Tag: USSR

We worshipped a #deathcult for 40 years

Our shared #mainstreaming for the last 40 years has been built on the path of #neoliberalism a political and economic ideology that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social programs. It emerged as a dominant force in the late 20th century, particularly from the 1980s onwards, under the influence of #MargaretThatcher in the UK and #RonaldReagan in the US.

Historical Context

After World War II, many European countries adopted social democratic policies, influenced by the pressure of strong socialist movements and the existence of socialist states like the #USSR, these provided extensive social benefits, full employment, free healthcare, and education. To avoid potential revolutions and maintain stability, European nations implemented social welfare programs internally while still engaging in exploitative economic practices externally in their former colonies.

Emergence of Neoliberalism

By the 1980s, the capitalist system faced renewed crises, including economic recessions, a decline in profitability. In response, the old fundamentalism of #classicliberalism renamed as #neoliberal pushed for a drastic reduction in government intervention and social spending. This shift was driven by the belief that previous social democratic concessions (the social safety net put in place due to communism) were no longer sustainable or needed and were hindering economic growth and profit margins.

Definition and Principles

Neoliberalism is a set of policies and ideas focused on:

  1. Deregulation: Removing government regulations to allow businesses total freedom in how they operate.
  2. Privatization: Transferring public services and assets to the private sector.
  3. Reduced Public Spending: Cutting government expenditures on social programs like welfare, healthcare, and education.
  4. Tax Cuts: Lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy to encourage investment and economic growth.
  5. Free Markets: Promoting the idea that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and solve social problems.

Ideological Dogma

Neoliberalism “common sense” asserts that the market, left alone, will “naturally” regulate itself and provide the best outcomes for society. This belief extends to all areas of life, including education, healthcare, and social services, which should be subjected to market forces rather than people driven state control.

Consequences

Social and Economic Impact

  • Increased Inequality: Neoliberal policies lead to income and wealth disparities as the rich benefit from tax cuts and deregulation while social safety nets are dismantled for the poor.
  • Reduced Worker Protections: Labour unions and pro-labour legislation are weakened, leading to lower wages and worse working conditions.
  • Privatization of Public Services: Essential services like healthcare and education become more expensive and less accessible to the poor.
  • Environmental Degradation: Deregulation leads to pollution and environmental harm as companies prioritize profit over sustainability. We have pushed #climatechaos hard with this mess.

Global Impact

  • IMF and World Bank Policies: Developing countries are subjected to structural adjustment programs by international financial institutions, which require them to implement neoliberal policies in exchange for loans. This leads to severe social and economic hardship in the developing world
  • Exploitation of Developing Countries: Neoliberalism perpetuates global inequalities by maintaining exploitative relationships between wealthy and poorer nations.

Criticism and Opposition

Critics show that neoliberalism prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and corporations at the expense of the environment, working class and the poor. Undermining democracy by concentrating economic and political power in the hands of a few, leading to increased social unrest and current right-wing shift and resulting political and environmental instability.

Conclusion

The people pushing #neoliberalism, lied about economic efficiency and growth and the associated significant social costs, including increased inequality, reduced public welfare, and environmental degradation. Their focus on market solutions for all problems disregards the realities of social and economic life, leading to widespread criticism and calls for alternative approaches that prioritize social equity and sustainability.

In the era of #climatechaos, this shift to Neoliberalism was obviously a #deathcult that continues to shapes our “common sense” and has been central to our lives for the last 40 years. We can’t keep going down the path, you can find different paths here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The West’s Climate-Catastrophe is “native” to the mess we are in

“Tanky” is a derogatory term for vertical factions within the left

The term #tanky is a colloquial and derogatory label used to describe some vertical factions within the left, particularly those who defend authoritarian socialist states and their historical actions. Origins of the Term, “tanky” is within the British left-wing circles, initially used to describe those who supported the Soviet Union’s intervention in Hungary in 1956. This intervention involved the use of tanks to suppress an anti-government uprising, hence the term “tanky.”

Evolution of the term, over time the use of “tanky” has broadened, and its meaning has become more nebulous. It is often used to describe people who:

  1. Support Historical and Current Socialist States: This includes those who have a positive view of the #USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and other socialist nations, seeing value in their experiences and lessons.
  2. Defend or Clarify Misconceptions: Some “tankies” are seen as defending the actions of socialist states or providing nuanced explanations for their controversial actions. This can be interpreted as running defence for perceived inexcusable acts.
  3. Marxist-Leninist and Adjacent Ideologies: The term is also used more broadly to label those who support Marxist-Leninist principles like the dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism, and economic planning.
  4. Dismissive Label by Opponents: It is often used by liberals and others to dismiss and ostracize those who are further left without engaging in their arguments. This usage is prevalent among those who adopt radical liberal stances without theoretical engagement.
  5. Caricature: Finally, it is used to create a straw man of a person who uncritically supports everything a socialist nation does, a figure that rarely exists in reality.

In Contemporary usage and messy discourse, “tanky” is used online to label and dismiss leftists without an understanding of the ideological nuances involved. It is employed by those who want to avoid engaging in debates about socialist theory and history. The term carry connotations of anti-Americanism, as those labelled as “tankies” criticize U.S. foreign policy and support anti-imperialist movements.

Implications of the use of the term, reflects a superficial engagement with leftist theory and history. It is an attempt to infantilize or discredit #Marxist analysis and reduce complex historical events and theoretical discussions to simplistic binaries. The term is about shutting down dialogue, rather than fostering an understanding of socialist movements and their legacies.

The term “tanky” has become a catch-all phrase with a variety of meanings, used to discredit and marginalize the more dogmatic factions of the left. Understanding its origins and the context of its use can help in evaluating when and why it is employed in online “debates” and public discourse.

“Don’t be a prat” comes to mind.

Faults of former socialist experiments

Building a different economic system in one country with hard opposition is a steep path to climb. We can learn a lot from the interesting mess left by past attempts

  1. Competition with the West: The #USSR’s framing itself as a direct competitor to American capitalism, rather than a unique system, led to perceptions of being outclassed in some areas. This competitive stance with vastly different starting points made the USSR seem inadequate in some respects.
  2. Military Overspending: Excessive focus on military parity with the U.S. detracted from the USSR’s ability to improve civilian life and scientific progress. This allocation of resources, driven by historical security concerns and international threats, was necessary but ultimately detrimental.
  3. Lack of Economic Diversity: Smaller socialist countries, and even some Soviet republics, had undiversified economies, relying heavily on single burocratic industries or resources. This lack of diversity made these nations vulnerable to economic instability and dependent on larger, dogmatic socialist allies.
  4. Inadequate Light Industry: The focus on heavy industry over light industry led to shortages and lower quality in consumer goods. This affected the everyday satisfaction of citizens, due to the availability of personal and household items being limited.
  5. Limited Democratic Participation: While socialist nations like the USSR had forms of proletarian democracy, there was still significant room for improvement in workplace democracy and political participation. The burocratic centralization and rubber-stamping within the system lead to ossification and hindered any real democratic engagement.
  6. Restrictions on Cultural Expression: Over time, the USSR shifted from promoting local cultures to a subtle #russification process, causing cultural homogenization and dissatisfaction among non-Russian ethnic groups. Similar repressive policies existed in other socialist states like Albania.
  7. Deportations: The forced relocation of ethnic groups during World War II was a severe and unnecessary measure. While intended to prevent collaboration with the enemy, these actions fermented long-term harm and discontent.
  8. Purges: The purges in the USSR, aimed at eliminating a fifth column, were based on social paranoia and a flawed assessment, this led to widespread fear and instability. The failure to initially prevent the formation of such internal threats was a significant oversight.
  9. Limitations of Planning: Early economic planning in the USSR was hampered by the lack of advanced computational tools, limiting the complexity and effectiveness of this planing. Despite the advent of computers, the potential of democratic planning systems was not realized.
  10. Profit Reorientation: Transitioning enterprises to a profit-based system under Khrushchev led to a shift in priorities that confused socialist principles. This move fostered a capitalist mindset and contributed to the growing inefficiencies and corruption.
  11. Ossification of Party Leadership: The “power politics” of the ageing leadership within the Soviet government stifled innovation and responsiveness. More horizontals, younger, more dynamic paths were needed to maintain the vitality and adaptability of this socialist experiment.
  12. The Comintern: The centralized and bureaucratised coordination of international socialist movements by the Comintern had its drawbacks, such as imposing strategies that were not suitable for all member nations. A more horizontal and flexible approach could have mitigated these issues.
  13. Over-Bureaucratization: Bureaucracy and ossification within socialist states led to inefficiencies and resistance to change. Healthy grassroots #DIY culture could have streamlined administrative structures and reducing redundant positions that would have improved governance and responsiveness.
  14. Sovietization of Socialist Experience: The replication of burocratic Soviet methods in other socialist countries led to inappropriate policies and practices. Each nation needed to critically assess and adapt strategies to their unique contexts.

This vertical path has much to tell us if we are interested in taking a more horizontal path. Let’s try not to simply repeat this history, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind on taking this path.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSZRkhynXU worth a watch and informed from this https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1eb8hby/what_can_we_learn_from_the_actual_history_of/ its needs some more updating, comments please.