this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2021
0 points (NaN% liked)

GenZhouArchive

224 readers
1 users here now

A space to archive anything from /r/GenZhou

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

u/BetterInThanOut - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m not an ML by any stretch of the word. In fact, I think I’m closer to a classical libertarian despite being a Marxist, if that makes any sense. However, I do have critical support for the Soviet Union in many things, while simultaneously criticizing them for many other things. One thing I’ve supported them for was Soviet Democracy, which I believed was an amazing accomplishment and an interesting topic on its own. That being said, a user pointed out that my understanding of the power of the soviets is flawed, saying that:

Soviets in bolshevik sence were more instrument of party-control, than democracy. Soviet democracy died twice, in time of October revolution, when different parties more often than not were repressed from soviets, and in time of Civil war, when soviets were subjugated by party. Trade unions were subjugated too. Independent socialist parties were repressed and banned. Bolsheviks attacked socialist Georgia and destroyed menshevist government there, and occupied ukrainian leftist government than to extract resources and have full political and cultural control of the country. XII party conference officially banned party fractions and destroyed any notion of inner-party democracy (multy-party democracy was destroyed before). And then, logically from this, it gave ground for crimes against humanity. When worker class was have no power left whatsoever, national self-determination destroyed and political parties outlawed, nobody cant put up a fight to a collectivization and mass purge, that happened after. It was truly an totalitarian state, not a democratic in any sence. And there is no point in critical support of it. Democracy — is the most left wing value, and strengthening democracy by overcoming capitalism — it is the point. Totalitarian ways have nothing in common with this, and, as such, there is no point supporting it.

What do you people, as Marxist-Leninists, think of this assessment? Any critiques or comments? Many thanks!

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

u/lil_oozey_squirt - originally from r/GenZhou
So I don't know why my comrades won't answer you directly. Whether or not you're asking in good faith is besides the point. This is an educational hub. Patient and rational discourse is one of the few tools we revolutionaries have in our toolkit. Lurkers need to be educated too.

This video and this video basically answer your question. What you need to understand is that democracy can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. The former is a question of what proportion of society dictates things; the latter is a question of how well that proportion actually represents the common people. (Note that this dialectic explains why bicameralism is so popular in parliamentary systems.)

One-party rule can certainly go wrong, but so can multiparty rule. The point of the Party under a dictatorship of the proletariat is to act as quality control for leadership. You want representatives that actually represent people's material interests, not a bunch of ghouls who've managed to trick people into believing stupid shit. That's why we call it a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whether the ruling class wants to admit it or not, the Soviet Union represented people's material interests far better than the US. This is also why China's "collective leadership" concept has done so well for them; it strikes a perfect balance between quantity and quality.

Also bear in mind that the totalitarian model is an obsolete framework for analyzing AES, even for bourgeois academic historians. When the Soviet archives opened in '91 researchers were rather surprised by how democratic the system actually was.