I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism” implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are “false socialism.” Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background.
However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism”
Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren’t even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren’t aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000…
But I digress. That was the USSR’s path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.
Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.
As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.
China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West’s interests… at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.
My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn’t quite measure up… I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won’t venture to say.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because…
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.
I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism” implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are “false socialism.” Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background.
Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren’t even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren’t aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000…
But I digress. That was the USSR’s path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.
Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.
As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.
China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West’s interests… at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.
My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn’t quite measure up… I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won’t venture to say.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
I recognize the American socialist in you… )))
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
https://www.facebook.com/cgtneuropeofficial/videos/russian-spacecraft-delivers-american-astronaut-to-space-station/944741044208435/
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
I am an empiricist.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
What do you have to say to that?
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.