Memes

What are "socialist policies?" Socialism is a mode of production and distribution, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes are in control of the state. The closest to a socialist "policy choice" would be like what PSL proposes in nationalizing the largest 100 businesses in the US, but I don't get the impression that that's what you mean.

Secondly, in what ways are the democratic systems in socialist countries deficient? Communists don't deny the necessary use of state power to protect the gains of socialism from imperialists, capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc. I don't see how this can be avoided in the modern context, and I believe the democratic systems of worker control described by Professor Roland Boer in Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance are more robust and complete than any capitalist country.

I suppose I'm not really sure what you're actually getting at, materially. I understand what you're talking about from an emotional perspective, but I fail to see what you practically think socialist countries should be doing instead to make them "non-authoritarian" in your views. Authority itself is intrinsic to state power, and we can't avoid using the state until communism is achieved to begin with.

I am a socialist. But I would never want to live in a country like the USSR.

The USSR was a product of its time period. Even if the CPRF succeeds in returning Russia to socialism, it will not be the same RSFSR. With that in mind, we need to understand what you actually mean by "like the USSR."

Too authoritarian,

The soviets indeed built up strong instruments of state power for the purposes of defending the gains of socialism and oppressing capitalists, landlords, kulaks, Tsarists, fascists, sabateurs, and all manner of counter-revolutionaries. This was unavoidable for any socialist state, especially one invaded by 14 capitalist countries at its outset, and one that started as a semi-feudal backwater.

Should they have weakened their state power and be wiped out by Nazi Germany?

too undemocratic,

To the contrary, 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?

too repressive,

Against who? 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?

too nationalistic.

The USSR was an internationalist federation of nation-states. They recognized the progressive nature of nationalist movements against imperialism, such as in Algeria, Cuba, and Vietnam, but tried to promote internationalism as the basis of cooperation.

With Lenin and the USSR, a right-wing interpretation of Marxism prevailed, which then spread globally and became even more problematic with Stalin.

Lenin's advancements on Marxism consisted of analyzing imperialism in an age Marx never lived to see, and in organizational advancements. He restored the revolutionary nature of Marxism from the Kaustskyites, and was in all manners a textbook Marxist. Stalin's synthesis of Marxism-Leninism did not meaningfully change Marxism or Leninism. The fact that Marxism-Leninism spread globally and liberated billions of workers and peasants worldwide is a signifier of its positive impact on the world.

Left-wing socialists such as Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Steinberg, and the early Lukacs therefore condemned and criticized the Soviet Union very early on. I identified with them much more.

The problem here is that you're identifying with them based on their condemnation of the USSR, and not their theoretical basis. There's good reason none of them succeeded in establishing any kind of socialism, and the reason you uphold them is because their socialism is untainted by real world practice and struggle. It's a nice dream, nothing messy and real. Comrade Jones Manoel describes this attitude very well in Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture, where supposed socialists denounce real and subsequently imperfect revolution in favor of the beautiful and nonexistent socialism in their heads. If Marxism-Leninism can be seen as successful in its repeated successes, left-deviationism can be seen as a failure due to never manifesting a real revolution.

In fact, there have probably only been three attempts to introduce a humane form of socialism:

Let's see them! Supporting real revolution is great.

the Paris Commune,

Itself a failure because the communards didn't take the banks and smash/replace the state, something Marx and Engels used as a baseline for their analysis going forwards.

the Prague Spring,

Earlier you said the soviets were too nationalistic and right-wing, and now you support the far-right nationalists against the socialists? Dubcek tried to liberalize the economy and break away from the socialist system, relying on far-right nationalist elements for support, including fascist ones. The entire goal was to sell out to the IMF. Please be consistent.

and Chile under Allende.

I will always venerate and support comrade Allende's project in Chile, but there's good reason he failed, and it's the same as the communards in Paris. His kind of reformism that doesn't build real state power is prone to coups. The reason Venezuela's reformist approach is holding on much stronger is because the millitary backs the socialist system, unlike in Chile, as a legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution.

All three were brutally destroyed.

Indeed, this is going back to your support of martyrs and ghosts over the real working classes and the tremendous gains to life expectancy, literacy, housing rates, education, poverty eradication, scientific advancement, equality of the sexes, social progressivism, and more. If the only seeming quality you support is failure, then you aren't really a socialist, but a daydreamer.

The Prague Spring by the USSR.

Indeed, the far-right nationalist counter-revolution was put down by the internationalist socialist system.

Overall, I question the point of identifying as a socialist if your qualifications for being socialist seem to be opposing real socialism and supporting failed attempts at establishing socialism. Nobody thinks AES states are perfect, but instead they are real, with real struggles and real gains. I suggest reframing how you think about socialism if this is your analysis.

In other words, you are an utopian socialist that is not willing to put up the work to build socialism out of the real existing conditions of a place.

"The people who actually made and defended aocialist gains against the empire did so from an incorrect interpretation of The Scripture. I only support those who were coincidentally destroyed before they had to be tainted by the demands of qctually wielding power in the real world"

This essay is about you: https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/

But I would never want to live in a country like the USSR.

Western "socialists" and extreme privilege, name a more iconic duo

I know its tough out here. But im with you. We should not need to shrink our dreams of freedom because its hard.