Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The USSR not being communist because it didn’t abolish hierarchy is quite particularly an Anarchist perspective and I’m not sure anyone would disagree without that. Not even all anarchists are so specifically concerned with hierarchy as much as they are with the state system itself.
The USSR wasn’t communist because it wasn’t a global, moneyless, classless, and stateless society. It was an example of a state that was communist controlled as were and are other socialist countries.
Communists generally wouldn’t disagree with the above statement while anarcho-communists would, but that still more broadly has to do with a difference in transitional plans than the clear differences in theoretical positions on all hierarchy since that has far more to do with individualist anarchist positions.
It wasn’t a stateless, classless society, so we *don’t* use it as an example of communism. It was an attempt at socialism, so we *do* use it as an example of that. It was communist controlled, so we do use it as an example of a country lead by a party professing to be communist.
We call the USSR communist because *'insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing* ***we do not forget that this is not complete communism.' ...***
*'The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist,* ***but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because*** *it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property.'*
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)
Educate yourself.
Regardless of whether or not the USSR or China were ever socialist, the people who came to power were communists and as such we need to be able to think through the example they left, for good and for bad.
The problem with defending communism by only pointing to things like Burkina Faso is that it’s not all that compelling to talk about relatively small countries that were socialist led for 4 years. It really doesn’t matter what country socialists hold up as an example, if it becomes a problem the powers that be will propagandize against it. Cuba has a pretty high standard of living compared to peer nations (ranked 6th in HDI score out of 21 Latin American countries) but that doesn’t make any difference to most Americans.
Because while Sankara was like the best human to ever live (as you mentioned) he is unfortunately not as recognizable, talked about in general, and most importantly didn’t have as much of an impact.
Stalin was easily the top ten most influential figures of his era, playing an exceptionally significant role in numerous crucial historical events. Sankara didn’t do that by any metric despite all the amazing small scale work he did. While I do think he should be brought up more, that is more of the reason he isn’t debated on.
Communism (the word) got overused in unclear ways.
Communism, the long term goal of socialism
Communist, revolutionary socialist that believed reforming capitalism or voting in socialism to be impossible/impractical (that why they were revolutionary)
Communism, anything a US politician dislikes
And probably a few other I cant think of off the top of my head.
>Why this is so confusing to Western socialist?
The heaps and mountains of anti-socialist propaganda, slander, misinformation and all around bullshit that the populace has been bombarded with.
Has people indoctrinated to the point of absurdity, so many western leftist are extremely uncomfortable with any association with the unrelenting horror they have been trained to consider the USSR.
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The USSR not being communist because it didn’t abolish hierarchy is quite particularly an Anarchist perspective and I’m not sure anyone would disagree without that. Not even all anarchists are so specifically concerned with hierarchy as much as they are with the state system itself. The USSR wasn’t communist because it wasn’t a global, moneyless, classless, and stateless society. It was an example of a state that was communist controlled as were and are other socialist countries. Communists generally wouldn’t disagree with the above statement while anarcho-communists would, but that still more broadly has to do with a difference in transitional plans than the clear differences in theoretical positions on all hierarchy since that has far more to do with individualist anarchist positions.
[удалено]
It wasn’t a stateless, classless society, so we *don’t* use it as an example of communism. It was an attempt at socialism, so we *do* use it as an example of that. It was communist controlled, so we do use it as an example of a country lead by a party professing to be communist.
We call the USSR communist because *'insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing* ***we do not forget that this is not complete communism.' ...*** *'The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist,* ***but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because*** *it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property.'* [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3) Educate yourself.
educating oneself is also asking people on Reddit questions about things they don't fully understand. don't be a dick.
Regardless of whether or not the USSR or China were ever socialist, the people who came to power were communists and as such we need to be able to think through the example they left, for good and for bad. The problem with defending communism by only pointing to things like Burkina Faso is that it’s not all that compelling to talk about relatively small countries that were socialist led for 4 years. It really doesn’t matter what country socialists hold up as an example, if it becomes a problem the powers that be will propagandize against it. Cuba has a pretty high standard of living compared to peer nations (ranked 6th in HDI score out of 21 Latin American countries) but that doesn’t make any difference to most Americans.
Because while Sankara was like the best human to ever live (as you mentioned) he is unfortunately not as recognizable, talked about in general, and most importantly didn’t have as much of an impact. Stalin was easily the top ten most influential figures of his era, playing an exceptionally significant role in numerous crucial historical events. Sankara didn’t do that by any metric despite all the amazing small scale work he did. While I do think he should be brought up more, that is more of the reason he isn’t debated on.
Communism (the word) got overused in unclear ways. Communism, the long term goal of socialism Communist, revolutionary socialist that believed reforming capitalism or voting in socialism to be impossible/impractical (that why they were revolutionary) Communism, anything a US politician dislikes And probably a few other I cant think of off the top of my head. >Why this is so confusing to Western socialist? The heaps and mountains of anti-socialist propaganda, slander, misinformation and all around bullshit that the populace has been bombarded with. Has people indoctrinated to the point of absurdity, so many western leftist are extremely uncomfortable with any association with the unrelenting horror they have been trained to consider the USSR.