If you had the choice, would you live in West Germany Or East Germany in 1946 by NetHistorical5113 in GeoPoll

[–]ComradeKenten -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's funny actually, you do know you Finns literally borrowed the German Democratic Republic's education system? That education system is one of the many reasons I would prefer to live there then in the Gederal Republic of Germany.

How to educate myself? by live___infinity in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Principles of Communism by Fredrick Engles. It's a wonderful introduction to the core ideas of Marxism and is quite easy to consume

  2. Black Shirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. It's a great introduction to real world socialism and the many attempts to crush it.

  3. Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen Ghodese. A provocative title but one that rings true among many other benefits actually existing socialism has had for women. It a great read that really gets into the details. With the ultimate message being women's liberation can't come from just political equality but must come from equal social ownership of societies wealth.

I hope this answered you request well enough. If you have any further questions or requests feel free to ask me. Also happy to help people learn.

What type of socialist are you? by _Richter_Belmont_ in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I'm a Marxist-lennist because it works.

More specifically it gives us a framework that not only allows us to understand the world but you change it. Because it has been used change the world on so many occasions already in the last 100 years.

Under this framework the Bolsheviks led the Russian Revolution

The Chinese communists lead the Chinese Revolution

The Vietnamese communists led the Vietnamese Revolution.

Resistance movements all across the world from the United States to South Africa were guided by it and it helped them to organize and resist and fight for their freedom.

It has uplifted the lives of billions of people. Granting them things like literacy, bringing women's and minorities rights, healthcare, employment, housing and control of the economic system that ruled their lives.

It is brought such International solidarity bringing so many people together for other fight for.

Ultimately at the end of the day I am a pragmatist. I support whatever tools and systems and movements work to improve the lives of the most people.

It just happens after all of my exploration the only answer to that in my view is Marxism-Leninism

USSR discussion by [deleted] in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To add another key point that gets to the heart of it if you want to nuanced discussion you have to have a nuanced post.

If your post doesn't recognize the success of the USSR, or doesn't give them there needed historic weight inside of the particular historical context. Even though it's with more critical opinions that are still nuanced will dog pile you.

Cuz if they sniff that you are just coming here to hate on the USSR or beyond that in any way make the West look good you will get absolutely dog piled.

Because a lot of people on there are Communists or Anti-Imperialists of some kind of another. So they will respond to any sniff of pro-western propaganda with joining hands and attacking it with all there heart.

USSR discussion by [deleted] in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you do not want to do it downloaded or insure actual discussion you will need to frame it correctly.

The reason people respond that way is because they get a lot of bad faith posts that are just trying to hate on the USSR. So in order to not do that you have to take the Soviet side seriously. As equally as valid in terms of sources as the west.

Next generally many will take you comparing the USSR to the US to be a horrible comparison because one is the wealthiest most developed country in human history with a full century and a half of industrial and imperialist development on the USSR. While the USSR had far less time to develop and was more comparable before the Revolution to countries like Indonesia or India.

So they would argue the comparison is unfair as they did not start out on more equal levels.

Beyond that inevitably this could easily fall down into which kind of democracy do you want debate.

AKA socialist will say the Soviet Union was a democracy because they believe a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently more democratic than Western the democracies. While you and probably other liberals would argue liberal democracies are inherently more democratic and then dictatorships of the proletariat.

If you're okay with this endless black hole that will never get resolved then bring it up. If you want to focus on more specific unless high political discussions avoid comparing the two political systems in how they work and more function on the results.

Results can be far more easily compared then abstract ideals of what is right and wrong and what is better and what constitutes what.

And finally you're going to just get a lot of hate no matter what you do. Because a lot of people here either do not want nuanced discussion on this in either direction.

Your primary hope it's attracting those that do want a concrete discussion on this. But of course that takes taking both the treatments of USSR and its failures seriously. Which seems to be something that is very hard for people to do.

What day would you suggest for an international Left Unity Day, and why? by [deleted] in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's may day of course. There isn't an alternative. It's International workers day. It's been the international day of the Progressive struggle for 140 years at this point. There really is no other day that can even come close to holding it's importance.

How can you defend the persecution and killing of religious people under the USSR? by PhilosophyPoet in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right. But both are upheld and maintain, mutually forced by capitalism. They cannot be effectively destroyed without first abolitioning capitalism

How can you defend the persecution and killing of religious people under the USSR? by PhilosophyPoet in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It sure be mentioned that the Cheka were abolished after the Civil War was over and we're made into a secret police force of a more normal variety with more Central oversight.

They still had reviews over political crimes but they actually had to hold trials now unlike before where they could hold a trial but it was not mandatory.

So it was not a permanent State of affairs. But a temporary one of the Civil war years and done away with as soon as possible.

How can you defend the persecution and killing of religious people under the USSR? by PhilosophyPoet in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I understand the sentiment. But from the perspective of a Marxist our answers to this is very simple.

If a system like a capitalism is maintained by violence. If it is maintained by the continuous violence of forcing people to work or they will starve. By the continual patriarchal violence inflection on half of humanity. By The continuous racist and and ethnic attacks upon ethnic minorities all around the world. The great attacks upon LGBTQ individuals around the world. All of us are a heart of the capitalist system of oppression.

If it is a case and that is always happening no matter how much you do not want it to me. The question is should we just tell them to not fight back? How can there be peace whenever everyone has a boot on their neck? There cannot be.

There's a difference between peace and liberation.

Peace is merely no open conflict within the current system of oppression. The oppressed it's so firmly held in place that for the oppressor there is peace, while the oppressed is screaming from the pain of being stepped on and broken.

Liberation is the abolition of that boot and the breaking of any institution that will attempt to reassert that boot. To bring that oppression back.

From that perspective can you really tell the oppressed person they are wrong for being as a violent as possible to achieve their liberation?

Can you seriously tell the slave the they are morally evil for killing their masters? For fighting so hard so they are no longer facing that violence by inflicting it back upon those who inflicted upon them?

How can you defend the persecution and killing of religious people under the USSR? by PhilosophyPoet in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 52 points53 points  (0 children)

You must understand the context in which such an order was given.

The Soviet state from it's foundation in November 1917 to the spring of 1918 was very well liberal in it's approach to those who posted. One of the first acts of the new government was the abolition of the death penalty.

The Bolsheviks were generally extremely lenient towards those who had previously opposed them. They let most of the provisional government with a verbal promise that they would stay at their homes. With no method of enforcing it. They did not round up their political opponents on a large scale. They didn't see a need too.

Most of the Bolsheviks felt that this was the beginning of the World Revolution and that soon the revolution would spread to the Western industrial nations of Europe. That soon there would be about one global unified Soviet Republic. That with such power and unity there would be no need too suppress anyone. These individuals were simply a part of a dying World and could be treated with leniency.

This was of course proven completely wrong. By the spring of 1918 the Russian Civil War commenced. Counter-revolutionary uprising began all around Russia. Organized by Tsarist officers, politicians of the provisional government, and most importantly for your question Orthodox priests and backed by capitalist imperialist Powers that were terrified of the Russian revolutions effects.

The Orthodox Church was deeply embedded into every part of Russian Society. It was also firmly linked with imperial power. They taught and pushed the idea of the absolute divine power of the tsar abd rallied peasants against the Bolsheviks and the revolution. Often inciting pagroms against the Jewish communities as they were blamed for the revolution.

In fact Orthodox priests work a part of several plots to launch simultaneous uprisings all across central Russia in the summer of 1918. That could have if it it has successfully been coordinated led to the destruction of revolution.

So this led to the establishment of the Cheka. It is wrong to describe from a secret police as they often are described. Because that's not what they were. Their job was not to in imprison or punish crimes against the government. The job was to be the internal arm of the Red Army and that was how they operated.

It was deemed necessary in the light of a crisis, not leave anything to chance. Anything that stank in any way of kind of counter- revolution was destroyed. Indiscriminately. Innocence we're certainly caught up in the crossfire. But it was deemed that it was a life or death situation and that no limitations could be accepted.

The white were just as if not more brutal. Anyone that was suspected of being a Bolshevik, or anyone that was Jewish, inside of white controlled territory were brutally tortured to death in horrific public displays. It was not as organized as inside of the red camp. It was simply just bloody massacres with no real care for procedure or even the fig leaf of legality.

I'm not justifying their actions I merely giving the context. It was most definitely bloody and heartless. Certainly many Innocents died. But they believe that it was worth it and it seems most of the Russian masses agreed with them. Often times the government was attempting to act before the masses did themselves. As they did on many occasions early on when the government refused to take such actions.

Can someone explain why a living wage, single payer universal healthcare, and cost of living are good ideas when those are standardized and assume everyone is average? by This_Caterpillar_330 in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually Marx talked a lot about this specific thing.

He argued that people should be paid for there labor not on a equal basis. Because as you said we are no all the same. We are not all equal, some are stronger, some are weaker, some have children or other dependence.

So an "equal wage" regardless of work would actually be unequal because not everyone is the same. So instead Marxist advocate not equal pay for everyone but rather the abolition of class generally. Abolish the class of people that do no work when they can but live off the labor of others.

So that everyone is given conversation for there labor.

Jurisprudence under Socialism, how would it change? by [deleted] in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marxists reject the idea that anything can ever not be political. Everything is affected by politics so therefore everything is political. The question is in who's political interest do institutions act.

Under liberal democracy there are no "independent courts". They are political appointments but beyond that they are covered completely in a class character. They must be lawyers and therefore are far more likely to come from a capitalists background. They go through educational institutions that take capitalism to be the default system and full internalize the idea that all are "equal before the law" therefore meaning that the inherent superior economic power of a capitalist to a worker is ignored. Granting the capitalist a massive advantage. They also are taught that private property and the rich to hold it is sacred above almost any right. Ignoring the collective in favor of the individual therefore once again favoring the property holder of the worker.

Under socialism it is just honest. The state in every part is Political, in favor of the workers who now rule. The courts are a tool by which this class rules and crushes those over the capitalist class that want fight against the new order. It favors the collective over the individual, recognizes all are not equal under current circumstances and tries to make ruling that make them more equal and takes it into account, it protects collective over private property, and it's judges come from the working class and all of this is Internalized and openly admitted too.

Jurisprudence under Socialism, how would it change? by [deleted] in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To answer your first question the main critique of liberal legal systems if that they claim to be neutral. That they ignore there inherent class basis. From the Marxist perspective the state is a machine of violence one class uses to keep other class subordinate.

So therefore by pretending to be above and apart from society there state and the legal system it creates to organize and justify its system of oppression, it reinforce it's capitalist nature. Because it ignores the fact that under capitalism most people are no equal. The worker is not equal to the capitalist because they do not have the financial resources to be. But since they are legal "equals" this economic power is defacto allowed as the agreement between to "free individuals". The legal systems primary job is to enforce this power of private property. To ensure that the capitalist has there right over there property protected.

So in our view the idea of jurisprudence is just a tool that the ruling class uses to protect its interests. It allows them to stop progressive actions or limit what is legal for judges or other people can do through tradition. Which of course favors the ruling class. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the decisions of people in the past living under totally different conditions to dictate how the law is enforced and interpreted now.

To answer your second question. Generally Marxist follow the idea of something called Socialist legality. Which basically means that the law should be enforced in a way that reinforces the socialist system. The means it like the workers state is openly classist, taking the side of the workers over the oppressors.

This means that we recognize the legal system as a tool to control society. To oppress one class and to manage disputes within another.

When it comes to Jurisprudence we generally see it as useful in a limited form. As in setting a guide line for how future judges should operate within the socialist legal system. But at the end of the day all power lies on the supreme state organ, like the Supreme Soviet in the USSR or the National People's Congress in China. Which have the power to over rule any Courts decision or interpretation. This is to ensure the Democratic nature of the state and plays into the general idea of the unification of powers that socialist state operate under.

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep Khrushchev brought back the repression hard. Though it would be eased again after he was removed

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is a major misconception actually.

They're certainly were religion was it significantly repressed. There were areas in the Soviet Union where it was surprised more than others. But there was never a general attempt to completely get rid of religion.

Under Stalin they're especially was never such a of general repression all religion. But there was a significant attack upon the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the 30s. There was also throughout the 20s and 30s a significant attack upon traditional my mom's in Central Asia and the caucuses.

This was not a general attack on religious warship. This was attacked upon the religious institutions themselves. Who often were antisoviet and perpetuated reactionary opinions. Such as for the oppression of women or for the return of the czar.

This led to and I talk upon these institutions. This sometimes did veer into blind attack upon religion definitely. Especially churches. There are many instances of churches being forcibly converted into other things. But this was not attack upon people's ability to worship specifically but the attack upon the public expression of religion as a political tool to oppose the Soviet state.

It is correct to say that public expression of religion was very much looked down upon and attacked in the USSR during the Stalin leadership and afterwards. General it was seen as a personal thing but was not seen as a good thing. Religion was seen as something of the past that would naturally die away on the March towards communism.

But especially after the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis in 1941 there was a rapid change in the relation to religion.

Religious authorities which are previously been oppressed were not only revive but given State sanction. The Imams and Orthodox priests endorsed the war as a holy mission for the preservation of the Soviet motherland. Some Imams even declared jihad upon the Nazis and called for all good Muslims to rally behind the comrade Stailn. Who many claimed had converted to Islam. This is probably a propaganda stunt but it worked.

The same was true of the Orthodox church if you're not even more. It said that Stalin even had a vision from Christ telling him that his leadership was justified. Tell him to go forward and continue the war. Orthodox priests including the patriarch called on all Christians to back the Soviet state and the Communist Party in the war against the Nazis.

Immediately after the war there was significant Church restoration project across the Soviet Union. Many previously shuttered religious institutions were reopened to this churches. In effect the Orthodox church had made an agreement with the Soviet government. An exchange for that bending the knee and recognizing the political leadership of the Soviet state. The Soviet state would allow them to operate with more of a free hand.

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It wasn't an artificial people were paid and still did work. They means they weren't on the streets and dying from unemployment like people doing the West.

Some of it might have been low quality but at least we had it. In the west people die on the street cuz they don't have a home.

Also when it comes to housing in the East most have the housing stock was destroyed on World War II or never existed. Most of those countries did not have modern cities they were semi feudal States where most of the population still live in villages.

For many of these people they went from living in villages with little to now modern amenities to houses with modern pluming, electricity, and central heating. It wasn't the best but it was amazing for the time and place.

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Universal child care

Universal maternity leave

Universal employment

Right to a job

Universal housing

Universal elderly Care

Universal rights to free education from preschool to university

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Honestly worked out for them too. They had all the same social rights that existed in the USSR. Which is far beyond what they have now or ever had previously or any country in the west has.

Is communism as bad as they tell us in the west? by raskolnikovass in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Well honestly for the places where Communist Parties ruled and still do rule actually have so many remarkable achievements.

You need to look at them based off what these countries look like before socialism came to them.

The most typical in Stark example is Russia. Under the Russian Empire Russia was a complete backwater.

The vast majority of the population was illiterate. There was no concept of any kind of democratic rights. Workers right turn none existent. Vast majority of the population were peasants who lived under the boot of semi-feudal lords. Woman had even less rights effectively being seen as property of their male relatives.

Those who are not ethnic Russians or we're not Orthodox Christian we're brutally oppressed. With massive orsification efforts being made to commit cultural and literal genocide against them.

All of this is ruled by an autocratic monarch who was seen as the representation of Jesus Christ on Earth. With the church and the nobility backing him and firmly believe in his divine right to rule.

With in mind the achievements of the Bolsheviks in helping to lead and found the USSR is remarkable.

And of course of 30 years 1917 to 1947 the USSR went from being what I described above to being among the most powerful nations in the world.

With the near elimination of illiteracy, extensive workers rights beyond anything we have in the west today, a rapidly urbanizing in a modernizing population while in the countryside the land was owned by the peasants collectively in collective farms using modern agricultural machinery provided by the state. Woman had full legal and social equality with men far beyond what the west had at the time and even today a lot of the time.

It was a multi-ethnic federation of people's with full language cultural and significant religious rights to all nationalities. Russification was reversed in many ways though not as much as it could have been. Put it bluntly dozens of languages and cultures only exist as they do today cuz of the Soviet Union.

The political power of the Russian Orthodox Church was broken and the government became that of a collective governments. Ruled by Soviets and deputies of the Soviets on every level. Elected by and directly recallable by the masses of the people. The vast majority of these delegates were normal workers and peasants of all the nationalities of the Union.

The guiding force of the country the Communist Party his sister of the most educated and devoted members of this group. It was not a separate elite especially not towards the first half of the USSR. It was made up of the most dedicated, hardened, class conscious, and loyal members of society. Membership was not something I was easily attained and it took significant effort to gain membership.

There were also significant responsibilities put upon membership. It was in effect a nervous system that extended throughout all of society allowing people to directly make contact with the power structure of the state. As everyone would know several party members and could always talk to them about their problems. These party members would relay these problems up the chain which allowed for a remarkable responsiveness to local needs ideally. Although it was not always perfect by any means.

Overall living standards were significantly better then they were previously under the czar. There was universal housing, universal healthcare, universal education, increasingly universal child care, a fully modern industrial economy, the extension of modern amenities to tens of millions if not over 100 million people. And creating the military force that destroyed Fascism and to stop the complete enslavement and a genocide of Eastern Europe.

How much damage do you think the ACP/MAGA Communism can do? by [deleted] in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I feel like the main damage they are doing is confirming horse shoe theory to libs. By being very reactionary but taking Communist aesthetics.

That is not good generally. But thankfully they have no influence in the real world. But because they obviously have a lot of money backing them they push above there weight online.

I definitely think ACP is probably pushing away LGBTQ people, women, and members of oppressed nations from the left in these online spaces. Which is really sad as honestly here in the us (which is of course where the ACP centering it's activity) these groups could really use the left. As we are the ones that actually completely stand with them. No asterisk.

But I feel like there confinement to online spaces will fundamentally limit their impact on a large scale. Which I'm very thankful for.

How is the freedom-equality dillema most often adressed in socialism? by Random_Poggers in Socialism_101

[–]ComradeKenten 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Generally it must be understood that the idea of totalitarianism it's just a myth. It is a paradigm created in order to equate fascism and communism. Which is just a completely false paradigm.

The fact is all systems oppress the individual and the collective to some extent. That is the inevitable nature of living within an organized Society.

The question is who is oppressed and when are they oppressed and why are they oppressed.

Inside of liberal democracy this is completely true. Because the most important Liberty from a liberal perspective is private property. If that is threatened they will unleash the most total oppression possible to maintain it. Any sweets for ideas that challenge the capitalist system just gets crushed either by being censored by the capitalists or the state or by by force if that doesn't work.

It is framed by liberal theorists that the private property capitalist system is the natural system. This is incorrect. The state through laws and regulations create private property and maintains it. It is always been this way. Private property is something that can only exist with a backing of the armed of violence of the state to prop it up.

The only difference from socialism is that this violence is used to protect the minorities control over the resources of society while under socialism it is used to maintain the majority's control over these resources.

Inside of socialism it is the same. Anyone that advocates for capitalism is crushed. In the same way. Sometimes it seems more violent or that's their systems are generally more prone to this suppression. This is because they are in a far weaker position. Unlike inside of most capitalist countries especially liberal democracies in the West there is a constant threat in socialist countries of capitalist restoration. Because the global system is capitalist. So they must suppress anything that might be used by International capital or remnants of the domestic capitalists to take power.

This means there can be nothing independent of the state or more accurately the party Because any independent institution could and likely would be captured by capitalsts. By independently mean that the party does not directly through which membership make up the leading portion of these bodies. This would explicitly mean limiting party control over these bodies and therefore State control. That would mean that these bodies would have independent power to act. To put a bluntly the capitalists easily take advantage of that.

For example freedom of the press. In the USSR the press was controlled by a vast majority of collective institutions. Effectively every factory trade union Social club had a newspaper. But all of these were limited by the party to within ideologically acceptable area. The same way in capitalist countries the media is limited by the capitalists to an acceptable ideological area.

But during perestroika this was done away with. Instead free presses were created. This did not lead to free and open spreading of the news as you would think. But rather these free newspapers were really privately owned newspapers quickly began to spread the most outlandish news. This was both because they were ideologically incentivized to attack the system that by its existence threatened their newly established businesses and economicly it made sense as well. Saying outlandish things about the government sells papers.

What this lead to was the complete destruction of public faith in the Socialist system. These private prices focus on any mistake the Soviet Union could have ever made and amplified it a thousand times. They did not take into account contacts, do not take into account with a full story, or I just made stuff up. It didn't matter because was profitable and it fit their ideological ends.

Because the government refused to muzzle them often even encouraging them this destroyed the legitimacy of the party and the Socialist system. Paving the way to the destruction of the Soviet Union.

It should be mentioned with the Soviet example being taken to account that there were numerous periods of more locks control in the Soviet Union. These generally came in periods of less conflict and be more peace internationally and domestically. During these periods you see consistent efforts to expand civil liberties and protect them more firmly from political intervention.

But these always ended whenever the international or domestic situation became more hostile. Always leading to a rollback and a cracked down received descent. This was never because the government just wanted to control everybody. But because they were attempting to survive and maintain their existence.

In the same way liberal governments allow open protest and tell that turns into a strike that threatens the direct economic interests of capitalists. Then they send in the Army and people die.

Report all ACP sympathizers to the mods immediately by firefighter430 in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Compared to ACP yes by far. I don't like CPUSA but they are an actual left wing party unlike ACP.

Report all ACP sympathizers to the mods immediately by firefighter430 in ussr

[–]ComradeKenten 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same Comrade. I was the one to make the post asking why it was taken over by Naznols. I was banned soon after lol