Post AinW1Ty3EIV44btkqO by nestor@mastorol.es
(DIR) More posts by nestor@mastorol.es
(DIR) Post #AimeIIu2E5zd9eal7I by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T11:52:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In response to the question, "How was the USSR socialist?": "Socialism doesn't mean abolishing commodity production; a commodity is something that meets a human need.Currency predates capitalism by millennia, and the USSR did indeed socialise the means of production."https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1dcf9zl/comment/l7xi4qx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
(DIR) Post #AimeeOM2dapcQxDxKq by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T11:56:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom nationalization is not socialization
(DIR) Post #AimexcaRwice4p8IHg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T12:00:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu Nationalization can be a form of socialization by moving assets and industries from private hands to public ownership to benefit society instead of just a few shareholders.
(DIR) Post #AimiCWAEPMmsMYfEkC by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T12:36:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Weren't you an anarchist?
(DIR) Post #AimiKyOBLtIYDZDmEq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T12:38:09Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu Yes. I used to be an Anarcho-Communist, but after being unconvinced of the practicality of immediate state abolition, I transitioned into Luxemburgism.
(DIR) Post #AimiUlEb7DIgJcPC4W by lukiworker@mastodon.de
2024-06-10T12:39:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom anti-parlamentarism this aligns great together with Trotzki.
(DIR) Post #Aimiy2c5a1X4c4M5Am by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T12:45:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Luxmeburgianism is certainly better than Leninism, but I think anarchists and libertarian Marxists have a better analysis of the state. I used to be a Marxist-Leninist myself, but now I'm closer to anarchists and libertarian Marxists
(DIR) Post #AimjGh7FjNKrRTpIEy by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T12:48:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sindy I do not think the USSR's method of achieving socialism was perfect, precisely because of the intense bureaucratic control.
(DIR) Post #AimkT3Rscl168QvrQ8 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T13:02:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sindy That is the main reason I'm against Marxism-Leninism. I do think that a state is necessary to manage things in a transition stage, but it has to be combined with worker democratic control.
(DIR) Post #AimleSXZm0hJ5zbAdU by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T13:15:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I believe that the state by its very nature is a tool of the minority to control the majority, and that a working democracy contradicts this. This was shown in the Spanish Revolution, when the state prevented the collectivization of industry. @Sindy
(DIR) Post #AimlevRuIAOUkoAYKG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T13:15:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sindy Despite them being Trotskyists, many of their revolutionary goals align with mine despite the ideological differences. Plus, they are a fairly large communist organization that is promoting working class revolutionary action and teaching people important Marxist principles and lessons.
(DIR) Post #AimlvS0izqgiNKKolM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T13:18:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy A socialist state can be used to protect and promote workers' democracy and repress counter-revolution.
(DIR) Post #AimnRRm1Vtp8rQHMye by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T13:35:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Based on the practice of the application of socialist states - there was no defense of workers' democracy. For again, the state is a power separated from the people, which can use armed force against the people (such a definition can be found even in Engels in his "Origin..."). Accordingly, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is the state, it is not the power of the people, but the power on behalf of the people. If it is the power of the workers themselves, it is not a state.@Sindy
(DIR) Post #Aimo2PB4827xWWcDa4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T13:41:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sindy I understand the harm that Marxism-Leninism has caused, but as of right now, there is no other communist organization of their size that can introduce and educate as many people to communism and the necessity of revolution. I see the school of their as more of a gateway into the general idea of communism and promoting it can introduce people who may have never learned about communism to it.
(DIR) Post #AimoJDPz6RCPyXbqV6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T13:45:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy I see no way for a revolution to be successful without a state structure to maintain order, crush counter-revolution, and defend against enemies. Socialist states in the past are guilty of not defending workers' democracy, but abandoning the idea of a state structure altogether because of that fact seems impractical.
(DIR) Post #AimqWLaaEbPuzRxMOW by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T14:09:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The Makhnovshchina and the Spanish Revolution, despite the mistakes (some of them substantial, such as the refusal of the NKT-FAI from destroying the state and cooperating with it), show to me that it is still possible. About the state - again, since historically it has served exploitative minorities from the very beginning, so it has the necessary structure (by means of which the majority has no power and the minority rules the masses. And this negates workers democracy) to fulfill the function of preserving the class system. So you can't use what works to preserve the class system to abolish classes. You can't make the eye be an ear, you can't make the hammer be a drill. Maybe that's why socialist states haven't defended workers' democracy precisely because it's not in the interests of the state?@Sindy
(DIR) Post #AimrBd5a4hj18d8kUK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T14:17:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy I don't think that Machnovischina and the Spanish Revolution are good examples of non-state powers being better than state power. While they do have their merits, they proved to not have the effectiveness and sustainability necessary of achieving long-term revolutionary goals in the midst of adversity.
(DIR) Post #Ain9bbDnRHbe3BW34i by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T17:43:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Revolution doesn't always win, no one promised that victory would be easy and 100%. For example, the Spartacist revolt in Germany lost, but you probably wouldn't see that as an inefficiency of Luxemburgianism compared to Leninism. Libertarian socialists lost, some because of difficult situations, some because of mistakes, but they nevertheless didn't kill the revolution and the freedom of the masses. And state socialists may have won civil wars, but they killed the revolution, for the preservation of the state is thermidor. They did not change the root - the production relations, they remained capitalist in essence, but instead of the private capitalist they put the state in the place of the owner. The result was a fake "socialism". Of course, revolutionaries should realize mistakes, understand how to avoid them, analyze the situation so that the revolution has a better chance of winning, but again, it's never 100%, it's foolish to count on it. @Sindy
(DIR) Post #AinAgakKjWGxyjgAs4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T17:53:37Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy A transitional socialist state is necessary to eliminate capitalist influence and culture, eradicate counter-revolution, and instill the values and principles that are required of people to hold in order for a communist society to be possible. People have been too corrupted by centuries of capitalist influence to be able to do any of this without a socialist state with the intent of achieving communism to guide people.
(DIR) Post #AinFBbN4rLQui6qMpE by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T18:43:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom First of all, the state itself, by virtue of its structure, generates inequality and corrupts those who work in it. Therefore, it cannot instill communist consciousness because it contradicts communism itself. Moreover, it is not profitable for the state to move closer to communism because it will not want to lose its privileged position. Plus, freedom can only be taught in freedom, the state will not allow freedom to be taught, otherwise it will lose its power. Secondly, anarchists don't think people will build communism overnight. Before the revolution, libertarian workers' organizations will be organized to become a school of anarchism, and people will learn to live without the state and bosses. Also anarchists do not believe that communism can be built quickly after a revolution, of course there will be a transition period. But this transition must be overcome by means appropriate to the ends. Fire is put out with water, not fire.@Sindy
(DIR) Post #AinFzf7pAzZgpfa0zg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T18:55:07Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy It's not true that all states must foster inequality, and it's especially not true that all states resist communism. A transitional socialist state that is created for the sole purpose of transitioning to communism would not inherently breed inequality, nor would it be inherently resistant to communism. That's not to say that no transitional state can become corrupt or revisionist, but transitional states themselves are not inherently bad.
(DIR) Post #AinOuNrkojlBRYcZAu by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-10T20:35:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom History has shown that these socialist states were little different from bourgeois states, simply because the state is a power separate from the people and can use force against the people. Again, because the state has historically served exploitative minorities and therefore has developed a certain structure for the sake of preserving their power and the class system - centralizing and transferring power to a small number of people. Function and structure are interrelated, and if you build something that has centralization and devolution of power, then again a class system is created. So if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state, it is not the power of the people simply by virtue of the essential feature of the state - power separated from the people. If there is power of the people, it is not a state.@Sindy
(DIR) Post #AinSAj4c2J45iG7TOq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T21:11:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy 1/2 That's a false equivalency, comparing bourgeois states and socialist states as if they're exactly the same while ignoring their blatant differences that distinguish the two. Yes, they uphold power structures; that's what a state is for. They oppress the majority? Wrong. Bourgeois states oppress the working class; a socialist state would exist to oppress the former bourgeois class.
(DIR) Post #AinSBpZTMa9e9f54wS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T21:11:56Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu @Sindy 2/2 They reinforce class systems? Also, wrong. That is the main purpose of the bourgeois state, but a socialist transitional state exists specifically to destroy all class distinctions and eventually eliminate class altogether.
(DIR) Post #AinW1Ty3EIV44btkqO by nestor@mastorol.es
2024-06-10T21:54:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @EredYasibu @Sindy After read the thread i'm all with @EredYasibu States are a trap no matter gow "revolutionary" they where at the beginning.Althought ucranian and spanish lose, they lose because the forces they faced not because they where not working at all.And we van see working examples actually at México where EZLN rules obeying and they built a great community facing narco and paramilitary armies funded by the state
(DIR) Post #AinWdFDwUjC1LoL07s by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T22:01:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nestor @EredYasibu @Sindy You're making broad generalizations of all states that aren't true of all states. Socialist transitional states are not the same as bourgeois states, and the failure of previous transitional state of avoiding falling into revisionism doesn't discredit the concept of transitional states in their entirety.
(DIR) Post #AioJYryFu0SbpQXluy by nestor@mastorol.es
2024-06-11T07:09:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @EredYasibu @Sindy Transitional socialist states never existed, and I strongly believe that the inner power dynamics of a state makes those therotical transitional states impossible in the real world.What existed were anarcocomunists regions like catalonia and aragon at spain in 1934, ucrania while the wwII, Rojava and Chiapas actually (althought i believe that Rojava has a short future).An organization where the flow of the power is vertical, from top to down rather than horizontal, with the monopoly of the violence, and with and internal army is a very poor starting point to reach a society without classes.We are not saying anything new here but reproducing the old discussion between anarchists ans communist 🥳
(DIR) Post #AioWTpcJuTRAtG2C7E by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T09:34:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I specifically give you the definition of the state exactly from Engels from his "Origin of the F, P. and State" - "an essential feature of the state is a public power distinct from the mass of the people.... also available against the people." Since you persist in talking about a new but STATE, that means it will have this essential feature. So I ask - where is the power of the people itself? Even Lenin in his "State and Revolution" promised that the new state would be a semi-state or a state not in the historical sense, but in fact a state in its own historical sense was built, which means no people's power. And others always promised that everything would be different, but it turned out to be an ordinary state and it only strengthened, not died out. For some reason you are sure that there will be holy people who will not be influenced by the privileges of the state and then voluntarily give up their privileges to give power to the people themselves under communism.
(DIR) Post #AiodwtMjkbx4arY8m0 by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T09:38:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom 2) But if you believe that this new state will not have this essential feature and will be the real power of the workers themselves and not a minority that thinks it rules in the name of the workers - then it will not be a state and therefore why call it a state? Bakunin once also called a federation of workers from bottom to top a state, but he realized that this only confuses and gives way to those who want a dictatorship of their party.
(DIR) Post #AiodwuR1m8yhuSZ56G by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T10:58:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu 1/2 I believe that a state with a form of hierarchy is necessary for the managing and organizing of society after the abolition of capitalism because people are not yet capable of living in a stateless society due to their tendencies and instincts that they've developed from their time living under capitalism, and therefore a period of transition to remove those tendencies and instincts from people is necessary in order to bring humanity to a state where people are actually...
(DIR) Post #AiodyEXaVYwsYYGTi4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T10:58:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu 2/2 ...capable of living in a stateless, classless communist society. The people's power within this transitional state would come from democratic institutions that would prevent the state from having too much power, something that was severely lacking in previous transitional states like the Soviet Union.
(DIR) Post #AiofAa3WRQ52iHeYsK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T11:12:04Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nestor @EredYasibu @Sindy 1/2 There is nothing inherently impossible about the concept of a transitional state in-between capitalism and communism, so I don't know why you're stating the contrary. If what you mean is that transitional states can't possibly create a stateless society, then I would argue that transitional states are the only way to create a stable stateless society that would last because people as they currently are aren't in a position where they could live in a stateless...
(DIR) Post #AiofDzGFBYd3kqECUy by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T11:12:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nestor @EredYasibu @Sindy 2/2 society without it immediately falling apart and eventually reverting back to some form of state because of the behaviors and tendencies that people have developed as a result of living under capitalism and state power for so long. People have to be weened of state power and be taught, through however generations is necessary, the tendencies and behaviors necessary to live in a stateless society until it becomes second nature, and then the state be abolished.
(DIR) Post #AiohnFT57Tr840AsMa by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T11:41:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The state will not benefit from teaching people to live without the state, otherwise it will lose its power and its privileges, because having power that the majority does not have is already a privilege. History has shown this when socialist states suppressed workers' self-government. Besides, who will determine that people have learned enough and can do without the state? The state and the party that owns the state? What makes you think it will be any different next time? Are you hoping for a good party with good people? Then how is that different from liberalism with its hope for a good man who can be brought in through elections? Plus, again, you somehow think anarchists think you can build communism overnight. I've already said above what anarchists want to do to prepare. @nestor @Sindy
(DIR) Post #AioiCQhwT4GIA88HkO by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T11:46:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom In a bourgeois republic, too, there are democratic institutions, and also the state may not have much power, but the state does not become more popular. This is precisely because of the very property of the state, which is a priori separated from the people. Socialist states were not very different in this respect, only they were dressed not in the clothes of liberalism, but in red clothes. But the change of names does not change the essence of the state, but for some reason you are convinced that it does.
(DIR) Post #AioiWDLLrkFmVO04O0 by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T11:49:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to "build the new world in the shell of the old"?: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech16H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be created overnight?: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech25
(DIR) Post #AioiaSVNR9XigdiI1g by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T11:50:22Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@EredYasibu I'm not advocating for a state that has absolutely control over the people because such a state would be difficult to abolish once state abolition is possible. I want a transitional state that has limits to the amount of power that goverment officials have, without the bureaucratic control that the Soviet Union had, and where the working class has democratic say in the decisions of the state to prevent an revisionist takeover of the state like has happened in previous attempts.
(DIR) Post #AiojBXgX8nUbSzcA64 by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T11:57:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom "every State, even the most Republican and the most democratic . . . . are in essence only machines governing the masses from above" and "[i]f there is a State, there must necessarily be domination, and therefore slavery; a State without slavery, overt or concealed, is unthinkable - and that is why we are enemies of the State." Bakunin
(DIR) Post #AiojIQjTOAYlvlH2Se by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T11:58:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom "For, even from the standpoint of that urban proletariat who are supposed to reap the sole reward of the seizure of political power, surely it is obvious that this power will never be anything but a sham? It is bound to be impossible for a few thousand, let alone tens or hundreds of thousands of men to wield that power effectively. It will have to be exercised by proxy, which means entrusting it to a group of men elected to represent and govern them, which in turn will unfailingly return them to all the deceit and subservience of representative or bourgeois rule. After a brief flash of liberty or orgiastic revolution, the citizens of the new State will wake up slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious men." Bakunin
(DIR) Post #AiojdHF1s5UAZlyU1Q by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T12:02:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu I understand that a state must also come with a level of coercion. I never stated the contrary. I believe that state coercion is necessary after the abolition of capitalism in order to maintain order, eliminate counter-revolution, and create an environment that will foster a people that will one day be able to live in a stateless society.
(DIR) Post #Aiols2Jlq41wXlMFJA by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T12:27:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Again, the point is that the state will always be in the hands of a minority, since that is how the state is organized and the people will not have power, because otherwise there would be no state. The question here is not whether it is necessary to defend the revolution or not, whether it is necessary to make order or not, etc., the question here is in whose hands the power is - either it is in the hands of a minority, the state or it is in the hands of the people, that is, a stateless federation of workers. "an essential feature of the state is the public authority, which differs from the masses of the people.... They can also be directed against the people." Engels, The origin of the family, private property and the State
(DIR) Post #AiomCcxbJS4Fyno4Xo by nestor@mastorol.es
2024-06-11T12:30:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @EredYasibu @Sindy States are inherently a form of domination, no matter how we try to minimize their power. Is in their very nature and this nature isn't bonded to the capitalism, so a socialist state will be.. a state, with police, with rulers and ruled.if you disagree with this statement, then we have exhausted this discussion 😉Only a structures that are based on self governement from their very beginning have a chance to perdure as classless and stateless societies.A chance, not a certainty, thing con always go wrong.
(DIR) Post #AiomDVqPFtzcCPrbSy by nestor@mastorol.es
2024-06-11T12:31:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @EredYasibu @Sindy States are inherently a form of domination, no matter how we try to minimize their power. Is in their very nature and this nature isn't bonded to the capitalism, so a socialist state will be.. a state, with police, with rulers and ruled.if you disagree with this statement, then we have exhausted this discussion 😉Only a structures that are based on self governement from their very beginning have a chance to perdure as classless and stateless societies.A chance, not a certainty, things con always go wrong.
(DIR) Post #Aiomej9Bu4P9HCcvSa by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-11T12:35:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu I'm aware of the hierarchy of the state, and I would much prefer a stateless society where power lies completely with the people, that is my ultimate goal after all, but that isn't possible now, and it won't be after the abolition of capitalism due to people being so influenced by bourgeois society that they won't be compatible with a stateless society, which is why a transitional state is necessary.
(DIR) Post #AiooIfcSXV39s8vXW4 by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-11T12:54:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom These properties of the state and the privileges associated with them will also corrupt people, so the state cannot be an instrument of transition to communism. The funds must match the goals, otherwise the wrong funds will lead to the wrong goal. You cannot use a tool that has developed certain properties that you recognize, since it received these properties for a reason, but to fulfill a certain goal - to preserve the power of the exploitative minority and its privileges. As for the influence on people, here are the links to the answers, please read (also, if everything was so bad with the influence of capitalism, then the Makhnovshchina and the Spanish revolution would not have taken place in principle): https://mastodon.ml/@EredYasibu/112597832512463669Since we have already repeated ourselves several times, it seems that the discussion has exhausted itself and it is probably better to end already@nestor @Sindy