Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

𝕴𝖓𝖋𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖝 𝕾𝖔𝖕𝖍𝖎𝖆 @infernatrixsophia.bsky.social · 8h

What kind of question is this? What do you think capital is? They produced shit tons of capital, this is literally THE biggest mark of success of the USSR in modernizing the economies of its constituent Republics. Your fellating of their utilization of capital as a success is literally the topic.

Stalingrad Tractor Plant in the 1930s, the factory and its tools represent capital owned by the state, the labourers labour-power commoditized and purchased by the state to produce more capital and commodities for internal and external consumption with wages representing less than their full value. Meaning labour was alienated from its production.

2 2 20

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

𝕴𝖓𝖋𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖝 𝕾𝖔𝖕𝖍𝖎𝖆 @infernatrixsophia.bsky.social · 10h

At no point did the USSR move away from commodity production, it was State Capitalism from start to finish, the NEP was a program to facilitate that. Lenin was explicit about this when he began pushing for it in 1918.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

It certainly did in 1928, when the NEP policy was completely abolished.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The NEP still represented State Capitalist economics, which is further proof that they never abolish Capitalism nor State.

1 16

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

𝕴𝖓𝖋𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖝 𝕾𝖔𝖕𝖍𝖎𝖆 @infernatrixsophia.bsky.social · 10h

By the metrics of capitalism those state capitalist programs were very successful. Not so much in terms of Socialism tho.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 14h

It certainly did work because millions were lifted out of poverty.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The whole point is that the State is counter-revolutionary, and this is why Leninism failed and it never achieved Communism nor Socialism. And Lenin himself never really understood Socialism and Communism as philosophies.

1 13

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

𝕴𝖓𝖋𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖝 𝕾𝖔𝖕𝖍𝖎𝖆 @infernatrixsophia.bsky.social · 11h

Anyone who claims or regards Churchill as an Antifascist is in service of Fascism

"I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"

2 6 30

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

This is why as an Anarchist I want to clear up misconceptions that people may have about Anarchism. We can have a Decentralised society, but it doesn't mean we can't achieve international organisation and solidarity.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

How do you expect to achieve this in the first world

Mainly since anarchism is given a bad name?

A small decentralized force isn't going to win again a centralized government
No matter how you organize

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Fighting systems of oppression is not Authoritarian, defending ourselves against the State and other systems of oppression isn't Authoritarian. When we organise it can be done through Decentralised means to achieve Egalitarianism.

1 1 6

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Fighting systems of oppression is not Authoritarian, defending ourselves against the State and other systems of oppression isn't Authoritarian. When we organise it can be done through Decentralised means to achieve Egalitarianism.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

How do you fight without becoming authoritarian?,

Remember America vs a anarchist commune
Either the commune does a temporary centralizing or doesn't
Against a modernized centralized authority you got to think on your feet not on revolutionary purity

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

That's because the State sees Decentralised power as a threat to its Hierarchical Status quo. When we build alternatives and organise against it, we the masses will face State repression. It doesn't mean we stop resistancing the system. Instead we learn how we can organise better.

1 4

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

That's because the State sees Decentralised power as a threat to its Hierarchical Status quo. When we build alternatives and organise against it, we the masses will face State repression. It doesn't mean we stop resistancing the system. Instead we learn how we can organise better.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

Maybe, again I'm knocking you down at all.
But they are very much under siege by Syria and local terrorists
Heavily reallying on American aid
Though I won't knock down their longevity
Rojava has never had a moment of Peace because of the continued assaults

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Rojava has been a more successful example of Non-Hierarchical organisation. All I'm say in that if we are to truly abolish systems of oppression we need Decentralised militant ways of organising. Resistance won't look the same everwhere. There's also the Zapatitas, they're another good example.

1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Rojava has been a more successful example of Non-Hierarchical organisation. All I'm say in that if we are to truly abolish systems of oppression we need Decentralised militant ways of organising. Resistance won't look the same everwhere. There's also the Zapatitas, they're another good example.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

So what model are you looking for a rojava model? Or Catalonia Spain?
Remember these also were destroyed
Which is why they failed due to no self protection
Whether you want it or not, America won't let a socialist state last

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Yea, but the Paris Commune was a revolutionary government, therefore it was still a Hierarchical institution which is why it failed, and it also faced heavy State repression.

1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Yea, but the Paris Commune was a revolutionary government, therefore it was still a Hierarchical institution which is why it failed, and it also faced heavy State repression.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

That's my main point
How do you defend yourself?
The Paris commune was radically democratic yet refused to take the banks
That's one of the criticisms Marx had with the commune despite praising it's workers democracy

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Yes. But Communism can't be achieved through means of Hierarchies, the means justify the ends. Therefore we can't abolish the State through the State as an institution itself. That's an oxymoron. We need Decentralisation, and Horizontal power structures to achieve an Egalitarianism.

1 1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

The Bolsheviks were the Vanguard party and had Centralised control over the masses and general economy, therefore they were the ruling class. And as you said they still had a wage system so therefore they still had a working class as well. The structure of Classism is still there.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 13h

Show me the class.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 14h

It did not. Because Capitalism within itself is a system build on inequality throught manufacturing condition of poverty through Classism. Once again, They didn't abolish Capitalism nor Classism. And they most certainly didn't abolish State.

1 1 3

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

Yes. But Communism can't be achieved through means of Hierarchies, the means justify the ends. Therefore we can't abolish the State through the State as an institution itself. That's an oxymoron. We need Decentralisation, and Horizontal power structures to achieve an Egalitarianism.

Joey The socialist 🇵🇸 @jefflooksfunny.bsky.social · 13h

That's true the abolishment of the state is what communism wants but we change our way to achieve this
To the Marxist to get to communism it takes steps, we do have stateless models like the Paris commune or Catalonia Spain but they weren't able to defend themselves, which is a main problem

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 16h

No. As long as a wage system still exist there will always be wage slavery and exploitation. Communism is about abolishing Capitalism, State, Money, and Classism, the USSR never achieved Communism. They reproduced State Capitalism.

2 1 1

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 13h

The Red Army betrayed the Black Army. And Trotsky himself wasn't an Anarcho-Communist.

Karim @krypton436.bsky.social · 14h

Well, there are many fighters in Red Army "among them was Trotsky" who are Ukrainians. Why didn't they declare their separation from the Russian Revolution & say, “We're Ukrainians!”

My dear, capitalism supports separatists. Do you think what u r saying is normal?

take a look at the Middle East.

1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 14h

It did not. Because Capitalism within itself is a system build on inequality throught manufacturing condition of poverty through Classism. Once again, They didn't abolish Capitalism nor Classism. And they most certainly didn't abolish State.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 14h

It certainly did work because millions were lifted out of poverty.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The whole point is that the State is counter-revolutionary, and this is why Leninism failed and it never achieved Communism nor Socialism. And Lenin himself never really understood Socialism and Communism as philosophies.

1 5

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The whole point is that the State is counter-revolutionary, and this is why Leninism failed and it never achieved Communism nor Socialism. And Lenin himself never really understood Socialism and Communism as philosophies.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

It certainly did in 1928, when the NEP policy was completely abolished.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The NEP still represented State Capitalist economics, which is further proof that they never abolish Capitalism nor State.

1 4

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Ukrainian Army were a Decentralised millitant army of peasants that fought for their independence against Russia.

Karim @krypton436.bsky.social · 15h

Independence on what basis?

On a national basis, not a Russian one as the (((Russian))) revolution did, so that this flag unites all ethnicities, peoples, languages, and religions under it.

Now you say Ukraine, are we in the 14th century, Kievan Rus!

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

Nestor Makno and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army weren't Nationalist. They were an Anarcho-Communist movement focus on Ukrainian independence.

1 1

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

I speak of no lies. After Peter Kropotkin's funeral many Anarchists were banned from assembling in public because Lenin and the Bolsheviks hated the criticism of the Anarchists during that time.

Communist Cuirassier 🇵🇸 @homeric-dandy.bsky.social · 15h

Why are you lying lol?

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Anarchist opposition that I speak of is not about Anti-semitism nor pogroms. Many Anarchist during the time of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were imprisoned, persecuted, and executed for opposing the Authoritarian regime of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. You don't know your History.

1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

Nestor Makno and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army weren't Nationalist. They were an Anarcho-Communist movement focus on Ukrainian independence.

Karim @krypton436.bsky.social · 15h

Mixing things up without referring to history makes me want to vomit in the face of the speaker.

Dude, the nationalist issue in the separation of Makhno's “Ukraine” was indeed without the slightest consideration for the fragmentation of the working class. It was not a right to self-determination!

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Bolshelviks also repressed Anarchist opposition to their regime with police brutality, and they still had an oppressive police force. It's still the characteristics of State upholding the Status quo of Capitalism.

1 3

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Anarchist opposition that I speak of is not about Anti-semitism nor pogroms. Many Anarchist during the time of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were imprisoned, persecuted, and executed for opposing the Authoritarian regime of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. You don't know your History.

Communist Cuirassier 🇵🇸 @homeric-dandy.bsky.social · 15h

The “anarchist opposition” you spoke of engaged in antisemitic pogroms.

Of course as you’re an anarchist you don’t read so probably didn’t know this.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

What does Anti-semitism have to do with my discussion on the fact that the Bolsheviks established State Capitalism after throwing Czarist Russia and were Authoritarian? You're way off track. And not once did I advocate for pogroms. Don't twist my words into something else.

1 2

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The NEP still represented State Capitalist economics, which is further proof that they never abolish Capitalism nor State.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

Lmao no, that was just the NEP.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

Nothing about the Bolsheviks were Socialist or Communist to begin with, in 1917 Russia had a revolution but they never established a Communist society, they were a Vanguard party. They never abolished Hierarchical systems of oppression nor Class. They established State Capitalism.

1 4

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

What does Anti-semitism have to do with my discussion on the fact that the Bolsheviks established State Capitalism after throwing Czarist Russia and were Authoritarian? You're way off track. And not once did I advocate for pogroms. Don't twist my words into something else.

Communist Cuirassier 🇵🇸 @homeric-dandy.bsky.social · 15h

Yeah, I don’t think people should be allowed to do antisemitic pogroms; not even anarchists.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Bolshelviks also repressed Anarchist opposition to their regime with police brutality, and they still had an oppressive police force. It's still the characteristics of State upholding the Status quo of Capitalism.

1 1

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

Nothing about the Bolsheviks were Socialist or Communist to begin with, in 1917 Russia had a revolution but they never established a Communist society, they were a Vanguard party. They never abolished Hierarchical systems of oppression nor Class. They established State Capitalism.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

If they wouldn't have been Counter-Revolutionaries trying to bring down the established communist society, then they wouldn't have gotten purged.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Bolshelviks also repressed Anarchist opposition to their regime with police brutality, and they still had an oppressive police force. It's still the characteristics of State upholding the Status quo of Capitalism.

1 4

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

Why do you think the current day Russia that exist today is Authoritarian? It because when the Bolsheviks overthrow Czarist Russia, they establish another State. Once again the State is counter-revolutionary and Hierarchical institution. It's not built on Egalitarianism

2 3

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The Bolshelviks also repressed Anarchist opposition to their regime with police brutality, and they still had an oppressive police force. It's still the characteristics of State upholding the Status quo of Capitalism.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

Because they didn't reach full Communism yet, they were on the right path towards it. But overall, the Soviet system benefitted those who lived in it. Everyone had a job, everyone had access to healthcare, everyone had access to basic material needs like housing, food and water.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The USSR never abolished money, they still treaded labour as a commodity.

1 5

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

You cannot achieve a Communist society through the State as an institution. The State is a Hierarchical institution and it's counter-revolutionary. Labour was still treated as a commodity, as well as essential resources such as housing, food, and water. And People still sold their labour.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

Because they didn't reach full Communism yet, they were on the right path towards it. But overall, the Soviet system benefitted those who lived in it. Everyone had a job, everyone had access to healthcare, everyone had access to basic material needs like housing, food and water.

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The USSR never abolished money, they still treaded labour as a commodity.

1 2 3

Reposted by Greythean🏴🚩

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 15h

The USSR never abolished money, they still treaded labour as a commodity.

Kaz ☭ 🇵🇸 @kaz01.bsky.social · 15h

Where exactly was the wage system under the USSR?

Novakia @n0v4c0ra.bsky.social · 16h

No. As long as a wage system still exist there will always be wage slavery and exploitation. Communism is about abolishing Capitalism, State, Money, and Classism, the USSR never achieved Communism. They reproduced State Capitalism.

2 4