Orwell literally fought on the side of anarcho-communists in the Spanish civil war though. Doesn't that tell you a bit about what type of system he was criticising with the book?
We need, as commies, to establish grassroots movements that will improve things locally, create safety nets, organize labor to get progressively better victories through strike and if necessary through other means, and to have a growing sector of workers that are class-conscious. When the material conditions arrive, we need to have a critical mass of class-conscious workers so that we can organise as best as possible, and help to educate the rest of people, and to discuss the wants and needs of the workers and translate those needs to the vanguard party. But we also need the vanguard party.
You talk about how things can "go wrong and corrupt the entire thing", but by doing so you're forgetting that that's already the case, that we live in a corrupt, bloody and oppressive system, which kills millions every year worldwide through violent and less-violent means. You say it's never happened, but I disagree with you. Ask an anarchist and they'll tell you about Zapatista and Rohinya movements. Ask a Marxist-Leninist like me and we'll tell you about Cuba and the USSR and why we believe they're inherently more democratic and less oppressive than the current system, although admittedly not perfect. Our best tool to prevent the system from being corrupt, is to have as many class-conscious workers as possible. So let's organise labor, let's create communities and activist organizations, and let's improve things on a local level, so that people's material conditions start to improve and as a bonus we can draw more people to the movement that actively improves their lives.
You're insulting all the people who suffered even more oppressive regimes than Stalin or Mao as a consequence of NOT arming themselves. Chileans suffered Pinochet as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascist opposition during Allende. Spanish suffered Franco as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascists during the Spanish Second Republic. Oppression is sadly a tool that must be used, as sparingly as possible that's true, to prevent reactionary elements from maintaining or reinstating even more oppressive structures.
People everyday in post-colonial countries suffer immeasurable despair as a consequence of lack of revolution. If you criticise Stalin or Mao and consider them undesirable and illegitimate, you should be even more convinced of the illegitimacy of current western governments that impose imperialism on the global south. Every day that we delay or refuse these armed revolutions, we're perpetuating this system which is even more harmful than the USSR or communist China by any metric possible.
The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn't want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
You really think the US is the only American colony that seceded from its colonial authority by means of violence? And are you implying that the current US government isn't tyrannical?
or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system
You're just making that up. You're tautologically defining any successful violent revolution as failed because it didn't eliminate every single hierarchy overnight. Even if I'm a Marxist-Leninist I can conceive why you'd make that argument about the USSR (though I'd disagree with you), but if you make that argument about Cuba too you're just wrong. Cuba is a state much more democratic and much less oppressive by every metric than its predecessor. You're just falling into that mentality that "the only acceptable revolutions are those which failed".
Additionally, you're failing to acknowledge that non-violent revolutions, such as Allende's Chile and the Spanish Second Republic, can end up in bloodshed and a more authoritarian and repressive form of government not as a consequence of violent revolution, but as a consequence of the lack of it. As a Spanish myself, I'd have much rather seen a version of my country where there was an armed socialist repression against fascism (for example by the CNT or some Bolshevik party), than the history we lived, where a democratically elected, non-violent leftist government was nevertheless couped, plunged into civil war, and eventually turned into fascism. An armed revolution could have actually possibly prevented that. (Funny historical note: the only country that really supported the struggle against fascism in Spain was the USSR, despite the Italian and German fascists helping their Spanish counterpart.)
You say that as if communists don't want democracy. I want the highest degree of democracy possible, I just understand that the material conditions that allow revolutions don't always allow for extremely high democracy at the beginning, and how a vanguard party of communist intellectuals can initially serve well to guide an uneducated populace or, worse, educated against communism as we are now.
Anti-communists thinking that by doing blanket condemnations of past mistakes instead of historical and material analysis of why it happened, how much was necessary, and how much was the excess, they can totally avoid them in the future and bring down capitalism with the power of love.
What's the alternative? Ending up like Allende, or the Spanish second republic, or Rosa Luxembourg? "The only good socialist movements are those who fail"
I'm sorry but citing England and France, two of the most imperialist countries in the world, as examples of where workers managed to achieve victories against capital, is a bit racist to me. The whole welfare in the Global North (for the lucky ones who enjoy it) is built upon unequal exchange with colonial countries. It's imperative to understand that non-internationalist worker movements that don't care about imperialism are the actual bourgeois concessions that you mentioned earlier.
Zapatistas and Rohinya are some of the few examples of functional, more anarchist and decentralised cases of socialist movements that triumphed, and while all of my support goes to them and I love what they're doing, they're regional and small movements for a reason. As soon as the west seems them powerful or big or influential enough to be a threat, I fear they'll be eliminated.
Currently the democratic socialist movements have more control in the Democratic world, global South and global North, than the Leninists do.
Excuse me, which demsoc movements have control in the so-called "democratic world"?
The very second that China, Vietnam, Cuba, or Laos actually allows for free elections between multiple socialist factions, and not just the control of society by a party elite, that's the second I'll consider those leninists more successful than the Democratic Socialists.
Speaking of Cuba, I bring another source: a book by Pedro Ross called "how the worker's parliaments saved the cuban revolution" on how the cuban unions democratically decided the future of the country in an unprecedentedly democratic manner during the so-called "periodo especial" in the 90s when Cuba's main economic partner, the USSR, dissolved overnight. It's a textbook example of what democracy means to me, much more so than multi-party liberal democracy systems in which 100% of the parties in power represent the oligarchic capital. Anyhow, how's your statement that as soon as they have multi-party systems you'll consider them successful, consistent with your claim that you measure success on the material conditions of the working class?
As for the longer comment I'll answer in another moment, I'm out right now. You're definitely one of the most reasonable anticommunists I've discussed with.
Thanks comrade. A good marxist would know that everything is propaganda.
sources would be nice
Won't be citing Wikipedia here, western Wikipedia sadly has an anti-soviet bias due to the literature available in the west as a consequence of anti-communism.
I know the coup attempt took place before October. But that doesn't point you to other possible coup attempts? You don't see a coup fail and go "oh thank god that's over" and keep doing the same, right?
Oh the good old, "Call them counter revolutionary and now it's okay to shoot them"
It's not me saying that. There were terrorist attempts on Lenin, and even some successful ones against prominent Bolsheviks.
The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries had a far bigger hand in the Febuary Revolution than the Bolsheviks, and later had their legitimacy confirmed with a free election
Yes, this is true, that's the whole point of the October Revolution. Mensheviks weren't just "another good'ol branch of socialists", the key issue here is that Mensheviks believed that for a revolution to happen, a prior capitalist phase (that Russia hadn't been through) must be a prerequisite. I don't see how forfeiting power to capital and letting it grow in private hands is the most intelligent idea for a socialist revolution. And you know what? Bolsheviks were right! You CAN establish socialism without a previous phase of capitalism. In the USSR, class relations disappeared, and the exploitation was no more.
"In this respect, through the Western lens of a dichotomy of independent unions versus company unions, they were more accurately comparable to company unions, as "unlike unions in the West, the Soviet variety do not fight for the economic interests of the workers. They are conveyor belts for Party instructions, carrying punishments and rewards to industrial and collective farm employees. Soviet trade unions work with their employer, the government, and not against it."
Again, great job citing Wikipedia, which cites itself an English/American author from 1985, not at all suspected of having an ideology of themselves right? If you want sources, you can read Pat Sloan's "Soviet Democracy", a 1939 book written by Pat Sloan, an Englishman who went to the USSR to work for some years and retold an account of the functioning of the system, including unions. Spoiler alert: unions did represent the workers and, among other things, they were responsible for such important things as the access to healthcare and housing for many of the workers. Saying that they were conveyors for instructions from the top down is nonsensical, especially seeing how union membership amounted to tens of millions of workers while being totally voluntary.
While the soviets did eventually institute some rather progressive welfare reforms for their time
"Eventually"? Really? Again, you're just spouting anti-communist propaganda. You can complain about repression but saying that the USSR "eventually" instituted progressive welfare is crazy, it's one of the earliest things the USSR did. The fact that healthcare and education are extremely important is absolutely not a matter of discussion for any socialist, and that you would say "had no popular demand from the working class" is insane.
I believe most Leninists would call this a Bourgeoisie Concession had it happened in a capitalist country.
You can be as smug as you want about it, but in a classless state there are no "concessions". There's no exploitation, so there's nothing to concede.
The Bolsheviks only faced an allied invasion after having pulled out of the war and signed a separate peace with the Germans through Brest-Litovsk
Damn Bolsheviks, signing peace treaties and pulling their country out of war... So evil!
The Tsarists had almost zero power
So little power that they could kickstart a 2-year-long civil war in which many Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries joined them, and in which more than a million and a half people died on the Bolshevik side. I'm sure independent unions controlling the industry separately would have fought much better against the White armies.
and it would've stayed that way had the Bolsheviks not fractured the Russian socialist movement.
Blaming the russian civil war on Bolsheviks instead of the actual, literal monarchic fascists that wanted to restore the Russian Empire. God, I don't know how people like you can self-declare as leftists.
I actually have far more of a problem with Stalins actions in the 1920s before the Great Purge and World War 2. Between Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Ryhzkov, and their supporters, Stalin had effectively crushed any opposition even within the party. Not though discrediting them intellectually or by testing their ideas and showing the failures, but instead by killing or imprisoning them.
I also have problems with this repression because, surprise surprise, people can have nuance about the USSR and its past and history beyond "Lenin bad". I'm fully aware of the repression against Trotskyism and the oppressive descent of the USSR in Stalinist times. What you anti-communists refuse to do is to analyze the material conditions of the moment. We're talking of the first Socialist experiment ever. They didn't know what they'd encounter, they only experienced war, initially military but later also economically, against their surrounding countries, for the sake of daring to be socialists. They had lived through tsarist repression and murder, and just come out of a brutal WW1 and an equally brutal civil war. If you think it's possible to have a revolution without excesses and mistakes, you're sorely mistaken. That doesn't discredit the entire revolution, its ideals, and its achievements, at least it doesn't to me, whereas it clearly does for anti-communists like you.
I thoroughly believe these conflicts during the 1920s were what doomed the USSR, Stalin had killed almost all competing ideas for a potentially better Socialism, even among fellow Leninists.
Again, these things don't happen in a vacuum. There is a need for varying degrees of centralization depending on the material conditions. I ultimately agree that there was way too much power in the higher spheres of the USSR, which ironically led to the demise of the country once the higher ups decided it was time to "liberalize" the economy and the politics, aka Glasnost and Perestroika. But refusing to do material analysis of the circumstances, and reducing everything to "Lenin bad", is counterproductive.
Without giving a context to everything that happened in the USSR, it's very easy to judge the mistakes, but believing that "Lenin was bad and we'd do better nowadays" is delusional and shows a poor understanding of the underlying reasons, which when our revolution comes, will come to haunt us in the form of excessive and disorganized repression because of the lack of a plan for it, or as I said, even worse, a failure of the revolution as happened in my home country, Spain. Spain, during the time of the second republic, had a leftist government composed of a coalition of socialdemocrats, communists and anarchists. They were implementing land reforms according to the will of the majority, but because of the resistance of landowners and capitalists, this didn't go smoothly. Instead of applying repression against reactionary elements, and a vanguard party taking control of a revolution, what happened is that the fascists attempted a coup that plunged the country into a bloody civil war that tore the country apart, and ultimately implemented nation-wide fascism for almost four decades. Funnily enough, nobody on the left talks or complains about the excesses of violence carried out by the antifascist side during the civil war, such as burning churches with priests alive inside, or raping nuns, or execution of fascist prisoners, or even infighting among the leftist parties. You know why? Because it failed, and failed leftist movements aren't criticised but idealised by people like you. Only successful attempts of socialism deserve the ruthless public scrutiny that you guys apply. And scrutiny they deserve, but not without material and historical context that again, you guys so often forget about.
That is what I tried to do here, and is why I'm majoring in Soviet history
Can I ask where you're majoring in Soviet history? I'm interested.
imagine how much could've changed had after the civil war the Factions ban been lifted and the working class was allowed to choose between the Workers Opposition, Left Opposition or Right Opposition in free and fair internal Party elections like takes place now in most modern Socialist parties. I'm sure in this scenario Stalin wouldn't of been able to commit the atrocities he later did, and that Soviet politics would rely much more on the will of the working class than behind the curtain political maneuvering.
We can imagine the ideal utopian past where all humans were perfect and excesses weren't committed, and repression was applied just in the right manner and only on fascist elements. We can also imagine an ideal utopian past where the working class got exactly what they wanted after the revolution and nothing else, where land reform was carried out in the Menshevik way, where consumer goods were prioritized instead of the heavy industry, and where, as a consequence of the lack of heavy industry, a socialist peasant country was absolutely demolished by Nazi Germany and subjected to a holocaust. I would also love to imagine a Spain where there had been Bolsheviks and we had had some Bolshevik oppression for some years instead of 36 years of fascism.