• Nama [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    The corpos control the state that gives them in turn legitimacy, so any violence originates from the corporations regardles. I get that.

    But you can't deny the immense potential for abuse the Soviet state still had. With no looming imperial power ready to conquer the imperial core upon its fall, I see no reason how we could justify tolerating even that remaining shred of violence.

    • DJMSilver [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      What "potential of absue" did the soviet state have? If you mean the abuse to repress capitalists then I am all for it. I'm interested in real concrete examples, not hypothetics or fantasies by liberals.

      • Nama [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Exectutions with little justification, forced conscription, forced relocations, expropriation of grain beyond reason, restrictions on press and newspapers, massive failed agriculture projects, nepotism/the enabling of corruption through officials, the measures taken against the bag-men as concrete example... a lot of it done with war in mind, but why even keep the state without war?

        But the real question is different. Why keep the state if you are a western imperial core? There is no fucking reason.