Late Stage Capitalism

3462 readers

271 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.

Introduction to Socialism (external links)

Wiki

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course

Audiobooks Read by Dessalines

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

anticolonialist@lemmy.world

K1nsey6@lemmy.world

181

Women in the USSR were in space before American women could open a bank account (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by K1nsey6@lemmy.world to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

So the Bolsheviks weren't the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?

And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way?

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that's right. The point I'm making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn't very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And what happened when those representatives disagreed with the inner circle?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They in turn elected candidates to put forth their disagreement

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Again, what happened to high-ranking politicians who openly expressed disagreement with the premier and his cabinet?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Could you cite some specific examples of what you lre talking about?

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Can you find any records of USSR politicians criticizing high-level government figures without consequence?

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it's easier to rule when there's no other options

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've never seen anyone arguing more for their own oppression than you. Multiple parties is completely undemocratic, which is the authoritarian government you claim single party countries have.

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

So why is having one party better?