Critically, the working classes were in charge of Chernobyl. Their mistakes were mistakes made by workers. The worker is not infallible.
The working classes were the dictators of production and distribution in the USSR, production was collectively owned and democratically planned.
How is the definition I gave wrong? You keep stating this but offer no actual explanation. Further, again, you dodge my question regarding anarchists and liberals called "tankies" for supporting socialist states, and just call me stupid for doing so. Why can't you answer? I can't imagine this attitude is useful for your real life organizing efforts, assuming you do actually organize.
I never equated tankies with all leftists, I gave a fully valid interpretation of the word that should satisfy both of us. You haven't actually engaged with that, just doubled down on insult for no apparent reason. I can't imagine this attitude is useful for the organizing work I assume you do.
The domestic labor movements across the US were heavily inspired by the recent successes of the Bolsheviks, and the capitalists were terrified of the same repression the workers bestowed upon them in Russia happening across the US Empire as well. The Russian Revolution fundamentally changed the entirety of labor struggles around the world.
Those are all parts of Marxism-Leninism, and the basis of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical materialism. Here's Lenin outlining the basics of Marxism in The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism:
The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.
Later on, he describes the philosophical section:
The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to "refute," undermine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defense or support of religion.
Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker.
But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel's system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx's dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their "new" reversions to old and decadent idealism.
Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.
Just as man's knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man's social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.
Marx's philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.
It's incredibly difficult to summarize an entire ideology in a short definition, especially one made by non-MLs.
We can see already that people do not tend to hoard that which isn't scarce, and further even if someone tried, we do not need to allow it.
I don't think people hoarde what they do not need to. Hoarding is driven by scarcity.
Why on Earth? Communism is the logical conclusion and subsequent beginning of human history.
What do you mean "migrating from?" ML aligned instances are fine. Some instances have defederated from them, and they can admit to being anticommunist if they wish. Really confusing messaging on your part.
Also strange behavior to assume I won't reply just because you've blocked me, I'm commenting more for others than I am for you. Others can still see your crashout.
The USSR was undoubtedly the most progressive force of the 20th century. Hundreds of millions of workers received much better lives, they defeated the Nazis, and supported anti-colonial revolutions all across the global south. It wasn't a utopia, but no place is, and such a requirement for a state to be worthy of support is pure idealism.
Lemmy.world doesn't pitch itself as a non-ML space. If Lemmy.world is anti-ML, then they should advertise as such, but presently it at least claims to be a generalist instance. I know de facto it is pretty overwhelmingly anticommunist, but this is changing over time. Further, MLs may want to interact with communities primarily on Lemmy.world, and should not be gatekept from that.








