You seemed to focus a lot on Ukraine in this post so I'm going to assume you know a lot about it. What do you think the correct answer to the "Ukrainian question" of the ussr was?
However independence I think is positive, if the independence is actually true in reality (Ukraine's economic dependence on other nations) is another question. Especially if you think that Ukraine was incorporated into the large military prowess of the USSR, only now to again be incorporated into the EU orbit.
In a broad sense due to what can be stated as complexity theory, when a system of power coalesces in a smaller minority who can make decisions, unplanned and disastrous results can occur.
In many ways the USSR was far better in many different ways than capitalist countries at the same time. From what I've read about the democracy it was better than the system we have even today in the United States (even ignoring the fact that capitalism and democracy are incompatible)
Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, however the dictates of the said government is still too far odious.
I cannot argue that the USSR was in any way better.
"If I'm not mistaken marxism doesn't equate to anarchism, unless you mean anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism."
Marxism still doesn't equate to anarchist communism or syndicalism. I support marxism only so far, past a point in the revolution states are no longer needed to fight the capitalists.
"Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, more prosperity (freedom in how to act and say what you wish)"
you can not be independent of government (or the ruling class) under capitalism and capitalism always tends towards violence, in fact it needs it to survive
First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
There are problems with the USSR model in its habits of primitive accumulation of resources in lieu of capital, and lack of syndicalism/party clique with diminished politburo etc, its nationalist ethos and closure of borders.
"First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. "
The problem is you are comparing two different countries with different levels of industry, technology, and natural resources. The USSR was also able to go into far less trade with other countries because of embargoes. The best comparison is between a country and itself under a different system. Even though it had more advanced technology, industry, better trade, and the same natural resources it did far worse.
If you really want to compare, at least compare growth. It took the USSR 44 years to go from a backwards agricultural society into the first to put a man into space, how fast was the progress in the usa at that time?
"Ask yourself why are you trying to fight capitalists? What do you want to achieve? Unfortunately fighting in any literal sense will not produce greater prosperity, again capitalism has lost any real meaning."
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. The meaning still stands and will always stand with meaning as a type of economic system until post-scarcity.
Actually looking at the golden age of capitalism, fighting does help it. Capitalism needs to expand to produce greater technology innovation and prosperity. When there is nothing left to expand into it grinds into a halt and the only thing the ruling class can do is hold a monopoly or start wars so that they can rebuild the means of production again as another temporary expansion.
Again cannot win? A weakened russia won against the entire world, castro started a revolution with 100 people, Rojava is an ongoing (winning) revolution today.
"1% of individuals eventually control a majority of resources over time, this has been established in nature."
No society without a government has ever had that happen. Worker control of the means of production will easily prevent that. Also the human nature argument is stupid.
"We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this."
Are you sure about that? I was not boring with these opinions and ideals, I learned them through speaking with others. Eventually I started debating. There was one group of people I just couldn't beat, they had all the facts that proved all of my ideas wrong. Eventually I decided that I could not hold ideals I could not defend.
There may be a conflict with anarchy with others desiring collective solutions by the unification of workers, who can co-operate or wish not to if 'land' or area is claimed by a state or group.
You seemed to focus a lot on Ukraine in this post so I'm going to assume you know a lot about it. What do you think the correct answer to the "Ukrainian question" of the ussr was?
However independence I think is positive, if the independence is actually true in reality (Ukraine's economic dependence on other nations) is another question. Especially if you think that Ukraine was incorporated into the large military prowess of the USSR, only now to again be incorporated into the EU orbit.
the ussr shouldn't have existed? Why?
In a broad sense due to what can be stated as complexity theory, when a system of power coalesces in a smaller minority who can make decisions, unplanned and disastrous results can occur.
so you support anarchism?
In many ways the USSR was far better in many different ways than capitalist countries at the same time. From what I've read about the democracy it was better than the system we have even today in the United States (even ignoring the fact that capitalism and democracy are incompatible)
"However independence I think is positive"
Independence of the people or independence of the government?
Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, however the dictates of the said government is still too far odious.
I cannot argue that the USSR was in any way better.
capitalism needs a government to exist, it can not be anarchist
from what I've read, anybody who silenced criticism in the USSR was jailed, not the opposite
"If I'm not mistaken marxism doesn't equate to anarchism, unless you mean anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism."
Marxism still doesn't equate to anarchist communism or syndicalism. I support marxism only so far, past a point in the revolution states are no longer needed to fight the capitalists.
"conflicting meanings of what 'true capitalism' is"
True capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, capital.
"Independence of the government is one step closer if you have a value system towards less violence, more prosperity (freedom in how to act and say what you wish)"
you can not be independent of government (or the ruling class) under capitalism and capitalism always tends towards violence, in fact it needs it to survive
First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
There are problems with the USSR model in its habits of primitive accumulation of resources in lieu of capital, and lack of syndicalism/party clique with diminished politburo etc, its nationalist ethos and closure of borders.
"First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. "
The problem is you are comparing two different countries with different levels of industry, technology, and natural resources. The USSR was also able to go into far less trade with other countries because of embargoes. The best comparison is between a country and itself under a different system. Even though it had more advanced technology, industry, better trade, and the same natural resources it did far worse.
If you really want to compare, at least compare growth. It took the USSR 44 years to go from a backwards agricultural society into the first to put a man into space, how fast was the progress in the usa at that time?
"Ask yourself why are you trying to fight capitalists? What do you want to achieve? Unfortunately fighting in any literal sense will not produce greater prosperity, again capitalism has lost any real meaning."
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. The meaning still stands and will always stand with meaning as a type of economic system until post-scarcity.
Actually looking at the golden age of capitalism, fighting does help it. Capitalism needs to expand to produce greater technology innovation and prosperity. When there is nothing left to expand into it grinds into a halt and the only thing the ruling class can do is hold a monopoly or start wars so that they can rebuild the means of production again as another temporary expansion.
Again cannot win? A weakened russia won against the entire world, castro started a revolution with 100 people, Rojava is an ongoing (winning) revolution today.
"1% of individuals eventually control a majority of resources over time, this has been established in nature."
No society without a government has ever had that happen. Worker control of the means of production will easily prevent that. Also the human nature argument is stupid.
https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/02/the-human-nature-argument/
"We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this."
Are you sure about that? I was not boring with these opinions and ideals, I learned them through speaking with others. Eventually I started debating. There was one group of people I just couldn't beat, they had all the facts that proved all of my ideas wrong. Eventually I decided that I could not hold ideals I could not defend.
There may be a conflict with anarchy with others desiring collective solutions by the unification of workers, who can co-operate or wish not to if 'land' or area is claimed by a state or group.
Dude
Haha thanks there is still two parts more to come :)
@outtayourbox So much information thanks for sharing.
Thank-you! :)
@outtayourbox Really fantastic post.
Thank-you