were chosen. Mihailov “did good work on the roads.” The most enthusiasm developed over Menshina, a woman who “does everything assigned her energetically; checks farm property, tests seeds, collects state loans.” Dr. Sharkova, head of the Mothers’ Consultation, was pushed by the women: “We need a sanitary expert to clean up our village.” The incoming soviet was instructed to “increase harvest yield within two years to thirty bushels per acre, to organize a stud farm, get electricity and radio for every home, organize adult education courses, football and skiing teams, and satisfy a score of other needs.
All in all, the version of the Soviet Union that exists in your head is a work of fiction.
Most communists support the secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, that have been fighting the Banderite regime in Kiev since 2014, when their democratically elected president was ousted in a western-backed, far-right coup. The Russian Federation is aiding the secessionists, and destroying NATO equipment and resources that otherwise are used to threaten the global south into bending the knee to western imperialism.
Fair, but my point is that the lion's share expands exponentially, not linearly, nor is it all consumed every year.
That's pure profit, not counting surplus re-invested into production and expansion, and moreover this wealth extends year over year as reproduction occurs on an expanded scale.
There are many parasitic classes historically, such as the feudal lords, slave owners, patriarchs, landlords, etc. The capitalists are the present dominant parasitic class.
No "tankie" thinks Putin is a communist, far more liberals think Putin is secretly a communist than communists think so, both by ratio and total.
Actually not the worst way I've seen him taught, far from it in fact.
Loving your Parenti-series of posts as of late! For anyone that hasn't read or listened to the late Michael Parenti before, I highly recommend the "Yellow Parenti" Speech on US interventionism, the third world, and the USSR and Blackshirts and Reds | Audiobook. His lecture on "Inventing Reality" is also excellent.
Michael Parenti's Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media has always been better than Manufacturing Consent, which is what Chomsky is most known for anyways. Chomsky has always been terrible as a leftist. Highly recommend On Chomsky. For learning about Marxism-Leninism in general, I recommend my intro ML reading list.
Implementing a socialist mode of production is not the same as extracting the surplus and natural resources of a country to the detriment of their development and economic health. The Baltics gained unequally from the soviets, not the inverse. Capitalists and fascists were censored and repressed, yes, but this is often necessary for any revolutionary society to do with those who would support reversion to the previous system, just like those who wish to bring back feudalism following bourgeois revolutions.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
When you seem to cry about supposed "colonialism," where the "colonized" gained more than they produced, it reeks of malformed analysis.
Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.
The Soviet Union was a democratically run socialist economy, as was the GDR. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference. Further, surveillance in socialist countries pales in comparison to modern capitalist surveillance and data harvesting.
No? Britain's colonialism resulted in vast amounts of surplus extraction and millions upon millions of deaths. The Baltics were treated unfairly in that they were used to showcase the effectiveness of socialism, and recieved a great deal of support.
The economic landscape of the Baltic states underwent a dramatic transformation under Soviet rule, particularly through rapid industrialization. Lithuania, for instance, surpassed its pre-war industrial output by 90% just two years after reaching pre-war figures in 1948, bolstered by a non-repayable Soviet subsidy of 200 million rubles for reconstruction. Latvia witnessed the construction of 20 industrial enterprises within two decades of 1940, a figure exceeding the entire Baltic region’s industrial growth in the year preceding being absorbed into USSR. Estonia’s gross industrial output saw an astonishing 55-fold increase, accompanied by a 30-fold surge in capital investment.
Infrastructure development was another important aspect of Soviet investment in the Baltics. Strategically important seaports were developed, which continue to serve as key hubs for export and import trade today, further enhanced by the connection of oil pipelines in the 1970s and 1980s. The region boasted the highest quality roads in the USSR, with Lithuania benefiting from a 300-kilometer expressway considered the best in the Union, featuring modern overpasses and interchanges. Energy infrastructure saw significant expansion with the construction of major hydroelectric power plants (Pļaviņas, Kegums, Riga on the Daugava, Kaunas on the Nemunas) and thermal power plants (Baltic TPP, Estonian TPP, Lithuanian TPP). The laying of gas pipelines from other Soviet republics ensured a stable supply of natural gas, further underpinning industrial and domestic energy needs. The port of Klaipėda in Soviet Lithuania grew into one of Europe’s largest fishing ports, and the Baltija shipyard, a Soviet-era construction, remains a vital employer today. These extensive infrastructure projects laid a robust foundation for continued economic activity and connectivity.
The tangible benefits of this focused development translated directly into higher living standards for the Baltic populations. Per capita consumption figures clearly illustrate this advantage: Estonia stood at 151% of the all-Union level, Latvia at 137%, and Lithuania at 127%. The massive capital investment in agriculture, particularly the six billion rubles injected into Estonian agriculture, led to a doubling of grain yields and harvests compared to 1939, improving food security and contributing to a better quality of life.
With the abandonment of central planning and the subsequent introduction of privatization under the capitalist regime following the dissolution of the USSR, many of these once-flourishing enterprises faced economic devastation, leading to widespread job losses and a severe decline in industrial output. This abrupt shift to market forces proved particularly harmful for the working majority, as previously guaranteed jobs gave way to mass unemployment, and the social safety nets of the Soviet system disintegrated, leaving many struggling to adapt to the new economic realities.
Per this effortpost by @yogthos@lemmy.ml , with sources:
Considerable increases in industrial production https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-occupation, https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-republics
Without knowing how that was done, it sounds like it just as easily could have been done deliberately to demonize him, by comparing him to Arendt's theories.
Not evenly so across the whole of eastern Europe, and moreover socialism dramatically uplifted the baltics as well.
The Soviet Union was a socialist economy, where the working classes were dramatically uplifted and in control of production, distribution, and the state. It wasn't simply "disguised" as socialist, such a reading requires believing the working classes in eastern Europe to have been too stupid to comprehend their own oppression. The actual truth of the matter is that the working classes became highly educated, with literacy rates going from 20-30% to 99.9%, and free education to the highest levels. For what purpose would an alleged "autocracy" mass educate the working classes, rather than keep them under-educated and docile?
Sure, I can agree with that, just as long as we maintain the necessity of revolution I don't oppose cooperatives along that path.
Trying to base an economy entirely on cooperatives, unfortuately, still retains the base problems of market and profit-focused economics. Socialism remains a necessity, even if it can make use of cooperatives at certain levels of development, like Huawei in the PRC.
The alternative is socialism, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect and the working classes control the state.
The Soviet Union, Cuba, DPRK, Laos, PRC, Vietnam, and former non-USSR socialist states in Europe such as the GDR were and are all examples of Marxism-Leninism being applied to establish socialist society. What makes you think the Soviet Union isn't an example? At a fundamental level, Marxist-Leninists seek to establish an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect, and the working classes are in control of the state. At a more detailed level, however, this can look very different depending on local levels of development, history, and unique material conditions.
The IWPR is based in Washington D.C., the U.K., and the Netherlands, and seems to be especially concerned about manufacturing consent for backing the Banderite regime in Kiev, and supporting the ovethrow of socialism and Chavismo in Venezuela.