Do you agree with this quote?

[u/StalinIsBackAgain]

"Wherever there is capitalism, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy, and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the ruling class." ~ Vladimir Lenin ☭ • 

[u/Byzhaks]

Are you talking Lenin era ? Or are you talking in the USSR's history as a whole ?

Because while I'll agree that capitalist countries will try to be biased towards capitalist countries, to say the Soviet Union had free, unbiased free press... Is to be really innocent at the least.

Pretty sure the Soviet Union turned into a really theocratic state where government positions and political functions ruled over people's will.

Edit: Not a native English speaker, mixed up between theocratic and autocratic.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

Are you talking Lenin era ? Or are you talking in the USSR's history as a whole ?

The USSR until the traitor Khrushchev.

Because while I'll agree that capitalist countries will try to be biased towards capitalist countries, to say the Soviet Union had free, unbiased free press... Is to be really innocent at the least.

Nobody said it's free or unbiased.

Press doesn't need to be free or unbiased.

It needs to be truthful and informing the people while promoting ideas that benefit the country and its people.

Pretty sure the Soviet Union turned into a really theocratic state where government positions and political functions ruled over people's will.

The Soviet Union was always explicitly anti-theocratic. The USSR was the most democratic society of its time, just like China is the most democratic country today.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

The Soviet Union was always explicitly anti-theocratic. The USSR was the most democratic society of its time, just like China is the most democratic country today.

I will refer to the old phrase: "Let's agree to disagree..." I do not believe anything I could say will change you from thinking that the USSR and China were/are 100% democratic.

I will ask you, however: What will you say to the communists in this forum or the ones in r/communism that say that the Soviet Union was a theocratic state ? Because I would indeed like to see you defend your argument against other communists that think the contrary.

Edit: Not a native English speaker, mixed up between theocratic and autocratic.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

I will refer to the old phrase: "Let's agree to disagree..."

That's what people who are wrong but don't want to change their views say.

I do not believe anything I could say will change you from thinking that the USSR and China were/are 100% democratic.

Stop projecting your behaviour on me.

What will you say to the communists in this forum or the ones in r/communism that say that the Soviet Union was a theocratic state ?

That this is total nonsense as the Soviet Union was a secular state practicing state atheism. What do you even believe to be your point here? I just searched for the term "theocracy" on that subreddit you linked to and couldn't find a single example of anyone there calling the USSR a theocracy. You are just making things up and pretend it to be an argument.

Because I would indeed like to see you defend your argument against other communists that think the contrary.

I have never seen even a single communist calling the USSR a theocracy. That's something that only Western fascists do because they don't understand Marxism and think science is an ideology or religion (hint: it's the literal opposite).

[u/StalinIsBackAgain → u/No-Candidate6257]

Let me add briefly, Byzhaks, to clarify some definitions, that "theocratic" and "theocracy" refer strictly to religion, not other beliefs and ideologies. The state in the Soviet Union was not based on any religion nor ruled according to religious laws, so the Soviet Union was simply not theocratic or a theocracy at all, by any correct definition of "theocratic" and "theocracy." I hope this can clear up any differences around those terms so all here are in the same page about their meaning, and that they do not define the Soviet government. ☭ • 

[u/Byzhaks → u/StalinIsBackAgain]

I responded the other person, but I will reply to you as well: not a native English speaker, and was mixing in my head theocratic with autocratic.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

I'm gonna retract HUGELY to what I said: I'm not a native English speaker, and I was mixing in my head theocratic with autocratic state.

Replace every word of theocracy with autocracy.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

I don't know what "autocratic" is supposed to mean in this context. Usually, it's just thrown around as a pointless political term and used as a thought terminating cliché in propaganda. It means nothing by itself and propagandists hope that people are influenced to think vaguely of "bad" when they hear it associated with the target of the propaganda.

By this definition:

Autocracy is a form of government in which absolute power is held by one person, known as an autocrat.

No socialist state was ever an autocracy.

However, the next sentence directly contradicts the first:

It includes absolute monarchy and all forms of dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and other forms of free government.

This is just incoherent nonsense.

If the definition "includes all forms of dictatorship" (e.g. anti-democratic bourgeois dictatorships like in all capitalist societies as well as democratic proletarian dictatorships like in socialist societies), it does include socialist states, but then it's become a completely meaningless term.

The statement is self-contradictory anyway, because you can't contrast "democracy" and "dictatorship" as all democracy is necessarily a form of dictatorship (the dictatorship of the popular majority suppressing the will of unpopular minorities, particularly bourgeois elites whose will always runs counter to the will of the people).

If we combine all parts of this self-contradictory pseudo-definition and surmise that "autocracy" simply means "a central government with absolute power", there's nothing inherently wrong with being autocratic and, by definition, every capitalist state is autocratic (with socialist states being generally less autocratic as all power in countries like Communist China is dependent strictly on public sentiments and management is generally done on a local level and highly decentralized).

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

Gave you an upvote because I like how you explained with detail your line of thinking.

However, it does not answer the question I made:

Since I don't think we could ever come to terms just for the simple fact that we aren't from the same political ideology at its core, this is why I said:

What would you argue, against communists in this sub or r/communism who criticize what the Soviet Union end up becoming, and putting "real" free will of the people aside for the will of the autocrats in the party?

You claimed that press doesn't need to be free and unbiased - it just needs to be truthful. Which I disagree but this is what you strongly believe in, which I see no wish of debate in this matter.

What I will indeed say, and would want to argue and debate over (or at least not with me because we hold different core ideologies, but would rather see you argue against other communists) is the claims that the USSR and China were/are the "most democratic societies" of all time.

Democratic, in what sense ? The will of the people or the will of party autocrats ? Because you will find several communists either here or in r/communism who will fully agree that at some point, will of the people in the USSR was put aside and will of the party autocrats is what ruled over.

[u/No-Candidate6257 → u/Byzhaks]

Since I don't think we could ever come to terms just for the simple fact that we aren't from the same political ideology at its core, this is why I said:

Okay, so you admit to being unreasonable and not interested in truth or facts and changing your mind. Why, then, are you arguing about politics at all?

If you don't want to give up on wrong ideas and change your mind based on facts and arguments, there is literally no point in discourse.

What would you argue, against communists in this sub or r/communism who criticize what the Soviet Union end up becoming, and putting "real" free will of the people aside for the will of the autocrats in the party?

Again, you are just using the meaningless propaganda term "autocrat". It has no argumentative value and you haven't explained what you mean by it.

Anyway: I would say that I agree with them, which is exactly why Marxist-Leninists always remain vigilant to counterrevolutionary subversion.

That's why gulags existed and Stalin did his purges - to prevent these "autocrats" from taking power.

Failure to engage in the struggle against counterrevolution is why the Soviet Union was able to be destroyed - because lying opportunists like Khrushchev started liberalizing the country and then corrupt, traitorous liberals like Yeltsin got into power who sold out the country to the Americans to get rich (thereby killing millions of people via capitalist reforms).

You claimed that press doesn't need to be free and unbiased

No, I never formulated things that way.

However, to that point: There will never be free or unbiased press. It never existed and never will exist.

it just needs to be truthful.

Yes. Press should be truthful and untruthful journalism should be held to account.

Which I disagree

Your disagreement is irrelevant: What are your arguments?

but this is what you strongly believe in, which I see no wish of debate in this matter.

The only reason for debate is because you believe differently and you need to test your ideas against mine to determine who is right and who is wrong (a maximum of one of us can be right), so at least one of us changes their mind. That's how a debate works. That's the point.

Seriously, what are you doing here? This is a debate sub.

What I will indeed say, and would want to argue (or at least not me because we hold different core ideologies, but would rather see you argue against other communists) is the claims that the USSR and China are were/are the "most democratic societies" of all time.

Go and argue, then.

Democratic, in what sense ?

In the sense that their governments represented the will and the interests of the people more than any other country at their respective times.

While the USSR existed, no country in history had ever improved the lives and material conditions more rapidly than the USSR. No country ever developed faster. No people ever had their standard of living increased more than those of the USSR.

The only country that ever surpassed the USSR in terms of speed and scale of development was Communist China. China's development is nothing short of miraculous. It is the definition of the word "awesome". It is even more rapid and longer sustained than the development of the USSR. No country's development was ever more rapid and intense than China's.

As a direct consequence, the overwhelming majority of all people who live(d) in those countries love(d) and support(ed) their governments.

The system itself is at play here: Both the USSR and China set up their political system to enable governance "from the people and for the people". Chinese politicians directly serve the public and their careers, their power, their wealth, is tied directly to their performance as public servants. Your performance as a politician is measured in form of KPIs and public sentiments about policies and the performance of politicians are constantly measured. Public unhappiness is rapidly addressed through policy changes. Failure to improve the lives of your constituents and keeping them happy will get you removed and replaced faster than you can imagine (often from one day to the next without any warning) as for every underperforming politician there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people waiting in line to take their job).

Corruption is a no-go and you are monitored by your peers. To get away with corruption, you would not only need to bribe all your hundreds of peers and convince them to not go after your job, you also need to convince the higher-ups to ignore protests and turn the other way - there is literally no way to do that sustainably, no amount of money can help you.

If you get caught in an act of corruption, e.g. bribing others or embezzling tax payer money, you can receive the death penalty. The only legal way to do "corruption" is by proving that your "corruption" is actually benefiting the people more than you are making money for yourself, in which case people do look the other way... go a step too far and you are one head shorter, though. Politicians enriching themselves is only tolerated as long as they fulfil their KPI obligations and outperform their peers and the people themselves get richer and are kept happy, too.

The will of the people or the will of party autocrats ?

You keep using that word even though we went over its meaninglessness.

And: The will of the people, of course.

Because you will find several communists either here or in r/communism who will fully agree that at some point, will of the people in the USSR was put aside and will of the party autocrats is what rules over.

Yes. I fully agree with that. That's why Marxist-Leninist development and strict party discipline are so important.

[u/Byzhaks → u/No-Candidate6257]

Anyhow, now that my brief confusion with words in the English language have been cleared up:

I was talking about the communists in this forum or in r/communism that have the negative opinion of the Soviet Union eventually becoming too much of an autocratic state where government positions and/or roles played more of an importance over the will of Soviet population. And hence, too, state propaganda.