Part 2 on the Marxist Project's Channel: th-cam.com/video/sjksTQuswmw/w-d-xo.html Part 3: Was The Soviet Union "Socialist'? on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OneDime Many have asked me for tips on how to read more books. Here is a hack that I use all the time to consume 10x more books when I don’t have time to read (I typically only read physical books in the morning): I use this app called Speechify, which is by far the best text-speech reader on the internet (trust me I have tried em all). You can plug in PDFs or links of books or articles, and it will read them to you. It’s scary how many of the AI voices feel exactly like real humans. If I had used this app earlier in my life, I would have saved SO much money on not buying audiobooks. You can sign up using my link here (I will get a little affiliate commission): speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime
It was great having this discussion with you! I think we avoided it being an echo chamber and at times our perspectives complemented each other very effectively. I'd love to come back in the future for more conversations on different topics!
As much as Liberals bastardized the term "liberty" which originally just meant not being a slave, I'm even more appalled by how they bastardized the term "democracy". Now it refers to elected government which is exactly the opposite of what it used to refer to. Oligarchies, aristocracies and constitutional states were all founded upon elected government in contrast to democracies which were founded upon direct participation and Sortition with minimal elected representation. Some old Libs like James Madison were still open about being anti-democracy but since the Cold War "democracy" has become this sublimely good thing we're definitely doing. And that's just the meaning of "democracy" in terms of real implementation, the conceptual meaning was also bastardized from "rule of the poor (over the rich)" to "rule of the people (over themselves, i.e. "autonomy" (classes? What classes??))". Communists are clearly more sympathetic towards the old conception which also happens to be pretty similar to the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", but they never adopted an old-school implementation, which I find regrettable. Maybe it would have been unfeasible but considering how hotly debated it was in antiquity, it does seem to be notably less susceptible to the formation of political elites. (If it weren't, why argue so hard against it, right?)
Before anyone comments that I should read the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas W. Kenny (a popular book in ML circles), I have read it but didn't include it in the reading recommendations in the description for a few reasons: It’s a decent book but incredibly one sided and does not really deal with the root causes of the some of the problems it highlights (ie the second economy and why the intelligence turned on the USSR). For example, they blame the second economy for creating an emerging petit bourgeoisie and criticized Brezhnev and Gorbachev for allowing it (which is true) but the authors fail to understand why the second economy (black markets) existed in the first place, which was the failure of central planning. The fact that the authors don’t want to acknowledge is that central planning had massive deficiencies could not solve chronic shortages and long lines for consumer goods and sometimes even basic necessities. (a black market existed because there were lots of demands not being met by state central planning that people were able to make profit from as sole proprietors). Markets will always exist as long as three are demands not being met by the state plan. The fact of the matter is that central planning without sufficient computer technology to account for enough consumer data, variables, and externalities in the economy will always have huge gaps. This is something that even MLs like Michael Parenti (read the 4th chapter of Blackshirts and Reds) and Paul Cockshott in Towards a New Socialism (which argues that cybernetics and democratic participation is one of the things that could have fixed the problems of economic planning. Also the book has a tendency to straw-man different Marxist factions and is flat out ignorant of their differences. For example, the authors lump Bukharin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev (and subtly Deng Xiaoping even) together as if they are the same just because they support different kinds of liberal(ish) reforms. This is far from true. Bukharin was very much a Leninist who even thought socialism in one country was possible but saw the horrors of forced collectivization and the failures of banning markets completely. Bukharin argued that farmers should be allowed to own their own farms (as long as they don't have more than a couple of employees), that sole proprietors were not a problem, and that a small level markets should be tolerated since it was inevitably going to exist anyway (which proved true as banning markets only gave way to illegal markets lol). He argued that Planning could only completely overtake markets once they proved superior at meeting people's demands rather than trying to ban markets at gun point (which is stupid and never works). The authors labeled Khrushchev as a "Bukharinist" by the authors just because he allowed people to own and operate private plots (which is not exactly a radical market reform and is stupid to ban anyway). The authors then make the ignorant assumption that Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping in China were somehow a logical continuation of the Bukharinist sympathies in the party (which is absurd and is only something someone could believe if they didin't understand Bukharin, market economics in general lol). Overall, Socialism Betrayed does a good job of highlighting the horrific consequences of the collapse of the soviet union and is accurate in it’s assessment of Gorbachev’s role in accelerating the USSR’s collapse, it is not a book I would recommended to leftists who want to understand the glaring political problems of the soviet union (especially repression, civil liberties and lack of transparency) and the economic contradictions of the Soviet Union (ie planning and markets). Most glaringly, book especially seems to deliberately avoid the elephant in the room when it comes to Soviet History (political repression, lack of civil liberties, and the reasons why the Eastern Block collapsed). TLDR, people should still read the book, however, but it is far from a good explanation of The USSR’s biggest problems
Wait but the farmers in the USSR did have their own plots. The collectives worked like factories where the farmers would go and work, they still their own plots
@@Gordozinho A collective is not the same thing as a private plot. With a collective farm, the farmers do not own it. The state is effectively the owner. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nut it was silly to completley ban private plots and boot farmers off of their land. Plus a lot of evidence suggests that people take better care of farms that they partly own. Limited private ownership is not a problem imo, exploitation of many employees is. Private plots existed under Stalin, but to a very limited extent but were mostly prohibited until Khrushchev's reforms. North Korea had a similar process. Originally, farmers could not own their own farms but later on they liberalized to a limited extent allowing for private plots. th-cam.com/video/yW9JEPSJQOs/w-d-xo.html
@@neebomb2511 This podcast was not so much about why the USSR collapsed, but rather what went wrong. Problems with it etc.. I believe the Soviet Union could have probably continued for 30 more years if Gorbachev didn't do Perestroika and Glasnost, that still does not change the underlying problems with the USSR and things disliked about it. A system can be extremely flawed and still continue for a long time. Capitalist countries are a prime example
One sided against fascists and capitalist propaganda? Yes. There is only one side of the story, and if you don't uphold that side you uphold imperialism, even unknowingly.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the public sector in Norway got worse, the even privetised public transport witch made it more expensive and wors quality.
As an ML, based on what I know, I think your criticisms of the arguments of other MLs are all warranted. Ultimately I want to know the truth on these matters so if I ever manage to radicalize others, I don't just parrot overly-apologetic talking points on the USSR, if asked some of the usual questions. Excellent discussion. Also, do you know of anyone who has taken time to debunk Grover Furr? I hear a lot how wrong his claims are but I take it his books have citations. Maybe not.
There are people who have debunked Grover Furr that you can find online. The problem with Grover Furr though i that he is so heavily discredited that most academics don't even take him seriously enough to debunk him. Furr is not even a historian (even less of a credible source on soviet history lol), he is a Medieval literature professor. Another issue with Furr is that he mixes half truths with absolute conspiratorial claims (that Trotsky was a nazi collaborator etc..) and he sometimes uses correct data (that the murder count in the Soviet archives is much lower than what anti-communist propaganda proports) to jump to very ridiculous ideological conclusions. For example, Furr will interpret 800,000 people being killed under Stalin instead of 20 million as meaning that Stalin did nothing wrong. And he tries to pin the atrocities that he does admit occurred on the NKVD (as if it makes a difference if Stalin cosigned the NKVD's activities or not, the point is that these atrocities happened and that they should be acknowledged and never repeated again). For reading. I would recommend the reading recommendations listed in the description, but if you want something shorter, I highly recommend the recent 3 hour Cosmopod podcast on Stalin.
@@1DimeRadio Thanks! Yeah I'm starting to see what a joke his work really is, the more I learn. Thanks for the suggestions. By the way, your talk with Theory Pleeb was great. It would be cool if you two could do that again sometime.
This is the kind of honest discussion we desperately need more of on the left. I just refuse to accept the failure of the Soviet Union as the failure of all socialism everywhere forever.
A lot of people seemingly took to heart the "The end of history" line. I am pretty sure the same sentiment was shared by american slave owners in the 18th century, or german fascists in the 30s and early 40s of the 20th century - the sentiment "we won, nothing will change ever". But change is the only constant, and a socialist society is sure to happen eventually...
That’s why I feel saying the USSR ‘failed’ is rather inaccurate. The USSR didn’t fail, it (for the most part) succeeded in what it set out to, which was giving the working class more control and better lives. Of course they had their failings, but to say that the project as a whole failed is misleading.
@@phoenix5496 Its wrong to view socialism and the workers struggle as economism only just as it would be to view the struggle of the rising bourgeois class only in economics. The Spanish were much wealthier than Britain at the beginning of the age of world trade and exploration. The Swiss were able to early on establish a Republican federation that Lenin thought would be one of the last countries to adopt socialism and refused to adopt fascism despite being surrounded durring WW2. Lenin declared victory after one more day the 70 day Paris Commune of 1870. Like Marx they built a Communist International with the eucess of the Russian Revolution using the lesson they had learned from the October Revolution. With the victory in the civil war they took a calculated step back from War Communism with the NEP. When they realised they had temporarily lost the 1923 German Revolution Leinin turned to tearing Imperialism limb by limb.
It was a great discussion, thank you. Though I would play the Devil's advocate for a moment and just mention that the NKVD were crucial during the Great Patriotic War - both as soldiers (e.g. Brest) and organizers. Edit: tbh your point on Eastern European immigrants is...awful. Thr fact that they had enough money to move to the US speaks volumes, doesn't it? Especially if they are Ukrainian, Moldovan or Russian (not from Moscow). Also don't forget that we are constantly being brainwashed with neoliberal or outright fascism for the last 30 years. It is not to say that everything in the USSR was fine and everyone was happy, but the very notion that you should listen to affluent (again, if they moved to the fucking US of A or Canada - they are affluent by default, no exception) émigres is ridiculous. BadEmpanada's short video mocking such immigrants from the Latin America is a good example of what I am talking about here. P.S.: I am Ukrainian, still living in Ukraine, so I really think that my opinion is worth more than of fucking fascistic Ukrainian diaspora in Canada.
BadEmpanada supports the GAZA fascist Hamas. Hamas came from the Egyptian Brotherhood who sheltered the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti was an ally of Hitler and the final solution. Putin blames Ukraine independence on Lenin. He flies the flag of the CZAR and the Counter revolution. Trotsky was murdered in Mexico but not without leaving a movement behind. The Militant is still published along with books and available on line. Stalin's NKVD murdered the Spanish revolution.
I enjoyed this a lot, you both brought up a lot of points I hadn't heard before. Its always good to criticize former Socialism and learn lessons from it.
On the topic of the problem of the Soviet Union emerging from a pre-capitalist society: I think that Marx was being Eurocentric in his analysis of which countries would be ripe for revolution, but his BIGGEST flaw in his analysis was not his thinking that the revolution would emerge from more “developed” countries, it’s that he failed to account for the colonial powers of the newly dividing world. He was CORRECT that the revolutions would emerge from capitalist development. That is why every socialist country has an extensive period of rapid state capitalist production and come from exploited countries. From the USSR to China to Vietnam. All the same. Anarchists and Leftcoms make the mistake of thinking “state capitalism” is a rejection of Socialism, but the efforts of the Soviets and other communist movements was clearly to achieve socialism and eventually communism. They clearly failed to achieve communism and arguably failed to truly reach “true socialism”, but I think it’s short sighted for western leftists to look at the worlds largest boogeymen of the bourgeoisie and try to argue that their “purer” socialism would have gone any better.
In my opinion, they failed to achieve socialism and transcend state capitalism because the material conditions of the rest of the world were not ready to overthrow their bourgeoisie masters. I’m not necessarily a “third worldlist” but I do think that international revolution will only come when those exploited countries cut off the imperial core from cheap labor and resources.
Marx looked to the working class to lead the revolution. That is why you call him Eurocentric. He saw the Taiping Rebellion as leading to capitalism in China. Mao found himself leading a peasant Army but the Chinese Bourgeois showed its hostility to the working class when the murdered the Communists in the 1928 revolution. Mao was trying to work with the ideas of Stalin that came from the second international which is where his New Democracy comes from. in the end he was somewhat lucky because Chang refused to follow the advice of the Americans and form a coalition government with Mao in preparation for a Capitalist China. Mao had to create a New China without a national bourgeois. .
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."-Mikhail Bakunin I am thinking that the Communists should have listened to the Anarchists.
Remember folks, failing or succeed is always contingent and contextual In some respects USSR and socialism hasn't failed, but in other respect it has. By that same logic capitalism has failed, and in other respects it has, miserably. It's all a process
The USSR forsure had it's major successes, however it also had internal problems and at the end of the day the mission failed. We need to deeply study why it failed rather than looking for single scapegoats (Gorbachev, Khrushchev, etc..)
@@leaveme3559 The weakness in the Soviet Union came from the criminal actions of Stalin and those who became his followers who murdered Lenin's party and the leaders of the revolution and by doing so.doomed the Soviet Union to a path back to capitalism without the creation of a new party that could return to the path staked out first by Marx and Engels and later Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin will be remembered as the Napoleon Bonaparte of the Russian revolution.
@@kimobrien. That is basically a Trotskyist strawman argument (in a way, the defining Trotskyist strawman argument) and is very much a dogmatic line which this video tries to avoid taking with regards to any "tendency" or "deviation". edit: they said it themselves in the video description: 'For this podcast, we try to avoid the hurdles of one dimensional narratives from various ideological tendencies (Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Left Communism, Orthodox Marxism, Anarchism, Liberalism, conservatism, etc..) and try to give a balanced analysis of the USSR and the problems it faced.'
1:46:00 Khruvschev wasn't in charge of Ukraine during the famine. It was Kaganovich, he wasn't responsible for the famine either, it was the collective leaders that lied about the numbers. There's a lot of things I disagree with in this podcast but overall it's a good thing
I never said he was responsible for the famine. He wasn't. But yeah, thanks for the correction, Kaganorvich was in charge of the Ukraine central committee, Khrushchev was second in command though.
@@1DimeRadio Also yeah Khruvschev was responsible for the purges in Ukraine. I really wish I could discuss this with you but I have no mic. I feel that there is a perspective missing here, that of someone who lives in backwardness
@@lepjagman He didn't know there was a famine the Farm Collective leaders were lying about the numbers to save face and when he did know it was too late
@@lepjagman No not really the grain that was exported during the famine was nothing other than payment for goods purchased by the USSR prior to the famine. Soviet exports dropped massively during the famine as they were cut by 60% and their imports of grain would double
I am personally making a hoi4 mod that asks what if the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc survived. The main reason why the eastern bloc survives is mainly because Krushev and his faction did not take power so the dictatorship of the proleteriot did not end in the soviet unon. A butterfly effect happends in the eastern bloc such as sino-soviet split never happening, the USSR adopting the mass line and project OGAS becoming a reality. This podcast very insightful for writing in the mod. I was listening to this when I was writing the malenkov's speech, an alternate to krushev's speech.
Stalin actually had a lot of responsibility for why the Sino-Soviet split happened, although it didn’t come to the fore seriously until Khrushchev. Stalin’s policy towards China was a catastrophe for the Chinese communists, and Mao apparently hated Stalin.
@@raiogelato6921But Mao was very much opposed to Stalins general politics. Stalin didn't do that much to support foreign revolution which basically culminated in the policy of peaceful coexistence.
Just recently discovering your channel and podcast, amazing content honestly. Very easy to listen to while at work. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, time to learn about socialism on company time
This video was really cool, I'd especially love to see the topic of Grover Furr expanded since he's such a seemingly popular figure on the ML and MLM spaces online
Though Grover Furr goes too far by saying Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong, he has some very good points, validated by marxist historian pairs, and criticized by conservative and libertarian historians. Most of Krushchev speech was indeed lies, as shown by recently opened archives.
The socialism in one country is a very hard question to answer because on one hand we will like to start the revolution in one country but the counter revolution plus oppressing forces that would counter that new revolution will make the struggle of the working class more susceptible on the other hand Engels in his pamphlet principles of communism bring another question to the equation in regards to this.
@1Dimee very interesting again. Did you do part two? [edit: found it!] I was intrigued to get on to economics. You make some good points about pluralism, which is important. And secrecy, which was a massive, massive problem. I understand that as well as state control of photocopying, typewriters had to be registered with the police. However, the USSR was a project that promised jam in our lifetime. The material welfare of the soviet population did go up, quite a bit. But - here's the but - not enough. Watching a documentary about the soviet-afghan war, one of the Russian soldiers remembered 'it was like being in the 1001 nights, the markets had blue jeans and oranges, things we couldn't get at home'. In a Kabul market. In 1979. I think you cannot do efficient economic work without some form of market mechanism. And by efficient I don't mean cheaper, cheaper all the way. I mean not running out of potatoes in Moscow. Farming - cadres and theory just do NOT grow food as effectively as farmers. Industry - in the 30's during the rush for industrial development and in the 40's during Total War a planned economy is required. UK and USA had total control of theirs. But for normal life, not so much. And having to queue for 2hours to get potatoes. Day after day after day. It gets on people's tits. Democracy - you both make good points about participatory democracy. But the only use of democracy is to remove people who've f#cked up. If this is not possible, then what incentive for change? Very much enjoying the channel, even if I am a dirty Lib!
They did not last long enough for there to be much to say about them. If you want my take though, Andropov would have been a lot better than Gorbachev for many reasons, but he was a bit of a hardliner and may have governed like Honecker in the DDR
@@1DimeRadio Agree completely on Andropov though, going by the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. He had his softer side though, with the whole Samantha Smith stuff. :D
For the first part of this discussion, here's a quote from Stalin: (...)For what is implied by making the building of socialism in our country dependent on "direct state support from the European proletariat"? What if the European proletariat does not succeed in seizing power within the next few years? *Can our revolution mark time for an indefinite period, pending the victory of the revolution in the West? Can it be expected that the bourgeoisie of our country will agree to wait for the victory of the revolution in the West and renounce its work and its struggle against the socialist elements in our economy?* Does not this formula of Trotsky's denote the prospect of a gradual surrender of our positions to the capitalist elements in our economy, and then the prospect of our Party's retiring from power in the event of a victorious revolution in the West being delayed? It really wouldn't make sense to wait until capitalism develops on it's own so you can start revolution. Just the fact that proletariat was a growing class is enough, fuck waiting. If you're ready - you're ready.
Only hard problem and I have with this analysis is the use of the shady and ridiculous category of totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt did a great disservice spreading this crap around that explains nothing and bunch together very different systems.
Let me ask you this: if you can’t criticize the government without getting followed by the secret police, can’t public books or media that are critical of the government, can’t leave the country and emigrate to a new country without the strictest of state approval, and can’t visit the country without a state sanctioned tour, then how can that society not be considered totalitarian? Every state is authoritarian, but not every state is totalitarian. Take modern Cuba versus the DPRK and Stalinist Russia for example. As 1D said, Cuba does not censor their internet and allows people to visit and leave the country while the DPRK and Stalinist Russia heavily censored information and didn’t/don’t allow people yo even visit without a state sanctioned tour. Totalitarianism is a thing and socialism does not have to be totalitarian
@@1DimeRadio This doesn't address the problem with the political/sociological category of "totalitarism". I'm not talking about the GDR and such. But I liked the video, this is only a minor disagreement. Both of you do good work : )
@@Guilherme-J I think the category of totalitarianism, although abused by liberals, is a more useful term than "authoritarianism." Every state is authoritarian by design but not every state is totalitarian. I don't even think that all AES countries were/are all totalitarian. I am primarily referring to certain countries during certain periods. For example, the Stalin era of the USSR, the DDR, the DPRK, Hoxha's Albania, and Ceaucescu's Romania could be described as "totalitarian." In contrast. Mao's China, Khrushchev's USSR, and modern Cuba could be described as "authoritarian" (so is the USA and most countries), but not "totalitarian" in my view. That's my take anyway. I think abandoning the discussion of totalitarianism all together can lead to some dangerous denialism and apologia of serious excessive political repression. I more so subscribe to Marcuse's use of "totalitarianism" rather than Hannah Arendt (although he work has some important value, I absolutely despise her politics)
In the early 1990s, elements within the Soviet party elites opportunistically launched a successful counter-revolutionary coup. With disastrous results for the working class. This could potentially have been avoided via the implementation of a comprehensive cybernetic socialist planned economy, but regrettably this never happened. The reason for the non-implementation of a comprehensive cybernetic planned economic model (like Project Cybersyn) in countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany was due to the degeneration or deformation of the revolutions and the subsequent dominance of the bureaucratic ruling strata, commonly referred to as the nomenklatura. The Soviet Union and other socialist states experienced a degeneration of the originally proletarian-led revolutions. The rise of a bureaucratic caste or ruling elite within the state apparatus led to the entrenchment of their power and self-interest, often at the expense of the socialist goals and principles. In the context of implementing a comprehensive cybernetic planned economic model, the nomenklatura, who held significant control over economic and political decision-making, tended to resist any changes that could potentially diminish their power or challenge their privileges. This resistance could manifest in various forms, such as blocking or obstructing technological advancements, maintaining centralized control over the economy, or prioritizing their own interests over the collective goals of socialist planning. The failure to implement advanced technological systems like Project Cybersyn could be attributed to the interests and resistance of the bureaucratic ruling strata, who were more concerned with maintaining their own power and privileges rather than advancing socialist planning and democratization of economic decision-making. This is the exact reason why OGAS (the Soviet cybernetic automation project) wasn't implemented.
I doubt a algocratic planned economy would be a universal cure that cures every problem in the system, i also think the problem wasnt so tied to economic planning as you claim it to be
It was mainly a cultural-ideological issue, having mostly to do with the formation of a class of higher rank government employees idealizing the us and adopting the market theology.
It's ok. Trotsky was right about the bureaucracy and some other things, but I don't think it explains everything. I also doubt that Trotsky would have been as dramatically different than Stalin as people often think. For instance, in the late 20s Trotsky supported an economic plan that looked a lot like forced collectivization and he also does not seem put a lot of thought into the democracy question until he was ousted from the party (as evidenced by his early book on terrorism and communism).
@@KoeligKas Yeah I originally thought you said "Socialism Betrayed" which is an entirely different book but then realized you meant Trotsky's book lol. I revised my comment now. My bad
@@1Dimee lol, trotsky was an actual marxist, stalin killed comrades and revolutionary heroes in show trials. I hate when people compare the two, one was an actual revolutionary the other a traitor to socialism. And its not even about who would have led the USSR or not, fuck "great-man-history". Society is made by people, structures, institutions. It all comes down to the production forces and who controls them. Lenins vision was for them to be democratically controlled by the soviets. Stalin betrayed this vision and gave over the control to the bureaucracy in trade for getting to be top dog himself. All this is explained and argued for in great detail (and with vastly better arguments than what this humble youtubecomment can provide) in the book. In my opinion The Revolution Betrayed is as of yet the most comprehensive marxist analysis of the problems of the USSR ever written, but unfortunately too many completely ignore the trotskyist branch of marxism.
@@KoeligKas Trotsky was a great theorist and legendary revolutionary. I agree with most of what you are saying. But I don't consider myself a Trotskyist though
This whole thing was like reading western media, full of misinformation, disinformation, right wing stuff even. Calling the USSR totalitarian or even using that term put the lid on everything. Western left is lost.
@@thomasallister3446 Why not? Cause the western pseudoleft told you so? The eastern left exists and fights colonialism. In the west, the left is sanitized to the point they lost revolutionary potential.
@@thomasallister3446 the west is the ones who are doing the imperialism and so the western left just wants a bigger share of said imperialism... global south left wants or SHOULD want... (i hope) to fight against imperialism altogether. The western left consisting of a labour aristocracy isnt even capable of thinking about doing away with imperialism.
I disagree. I think if the 1919 German workers revolution succeeded, WWII would be West against Communist, and the Communist would have collapsed most likely. Lenin should have negotiated Brest-Litovsk, and the Red Army should of guaranteed the safety of the Check legions as they escort them out of the country rather than trying to disarm them.
Rather than quotas they could of just ran worker coops which act like capitalist cooperatively owned businesses but as they compete and some go out of business, instead of bailing them out, that state takes over. A new small innovative unfunded business is bonded to it by the state. It is now successful, but state owned. The shares of the cooperative are bought by the state and the inefficiency is removed because it is operating like before but with the employees being all state employees. No one makes more than 8 times the lowest paid worker, bosses are elected every six months bonuses for all for production targets, but no inefficiencies. If Kruschev used soil erosion abatement techniques his new grain yields in the late 50s would f continued. If Stalin had imposed his scientific socialism in which everyone is made experts in their fields through formal education and scientific research that may have been avoided.
Cheap fuel hurt the USSR in the 80s as they still did not have autarchy so had to sell gas and oil to Europe which was profitable in the 70s but not after the oil glut caused oil prices to fall precipitously in 1983.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics opened an era of a new type of development of culture and civilization, and its experience in crushing Nazism is invaluable today, in the context of a global conflict, the main front of which has been transferred to Ukraine, believes Professor of Philosophy at the Technical University of Crete Dimitrios Patelis, Candidate of Philosophy. "On December 30, 2022, all progressive humanity celebrates the centenary of the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR, the fruit of the first early victorious revolution, opened the era of a revolutionary transition to a new type of development of culture and civilization: to a united humanity. This was the triumph of the revolutionary creativity of the oppressed, proven by the example of the USSR "that they can take their destiny into their own hands, emancipate society, begin unprecedented revolutionary transformations, overcoming antagonisms and exploitation, towards a society of solidarity and humanity," Patelis said. In his opinion, the triumphal march of the USSR is associated with the world-historical achievements of man: the fight against illiteracy, the establishment of a number of social benefits, free education, healthcare, medical care, proper rest, the rapid development of the economy, society, science, technology, sports, art and culture . “A titanic feat was the crushing of the anti-Comintern axis by the Soviet Red Army thanks to the self-denial and self-sacrifice of the entire people of the USSR, ensuring the world with nuclear parity, internationalist assistance to the world anti-imperialist movement, as well as primacy in space exploration. A clear example of internationalism is providing access to education in USSR universities to students from different capitalist countries, thanks to which I personally received an excellent education,” the professor noted. What did the Soviet government of the USSR give to the people? 1.The right to an eight-hour working day. For the first time in the world in the history of mankind. 2. The right to annual paid leave. For the first time in human history. 3. The impossibility of dismissing an employee on the initiative of the administration or the owner without the consent of the trade union and party organization. 4. The right to work, to the opportunity to earn a living by one’s own labor. Moreover, graduates of vocational educational institutions had the right to compulsory employment in the labor field with the provision of housing in the form of a dormitory or apartment. 5. The right to free general and vocational education. Moreover, both secondary vocational education and higher education. For the first time in the world. 6. The right to free use of preschool institutions: nurseries, kindergartens, pioneer camps. For the first time in the world. 7. The right to free medical care. For the first time in the world. 8. The right to free sanatorium and resort treatment. For the first time in the world. 9. The right to free housing. For the first time in the world 10. The right to protect the state from the arbitrariness of local bosses and officials. For the first time in the world. 11. The right to free travel to the place of work or study using an individual travel document paid for by the state. For the first time in the world. In addition, women had the right to a number of additional benefits: 1. The right to three years of maternity leave with job retention. (56 days - fully paid, 1.5 years - benefits, 3 years - without interruption of service and a ban on dismissal from the administration.). 2. The right to free foster care for a child for up to one year. 3. The right to a free dairy kitchen for newborns up to three years of age. 4. The right to free medical and sanatorium-resort treatment for any childhood diseases. There was nothing like this in any country in the world and there could not even be a trace of it. Some social benefits in foreign countries began to appear only after the Second World War as a result of a powerful labor movement caused by the existence on the planet of the Soviet state, the State of Workers and Peasants. Citizens of the USSR had much more rights than Americans or Germans! But those don’t have them today, and don’t expect them to. In addition, in the USSR cross-subsidization made payments for utility services symbolic. When setting prices for certain goods in the USSR, they were primarily based on their social significance. Therefore, meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, and many varieties of fish and fish products were sold below cost and at constant prices. Children's clothing and shoes, textbooks for schools and universities, toys, notebooks and other writing materials, medicines, cotton fabrics and many other goods were sold at a loss. State subsidies for these purposes amounted to tens of billions of rubles annually. The state partially covered its losses through high prices for jewelry, natural furs and other luxury goods, and alcoholic beverages. But the main source of subsidies is the profits of state-owned enterprises. By spending a significant portion of the profits of its enterprises on subsidies, the state covered its losses. Losses in favor of the consumer!!!
The Spanish revolution, the Ukranian revolution, they had been fought by the bolshevik, but they could have succeeded without that authoritarianism. They fought each other in Spain instead of fighting Franco because of Stalin's orders. The Kurdish revolution, came out from chaos. Maybe it won't last, but it has lasted enough to demonstrate that that authoritarianism and political oppression of factions is not strictly needed even in chaotic situations like those. Leninism was already bringing in itself the seed for that. Rosa Luxemburg among others, not only anarchists, saw this
In the villages of the Volga Germans there was no distinction between richer farmers and hired agricultural workers, since most of them were either Mennonites (similar to Amish) or very dedicated Lutherans. Every farmer in the village had the same size of land, the communal land around the village was managed equally with lots redistributed each year before cultivating season. Basically it already was some kind of village socialism. But this didn't spare them from the Red Terror. The Volga German were the most productive farmers in all of Russia and thus they were mercilessly plundered by the Bolsheviks allready during the Civil War, simply because there was more to plunder there than in ethnic Russian regions. The requisition commandos took everythink they could get hold on and shipped the harvest off to the Bolshevik stronghold cities or for export, causing a huge famine that took the lifes of about 20% of all Volga Germans as early as 1921.
Yes Cuba is basically a one party state, but in many ways it is more democratic than liberal democracies (in terms of participation and ability to become part of the government and influence policy).
Did anyone else notice that the rendition of Stalin...looks like Sylvester Stallone? Was that intentional? 45:40 "What some Marxist-Leninists like to say, under Stalin is when the Soviet Union first became socialist. I mean, it was obviously socialist in tendency, but when it transitioned to socialist mode of production by the state owning everything..." That's not socialism. That statism. I hate it when socialists talk about socialism as STATE ownership and STATE control, because when they talk about it in those terms, they point to examples where the state was mostly top-down above the proletariat, rather than being the proletariat itself. The lack of a market economy, the lack of private control, does NOT make socialism. Other systems encompass those things, too. Pointing to North Korea as an example of a socialist country is just as ludicrous as pointing to the USSR under Stalin as a socialist country, just as pointing to Cambodia under Pol Pot...or the United States at any period. Talking about statist systems that were admitted to be totalitarian and autocratic, and calling them socialist...I guess "thank you for proving us right" on behalf of anti-communists everywhere? Because you're admitting on behalf of socialists that totalitarian statism is socialism, even as you say that totalitarianism gets in the way of socialism. And that only makes it harder to convince anti-socialists that socialism really isn't exactly that.
The USSR wasn’t worth it in hindsight. Should have just become social democracies and patiently waited for production to rise organically, and made peace with its enemies.
The ussr was the best thing that happened to russia but not the best thing for global communism is the answer. It improved everything in russia but the ideological and actual aggressive war that is happening until today is the bad part about global communism. Everyone always thinks Communism is exactly like in the soviet union all the time... capitalism is different aswell everywhere. It could very well be that when in the future (where there is no apocalypse) that a socialism is completely different... like the capitalism in saudi arabia is completely different to capitalism in Germany.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | อาจารย์โอเล่ ญาณสัมผัส ผ่าดวงคนดัง ประเทศไทยจะเป็นยังไงหลังจากนี้!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gszT2O76fL4/mqdefault.jpg)
Part 2 on the Marxist Project's Channel: th-cam.com/video/sjksTQuswmw/w-d-xo.html
Part 3: Was The Soviet Union "Socialist'? on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OneDime
Many have asked me for tips on how to read more books. Here is a hack that I use all the time to consume 10x more books when I don’t have time to read (I typically only read physical books in the morning): I use this app called Speechify, which is by far the best text-speech reader on the internet (trust me I have tried em all). You can plug in PDFs or links of books or articles, and it will read them to you. It’s scary how many of the AI voices feel exactly like real humans. If I had used this app earlier in my life, I would have saved SO much money on not buying audiobooks.
You can sign up using my link here (I will get a little affiliate commission): speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime
It was great having this discussion with you! I think we avoided it being an echo chamber and at times our perspectives complemented each other very effectively. I'd love to come back in the future for more conversations on different topics!
As much as Liberals bastardized the term "liberty" which originally just meant not being a slave, I'm even more appalled by how they bastardized the term "democracy". Now it refers to elected government which is exactly the opposite of what it used to refer to. Oligarchies, aristocracies and constitutional states were all founded upon elected government in contrast to democracies which were founded upon direct participation and Sortition with minimal elected representation. Some old Libs like James Madison were still open about being anti-democracy but since the Cold War "democracy" has become this sublimely good thing we're definitely doing.
And that's just the meaning of "democracy" in terms of real implementation, the conceptual meaning was also bastardized from "rule of the poor (over the rich)" to "rule of the people (over themselves, i.e. "autonomy" (classes? What classes??))". Communists are clearly more sympathetic towards the old conception which also happens to be pretty similar to the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", but they never adopted an old-school implementation, which I find regrettable. Maybe it would have been unfeasible but considering how hotly debated it was in antiquity, it does seem to be notably less susceptible to the formation of political elites. (If it weren't, why argue so hard against it, right?)
Before anyone comments that I should read the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas W. Kenny (a popular book in ML circles), I have read it but didn't include it in the reading recommendations in the description for a few reasons:
It’s a decent book but incredibly one sided and does not really deal with the root causes of the some of the problems it highlights (ie the second economy and why the intelligence turned on the USSR). For example, they blame the second economy for creating an emerging petit bourgeoisie and criticized Brezhnev and Gorbachev for allowing it (which is true) but the authors fail to understand why the second economy (black markets) existed in the first place, which was the failure of central planning. The fact that the authors don’t want to acknowledge is that central planning had massive deficiencies could not solve chronic shortages and long lines for consumer goods and sometimes even basic necessities. (a black market existed because there were lots of demands not being met by state central planning that people were able to make profit from as sole proprietors). Markets will always exist as long as three are demands not being met by the state plan. The fact of the matter is that central planning without sufficient computer technology to account for enough consumer data, variables, and externalities in the economy will always have huge gaps. This is something that even MLs like Michael Parenti (read the 4th chapter of Blackshirts and Reds) and Paul Cockshott in Towards a New Socialism (which argues that cybernetics and democratic participation is one of the things that could have fixed the problems of economic planning.
Also the book has a tendency to straw-man different Marxist factions and is flat out ignorant of their differences. For example, the authors lump Bukharin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev (and subtly Deng Xiaoping even) together as if they are the same just because they support different kinds of liberal(ish) reforms. This is far from true. Bukharin was very much a Leninist who even thought socialism in one country was possible but saw the horrors of forced collectivization and the failures of banning markets completely. Bukharin argued that farmers should be allowed to own their own farms (as long as they don't have more than a couple of employees), that sole proprietors were not a problem, and that a small level markets should be tolerated since it was inevitably going to exist anyway (which proved true as banning markets only gave way to illegal markets lol). He argued that Planning could only completely overtake markets once they proved superior at meeting people's demands rather than trying to ban markets at gun point (which is stupid and never works). The authors labeled Khrushchev as a "Bukharinist" by the authors just because he allowed people to own and operate private plots (which is not exactly a radical market reform and is stupid to ban anyway). The authors then make the ignorant assumption that Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping in China were somehow a logical continuation of the Bukharinist sympathies in the party (which is absurd and is only something someone could believe if they didin't understand Bukharin, market economics in general lol).
Overall, Socialism Betrayed does a good job of highlighting the horrific consequences of the collapse of the soviet union and is accurate in it’s assessment of Gorbachev’s role in accelerating the USSR’s collapse, it is not a book I would recommended to leftists who want to understand the glaring political problems of the soviet union (especially repression, civil liberties and lack of transparency) and the economic contradictions of the Soviet Union (ie planning and markets). Most glaringly, book especially seems to deliberately avoid the elephant in the room when it comes to Soviet History (political repression, lack of civil liberties, and the reasons why the Eastern Block collapsed).
TLDR, people should still read the book, however, but it is far from a good explanation of The USSR’s biggest problems
Wait but the farmers in the USSR did have their own plots. The collectives worked like factories where the farmers would go and work, they still their own plots
@@Gordozinho A collective is not the same thing as a private plot. With a collective farm, the farmers do not own it. The state is effectively the owner. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nut it was silly to completley ban private plots and boot farmers off of their land. Plus a lot of evidence suggests that people take better care of farms that they partly own. Limited private ownership is not a problem imo, exploitation of many employees is. Private plots existed under Stalin, but to a very limited extent but were mostly prohibited until Khrushchev's reforms. North Korea had a similar process. Originally, farmers could not own their own farms but later on they liberalized to a limited extent allowing for private plots. th-cam.com/video/yW9JEPSJQOs/w-d-xo.html
@@neebomb2511 This podcast was not so much about why the USSR collapsed, but rather what went wrong. Problems with it etc.. I believe the Soviet Union could have probably continued for 30 more years if Gorbachev didn't do Perestroika and Glasnost, that still does not change the underlying problems with the USSR and things disliked about it. A system can be extremely flawed and still continue for a long time. Capitalist countries are a prime example
@@1Dimee mate any recommendations on books on the economic problems of the ussr?
One sided against fascists and capitalist propaganda? Yes. There is only one side of the story, and if you don't uphold that side you uphold imperialism, even unknowingly.
After the fall of the Soviet Union the public sector in Norway got worse, the even privetised public transport witch made it more expensive and wors quality.
In this picture is Joseph Stallone. Nice, now I have seen everything
i noticed that too
He looks like Sylvester Stallone
@@bobvargo1872 Yo Roosevelt what are we gonna do about this Hitler guy?
It’s pronounced “stalloooneee”
-Dave skylark
As an ML, based on what I know, I think your criticisms of the arguments of other MLs are all warranted. Ultimately I want to know the truth on these matters so if I ever manage to radicalize others, I don't just parrot overly-apologetic talking points on the USSR, if asked some of the usual questions. Excellent discussion.
Also, do you know of anyone who has taken time to debunk Grover Furr? I hear a lot how wrong his claims are but I take it his books have citations. Maybe not.
There are people who have debunked Grover Furr that you can find online. The problem with Grover Furr though i that he is so heavily discredited that most academics don't even take him seriously enough to debunk him. Furr is not even a historian (even less of a credible source on soviet history lol), he is a Medieval literature professor.
Another issue with Furr is that he mixes half truths with absolute conspiratorial claims (that Trotsky was a nazi collaborator etc..) and he sometimes uses correct data (that the murder count in the Soviet archives is much lower than what anti-communist propaganda proports) to jump to very ridiculous ideological conclusions. For example, Furr will interpret 800,000 people being killed under Stalin instead of 20 million as meaning that Stalin did nothing wrong. And he tries to pin the atrocities that he does admit occurred on the NKVD (as if it makes a difference if Stalin cosigned the NKVD's activities or not, the point is that these atrocities happened and that they should be acknowledged and never repeated again). For reading. I would recommend the reading recommendations listed in the description, but if you want something shorter, I highly recommend the recent 3 hour Cosmopod podcast on Stalin.
@@1DimeRadio Thanks! Yeah I'm starting to see what a joke his work really is, the more I learn. Thanks for the suggestions. By the way, your talk with Theory Pleeb was great. It would be cool if you two could do that again sometime.
@@weebgrinder-AIArtistPro Thanks for tuning in! I also have a lot of videos on the main 1Dime channel if you are interested.
This is the kind of honest discussion we desperately need more of on the left. I just refuse to accept the failure of the Soviet Union as the failure of all socialism everywhere forever.
A lot of people seemingly took to heart the "The end of history" line. I am pretty sure the same sentiment was shared by american slave owners in the 18th century, or german fascists in the 30s and early 40s of the 20th century - the sentiment "we won, nothing will change ever". But change is the only constant, and a socialist society is sure to happen eventually...
Mayv=be go back and read "The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals" By Leon Trotsky
That’s why I feel saying the USSR ‘failed’ is rather inaccurate. The USSR didn’t fail, it (for the most part) succeeded in what it set out to, which was giving the working class more control and better lives. Of course they had their failings, but to say that the project as a whole failed is misleading.
@@phoenix5496 Its wrong to view socialism and the workers struggle as economism only just as it would be to view the struggle of the rising bourgeois class only in economics. The Spanish were much wealthier than Britain at the beginning of the age of world trade and exploration. The Swiss were able to early on establish a Republican federation that Lenin thought would be one of the last countries to adopt socialism and refused to adopt fascism despite being surrounded durring WW2. Lenin declared victory after one more day the 70 day Paris Commune of 1870. Like Marx they built a Communist International with the eucess of the Russian Revolution using the lesson they had learned from the October Revolution. With the victory in the civil war they took a calculated step back from War Communism with the NEP. When they realised they had temporarily lost the 1923 German Revolution Leinin turned to tearing Imperialism limb by limb.
It was a great discussion, thank you. Though I would play the Devil's advocate for a moment and just mention that the NKVD were crucial during the Great Patriotic War - both as soldiers (e.g. Brest) and organizers.
Edit: tbh your point on Eastern European immigrants is...awful. Thr fact that they had enough money to move to the US speaks volumes, doesn't it? Especially if they are Ukrainian, Moldovan or Russian (not from Moscow). Also don't forget that we are constantly being brainwashed with neoliberal or outright fascism for the last 30 years. It is not to say that everything in the USSR was fine and everyone was happy, but the very notion that you should listen to affluent (again, if they moved to the fucking US of A or Canada - they are affluent by default, no exception) émigres is ridiculous. BadEmpanada's short video mocking such immigrants from the Latin America is a good example of what I am talking about here.
P.S.: I am Ukrainian, still living in Ukraine, so I really think that my opinion is worth more than of fucking fascistic Ukrainian diaspora in Canada.
BadEmpanada supports the GAZA fascist Hamas. Hamas came from the Egyptian Brotherhood who sheltered the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti was an ally of Hitler and the final solution. Putin blames Ukraine independence on Lenin. He flies the flag of the CZAR and the Counter revolution. Trotsky was murdered in Mexico but not without leaving a movement behind. The Militant is still published along with books and available on line. Stalin's NKVD murdered the Spanish revolution.
Sylvester Stalline 😂😂😂
No seriously though, thanks for putting this on.
Melody
YO ADRIATIC!
I enjoyed this a lot, you both brought up a lot of points I hadn't heard before. Its always good to criticize former Socialism and learn lessons from it.
Stalin looks like Sylvester Stallone there
Yesss
On the topic of the problem of the Soviet Union emerging from a pre-capitalist society:
I think that Marx was being Eurocentric in his analysis of which countries would be ripe for revolution, but his BIGGEST flaw in his analysis was not his thinking that the revolution would emerge from more “developed” countries, it’s that he failed to account for the colonial powers of the newly dividing world. He was CORRECT that the revolutions would emerge from capitalist development. That is why every socialist country has an extensive period of rapid state capitalist production and come from exploited countries. From the USSR to China to Vietnam. All the same.
Anarchists and Leftcoms make the mistake of thinking “state capitalism” is a rejection of Socialism, but the efforts of the Soviets and other communist movements was clearly to achieve socialism and eventually communism. They clearly failed to achieve communism and arguably failed to truly reach “true socialism”, but I think it’s short sighted for western leftists to look at the worlds largest boogeymen of the bourgeoisie and try to argue that their “purer” socialism would have gone any better.
In my opinion, they failed to achieve socialism and transcend state capitalism because the material conditions of the rest of the world were not ready to overthrow their bourgeoisie masters. I’m not necessarily a “third worldlist” but I do think that international revolution will only come when those exploited countries cut off the imperial core from cheap labor and resources.
Marx looked to the working class to lead the revolution. That is why you call him Eurocentric. He saw the Taiping Rebellion as leading to capitalism in China. Mao found himself leading a peasant Army but the Chinese Bourgeois showed its hostility to the working class when the murdered the Communists in the 1928 revolution. Mao was trying to work with the ideas of Stalin that came from the second international which is where his New Democracy comes from. in the end he was somewhat lucky because Chang refused to follow the advice of the Americans and form a coalition government with Mao in preparation for a Capitalist China. Mao had to create a New China without a national bourgeois. .
Ok, but why does this illustration of Stalin look like Sylvester Stallone?
Lol, I see it too.
I have been looking for a video along these lines and it's awesome that it ended up being you making it
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."-Mikhail Bakunin
I am thinking that the Communists should have listened to the Anarchists.
Remember folks, failing or succeed is always contingent and contextual
In some respects USSR and socialism hasn't failed, but in other respect it has. By that same logic capitalism has failed, and in other respects it has, miserably.
It's all a process
The USSR forsure had it's major successes, however it also had internal problems and at the end of the day the mission failed. We need to deeply study why it failed rather than looking for single scapegoats (Gorbachev, Khrushchev, etc..)
@@1DimeRadio western imperialism was too mighty maybe.. thats part of it.
Ussr was politically very unstable since it's inception......
@@leaveme3559 The weakness in the Soviet Union came from the criminal actions of Stalin and those who became his followers who murdered Lenin's party and the leaders of the revolution and by doing so.doomed the Soviet Union to a path back to capitalism without the creation of a new party that could return to the path staked out first by Marx and Engels and later Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin will be remembered as the Napoleon Bonaparte of the Russian revolution.
@@kimobrien. That is basically a Trotskyist strawman argument (in a way, the defining Trotskyist strawman argument) and is very much a dogmatic line which this video tries to avoid taking with regards to any "tendency" or "deviation".
edit: they said it themselves in the video description: 'For this podcast, we try to avoid the hurdles of one dimensional narratives from various ideological tendencies (Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Left Communism, Orthodox Marxism, Anarchism, Liberalism, conservatism, etc..) and try to give a balanced analysis of the USSR and the problems it faced.'
1:46:00
Khruvschev wasn't in charge of Ukraine during the famine. It was Kaganovich, he wasn't responsible for the famine either, it was the collective leaders that lied about the numbers. There's a lot of things I disagree with in this podcast but overall it's a good thing
I never said he was responsible for the famine. He wasn't. But yeah, thanks for the correction, Kaganorvich was in charge of the Ukraine central committee, Khrushchev was second in command though.
@@1DimeRadio
Also yeah Khruvschev was responsible for the purges in Ukraine. I really wish I could discuss this with you but I have no mic. I feel that there is a perspective missing here, that of someone who lives in backwardness
End of the day, Stalin knew there was a famine and kept exporting grain. That's at least severe negligence.
@@lepjagman
He didn't know there was a famine the Farm Collective leaders were lying about the numbers to save face and when he did know it was too late
@@lepjagman No not really the grain that was exported during the famine was nothing other than payment for goods purchased by the USSR prior to the famine. Soviet exports dropped massively during the famine as they were cut by 60% and their imports of grain would double
I am personally making a hoi4 mod that asks what if the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc survived. The main reason why the eastern bloc survives is mainly because Krushev and his faction did not take power so the dictatorship of the proleteriot did not end in the soviet unon. A butterfly effect happends in the eastern bloc such as sino-soviet split never happening, the USSR adopting the mass line and project OGAS becoming a reality. This podcast very insightful for writing in the mod. I was listening to this when I was writing the malenkov's speech, an alternate to krushev's speech.
Hi comrade, any updates on this mod?
any updates on this mod?
Stalin actually had a lot of responsibility for why the Sino-Soviet split happened, although it didn’t come to the fore seriously until Khrushchev. Stalin’s policy towards China was a catastrophe for the Chinese communists, and Mao apparently hated Stalin.
According to Mao's writings he kinda liked Stalin.
@@raiogelato6921But Mao was very much opposed to Stalins general politics. Stalin didn't do that much to support foreign revolution which basically culminated in the policy of peaceful coexistence.
Oh boy 1Dime time!
I had to listen in two different sets. I hope that doesn't hurt the sorting computer algebra.
Wonderful Podcast Comrade. Came here from The (legendary) Marxist project. Glad to have found your channel Comrade.
I'm pretty sure when you asked the AI to make the thumbnail, you asked for "Stalin" and you got "Stallone"
The music at the end slaps so fucking hard.
Great conversation, keep at work like this.
As an anarchist, I found this to be a very fair and balanced discussion. Thanks guys!
this made me laugh out loud
@@1DimeRadio Well shit. That tells me a lot.
And it's not good.
Just recently discovering your channel and podcast, amazing content honestly. Very easy to listen to while at work. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, time to learn about socialism on company time
LOL. That thumbnail. Stalin looks like Sylvester Stallone with a moustache.
AI must have got confused.
This video was really cool, I'd especially love to see the topic of Grover Furr expanded since he's such a seemingly popular figure on the ML and MLM spaces online
Check out the Swampside Chats podcast on Stalin and Grover Furr
Stallone looks good with mustache 👍🏻
Very useful material. Thank you.
Though Grover Furr goes too far by saying Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong, he has some very good points, validated by marxist historian pairs, and criticized by conservative and libertarian historians. Most of Krushchev speech was indeed lies, as shown by recently opened archives.
Interesting, but why do you have a picture of Sylvester Stallone on the right?
Sylvester Stalin!
Why does Stalin look like Sylvester Stallone 😂
Damn, you beat me to it!
The socialism in one country is a very hard question to answer because on one hand we will like to start the revolution in one country but the counter revolution plus oppressing forces that would counter that new revolution will make the struggle of the working class more susceptible on the other hand Engels in his pamphlet principles of communism bring another question to the equation in regards to this.
I think you guys should just merge into one show. I like your conversations a lot
Why Stalin looks like Stallone
@1Dimee very interesting again. Did you do part two? [edit: found it!] I was intrigued to get on to economics. You make some good points about pluralism, which is important. And secrecy, which was a massive, massive problem. I understand that as well as state control of photocopying, typewriters had to be registered with the police.
However, the USSR was a project that promised jam in our lifetime. The material welfare of the soviet population did go up, quite a bit. But - here's the but - not enough.
Watching a documentary about the soviet-afghan war, one of the Russian soldiers remembered 'it was like being in the 1001 nights, the markets had blue jeans and oranges, things we couldn't get at home'. In a Kabul market. In 1979.
I think you cannot do efficient economic work without some form of market mechanism. And by efficient I don't mean cheaper, cheaper all the way. I mean not running out of potatoes in Moscow. Farming - cadres and theory just do NOT grow food as effectively as farmers. Industry - in the 30's during the rush for industrial development and in the 40's during Total War a planned economy is required. UK and USA had total control of theirs. But for normal life, not so much. And having to queue for 2hours to get potatoes. Day after day after day. It gets on people's tits.
Democracy - you both make good points about participatory democracy. But the only use of democracy is to remove people who've f#cked up. If this is not possible, then what incentive for change?
Very much enjoying the channel, even if I am a dirty Lib!
great discussion, really elevated this thoroughly beaten deceased equine
Are you being sarcastic?
"We're gonna be talking about Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev in Part 2"
What? No Andropov and Chernenko? /s
They did not last long enough for there to be much to say about them. If you want my take though, Andropov would have been a lot better than Gorbachev for many reasons, but he was a bit of a hardliner and may have governed like Honecker in the DDR
@@1DimeRadio I was joking man
@@1DimeRadio Agree completely on Andropov though, going by the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. He had his softer side though, with the whole Samantha Smith stuff. :D
@@Afriboy10 Ah yes I remember reading about that spectacle. The cold war was intense
I swear.. Gorbachev has South East Asia maps written on his head 😳..
Why is Stalin here, Sylvester Stallone?
Still screaming Adrieeeen even across the Volga river in 1943.
Lmfaooo 😂
For the first part of this discussion, here's a quote from Stalin:
(...)For what is implied by making the building of socialism in our country dependent on "direct state support from the European proletariat"? What if the European proletariat does not succeed in seizing power within the next few years? *Can our revolution mark time for an indefinite period, pending the victory of the revolution in the West? Can it be expected that the bourgeoisie of our country will agree to wait for the victory of the revolution in the West and renounce its work and its struggle against the socialist elements in our economy?* Does not this formula of Trotsky's denote the prospect of a gradual surrender of our positions to the capitalist elements in our economy, and then the prospect of our Party's retiring from power in the event of a victorious revolution in the West being delayed?
It really wouldn't make sense to wait until capitalism develops on it's own so you can start revolution. Just the fact that proletariat was a growing class is enough, fuck waiting. If you're ready - you're ready.
Look where this position got us.
You can’t rush greatness -Lebron
Stalin in the thumbnail looks like Sylvester Stallone
well this was fun thanks bois im more of a tankie so this was intrasting to me
I never knew the Italian Stallion was a Soviet Dictator
Amongst many other things
Looks more like Sly Stallone than Koba!
What is that amazing song at the end?
Red Alert 3 Soviet theme. It’s a banger but it’s pretty funny that it’s from red alert
why stalin looks like rocky balboa?
Sylvester Stalline
Sylsphefor Stalone isnt real he cant hurt you Sylsphefor Stalone:
Only hard problem and I have with this analysis is the use of the shady and ridiculous category of totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt did a great disservice spreading this crap around that explains nothing and bunch together very different systems.
Let me ask you this: if you can’t criticize the government without getting followed by the secret police, can’t public books or media that are critical of the government, can’t leave the country and emigrate to a new country without the strictest of state approval, and can’t visit the country without a state sanctioned tour, then how can that society not be considered totalitarian? Every state is authoritarian, but not every state is totalitarian.
Take modern Cuba versus the DPRK and Stalinist Russia for example. As 1D said, Cuba does not censor their internet and allows people to visit and leave the country while the DPRK and Stalinist Russia heavily censored information and didn’t/don’t allow people yo even visit without a state sanctioned tour.
Totalitarianism is a thing and socialism does not have to be totalitarian
Once you build a wall to prevent people from leaving your country, then the system has already failed..
@@1DimeRadio This doesn't address the problem with the political/sociological category of "totalitarism". I'm not talking about the GDR and such.
But I liked the video, this is only a minor disagreement. Both of you do good work : )
@@Guilherme-J I think the category of totalitarianism, although abused by liberals, is a more useful term than "authoritarianism." Every state is authoritarian by design but not every state is totalitarian. I don't even think that all AES countries were/are all totalitarian. I am primarily referring to certain countries during certain periods. For example, the Stalin era of the USSR, the DDR, the DPRK, Hoxha's Albania, and Ceaucescu's Romania could be described as "totalitarian." In contrast. Mao's China, Khrushchev's USSR, and modern Cuba could be described as "authoritarian" (so is the USA and most countries), but not "totalitarian" in my view.
That's my take anyway. I think abandoning the discussion of totalitarianism all together can lead to some dangerous denialism and apologia of serious excessive political repression.
I more so subscribe to Marcuse's use of "totalitarianism" rather than Hannah Arendt (although he work has some important value, I absolutely despise her politics)
@@1DimeRadio who's Hannah Arendt again??
Why is Stallone appearing as Staline?
Why does Stalin looks like Sylvester Stallone? xdd
I cant be the only one seeing Josef Stallone in this picture
Yo Vladimir, we did it!! Face ass 😂😂
HOW DID YOU GET SYLVESTER STALLONE TO SIT FOR A PORTRAIT?
Stalin looks like stallone
Didn't know Sylvester Stalone was a member of the communist party.
All i can see is Sylvester Stallone
Cybernetics, yes OGAST they should have optimized instead of capitalized (Gorbachev and Kruschev started to).
Could be a bit more well prepared and structured. I feel that the 1st hour was kind of off topic.
Still, interesting conversation.
please make a video on GDR!
In the early 1990s, elements within the Soviet party elites opportunistically launched a successful counter-revolutionary coup. With disastrous results for the working class.
This could potentially have been avoided via the implementation of a comprehensive cybernetic socialist planned economy, but regrettably this never happened.
The reason for the non-implementation of a comprehensive cybernetic planned economic model (like Project Cybersyn) in countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany was due to the degeneration or deformation of the revolutions and the subsequent dominance of the bureaucratic ruling strata, commonly referred to as the nomenklatura.
The Soviet Union and other socialist states experienced a degeneration of the originally proletarian-led revolutions. The rise of a bureaucratic caste or ruling elite within the state apparatus led to the entrenchment of their power and self-interest, often at the expense of the socialist goals and principles.
In the context of implementing a comprehensive cybernetic planned economic model, the nomenklatura, who held significant control over economic and political decision-making, tended to resist any changes that could potentially diminish their power or challenge their privileges. This resistance could manifest in various forms, such as blocking or obstructing technological advancements, maintaining centralized control over the economy, or prioritizing their own interests over the collective goals of socialist planning.
The failure to implement advanced technological systems like Project Cybersyn could be attributed to the interests and resistance of the bureaucratic ruling strata, who were more concerned with maintaining their own power and privileges rather than advancing socialist planning and democratization of economic decision-making. This is the exact reason why OGAS (the Soviet cybernetic automation project) wasn't implemented.
I doubt a algocratic planned economy would be a universal cure that cures every problem in the system, i also think the problem wasnt so tied to economic planning as you claim it to be
Think that weakening the central authority of the Cuban Communist Party under the sanctions of the US might be dangerous to Communism in Cuba?
It’s not that I didn’t like it but couldn’t you shut up and listen just for a second.
Listen is the crucial part of conversation or debate.
Nope its the liberal ideology in the head. You are just making individual monologue and then act like its a dialogue.
OGAST could have been used to expose the oppression of the poor by the west internally and externally (colonial/Imperialism).
It was mainly a cultural-ideological issue, having mostly to do with the formation of a class of higher rank government employees idealizing the us and adopting the market theology.
just read The Revolution Betrayed.
It's ok. Trotsky was right about the bureaucracy and some other things, but I don't think it explains everything. I also doubt that Trotsky would have been as dramatically different than Stalin as people often think. For instance, in the late 20s Trotsky supported an economic plan that looked a lot like forced collectivization and he also does not seem put a lot of thought into the democracy question until he was ousted from the party (as evidenced by his early book on terrorism and communism).
@@1Dimee are we takling about the same book? Trotsky wrote The Revolution Betrayed a few years befordre Breznev and Gorbachov 😅
@@KoeligKas Yeah I originally thought you said "Socialism Betrayed" which is an entirely different book but then realized you meant Trotsky's book lol. I revised my comment now. My bad
@@1Dimee lol, trotsky was an actual marxist, stalin killed comrades and revolutionary heroes in show trials. I hate when people compare the two, one was an actual revolutionary the other a traitor to socialism. And its not even about who would have led the USSR or not, fuck "great-man-history". Society is made by people, structures, institutions. It all comes down to the production forces and who controls them. Lenins vision was for them to be democratically controlled by the soviets. Stalin betrayed this vision and gave over the control to the bureaucracy in trade for getting to be top dog himself. All this is explained and argued for in great detail (and with vastly better arguments than what this humble youtubecomment can provide) in the book. In my opinion The Revolution Betrayed is as of yet the most comprehensive marxist analysis of the problems of the USSR ever written, but unfortunately too many completely ignore the trotskyist branch of marxism.
@@KoeligKas Trotsky was a great theorist and legendary revolutionary. I agree with most of what you are saying. But I don't consider myself a Trotskyist though
This whole thing was like reading western media, full of misinformation, disinformation, right wing stuff even. Calling the USSR totalitarian or even using that term put the lid on everything. Western left is lost.
Yea it is!
"Western left" the Eastern left is no better
@@thomasallister3446 Why not? Cause the western pseudoleft told you so? The eastern left exists and fights colonialism. In the west, the left is sanitized to the point they lost revolutionary potential.
@@thomasallister3446 the west is the ones who are doing the imperialism and so the western left just wants a bigger share of said imperialism... global south left wants or SHOULD want... (i hope) to fight against imperialism altogether. The western left consisting of a labour aristocracy isnt even capable of thinking about doing away with imperialism.
They are trying to talk about the USSR in a nuanced way, which is easier said than done.
I disagree. I think if the 1919 German workers revolution succeeded, WWII would be West against Communist, and the Communist would have collapsed most likely. Lenin should have negotiated Brest-Litovsk, and the Red Army should of guaranteed the safety of the Check legions as they escort them out of the country rather than trying to disarm them.
Rather than quotas they could of just ran worker coops which act like capitalist cooperatively owned businesses but as they compete and some go out of business, instead of bailing them out, that state takes over. A new small innovative unfunded business is bonded to it by the state. It is now successful, but state owned. The shares of the cooperative are bought by the state and the inefficiency is removed because it is operating like before but with the employees being all state employees. No one makes more than 8 times the lowest paid worker, bosses are elected every six months bonuses for all for production targets, but no inefficiencies. If Kruschev used soil erosion abatement techniques his new grain yields in the late 50s would f continued. If Stalin had imposed his scientific socialism in which everyone is made experts in their fields through formal education and scientific research that may have been avoided.
they have bad real estate and didn't get involved in free markets snd trade.
Cheap fuel hurt the USSR in the 80s as they still did not have autarchy so had to sell gas and oil to Europe which was profitable in the 70s but not after the oil glut caused oil prices to fall precipitously in 1983.
This CAN'T be an accident 😂
Stalin Stallone
So..... That explains a LOT
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics opened an era of a new type of development of culture and civilization, and its experience in crushing Nazism is invaluable today, in the context of a global conflict, the main front of which has been transferred to Ukraine, believes Professor of Philosophy at the Technical University of Crete Dimitrios Patelis, Candidate of Philosophy.
"On December 30, 2022, all progressive humanity celebrates the centenary of the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR, the fruit of the first early victorious revolution, opened the era of a revolutionary transition to a new type of development of culture and civilization: to a united humanity. This was the triumph of the revolutionary creativity of the oppressed, proven by the example of the USSR "that they can take their destiny into their own hands, emancipate society, begin unprecedented revolutionary transformations, overcoming antagonisms and exploitation, towards a society of solidarity and humanity," Patelis said.
In his opinion, the triumphal march of the USSR is associated with the world-historical achievements of man: the fight against illiteracy, the establishment of a number of social benefits, free education, healthcare, medical care, proper rest, the rapid development of the economy, society, science, technology, sports, art and culture .
“A titanic feat was the crushing of the anti-Comintern axis by the Soviet Red Army thanks to the self-denial and self-sacrifice of the entire people of the USSR, ensuring the world with nuclear parity, internationalist assistance to the world anti-imperialist movement, as well as primacy in space exploration. A clear example of internationalism is providing access to education in USSR universities to students from different capitalist countries, thanks to which I personally received an excellent education,” the professor noted.
What did the Soviet government of the USSR give to the people?
1.The right to an eight-hour working day. For the first time in the world in the history of mankind.
2. The right to annual paid leave. For the first time in human history.
3. The impossibility of dismissing an employee on the initiative of the administration or the owner without the consent of the trade union and party organization.
4. The right to work, to the opportunity to earn a living by one’s own labor. Moreover, graduates of vocational educational institutions had the right to compulsory employment in the labor field with the provision of housing in the form of a dormitory or apartment.
5. The right to free general and vocational education. Moreover, both secondary vocational education and higher education. For the first time in the world.
6. The right to free use of preschool institutions: nurseries, kindergartens, pioneer camps. For the first time in the world.
7. The right to free medical care. For the first time in the world.
8. The right to free sanatorium and resort treatment. For the first time in the world.
9. The right to free housing. For the first time in the world
10. The right to protect the state from the arbitrariness of local bosses and officials. For the first time in the world.
11. The right to free travel to the place of work or study using an individual travel document paid for by the state. For the first time in the world.
In addition, women had the right to a number of additional benefits:
1. The right to three years of maternity leave with job retention. (56 days - fully paid, 1.5 years - benefits, 3 years - without interruption of service and a ban on dismissal from the administration.).
2. The right to free foster care for a child for up to one year.
3. The right to a free dairy kitchen for newborns up to three years of age.
4. The right to free medical and sanatorium-resort treatment for any childhood diseases.
There was nothing like this in any country in the world and there could not even be a trace of it. Some social benefits in foreign countries began to appear only after the Second World War as a result of a powerful labor movement caused by the existence on the planet of the Soviet state, the State of Workers and Peasants.
Citizens of the USSR had much more rights than Americans or Germans! But those don’t have them today, and don’t expect them to.
In addition, in the USSR cross-subsidization made payments for utility services symbolic. When setting prices for certain goods in the USSR, they were primarily based on their social significance. Therefore, meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, and many varieties of fish and fish products were sold below cost and at constant prices. Children's clothing and shoes, textbooks for schools and universities, toys, notebooks and other writing materials, medicines, cotton fabrics and many other goods were sold at a loss. State subsidies for these purposes amounted to tens of billions of rubles annually. The state partially covered its losses through high prices for jewelry, natural furs and other luxury goods, and alcoholic beverages. But the main source of subsidies is the profits of state-owned enterprises. By spending a significant portion of the profits of its enterprises on subsidies, the state covered its losses. Losses in favor of the consumer!!!
26:00 well said
Bottom up! Kruschev was a former peasant.
The Spanish revolution, the Ukranian revolution, they had been fought by the bolshevik, but they could have succeeded without that authoritarianism. They fought each other in Spain instead of fighting Franco because of Stalin's orders. The Kurdish revolution, came out from chaos. Maybe it won't last, but it has lasted enough to demonstrate that that authoritarianism and political oppression of factions is not strictly needed even in chaotic situations like those. Leninism was already bringing in itself the seed for that. Rosa Luxemburg among others, not only anarchists, saw this
Why is Stalin actually Sylvester Stallone?
Sylvester Stalin !
this video will be seen by more people than any of lenin’s most popular works, ( her only had a few thousand readers) keep uploading content !!
Sylvester Stalin
In the villages of the Volga Germans there was no distinction between richer farmers and hired agricultural workers, since most of them were either Mennonites (similar to Amish) or very dedicated Lutherans. Every farmer in the village had the same size of land, the communal land around the village was managed equally with lots redistributed each year before cultivating season. Basically it already was some kind of village socialism. But this didn't spare them from the Red Terror.
The Volga German were the most productive farmers in all of Russia and thus they were mercilessly plundered by the Bolsheviks allready during the Civil War, simply because there was more to plunder there than in ethnic Russian regions. The requisition commandos took everythink they could get hold on and shipped the harvest off to the Bolshevik stronghold cities or for export, causing a huge famine that took the lifes of about 20% of all Volga Germans as early as 1921.
The question would be more like, what didn’t go wrong?
Cuba is a no party state not a one party state
Yes Cuba is basically a one party state, but in many ways it is more democratic than liberal democracies (in terms of participation and ability to become part of the government and influence policy).
It would be much better to read Conquest 1:33:40
ᑭᖇOᗰOᔕᗰ
TL;DW 1dime is a fucking liberal
What doss that word mean to you exactly
42
???
Stalin looks like Stallone
Did anyone else notice that the rendition of Stalin...looks like Sylvester Stallone? Was that intentional?
45:40 "What some Marxist-Leninists like to say, under Stalin is when the Soviet Union first became socialist. I mean, it was obviously socialist in tendency, but when it transitioned to socialist mode of production by the state owning everything..."
That's not socialism. That statism. I hate it when socialists talk about socialism as STATE ownership and STATE control, because when they talk about it in those terms, they point to examples where the state was mostly top-down above the proletariat, rather than being the proletariat itself.
The lack of a market economy, the lack of private control, does NOT make socialism. Other systems encompass those things, too. Pointing to North Korea as an example of a socialist country is just as ludicrous as pointing to the USSR under Stalin as a socialist country, just as pointing to Cambodia under Pol Pot...or the United States at any period.
Talking about statist systems that were admitted to be totalitarian and autocratic, and calling them socialist...I guess "thank you for proving us right" on behalf of anti-communists everywhere? Because you're admitting on behalf of socialists that totalitarian statism is socialism, even as you say that totalitarianism gets in the way of socialism. And that only makes it harder to convince anti-socialists that socialism really isn't exactly that.
I don't entirely disagree
48:08 Wrong not just Conquest but all historians
The USSR wasn’t worth it in hindsight. Should have just become social democracies and patiently waited for production to rise organically, and made peace with its enemies.
Yeah man they would totally survive , social democracy in Russia is now SO big isn’t it :)
You only think that because it ""failed"".
Try a Hakim or Viki1999 video for more info
Social "Democracy"= Soft arm of Fascism
The ussr was the best thing that happened to russia but not the best thing for global communism is the answer. It improved everything in russia but the ideological and actual aggressive war that is happening until today is the bad part about global communism. Everyone always thinks Communism is exactly like in the soviet union all the time... capitalism is different aswell everywhere. It could very well be that when in the future (where there is no apocalypse) that a socialism is completely different... like the capitalism in saudi arabia is completely different to capitalism in Germany.
@tormunnvii3317 What ahistorical and uninformed drivel.
A lot :(
What happened? Marxism happened. How many times do you have to try this? 😂
Почему сталин похож на сталонн?