You're taking things out of context. In the first example, Lenin specifically says "bourgeois reformist assertion", he's talking of monopoly in the context of a bourgeois state, not in a worker's state. He understands that for as long as a strong bourgeoisie exists, not even a state monopoly can be considered socialist, because the state is in fact controlled by the bourgeoisie.
That was until after the October revolution
Wow, so you're telling me that, when confronted with real situations and material conditions, the opinions of someone can change? Baffling.
This is around the time he stripped the soviets of their power and disenfranchised the workers in favour of a central state that alienated them from control over the means of production
Good luck fighting a civil war in which you get invaded by 14 other world powers for the sin of being a communist, while your industry is disorganized and not centralized towards the war-effort. Give as an answer as to how to fight and win such a war, maybe the entire communist part just didn't think hard enough? Or will you say that the people who spent most of their adult life in jail or exile for organizing workers and distributing communist newspapers during Tsarism were ackchually just power-hungry tyrants?
And now tankies are distancing themselves
Wait, so tankies are actually against centralized economic planning? Strawman
an analysis of what happened shows that the USSR liberalised quickly
"liberalism is when centrally-planned economy". Seriously, do you know what "liberalism" means?
You know your REAL problem with the Bolsheviks? That they won. The problem YOU have with Bolsheviks, is that they had to face real historical and material problems, and big ones, and therefore had to make tough decisions. You claim to know better than the people of the time that spent their literal lives in jail or exile prior to the revolution, studying and theorizing and discussing about communism in real life, risking their lives in organizing the workers and in fighting against Tsarism, and you know why? Because the ONLY socialists that supposed "leftists" like you will support, are the leftists who failed. You'll support Salvador Allende because he didn't face the real conditions of his time and didn't apply the necessary policy to fight the advance of fascism. You'll support the anarchists in the Spanish Second Republic because they failed to fight against fascism and, because of rejecting taking power, they didn't have to apply harsh policy to fight reactionarism. But you won't ever support actual socialists who DID understand the dangers of fascism and of capitalist counter-revolution, and actually did something about it, because as soon as they apply their ideology to real-world conditions, they're not perfect anymore. Because they ACTUALLY were a threat to the system, and so the propaganda will paint them as intolerable autocrats, and you'll swallow that propaganda whole and share the same views of socialists than fucking Zbigniew Brzezinsky.
The ideals: collectivisation of the means of production and of agricultural land, guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing, free universal healthcare and education to the highest level, guaranteed public pensions, equalization of wages between jobs, push towards unionisation, defence of LGTBQ and women's rights, defence of indigenous movements and racial minorities, anti-racism, anti-imperialism...
Criminalising homosexuality was a mistake, and a consequence of a process of rolling back on some of the cultural progress achieved during the 1920s in the USSR due to fear of a situation like the pushback against early collectivisation efforts after the end of the New Economic Policy era. Nobody on hexbear will excuse this. What they will tell you is the massive boost in literacy during Stalin's rule, especially among women; the guarantee of employment by the state, the immense equalisation of wages, the total elimination of private property through the collectivisation of agriculture and industry, the guarantee of free healthcare and education de jura and de facto, the world-unprecedented industrial growth and improvement of the economic situation of citizens of the Soviet Union, the massive push towards unionisation of workers and participation in policy through party membership, and the most intense struggle against fascism that costed 27 million Soviet lives.
Now, you named one right wing policy, I named a list of communist policy, please explain me how the overall is "right wing"
You can't say the same things about Churchill, there was no massive equalisation of wages in England during his rule, nor a planned economy guaranteeing a job to anyone who wanted a job, nor a collectivisation of agriculture and of the means of production, nor a state-backing of unions, nor an immense push towards literacy and women's rights and education...
Dude. The genocide has been ongoing during Biden administration, stop finding excuses, and "orange man worse", we know that Trump sucks, that's not a defense of a genocide supporter
My man here pulling out every trick to minimise the support with billions of dollars to a genocide. "Poor wittle Joe, the president of the most powerful country in the world, had no alternative but to send millions to genocide. But he cursed while doing so, so it's OK actually". Fuck that shit
My man here pulling out every trick to minimise the support with billions of dollars to a genocide. "Poor wittle Joe, the president of the most powerful country in the world, had no alternative but to send millions to genocide. But he cursed while doing so, so it's OK actually". Fuck that shit
Damn, everything he could for you like checks notes funding a genocide while the number of homeless rises at double digits percent each year. If that's the best a president can do, you need a change of system NOW
It's not so much that Russia is standing up to NATO but NATO standing up against Russia. Russia tried to approach the EU in the 2000s and early 2010s, there were as much as talks about it joining the EU. Diplomatically the west was OK, but in reality they were working to subvert Russian influence in previous countries friendly to Russia such as Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine through so-called "color revolutions". All this, after decades of pushing NATO eastward, which was absolutely pointless given the end of the theoretical enemy of NATO: The USSR, after 1991, and broke the promises made by the west of not expanding NATO further than Poland. Russia tried to avoid this using diplomacy, using their economic power, and using subversion techniques, but they were much too weak against the US and EU combined, and the country elites decided that the only way to stop this continuous bleeding of influence was through the military way, given that no other way worked. You may or may not agree with this tactic, but everything I've said is more or less factual and hard to argue against, and reflects Russia's current anti-NATO policy
Again, never had such thing as "accountable politicians" in the west, we're founded on colonialism, slavery and genocide. We've never had these "balances and regulations" that you talk about, otherwise the people in charge for the invasion of Vietnam, Iraq, the bombing of Libya and of Yugoslavia, and an honestly endless list of atrocities carried out by the west, would have suffered consequences
Bringing up fucking rojava, that's how I know. No support for socialists who managed to change the world like the Bolsheviks or the Cuban revolution, or socialists like Gaddafi and Nasser.
You're taking things out of context. In the first example, Lenin specifically says "bourgeois reformist assertion", he's talking of monopoly in the context of a bourgeois state, not in a worker's state. He understands that for as long as a strong bourgeoisie exists, not even a state monopoly can be considered socialist, because the state is in fact controlled by the bourgeoisie.
Wow, so you're telling me that, when confronted with real situations and material conditions, the opinions of someone can change? Baffling.
Good luck fighting a civil war in which you get invaded by 14 other world powers for the sin of being a communist, while your industry is disorganized and not centralized towards the war-effort. Give as an answer as to how to fight and win such a war, maybe the entire communist part just didn't think hard enough? Or will you say that the people who spent most of their adult life in jail or exile for organizing workers and distributing communist newspapers during Tsarism were ackchually just power-hungry tyrants?
Wait, so tankies are actually against centralized economic planning? Strawman
"liberalism is when centrally-planned economy". Seriously, do you know what "liberalism" means?
You know your REAL problem with the Bolsheviks? That they won. The problem YOU have with Bolsheviks, is that they had to face real historical and material problems, and big ones, and therefore had to make tough decisions. You claim to know better than the people of the time that spent their literal lives in jail or exile prior to the revolution, studying and theorizing and discussing about communism in real life, risking their lives in organizing the workers and in fighting against Tsarism, and you know why? Because the ONLY socialists that supposed "leftists" like you will support, are the leftists who failed. You'll support Salvador Allende because he didn't face the real conditions of his time and didn't apply the necessary policy to fight the advance of fascism. You'll support the anarchists in the Spanish Second Republic because they failed to fight against fascism and, because of rejecting taking power, they didn't have to apply harsh policy to fight reactionarism. But you won't ever support actual socialists who DID understand the dangers of fascism and of capitalist counter-revolution, and actually did something about it, because as soon as they apply their ideology to real-world conditions, they're not perfect anymore. Because they ACTUALLY were a threat to the system, and so the propaganda will paint them as intolerable autocrats, and you'll swallow that propaganda whole and share the same views of socialists than fucking Zbigniew Brzezinsky.