the state is violent

anonymous asked:

what do you think of your states? Especially the special snowfla- Free States.

“All of the states are my older brothers and sisters. Without them, there wouldn’t be a unified Germany and I wouldn’t even be alive. I owe them everything, and they’ve shown me what it truly means to be German.”

{ ft. @ask–bayern, @ask-baden, and @ask-sachsen

not pictured is every state being violently upset that Gilbert raised Ludwig and not one of them }

How often my conversations about feminism have spiraled into requests for assault. I say, “Women don’t need men to defend them,” and am asked, “Can I punch you, then?” And I say, “Women belong in movies and video games and everything,” and I hear terrible things, unprintable slurs and demands for my assault, the threatening of a young woman to shut up: What they would do to silence me. The things they’d shove between my teeth. I say, “Men cannot threaten any woman they disagrees with,” and I’m told, “Women are just as cruel. Am I not supposed to respond in kind?” In my inbox today I have deleted sixteen messages asking for my life. When I say, “Your virginity only means what you want it to mean,” I’m asked, “If you believe in sexual freedom can I fuck you?” When I say “All it takes to be a woman is to want to be a woman,” I am asked, “So if I just say that I’m a woman, can I watch you in the shower?” As if women stand shadowy behind each other in our private moments. As if being woman means sexually assaulting each other.

Part of me - cynical, unwilling to be frightened, says that it might be a nice dose of reality. My shower where I am naked but my hair becomes streaky and thin, where my body sags, where my makeup smears. To witness a woman less than sexy, legs akimbo while shaving, pulling up flab thighs to reach the underside. Part of me dares them to punch me because I fight to win and am small but I’ll kill a man if he touches me. Once I dropped a U.S Marine. Part of me, hellfire and ice queen - says come on, then. You want a fight? Come fight me.

But more is scared. More timidly deletes messages, makes sure my name is hidden, doesn’t answer the endless antifeminist comments. The insertion of men and their opinion on simple things like “I teach children to ask before hugging.” When I close my eyes sometimes I wonder if they’re right and that scares me. How much am I going to change when my voice only echoes around me.

Why are you angry. Why are you angry. What do you think we are taking from you? If it’s not already equal why would equality frighten you.

The ancient art of being a woman and trying to get your voice heard: the gentle suggestion, the peaceful comment. The quiet listening to another opinion and the fact we must acknowledge it before we can continue. That I must educate, be sweet, be feminine in my feminism or else it’s “invalid.” I must present my declaration as a timid thing: “Women maybe should be part of more things.” And then the apologies: of course I don’t hate men, yes I like plenty of things with men in them, no I don’t think women are better. And then the explanations: women are people, here is the number of women in media, here is the number of dead women in media, here are the number of shows led by men. And then I brace for it. For the bullying.

Every time I speak it’s from a flinch. From “maybe this isn’t always the case but for me it is.” From please listen. From less demanding. God forbid I state factually that men are violent. If I speak about our fathers and brothers and the cycle of anger unfolding. God forbid I suggest that just once we should cut the bullshit and treat women well without pandering to men about how that helps them. What if I say “Men shouldn’t hit anyone. Hitting isn’t an answer.”

I’ll tell you what happens. The post was up for four seconds with three notes. The message I get is “If hitting isn’t allowed I’ll just go ahead and shove a gun down your throat.”

Why does the homeless man sleep in the doorway of an empty office building instead of inside the building itself? Because the police have threatened to attack him just like they attacked [United Airlines passenger David Dao]. Why does a poor family go to bed hungry when they could just grab food from the supermarket a few blocks away? Because the police have threatened to attack them just like [Dao].

Of course, these threats of capitalist violence are so credible that few dare to act in ways that will trigger them. But the violence is always there, lurking in the background. It is the engine that makes our whole system run. It is what maintains severe inequalities, poverty, and the power of the boss over the worker. We build elaborate theories to pretend that it is not the case in order to naturalize the human-made economic injustices of our society. But it is the case. Violent state coercion like what you saw in that video is what runs this show.

—  Matt Bruenig
What Is Liberalism?

Oftentimes in leftist circles you can hear folks decrying liberals and liberalism. If you ask them why they hate liberalism, most of them will point you in the direction of Mao’s Combat Liberalism to better understand them, but this is a mistake. Combat Liberalism is effectively an internal memo, warning other communists of the need to avoid liberalism lest it be detrimental to their work. It details results of that ideology, but not causes. To that end, I’ve compiled a brief description of what liberalism is and why it’s bad.

The ideology of liberalism is denoted by three tenets:

  1. Free-market capitalism. Liberals believe that capitalism is good, or at least “the best we have”. While liberals may argue over how much intervention in the market is necessary, they all agree on the fundamental goodness of capitalism, and that it should be tweaked rather than replaced.
  2. The state and representative “democracy”. Liberals believe that the state is good, and that representative democracy is an effective means of creating social change and an acceptable level of participation. They reject any aims outside of the state, and try to co-opt movements towards state action (e.g. electing Democrats).
    1. Nonviolence: The liberal insistence on “nonviolent” protest (usually invoking a whitewashed history of Dr. King) is largely derived from state-worship. They see the state as the only legitimate user of force, and all others as violent looters and rioters; because of that, they refuse to even consider violence as a method of protest or direct action (e.g. antifascism).
    2. Indirect action and representative problem-solving: Linked to the lionization of representative democracy, liberals care little for direct action, even as indirect as blocking a street for a few hours. They believe that the power to change things is vested solely in those representatives, and that the common person shouldn’t bother; direct action, to them, is illegitimate for the same reason as violence.
  3. A focus on individual rather than class politics. Liberals see all social issues as issues primarily affecting individuals, rather than groups. In other words, they lack a class analysis; they see racism, for example, as the result of individual prejudices and “meanness” and something to be fixed at that level, rather than a system of structural violence against non-white peoples aimed at dividing the working class.

 Liberalism, as an ideology, is dangerous. These three tenets combine to form an analysis that is insufficient to encompass the whole of the enemy, and more importantly a praxis that is ineffective at combating it. It infects activists and ordinary workers alike, and railroads them into believing that they cannot change a society that benefits only those at the top. It railroads them into believing that the burdens they bear cannot be thrown off, and stands in the way of our collective liberation. It must be combated, for it is at the root of the struggle.

Does nobody see the irony in automatically being suspicious of Jewish people for being ~connected to Israel~ (and therefore supposedly for the oppression of Palestinians… a lot of jumping there lol) as someone from the United States, arguably the most violent country in the world, both against populations elsewhere and to the indigenous populations here? Not that the ppl who do this don’t care about the actions of the US, but I mean, it’s not like you fucking ban the rainbow US flag at Chicago dyke march, you ban the rainbow Star of David. It’s anti Semitic. There’s no way around it. You see someone from a marginalized population and ascribe tons and tons of negativity to them without any other info than their identity, you’re a bigot.

ETERNAL PURPOSE AND HOPE FOR THE YOUTH AND FUTURE

remember to remember this message when it all is to hard to bare, or upon child birth

to be rid of the depressional & violent state of mind we all are naturally born with is to immediately understand and acquire purpose, and evolve accordingly

the purpose of the human mind, is creation and evolution, how will you build or destroy this world? how will you evolve accordingly to your ideal vision and goal/purpose, with purpose there is a lack of attention to anything other than your dreams and goals with the determination of the individual human & structure and belief built around that individual human being or “brain”


the purpose will & can always be, create, destroy, evolve, but beyond anything and everything their must always be purpose and that is for you as an individual to create and understand


now here’s the fun part that gets rid of the depression,

what do you want to create? what do you want to be my children? enjoy your journey, pass this onto your children & your childrens children


I love you all, my energy is with you,

- xxxtentacion

There is a lot of conversation about ending mass incarceration, but almost all of it is focused on changing how we respond to non-violent and low-level crimes. The problem is that more than half of people in state prison are incarcerated for violent crimes, so we will only end mass incarceration if we deal with the question of violence.  

This Issue Time conversation will deal with the question of violence, and will discuss whether mass incarceration actually makes us safer and what else could make us safe instead.

ASK OUR PANELISTS A QUESTION!

Danielle Sered envisioned, launched, and directs Common Justice. She leads the project’s efforts, locally rooted in Brooklyn but national in scope, to develop and advance practical and groundbreaking solutions to violence that advance racial equity, meet the needs of those harmed, and do not rely on incarceration.

Fatimah Loren Muhammad is the Director of Equal Justice USA’s Trauma Advocacy Initiative, which, in its pilot stage hosts weekly, half-day collaborative workshops bringing over 250 members of the Newark Police Department together with African American community leaders and public health practitioners to discuss issues of race, trauma, violence, policing, and mass incarceration. She is a Senior Fellow at Humanity in Action and a recipient the Leeway Foundation 2010 Social Transformation Award. 

Ryan King is a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where he works on sentencing and corrections issues with a focus on mass incarceration. His objective is to produce high-quality empirical research on the impact of sentencing and corrections policies at the state and federal level; and to work with policymakers, practitioners, and community advocates to identify strategies that assist in the pursuit of a fair, effective, and rational criminal justice system.

Glenn E. Martin, is the President and Founder of JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA), an organization dedicated to cutting the U.S. correctional population in half by 2030.

Our panelists will begin answering your questions on Monday April 17th.

I wish white people would STOP acting like they have a long storied history of being racially progressive, harmonious, supportive and peaceful. YOU DO NOT! In the United States alone have 240+ years of being willfully ignorant, violent, oppressive and MURDEROUS against black, natives, mexicans, hispanics, asians and anyone in between. you deserve every suspicious side eye you get. you deserve all the mistrust. you deserve the mockery for your ignorance. especially when you deny these things happen, downplay their impact, deny that you enjoy any benefits from those actions and continue to support them.
the signs as pretty words

Aries: zeitgeist (n.)

“the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time”

Taurus: mellifluous (adj.)

“sweet or musical; pleasant to hear”

Gemini: scintillating (adj.)

“brilliantly and excitingly clever or skillful; sparkling or shining brightly”

Cancer: halcyon (adj.)

“denoting a period of time in the past that was idyllically happy and peaceful”

Leo: efflorescence (n.)

“the action or process of developing and unfolding as if coming into flower”

Virgo: epitome (n.)

“a person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type”

Libra: zephyr (n.)

“a very slight or gentle breeze” 

Scorpio: susurrous (adj.)

full of whispering sounds”

Sagittarius: maelstrom (n.)

“a situation or state of confused movement or violent turmoil”

Capricorn: incipient (adj.)

“in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop”

Aquarius: imbue (v.)

“inspire or permeate with a feeling or quality”

Pisces: phosphene (n.)

a luminous impression due to excitation of the retina”

anonymous asked:

Here's a problem with the Tony haters. Tony is bad for wanting revenge, yet you people are fine with T'Challa, who was reacting violently to Bucky as a HEAD OF STATE, putting on a suit and turning into a vigilante thug. At least Tony tried to compromise. T'Challa just started attacking people for a really flimsy reason.

really, dude? you come into my inbox to defend a white war profiteer and to call a black person a thug? god, you people are really that transparent.

flimsy reason??!! honestly, what the fuck. t’challa held his father’s dead body in his arms. tony’s parents died almost 30 years ago and t’challa watched his father die in front of him like the day before and for some reason you think that tony’s violent outburst is justified but t’challa isn’t allowed to grieve without you reducing him to the racist “aggressive black man” stereotype.

t’challa went after bucky because he believed him to be completely guilty. he had evidence of “bucky” planting the bomb at the building. tony knew bucky was innocent and he still tried to kill him. i’m sorry, but that’s unforgivable. once t’challa realized that he’d made a mistake and bucky had been set up, he tried his best to fix it. he didn’t even let zemo die (you know, t’chaka’s actual killer who, unlike bucky, was guilty) because he wasn’t going to let vengeance consume him anymore. tony let his anger get the best of him.

anyway if you’re a tony stan, you’re not allowed to talk about t’challa. you can’t even think about him. you can’t even look at him. sorry, i don’t make the rules. stick to worshiping your trashy fave and don’t touch other characters.

  • what she says: anders deserved better
  • what she means: anders had to take a hard decision and, while everyone can see it differently depending on personal ethics, his development and moral dilemmas from that point were disregarded because, in the narrative thats being pushed onto us, the ‘angry fighter for freedom' character has no place. Its not surprising that in the default world state, the mage hawke has not only killed anders but he also violently despises him; and several times we are reminded of how he 'single-handedly' started the war. Never mind the inherent abuse in the circles or the straight slave work that its presented in the kirkwall circle; good mages would have never rebelled, good mages seek help from the merciful chantry, good mages stay quiet until... until a /bad mage/ seeks answers through violence. Anders' life is nothing but the tale of the nice opressed, who smiles and gently corrects; and the mean opressed, who speaks up and ACTS. Once he becomes the Mean Opressed, his narrative ends. Theres nothing else to his character, he is Done, he will not evolve past that. In Dragon Age 2, most characters become, at some point, a monster: fenris and his markings, merrill and blood magic, isabela and her stolen book. Anders' monster is not being an abomination: is daring to fight with the same violence that was shown to him, to his people. We aren't shown any more of his development because right after his stand, we can kill him. We can abandon him. We can kill him, again. We end the game. His storyline has no closure; its made so we can comfortably hate him and never get to see his real drives and ethics. And thats why he deserved more.
  • what she also means: my son..... my be aut iful feli ne son..........
What really happened in Charlottesville.

Disclaimer:I don’t condone nor Support neo Nazis, because they fucked up and make other nationalists look bad. They are just as worse as Antifa, so fuck them both. If you are easily offended about this post, then keep scrolling, why waste time making huge unnecessary fuss about it!! .

This is what happened in Charlottesville, since media is incapable of reporting:

-The Alt Right organized a peaceful assembly in Charlottesville called Unite the Right

-The organizers lawfully obtained a permit to host this event

-Wes Bellamy, the Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville, illegally revoked the permit for this event. Wes Bellamy is a known Leftist and is affiliated with the Black Panther Party, a Black supremacist organization

-The ACLU successfully sued Charlottesville for violating the First Amendment, and a Federal judge ruled that the permit must be reinstated and the right to assemble honored

-Unite the Right was scheduled to take place at 12:00pm today. At 11:30am, a heavily militarized police force illegally shut down the event, physically assaulting peaceful protesters with batons and tear gas. Several people were illegally arrested

-While evacuating, many protesters were illegally assaulted by counter-protesters from Antifa and Black Lives Matter as the police stood by and did nothing. Antifa and BLM members were recorded throwing bricks at people, using pepper spray, and throwing molotov cocktails and tear gas

-A terrorist drove his car straight in to a crowd of people, killing at least one. The state of Virginia declared a state of emergency with the National Guard on standby, and Charlottesville became the #1 news story in the world

-The lying media intentionally portrayed this all in a way to make it look like the peaceful protesters were the perpetrators of the violence, rather than the victims, despite heavy video evidence to the contrary

-This was an enormous breech of everyone’s First Amendment rights, and a violent police-state suppression of free speech that is now being hidden by the lying media. A LOT of lawsuits are incoming, stay tuned!

8

My list of top movies about school shootings:

1. Hello Herman 

Herman goes to his high school and begins a shooting rampage, killing 39 students, two teachers and a police officer. Just before he surrenders, Herman sends video of his rampage to his talk-show idol, asking to be on the program.

2. April Showers

A survivor of a high-school shooting tries to come to terms with the horrors he witnessed, along with the loss of his best friend.

3. Elephant

A variety of adolescents at a suburban high school drift through a seemingly uneventful day, until two students arrive with violent intentions. Alex and Eric  have developed elaborate plans to enter their school and gun down as many of their peers as possible.

4. Bang Bang You’re Dead

At Rivervale High School, Trevor Adams is a bullied outcast trying to fit back in after a false bomb threat he made a few months ago. Trevor is chosen to star in a play called Bang Bang You’re Dead as the main character, Josh. After parents and the community hear of the play and its lead actor, they call for it to be cancelled.

5. White Rabbit

A bullied high school student starts having visions of a rabbit that he killed when he was a kid, soon putting him in a state where his imagination threatens to cause him to carry out violent acts.

6. Zero Day

Andre and Cal are a pair of military-loving misfits from small-town America. They harbor a hatred of their high school so caustic that they come up with a plan of attack called “Zero Day.” As the days count down, they record their preparations in video diaries, hoping to achieve fame after their demise. When Zero Day arrives, Andre and Cal drive to school with a trunk of munitions and take aim. The film is based on the Columbine High School massacre.

7. The Life Before Her Eyes

As the 15th anniversary of a fatal high school shooting approaches, former pupil Diana is haunted by memories of the tragedy. After losing her best friend Maureen in the attack, Diana has been profoundly affected by the incident - her seemingly perfect life shaped by the events of that day. 

8. Beautiful Boy

Stuck in an unhappy but comfortable marriage, businessman Bill and his wife, Kate , are shocked when they learn that their son, Sammy has gone on a deadly shooting spree on his college campus before committing suicide. Struggling to avoid the media, the couple flees to the house of Kate’s brother, Eric. While the two try to remember what they might have done to drive Sammy to his desperate act, their mutual resentment builds.

6

Massive earthquake rocks Mexico

Mexico’s president says that the magnitude of the earthquake that hit the country is 8.2, the biggest the country has seen in a century.

Enrique Pena Nieto confirmed that at least five people have died in the temblor. He also said that major damage has been caused and that 1 million initially had been without power following the quake, but that electricity had been restored to 800,000 of them.

He said that there have been 62 aftershocks and it’s possible one as strong as 7.2 could hit.

The U.S. Geological Survey has reported that the quake had a magnitude of 8.1. It hit off the coast of southern Mexico, toppling houses in Chiapas state, causing buildings to sway violently as far away as the country’s distant capital and setting off a tsunami warning. (AP)

Photo credits: Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images, Rebecca Blackwell/AP, Victoria Razo/AFP/Getty Images

See more photos of Mexico earthquake and our other slideshows on Yahoo News.

  • "No steppy" right-winger: lol how can someone support communism and anarchism at the same time? lol communism is full left-wing and anarchism is full right-wing -- total state control vs no state.
  • Communists and anarchists: *offer detailed analysis of the state, demonstrating that the state exists as a legal apparatus to enforce the class interests of those with power in society; draw conclusions based on this historically-verified piece of information and advocate for the abolition of capitalism so that class relationships can dissolve and in turn the state won't need to exist as a violent apparatus apart from the people, acting in the interests of capital; understand that "libertarian" as a term consistently had this left-wing connotation until establishment-supporting hacks twisted the term for their own material benefit; in turn recognize the left-wing character of both communism and anarchism, as movements that seek the abolition of concentrated power and the free flourishing of each and all*
  • "No steppy" right-winger: animals practice capitalism =) capitalism is literally just anything that doesn't involve the state =) me putting my bow tie on in the morning is capitalism =)

art-johnreach  asked:

What's your response to the ML criticism of anarchism that posits that revolution is an inherently authoritarian process since it involves a class forcing it's will upon another class?

it’s actually older than Marxism-Leninism, this is one of the oldest criticisms of anarchism, first articulated by Engels in his essay “On Authority” in 1872. It’s all built on the false assumption that is something can be described as an exercise of “authority”’ in any sense or from any perspective at all, anarchists are automatically against it.

For communist anarchists like myself, who have politics rooted in class struggle, the observation that a revolution involves “a class forcing it’s will upon another class” is obviously true - but it also leaves out an important bit of context which is that one of those classes is already forcing it’s will on the other. Classes aren’t just free floating discreet groups of people who can either be on the top or the bottom, they are produced and reproduced in relation to one another through specific, violently enforced relations of production.

The way this question is usually framed is as if our antagonism with the bourgeoisie is just a simplistic battle between two sets of people with the same aim - to repress the other by force - but our aims are fundamentally different, it’s about the reinforcement or abolition of class society… and our enemy isn’t just simply the group of people who currently compose the capitalist class, it’s class society itself, and the social relationships that produce and maintain it.

The ultimately violent authority of private property, capital and state is an organizing principle of society which determines every aspect of our lives. We are submitting to authority right now, is it “authoritarian” to stop? If someone has their boot on your neck, is it authoritarian to kick them off? From the perspective of the bosses, sure - the same people who perceive strikes and picket lines as violent incursions on their liberty, for them any sign of people rising up from their knees appears as an act of aggression - if we look at revolution from their perspective, then yes Engels had a point, we are authoritarians and every anarchist who ever punched a nazi or threw a brick at a cop is a huge hypocrite. This is of course the ancap point of view, and I accept that it exists, but it hasn’t really troubled the conscience of communist anarchists through 100 odd years of punching and brick throwing.

Anyway that was a much longer answer than I thought it was going to be, but Iain McKay dedicated a whole section of the anarchist FAQ to refuting this argument:

Didn’t Engels refute anarchism in his essay “On Authority”?

anonymous asked:

I think the higher incarceration rate may be because now we have more ways to track down criminals (cameras fingerprints) not because police are just throwing people into jail.

Noooope. But lets do some math to be sure. All the statistics I will be using are from here, here, and here.

We’ll look at race first. The united states has 693 people in prison per 100,000. However if we quickly glance at the Incarceration in the United States page, we can see the incarceration rate broken down by race. While white people are incarcerated at a rate of  450 per 100,000, Hispanic people are incarcerated at almost double the rate ( 831 per 100,000) and black people at an astoundingly high rate of  2,306 per 100,000. So lets consider a hypothetical prison system that doesn’t  discriminate by race, we assume that the default incarceration rate for everyone is an equal 450 per 100,000. By doing that alone the United States falls from first place to 11th.

We can also look at the breakdown by crime committed. Around 22% of prisoners are in state and federal prison for non-violent drug related crimes. 22% of 450 is 99. So if drug usage was legalized, this further reduces the rate of incarceration to 351. The united states would then be in 24th place.

Even with these reductions, the incarceration rate is more than triple that of other equally developed countries, like France, the Uk, and Germany. Its more than 5 times that of Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. All of these countries have comparable law enforcement technology to the united states.

These are just some quick estimates that take into account some readily available and easy to work with information. We haven’t even considered things like private prison profit incentives, private prison quotas, and public policy. Quoting from wikipedia, “ Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, “three strikes” laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national “War on Drugs.” ”

So no, more technology being available hasn’t resulted in the United State’s insane incarceration rates. Institutional racism, a bullshit “war on drugs”, and vindictive laws that line the pockets of private prisons are. Don’t let ideology fool you, the United States is objectively one of the least free countries.

2

The image on top is Trumps claims that mass deportations are necessary because, as he stated in his campaign, undocumented Mexican immigrants are violent thug criminals that do nothing but hurt our country. 

 The image below is Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, a married mother of 2 children who were born in the United States. 

She was deported last week. Trumps latest executive order places any undocumented immigrant in jeopardy of deportation if they have a crime on their record. What was her crime? Using a fake social security number to obtain a job so that she can work and provide for her family. A non-violent, very understandable act.  

Since she was convicted in 2008, Guadalupe was compliant, followed all orders and even checked in with ICE agents once a year. While she suspected that she may get detained at her check in this year, she hoped that the officers would make the obvious choice of allowing her to stay with her family. 

Unfortunately, ICE agents declined to see her humanity and deported her, tearing her away from her children and the community that she lived in for over 20 years.

chasing--the--universe  asked:

I'd to point you to a couple of things. They are. Soviet Russia. Maoist China

Original.

Soviet Russia and China are examples of countries that were still entrenched in feudalism at the times of their respective socialist revolutions, which effectively catapulted them into variations of state capitalist development instead of full workers-democratically-control-production socialism. The state became the analogous capitalist class and instituted developments and policies over the course of a few decades that private capitalists elsewhere were pushing for centuries – think forced proletarianization of peasants and concentrated industrialization. The state took over the functions of a bunch of private capitalists, appropriating surplus value generated by workers and distributing the surplus where deemed necessary; they often put this towards the industrialization of infrastructure and public services, but it just as often was used to enrich the party apparatus. Even Lenin literally deemed this setup as “state capitalism”, the idea being an intermediary stage for formerly-feudal societies before full socialism. 

As a libertarian socialist/Marxist, I don’t defend the actions taken in these countries, but it’s important to contextualize what was going on. The idea is that it’s near-impossible to just jump from feudalism to socialism – a period of capitalist development/accumulation and liberal institutions makes the jump more viable. As far as I’m concerned, this could have been accomplished through mutualism or market socialism, combining the liberalism of markets with the democratic accountability of worker control (thus mitigating much of the poverty and violent consequences of class domination).

To quote Terry Eagleton:

“Marx himself never imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions [i.e. Russia and China]. Such a project would require almost as bizarre a loop in time as inventing the Internet in the Middle Ages. Nor did any Marxist thinker until Stalin imagine that this was possible, including Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership…

Building up an economy from very low levels is a back-breaking, dispiriting task. It is unlikely that men and women will freely submit to the hardships it involves. So unless this project is executed gradually, under democratic control and in accordance with socialist values, an authoritarian state may step in and force its citizens to do what they are reluctant to undertake voluntarily. The militarization of labor in Bolshevik Russia is a case in point. The result, in a grisly irony, will be to undermine the political superstructure of socialism (popular democracy, genuine self-government) in the very attempt to build up its economic base…

As Marx insists, socialism also requires a shortening of the working day – partly to provide men and women with the leisure for personal fulfillment, partly to create time for the business of political and economic self-government. You can not do this if people have no shoes; and to distribute shoes among millions of citizens is likely to require a centralized bureaucratic state. If your nation is under invasion from an array of hostile capitalist powers, as Russia was in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution, an autocratic state will seem all the more inevitable…

To go socialist, then, you need to be reasonably well-heeled, in both the literal and the metaphorical senses of the term. No Marxist from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Trotsky ever dreamt of anything else. Or if you are not well-heeled yourself, then a sympathetic neighbor reasonably flush in material resources needs to spring to your aid. In the case of the Bolsheviks, this would have meant such neighbors (Germany in particular) having their own revolutions, too. If the working class of these countries could overthrow their own capitalist masters and lay hands on their productive powers, they could use those resources to save the first workers’ state in history from sinking without a trace. This was not as improbable a proposal as it might sound. Europe at the time was aflame with revolutionary hopes, as councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies (or soviets) sprang up in cities such as Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Munich, and Riga. Once these insurrections were defeated, Lenin and Trotsky knew their own revolution was in dire straights.

It is not that the building of socialism cannot be begun in deprived conditions. It is rather that without material resources it will tend to twist into the monstrous caricature of socialism known as Stalinism. The Bolshevik revolution soon found itself besieged by imperial Western armies, as well as threatened by counterrevolution, urban famine, and a bloody civil war. It was marooned in an ocean of largely hostile peasants reluctant to hand over their hard-earned surplus at gunpoint to the starving towns. With a narrow capitalist base, disastrously low levels of material production, scant traces of civil institutions, a decimated, exhausted working class, peasant revolts, and a swollen bureaucracy to rival the Tsar’s, the revolution was in deep trouble almost from the outset…

Imagine a slightly crazed capitalist outfit that tried to turn a pre-modern tribe into a set of ruthlessly acquisitive, technologically sophisticated entrepreneurs speaking the jargon of public relations and free market economics, all in a surreally short period of time. Does the fact that the experiment would almost certainly prove less than dramatically successful constitute a fair condemnation of capitalism? Surely not. To think so would be as absurd as claiming that the Girl Guides should be disbanded because they cannot solve certain tricky problems in quantum physics. Marxists do not believe that the mighty liberal lineage from Thomas Jefferson to John Stuart Mill is annulled by the existence of secret CIA-run prisons for torturing Muslims, even though such prisons are part of the politics of today’s liberal societies. Yet the critics of Marxism are rarely willing to concede that show trials and mass terror are no refutation of it.” 

TL;DR:

1) You can’t just expect socialism to quickly arise in materially- and socially-isolated countries in the throngs of feudalism (Russia and China). A material base of industrialization and a social base of liberalism are generally understood to be useful/basically-necessary prerequisites to build from. If other capitalist countries had undergone socialist revolution and provided aid to the struggling formerly-feudal state capitalist countries, they probably wouldn’t have congealed into top-down bureaucracies. A domino effect of worker revolutions across capitalist countries is considered necessary for socialism to fully take hold, just as a domino effect of bourgeois revolutions across feudal countries was needed for capitalism to fully take hold.

2) The violent primitive accumulation of early capitalism and the concentrated industrialization of state capitalist Russia and China served similar analogous functions in the broader context of historical materialism. Private capitalism for the enrichment of individual capitalists over the centuries, state capitalism supposedly for the enrichment of society’s material base and an eventual transition to full socialism. 

3) Capitalist societies have unleashed violent imperialism, mass enslavement, systemic poverty, and police states. If we’re going to bring up the disasters of isolated countries that set their aims at socialism, then we need to bring up the centuries-long disasters of not-isolated capitalist countries that have actively oppressed domestic and foreign populations of people. 

4) We live in an era of material abundance aided by advanced technology and automation; any attempt at socialism in late-capitalist countries would be significantly easier than what Russia and China experienced. As such, these industrialized late-capitalist countries need to undergo social revolution and provide aid to each other and to struggling countries that would have otherwise been state capitalist. 

(This answer has mainly been for the benefit of people already at least relatively sympathetic to anti-capitalism; I realize it is unlikely to sway someone so entrenched in capitalist ideology that they have no clue what socialist movements have entailed and strove for. If your analysis stops at “Russia and China were bad and that’s what socialism means and therefore it’s not worth fighting for”, then I don’t know what to tell ya. If your analysis stops at “capitalism preaches liberal individual freedom so therefore it is good”, then I don’t know what to tell ya. Dig past the ideology you’ve been spoon-fed by capitalist media and the state since childhood and recognize that you’ve been conned, all for the enrichment of the bosses and the bureaucrats.)

-Daividh