This doesn’t stand materialist scrutiny. You don’t get an authoritarian state directed by a bunch of egotistic bureaucrats, and simultaneously the lowest wealth inequality in history in the region, guaranteed housing and the elimination of unemployment, the defeat of nazism, global support of anti imperialism such as in Vietnam or essentially all of Africa and Latin America, free education to the highest level, and high quality affordable public transit.
In my point of view calling yourself a socialist and not being able to criticise the blatantly anti-democratic and imperial power the USSR became is weird.
Socialism (in my view of it) necessarily requires democratic structures at work as well as government.
Despite the USSR’s positives (all countries have them) let’s not pretend like they had a good template we should emulate (on governance and voting, that is).
Without democracy, you’re basically hoping the people in charge are benevolent. But then when they’re inevitably not at some point, you have no way to peacefully remove them.
Next minute you’ll be telling me China is a democracy just because they elect people the the National People’s Congress. (Another country, with many positives, which is not a democracy).
And please do not confuse my criticism of notionally socialist states (China is definitely not), with implicit praise of the “democracy” in the United States, what they have is barely democracy.
My statement isn’t that the USSR was perfect, it is that all of the material benefits listed above must come from material reasons. You would not expect a government based on a set of self-serving antidemocratic bureaucrats to result in such benefits, because when that’s the form of governance it ends up more towards things like Saudi Arabia.
What’s more feasible, that Soviet Citizens got lucky with Lenin, then Stalin, then Khruschyov and then Brezhnev, or that there were actually democratic means of exerting popular power other than electoralism?
Why do you call the USSR “imperial” power? It never engaged in colonialism or economic exploitation of the global south, quite the opposite. What was imperialist about it?
Regarding China, I would argue they’re more democratic than the west based on the outcomes of governance and on the satisfaction of citizens with their government.
You would not expect a government based on a set of self-serving antidemocratic bureaucrats to result in such benefits
Sure, there was genuine ideological reasons for the USSRs achievements, but you’re moving the goal-posts a bit. The original claim you were disputing was whether the USSR was authoritarian, which many people agree that it was.
There can be genuine and successful efforts to improve people’s lives under any system, including in the USSR.
What was imperialist about it?
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and occupation of Poland
The Winter War against Finnland
The East German uprising of 1953
are the first to come to my mind.
It would be a lot easier to defend the USSR if they only intervened to allow the proletariat to hold referendums, but we both know this is not what happened on many occasions.
It seems to me that Russia was continuing in the tradition Russian Empire, just under new management, and was definitely the first among “equals” in the USSR and its sphere of influence.
Authoritarians are not leftists LMAO
“Marx and Engles weren’t leftists” ok.
You’re right. The people who spent all of 2024 demanding unquestioning devotion to genocide supporters are not leftists.
The left/right axis is separate from the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
The USSR was an leftist authoritarian state.
This doesn’t stand materialist scrutiny. You don’t get an authoritarian state directed by a bunch of egotistic bureaucrats, and simultaneously the lowest wealth inequality in history in the region, guaranteed housing and the elimination of unemployment, the defeat of nazism, global support of anti imperialism such as in Vietnam or essentially all of Africa and Latin America, free education to the highest level, and high quality affordable public transit.
In my point of view calling yourself a socialist and not being able to criticise the blatantly anti-democratic and imperial power the USSR became is weird.
Socialism (in my view of it) necessarily requires democratic structures at work as well as government.
Despite the USSR’s positives (all countries have them) let’s not pretend like they had a good template we should emulate (on governance and voting, that is).
Without democracy, you’re basically hoping the people in charge are benevolent. But then when they’re inevitably not at some point, you have no way to peacefully remove them.
Next minute you’ll be telling me China is a democracy just because they elect people the the National People’s Congress. (Another country, with many positives, which is not a democracy).
And please do not confuse my criticism of notionally socialist states (China is definitely not), with implicit praise of the “democracy” in the United States, what they have is barely democracy.
My statement isn’t that the USSR was perfect, it is that all of the material benefits listed above must come from material reasons. You would not expect a government based on a set of self-serving antidemocratic bureaucrats to result in such benefits, because when that’s the form of governance it ends up more towards things like Saudi Arabia.
What’s more feasible, that Soviet Citizens got lucky with Lenin, then Stalin, then Khruschyov and then Brezhnev, or that there were actually democratic means of exerting popular power other than electoralism?
Why do you call the USSR “imperial” power? It never engaged in colonialism or economic exploitation of the global south, quite the opposite. What was imperialist about it?
Regarding China, I would argue they’re more democratic than the west based on the outcomes of governance and on the satisfaction of citizens with their government.
Sure, there was genuine ideological reasons for the USSRs achievements, but you’re moving the goal-posts a bit. The original claim you were disputing was whether the USSR was authoritarian, which many people agree that it was.
There can be genuine and successful efforts to improve people’s lives under any system, including in the USSR.
are the first to come to my mind.
It would be a lot easier to defend the USSR if they only intervened to allow the proletariat to hold referendums, but we both know this is not what happened on many occasions.
It seems to me that Russia was continuing in the tradition Russian Empire, just under new management, and was definitely the first among “equals” in the USSR and its sphere of influence.