Yeah. Tankies always forget you can’t have socialism without democracy, and either no government or a government that is strictly from the bottom up, and fascists gladly play along with that facade as it works in their interests.
“Authoritarian communism” is an oxymoron.
And not an “emphasis” kind of oxymoron like “bittersweet” or “impossible solution”, or a “poetic” kind like “living dead”.
An “absolutely impossible” kind of oxymoron. like “married bachelor” or “squared circle”.
The definition of “Authoritarianism” seems to be bound up in the libertarian view of free markets versus unfree governments.
There’s a book I like called The People’s Republic of Walmart. It describes how much of the Command Economy practiced in the 60s and 70s by “authoritarian” socialist states was picked up and integrated into the corporate model in an effort to improve efficiency of supply chains and reduce the cost of industrial manufacturing. Walmart’s vertical integration follows a model that any Socialist government would laud. It just hordes the surplus for shareholders, at the expense of its employment base.
When the Socialists were making cars in Yugoslavia with a highly efficient regional distribution of manufacturing and assembly, it was horrifying infringement on the rights of the business community. When Ford and Nissian picked up on these practices and imported them to the US and Japan, it was The Miracle of Free Market Innovation that delivered huge returns to investors.
Liberals love to cringe and wring their hands when they hear about Lenin’s “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. After all, how can we be free if worker’s council get to dictate our housing stock or our employment opportunities or our transit corridors or our retail inventory? But they’re utterly blaise about living under an economy whose function is dictated by a handful of corporate boards and banking executives making all the same decisions because… freedom?
Soviets removed the “proletariat” from the dictatorship very quickly. About the same time when Lenin decided he didn’t like losing elections or having any sort of political opposition whatsoever.
Soviets removed the “proletariat” from the dictatorship very quickly.
That’s the western liberal line, certainly. The victory of the Leninists and Maoists transformed oppressed into oppressor by virtue of no longer having an aristocracy capable of oppressing them.
About the same time when Lenin decided he didn’t like losing elections
The elections failed to deliver the promised reform. Their biggest promise on taking office was to exit the war and withdraw the troops. And the first thing the Mensheviks did was double-down on defeat. Milyukov’s refusal to exit the Eastern Front kicked off a protest half-a-million men large, right in the heart of the Russian government.
The next three months saw the elected government ordering police into the streets to slaughter hundreds of the people who voted for them. They topped it off by bombing the Bolshevik offices and chasing Lenin back underground for the unconscionable crime of leading peace marches. Bolshevism surged in popularity the following month, to the point that General Lavr Kornilov threatened to bring troops into the city to conduct a full pogrom. Only mass defection within the lower ranks of the military spared Petrograd from an outright holocaust.
This is the democracy you’re defending? Christ. No wonder so many liberals seem perfectly content to see the modern wave of college students being disappeared by ICE.
Ah right, democracy didn’t immediately solve all problems so we should ban or murder all political opposition and install a one party dictatorship where I’m conveniently in charge of everything.
Sounds like something that totally benefits “the people”.
Efficiency and low-cost comes with baggage too, so I guess both in a way. Efficiency and low cost good, but what is required to achieve those often sucks
He didn’t get called “man of steel”, good old Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili called himself that just to massage his ego. Kind of like certified Most Fuckable Twink Nick Adams proclaiming himself to be an “alpha male”.
Look, I’m just saying, to be the “certified Most Fuckable Twink” being infinitely submissive isn’t enough; you’ve got to be attractive too. This asshole meets that first criterion, but absolutely fails on the second.
Ah yes, famously socially progressive Stalin
Stalin was a misunderstood man on the search for bolshevik boypussi
Yeah, the guy who thought a ~10 year break in genociding lgbtq people was “a bit much”.
It’s not gay if you’re on top- heir to the Romans Stalin
Yeah. Tankies always forget you can’t have socialism without democracy, and either no government or a government that is strictly from the bottom up, and fascists gladly play along with that facade as it works in their interests.
“Authoritarian communism” is an oxymoron.
And not an “emphasis” kind of oxymoron like “bittersweet” or “impossible solution”, or a “poetic” kind like “living dead”.
An “absolutely impossible” kind of oxymoron. like “married bachelor” or “squared circle”.
The definition of “Authoritarianism” seems to be bound up in the libertarian view of free markets versus unfree governments.
There’s a book I like called The People’s Republic of Walmart. It describes how much of the Command Economy practiced in the 60s and 70s by “authoritarian” socialist states was picked up and integrated into the corporate model in an effort to improve efficiency of supply chains and reduce the cost of industrial manufacturing. Walmart’s vertical integration follows a model that any Socialist government would laud. It just hordes the surplus for shareholders, at the expense of its employment base.
When the Socialists were making cars in Yugoslavia with a highly efficient regional distribution of manufacturing and assembly, it was horrifying infringement on the rights of the business community. When Ford and Nissian picked up on these practices and imported them to the US and Japan, it was The Miracle of Free Market Innovation that delivered huge returns to investors.
Liberals love to cringe and wring their hands when they hear about Lenin’s “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. After all, how can we be free if worker’s council get to dictate our housing stock or our employment opportunities or our transit corridors or our retail inventory? But they’re utterly blaise about living under an economy whose function is dictated by a handful of corporate boards and banking executives making all the same decisions because… freedom?
Um… You do know what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did to the worker’s councils right?
Soviets removed the “proletariat” from the dictatorship very quickly. About the same time when Lenin decided he didn’t like losing elections or having any sort of political opposition whatsoever.
That’s the western liberal line, certainly. The victory of the Leninists and Maoists transformed oppressed into oppressor by virtue of no longer having an aristocracy capable of oppressing them.
The elections failed to deliver the promised reform. Their biggest promise on taking office was to exit the war and withdraw the troops. And the first thing the Mensheviks did was double-down on defeat. Milyukov’s refusal to exit the Eastern Front kicked off a protest half-a-million men large, right in the heart of the Russian government.
The next three months saw the elected government ordering police into the streets to slaughter hundreds of the people who voted for them. They topped it off by bombing the Bolshevik offices and chasing Lenin back underground for the unconscionable crime of leading peace marches. Bolshevism surged in popularity the following month, to the point that General Lavr Kornilov threatened to bring troops into the city to conduct a full pogrom. Only mass defection within the lower ranks of the military spared Petrograd from an outright holocaust.
This is the democracy you’re defending? Christ. No wonder so many liberals seem perfectly content to see the modern wave of college students being disappeared by ICE.
Ah right, democracy didn’t immediately solve all problems so we should ban or murder all political opposition and install a one party dictatorship where I’m conveniently in charge of everything.
Sounds like something that totally benefits “the people”.
Yes, yes, any criticism of Bolsheviks is made up by The West™
But if we dislike those corporate policies, does that mean we also dislike the socialist policies they are mimicking?
Are you complaining about the efficient supply chains and low cost-per-unit of production?
Or are you complaining about the high degree of profit-taking and the denial of public benefits to the working class?
Efficiency and low-cost comes with baggage too, so I guess both in a way. Efficiency and low cost good, but what is required to achieve those often sucks
The second thing is undeniably bad
Automation under capitalism: Tons of unemployment and poverty while a few insiders get lots of treats
Automation under socialism: Shorter work weeks, more vacation, and the standard of living for everyone goes up
Did the shorter work weeks and more vacation after automation materialize in socialist states?
Look man, you don’t get called steel by being a bleeding heart liberal.
He didn’t get called “man of steel”, good old Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili called himself that just to massage his ego. Kind of like certified Most Fuckable Twink Nick Adams proclaiming himself to be an “alpha male”.
That guy certainly isn’t an “alpha male,” but calling him “fuckable” is going way too far.
Well, that’s only if you buy into the myth that “alpha male” is even real. If say he is “alpha male” in that he exemplifies an imaginary concept…
Look, I’m just saying, to be the “certified Most Fuckable Twink” being infinitely submissive isn’t enough; you’ve got to be attractive too. This asshole meets that first criterion, but absolutely fails on the second.
Lol.
I withdraw my argument.
So he’s a self-made man of steel? Even better! It seems Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was truly a sigma male.