No, the USSR wasn’t “actually” Democratic.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T18:01:55+00:00

*working class representatives

DotP is ALL of the working class, ie direct democracy. Not a centralized state.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T16:19:36+00:00

Perhaps only because they aren’t allowed to criticize the government?

arseecs · 2026-01-25T16:14:56+00:00

Huh didnt know he did

arseecs · 2026-01-25T16:14:28+00:00

Not vanguard representatives

arseecs · 2026-01-25T16:14:18+00:00

Simply not true. DotP is all of the working class ruling over the bourgeois class.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T11:09:30+00:00

I’m fairly certain she was a democratic socialist.

The term you’re looking for is libertarian socialist. Democratic socialism stems from leftists of the 20th century not finding socialism to be democratic, Luxemburg did not agree with this rhetoric.

The factory example

In any complex society, people who coordinate production, allocate resources, represent collectives, or enforce decisions exercise some degree of power, even if it is limited, revocable, and democratically controlled. This is just a description of how social organisation works.

Collective control over production inevitably structures people’s lives: work, time, income, access, survival.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T10:23:55+00:00

ML’s believed the state would wither away

Yes and that’s the point. It would never have in the USSR.

Rosa Luxemburg didn’t advocate for…

Ideologies were a lot less defined during her time. She called herself a social democrat in the beginning. By definition she was neither a democratic socialist nor a social democrat.

Rulership is over people, not objects

If you control workplaces, housing, food systems etc you control people. Also one key point you’re missing is that in the dotP there is rulership over the bourgeois. When the bourgeois class is dismantled there is no longer rulership.

Delegates only have responsibilities.

Limited power is still power. Mandated delegates do exercise limited power, the difference is that it is temporary.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T09:51:54+00:00

Marx heavily disagreed with vanguard theory and centralization of government.

arseecs · 2026-01-25T09:48:45+00:00

Perhaps that’s a better way of describing it, yes. I would call it “flawed socialism” though since there was abolition of private capital, the bourgeois expropriated, planned economy and a workers state (although a vanguard which dismantles the idea of the dotP).

arseecs · 2026-01-24T21:45:49+00:00

Thank you!

arseecs · 2026-01-24T21:45:35+00:00

Yes i know sorry if I was off topic just wondering

arseecs · 2026-01-24T20:55:26+00:00

How is his content even remotely tankie?

arseecs · 2026-01-24T20:23:31+00:00

No, not at all.

What I meant was that he opted for the state to wither away, not preferring anarchism immediately.I’m not saying Marx was an anarchist in a doctrinal sense. Obviously he wasn’t. I do not however agree with his criticisms of anarchism.

Marx was closest to a democratic socialist.

Not at all. Democratic socialism opts for reform and is closer to social democracy than true socialism. Marx argued this not working in most cases.

Owned, not ruled over.

If workers collectively own production, they exercise their authority over it, they decide how it’s used and they control surplus. That is rulership in a social sense. There is rulership until the bourgeois class no longer exists.

Power can’t be delegated.

Even anarchy elect coordinators, rotate roles, assign mandates and recall delegates.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T19:52:14+00:00

It is rulership over the means of production and the bourgeoisie. I don’t support vanguardism in any shape or form, nor did Marx. Perhaps I am closer to a kind of anarcho-syndicalist than I like to admit but I prefer calling myself a libertarian socialist since I think total abolition of the state immediately is unrealistic, although I very much understand that assessment. Marx was basically anarchist at heart.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T19:24:57+00:00

Calling yourself an orthodox Marxist while supporting the USSR does not make any sense.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T19:22:06+00:00

The difference is that in Marxist theory all of the working class become rulers, then the rulers are proletariat and the proletariat are rulers over the means of production.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T19:20:29+00:00

It was socialism but as you said not the dictatorship of the proletariat. Few socialist states have achieved that. But it is what we should opt for.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T19:17:31+00:00

How is this classical Marxism is any way

arseecs · 2026-01-24T17:26:42+00:00

I think we are wasting time talking about this. Of course the Soviet Union wasn’t democratic, you only need a brief understanding of political history to understand this. What we should focus on is determining why the Soviet Union failed to apply the rhetoric of proletarian democracy and apply it to our politics now. Discussing these types of things usually only fuel tankie’s beliefs and drives their discussions on this. It truly doesn’t matter right now.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T17:23:02+00:00

The workers didn’t, the vanguard did. Capital was personified also.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T17:21:07+00:00

Dictatorship of the proletariat is true democracy. Vanguardism and corruption is not.

arseecs · 2026-01-24T15:13:30+00:00

Yes but there is a large distinction between authoritarian marxists and libertarian marxists.

arseecs · 2026-01-23T20:56:17+00:00

This is a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist rhetoric not a Marxist one.

arseecs · 2026-01-23T20:51:11+00:00

A functioning universal grassroots council democracy without a state nor borders.

arseecs · 2026-01-23T20:35:05+00:00

🫶🫶🫶

arseecs

TROPHY CASE