What should we do with former socialism?

► Music:

Al Marconi - Shades of grey
Al Marconi - Siberia

► Timestamps:

0:00 Introduction
2:50 Democratic socialists
4:23 Anarchists
5:27 Marxists-Leninists
7:48 Trotskyists
11:22 Sectarians
12:32 1) Celebrate their successes
13:53 2) Ruthless criticism
16:28 3) It's time to move on
18:38 Imagining new futures

[richhornie]

Criticize the mistakes, celebrate the achievements, but do not denounce them by saying they are not "true" socialism (that's exactly what conservatives want to hear)

[WTFCDFoxy]

Since the propaganda war is based mostly on the history, it is essential for communists to explain what really happened instead of just saying *it wasn't real socialism, it failed* or *it was all perfect until Gorby came along*

[sojourner]

Calling Marxism-Leninism “Stalinism” is a bit silly. It is the ideological framework of all existing socialist states.

[jackbadulov]

Weirdly, of all the people I know MLs criticize Soviet Union and Stalin the most while still thinking very fondly of both.

[JustA-Person]

I have never seen a video I have agreed with more. It is important that we celebrate and take with us all the things that worked and constructively criticize and change what didn’t.

[josemaria]

Haven't seen the video yet, but my basic take is to learn as much as you can from every socialist movement and state. Learn and celebrate what they did well. Criticize and correct what they did incorrectly. Whenever confronted with bad faith criticism from liberals or fascists form a united front and defend every movement. Even If you dislike a movement, remember that bad faith criticism will be used against every movement. Anyway, just leaving this comment to enhance engagement

[themarxistproject]

I find it kind of ironic, actually, how much Marxists love to entrench themselves in the debates of the past. One of Marx's greatest theoretical contributions was the materialist study of history, which necessarily means being meticulously attuned to historical contexts and shifting conditions. That many Marxists seem caught up in anachronistic disagreements is very much not in the spirit of the thinkers that shaped these schools of thought. For instance, Lenin was one of the sharpest strategists in modern history precisely because he knew how and when to adapt to material shifts. He seemed to have almost a sixth sense for when the balance of forces in history moved from place to place.
That's not to say some of the historical debates don't have relevant application in our times. A good number of the issues were disagreements about fundamental interpretations of epistemology/ontology/methodology, all of which continue to be important today. But it seems absurd to me to say "I follow this tendency that emerged in 1922, and thus think this way about the world as it is today, in 2022."

[glitterkid]

Great video :) Thought it was worth mentioning that developed Marxism-Leninism absolutely transcends the mistakes of Stalin and any utopianism regarding the USSR. The list of self-purported Marxist-Leninists includes Thomas Sankara, Maurice Bishop, Amílcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Samora Machel, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara and Cuba's leadership, India's CPI(M) and Kerala's most influential leaders, the first-generation Sandinistas and FMLN, Vijay Prashad, Walter Rodney, et cetera; figures, parties, and thinkers who simply aren't fully or accurately described by the term 'Stalinist'.

[diabetusultrainstinct]

I am an ML, and I can't agree with your point on MLs in general. Most MLs I have met do recognise the flaws of the soviet model and the mistakes that were made. The phrase 'Stalin did nothing wrong' is often used by people who know nothing or by people who are arguing with a liberal who believes he killed millions. I myself tend not to do this and jump straight to the endpoint of explaining the actual mistakes that Stalin made though

[dorinpopa]

Equating ML with "Stalinism" is not correct in my opinion. What Lenin contributed to Marxism is the introduction of the leading role of an avant-garde party of the proletariat to mobilize the proletariat and lead them to the revolution and to the construction of socialism in accordance with Marxism. This also goes hand in hand with the principle of democratic centralism and the debating within the party of how to apply Marxism to the problems at hand without compromising the larger struggle for socialism and not steering away from this objective and Marxist principles at the same time.

Stalinism in the historical sense is just the policies and tactics that Stalin implemented in some very turbulent historical circumstances and there is honest analysis and criticism from MLs of Stalin's failings and that the economic and bureaucratic basis for the later revisionism brought by Khrushchev started developing during Stalin. Stalin kept the ideological line somewhat in check, but he failed to fix the underlying issues that in the end brought the USSR to gradually adopt revisionism, beginning with Khrushchev. During Stalin's life his authority didn't allow for the bureaucracy to openly attack ML principles, but with his death the attack of ML principles begun, but was labeled as the dismantling of "Stalinism". The most clear mistake and even maybe crime that Stalin made was the mass deportation of smaller ethnicities that had a proportionally large involvement in collaboration with the Germans during WWII. The accusation of those mistakes and crimes is completely legitimate, BUT along with rehabilitating those that haven't been directly involved in collaboration a lot of true enemies of the socialist movement were freed, including actual collaborationists that have done so much harm that the consequences can still be felt today as in the case of newly flourishing Ukrainian ultranationalism that is the direct continuation of the same movement and ideology as in the 20th century. A lot of "reforms" of the economic planning were pushed during the same push of destalinization. Profit principles were integrated into the economic planning and all of it culminated with the integration of market reforms under Gorbatchev and the complete dismantling of socialism. We need to be careful with slapping "Stalinism" over the entirety of ML thought and principles, because that's exactly how true revisionism is spreading and poisoning the movement.

"Stalinism" today, as a separate or a sub movement, doesn't make any sense. There is not much theory or even difference in tactics that would make it a separate branch and looks as some kind of out of place historical reenactment without making the necessary Marxist analysis of current circumstances and what would be a productive strategy in today's material realities. It's the same nonsense as arguing about trotskyism when talking about current events.

[davidharabagiu]

My man you never disappoint. How do you write so beautifully?

[kamarovcliffordsky]

Getting into your content as of late but I have to say you've summed it up beautifully. Throughout my life I've fluctuated between different flavours of Socialism, but these days I just find myself using the label 'Socialist' because I've never felt that any one particular brand was worth devoting my whole ideological framework to. The reason the right is able to so easily control the flow of debate is because despite having so many different ideologies making up their collective spectrum, they're always focused on the change that's happening here and now (in the past it was the rise of Communism/Socialism, now it's the rise of 'woke culture' and in particular LGBTQ+ rights). In contrast, leftists have always been too busy debating themselves about the successes and failures of the past, or nuances in ideological philosophy, to actually push back against this tide of reactionary discourse. The only time leftists can actually come together in brief moments of history is when fascism is literally bashing down the door and direct action is necessary for our continued survival. I think it's time for us anti-capitalists to let go of our ideological frameworks and simply work on fighting the here and now, of course it's important to remember history as to not repeat it, but it's far more important to deal with the problem in front of us instead of getting bogged down by the nuances of the past. Now I know this is easier said than done, especially since right wing proponents are always dragging us into these pointless bad faith debates, but our job will be a lot easier if people on the left stop regurgitating these same bad faith talking points within our own circle.

[Anarchidi]

Pleeease make a video on cybernetic socialism, I beg you.

Im really looking for a better vision of a system that transcends capital, but does so by incorporating its externalities into it.
And that manages to algorithmically plan development, using input-output tables of the total cumulative labour/commodities/recourses of society
(and also somehow incorporates democratic descision making on what the goals of society are, so as we dont just become subservient again to some more sophisticated algorithm).

I really think some form of a possible model has to be designed beforehand, cause after the break with capital happens, any new temporary system will become entrenched, and we might have phenomena like what happens in the USSR (where distinct material interests of the managerial strata developed).

Some party/group/whatever needs to come up with a more productive/less wasteful rhizomatic cybernetic communist alternative to capitalism, and do it fast. Something that can overcome the base-vs-superstructure dichotomy.

Call me a utopian socialist or whatever, but no one is gonna trust you to do a revolution, if you have no concrete (but also adaptable to possible barriers) plan for an alternative.

(I know that only having the right program, means jack if you have no developed power frameworks. Also, I think it would also be really useful to create some Game-Theory type decision maker for what a labour collective should do, and what points of the international supply chain it should aim to organise for maximum disruption, and stuff.)

The more I think of all the work that needs to be done, it all seems impossibly difficult and doom-pilling. All my hopes lie in Latin America and the Chinese proletariat for taking radical action when this profit squeeze pops off (cause where I am from Greece, even though communist networks are really developed, the material conditions arent there to overcome capital).

[victorconway]

As a marxist-leninist, we do not disavow any and all criticisms of the USSR. Go to any circle and you'll find plenty of back and forth about socialism's history and quite a diverse range of perspectives. We disavow "criticisms" based on either commonly-held falsehoods or ones based on true events but argued through idealist/moralist perspectives rather than materialist ones. But MLs are frequently forced to play the defensive when the default among so many in the left is to look at everything the USSR did in the worst light possible. So I find it a little unfair to call all of us "dogmatists" or "obsessive over irrelevant history" for that. For that matter, I disagree that it's irrelevant. On the contrary, I think the consistent demonizing of socialist history plays a pivotal role in anti-leftist propaganda to this very day. The bourgeois media wouldn't still be talking about it to this day if it were irrelevant, it wouldn't be drilled into the minds of children in schools to this day if it were irrelevant, social media companies wouldn't be actively trying to suppress positive discourse on socialism to this day if it were irrelevant, and reactionaries wouldn't be constantly invoking the lies about the USSR as arguments against socialism if it were irrelevant. Times may have changed, but we are still in the age of imperialism. The propaganda used against socialism of the past both among the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the left are the same ones they use against modern revolutionary movements. Marxists of the past didn't get to where they were by whitewashing their own line to avoid "alienating" petty bourgeois sentiments, and nor should we. I find it sad that you too believe many of the claims made about "forced collectivization" and the "inhumanity of the purges." Don't you think it's a little ironic to be putting down the anarchists/socdems for their ideological, "mainstream-shilling, " and immaterial understanding of socialism while then proceeding to pedal the exact same thing?

[augustwolf_]

Great video. I look forward to your future videos about the merits and faults of former Socialist experiments. It's very refreshing to see an M-L like you who doesn't fall into the trap of heavy dogmatism and cult of personality type of stuff.

[rohansimon]

thanks for the explanation, great researched video!

[deathgobbler]

neither defend or dismiss - learn from it.

[elclaustrocl]

I totaally agree with you, deeper, with only one detail. In Chile and Latin America, our past and our referents are a source of dignity and support for our cause. For example, Salvador Allende is a deeply regarded person and popular among the youth in Chile, because in conrast of the european context, they don't have the same historical burdens.
With that onkly little exception, I'm happy and deeply pleased to found your content, I felt politically alone until I've came here.
Regards from Chile, compañero.

[othernic]

Great work as always. Love your insightsQ

[shriekinambassador]

Ruthless criticism is the only option. The problem is when the ruling party withhin a given system supresses all possible criticism even milquetoast ones.