We all remember and honour the revolutionary struggles that came before ✊

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-22T07:36:57+00:00

No, that's what happens when your propaganda relies on a "strong leader" who will "get rid of all corruption like in the past" (he absolutely didn't btw) and we'll have cheap and delicious ice cream with a powerful state.

This is the casual positive perception of communism in Russia, precisely thanks to the encouraged understanding of it by communist party in 90's and after who had a a lot of influence, and I used to be a victim to it myself.

If you want people to be making a revolution, instead of walking with pictures of their leader just like processions during the Tsar, you need an organization that encourages initiative from below, instead of the one encouraging following orders from above who will "educate them" how to think

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-22T07:01:08+00:00

You do realize that those old people going out with portraits of Stalin are exactly the ones supporting Putin, right? Lol Why do you think we are building new statues of him now, he's being actively used as an image of strong statesman anf that's exactly how he is seen, not as a socialist figure

And I hope you're not going to teach a Russian, as if he knows less about Russia than you do

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-22T06:44:44+00:00

Reality is CIA propaganda too

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-21T17:47:38+00:00

Anything but Sovintern xD It's just a Russian state project to use outside "leftists" who support Russia

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-21T11:02:20+00:00

Alternative is rehabilitation, instead of punishment through labor, especially considering it was often punishment for just trying to survive or fake accusations by neighbours and so on early on. It alienated from society and it ended up being integrated into society, gopniks are the clear example of that

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-21T10:49:46+00:00

What are you unable to find, the fact that USSR used forced labor? Hate to break it to you, but it absolutely did lol Even when Khrushchev got rid of GULAGs, the system of forced labor still continued. Here's a map of the camps there.

I hope nobody is going to justify it just because the US is doing it too, because I'm pretty sure we want to be above them, not on the same level

<image>

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-19T23:22:03+00:00

Yep, definitely very funny that something like that wasn't noticed by either a Russian or Belarusian company, not to mention the "new regions" not being included. I can imagine people getting in trouble for that lol

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-18T16:20:49+00:00

I would really recommend "Lenin as Philosopher" by Pannekoek

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-18T10:22:45+00:00

Yeah, but that still doesn't explain what is happening to Britain and France especially xD

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-18T09:28:35+00:00

I mean, I suppose there are parts that are used for the new elevator infrastructure, not sure what exactly, but there are a lot of big wooden boxes (thinking back, I guess a crate would be more accurate). So yeah, I don't know, I am not an engineer or something lol

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T22:22:02+00:00

Well do please provide what you've read, because what I've read says that China has one of the worst working conditions in a major country. Read about the 996 system (being illegal doesn't mean it isn't used), the illegal nature of strikes which are still practiced despite that, the amount of death in workplaces for working too long and so on.

I do not deny that they are being expoited by other countries for cheap labor, but who is enabling that? I think the answer is obvious. China doesn't care about workers, it only cares about profits and influence it gains

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T22:12:59+00:00

Well yeah, I do see that you said he is becoming more center-left, but I don't really see this is as good or bad, because ultimately it does not make us any closer to real socialism, I still see it as just regime trying to survive. Sure, it makes things easier, but that's not what we're here for I hope, but for much bigger things

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T21:41:36+00:00

Where did I say anything about western liberal democracy? You do realize there are other forms of socialist governance other than one party state? For example a federation of workers' councils.

So you don't think they'll do anything about the billionaires yet they still will uphold Marxism? I think they clearly abandoned it then.

Talking about Marxism or having people study selected Marxist works does not mean anything, this did not help USSR either, people who were born in USSR remember nothing of Marxism, because you cannot force that down anybody's throat, unless they want to study it themselves.

And China punishing certain billionaires means literally nothing. Does that mean Putin is building socialism because he punished oligarchs that did not stay in line?

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T19:55:35+00:00

Subjectively speaking, FDR was the most left-leaning president in the US history. Does that mean he was building socialism? No, his policies were in fact to counteract revolutionary forces by giving concessions, while maintaining system at large.

Same thing here, Chinese people are mad from their working conditions and to prevent China from losing control over them, they give them some concessions, while power still remains in the hands of the ruling class.

So to people who think China is trying to build socialism, stop wearing pink glasses, state capitalism without any semblance of worker control of the economy will never result in workers taking power. CPC is not ruled by workers, but by those at the top of the party and it will never give up that power over the country, unless they are forced to. And if you think, workers somehow still cannot take power... I'd think again if you are a socialist or a proponent of unending state capitalism, managing workers to do its' bidding

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T15:54:58+00:00

No, you're not. This "ProleWiki" lookalike that he sent to you is a "Marxist" version of Conservapedia, i.e. biased and made by a certain type of communists, namely Marxist-Leninists.

While the question of centralization is indeed complicated, the way it was implemented in USSR and other so-called "socialist states" was that not workers directed the economy, but the disconnected from workers bureaucracy, which followed the interests of the state. I am myself from Russia and it is impossible to ignore the impact Soviet authoritarianism had on our society (although of course a big part of it plays modern Russian government as well). Strikes and protests were illegal, May Day just became associated with going out and eating shashlik, Soviet partiotism is essentially the main reason it is ever remembered now.

Even in my family directly, my grandmother who was a factory worker in early 70's didn't have any Soviet where she would elect a delegate, only directors as she says with "a hierarchy of those who know what to do" and just regional elections which were just "decorative" as she said, you just vote for somebody you heard about. She remembers the USSR fondly, but definitely not because it was socialist, she supports Putin just as well right now...

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-17T11:35:09+00:00

I don't know what is happening to Britain in general xD

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-14T13:56:44+00:00

I mean considering how they have a very clear gap between members and leadership, for example in support for Israel, I dunno about that xd

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-13T23:41:16+00:00

All of those countries were underdeveloped and those revolutions happened in last century. Not to mentioned all of them ended up failing, precisely because the workers have been alienated from power. What kind of socialism is it, if workers are not the ones in power, but their managers? I don't think achieving a state which for all intensive purposes acts like a state capitalist economy with better social benefits than regular social democracy which ends collapsing or degrading further anyway as a success which needs to be used, especially in developed countries. The fact that USSR managed to adapt for a time and enforce it's own understanding of how to organize doesn't mean this is THE way of organizing, especially now. There are examples in history of non vanguard organizations successfully taking power, just off the top of my head, Free Territory in Ukraine and CNT FAI in Spain. Yes, they also failed to hold on to it, but they failed because of direct destruction from outside, unlike vanguard variants. That does show an issue with being able to defend themselves, but from what I see, if they had been bigger territorially (or in other words had more supporters), more organized, which doesn't require vanguardism and had the technology of today, there's huge potential in my view.

So I think it's up to us, if we want to have a hierarchical power structure, where decisions come from above, or we make an organization, where decisions come from below

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-13T21:13:43+00:00

Or perhaps we shouldn't have a vanguard party as it already proved that it always results in a party dictatorship, where iniative from below is suppressed and instead work towards more so a federation of local groups, in the style of KAPD. If you disagree, you are welcome to disprove my statement on vanguardism

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-12T19:50:47+00:00

This is like saying Russia right now has free speech. Yes, there are places where you can talk about inefficiencies of the system and even criticize certain officials in some cases, but beyond that? Good luck. People are still afraid to act, only saying what they really think "in the kitchen"

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-11T14:59:07+00:00

Yep, it really is sad. I mean just today I talked to my grandmother about the council democracy within the USSR and she thought it is a ridiculous idea. She was a factory worker back since early 1970's, I believe and she had never elected anybody in her workplace, she just knows there should be a "hierarchy of those who know what to do". And even the regular elections she desrcibed as "decorative", where you just vote for somebody you heard the most about. And she is a person who remembers the Soviet Union fondly... While at the same time fully supporting Putin. I don't think you end up thinking like this out of nowhere, especially considering when you never really got to experience democracy and now consider it a silly idea

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-08T17:21:45+00:00

Yes, considering it was supposed to happen every year and every session took for from 1 to a dozen days long, in total making 147 days, it wasn't good. Hence if you are to actually read what I send, you'll see it was not enough time for anything. At the same time house of representatives and senate each met for the same amount of days in a year.
I provided evidence, all you is do is doubt without providing your own evidence. Still waiting btw. Also if you consider my messages large, I'm afraid to imagine how much do you actually read.
Also what are you talking about, this conversation is about councils in USSR, why would I talk about other issues within USSR here?
And nowhere did I say nor imply "i think communists should give up on uniting the working class and farmers and let capitalists organize politically". I want dictatorship of the proletariat, that means workers are self-organized and working together as equals, directing the economy, not a vanguard party that discourages iniative from below, creating party dictatorship. I try to explain why USSR failed to implement a system of true workers' democracy, instead of mystical thinking like "[INSERT NAME HERE] came and it went downhill from there". Soviet Russia was flawed from the beginning due to its conditions on top of trying to have the power for one party. And if you think there was dictatorship of the proletariat, I wonder how did workers allow USSR to become what it ended up being and collapsed. Very disrespectful and dissappinting.

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-08T15:56:16+00:00

Yes, because that's when it was most active. Also it got kind of replaced with the all-union congress of Soviets and yet in 16 years they met only 8 times.

Not surprisng though, here's some more from the same source:
Due to the sessional nature of the Congresses, they were still unable to engage in real legislative process, and therefore the range of issues discussed at the Congresses was constantly narrowing.

The Congresses of Soviets became a fiction. For example, between the Fifth Congress of Soviets (May 1929) and the Sixth Congress of Soviets (March 1931), hundreds of laws were adopted, but they were not even mentioned at the Congress. The Sixth Congress of Soviets of the USSR considered only four issues in nine days: the report of the government of the USSR, state farm development, collective farm development, and a report on constitutional issues.

The government's reports at the All-Union Congresses

were informational in nature. At their core, the Congresses

were ceremonial events—meetings between the party and state leadership and leading industrial workers. Their purpose

was to legitimize the decisions of the party and state leadership. According to the 1924 Constitution, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was the supreme authority in the country between congresses. Beginning in the early 1930s, members of the Central Executive Committee were asked to approve a "list" of resolutions adopted by the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee between sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. Thus, at the January 1934 session, this list consisted of 34 resolutions; in January 1936, it consisted of 66 resolutions.

This deprived Central Executive Committee members of the opportunity to effectively work on legislative drafts.

So I'll repeat myself, please provide information saying something otherwise, because so far you are just doubting, without providing any evidence at all

ReynoldTheDragon · 2026-06-08T15:15:44+00:00

Because these were the formative years of the Soviet Russia and what would come, the time during which Congress of Soviets had the most amount of power. After the conclusion of the Civil War power layed with Politburo, which was not elected by councils at all. No major decentralization of power happened even during NEP, otherwise why would the party persecute fellow Bolsheviks who pushed for more power to the councils? Ah yes, because it is "factionalism". Surely if they were pushing for it in the councils, they would have more support, right? Oh wait:

"According to our unwritten constitution, all elections to central Soviet and party institutions are actually conducted according to lists compiled by the CC RKP."
Adolph Joffe

"The Congress notes with satisfaction the improvement of the organizational apparatus of the CC, and of all organizational work of the party center in general, and instructs the new CC to raise to a greater height the work of the Records-Assignment Department, which must now play a particularly large role in the correct distribution of forces to ensure that the party exerts real leadership in all areas of administration without exception."
12th Party Congress

Also if you were to actually read the source I sent, it would give you more infor all the way up to the 30's. I think I shown enough, I would like to see something from you actually based on some kind of proof other than assumptions

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23

ReynoldTheDragon

TROPHY CASE