Offer me a list of arguments on ussr

[Black Sheep]

about USSR not being a socialist state (pre-Kruschev era).. and general negative things about the ussr.I want to summarize.
but not refuted cliches please..

add some to these:

- the undermining of soviets' power (<<<more detailed info on that will be appreciated)
-communist party's commisars regulating production and practically running the factories,instead of self-management, or workers'
-the whole leader worship thing about Stalin
-the accusations of everyone dissagreeing with the course taken, as 'trotskyist'
-nationalism,the motherland,glorious parades,etc
-the stance on other european revolutions (<<<more info on that will be appreciated)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

about USSR not being a socialist state (pre-Kruschev era).. and general negative things about the ussr.I want to summarize.
but not refuted cliches please..

add some to these:

- the undermining of soviets' power (<<<more detailed info on that will be appreciated)
-communist party's commisars regulating production and practically running the factories,instead of self-management, or workers'
-the whole leader worship thing about Stalin
-the accusations of everyone dissagreeing with the course taken, as 'trotskyist'
-nationalism,the motherland,glorious parades,etc
-the stance on other european revolutions (<<<more info on that will be appreciated)

The best argument ever is that a socialist state isn't even possible. You can include the suppression of anarchists too.

[Coggeh]

The best argument ever is that a socialist state isn't even possible. You can include the suppression of anarchists too.
A socialist state is possible and if their wasn't a state it wouldn't be socialist . I think you may be confusing it with communism . Socialism in essence is a workers state , where the workers own and control the means of production .




about USSR not being a socialist state (pre-Kruschev era).. and general negative things about the ussr.I want to summarize.
but not refuted cliches please..
add some to these:
- the undermining of soviets' power (<<<more detailed info on that will be appreciated)
-communist party's commisars regulating production and practically running the factories,instead of self-management, or workers'
-the whole leader worship thing about Stalin
-the accusations of everyone dissagreeing with the course taken, as 'trotskyist'
-nationalism,the motherland,glorious parades,etc
-the stance on other european revolutions (<<<more info on that will be appreciated)Well firstly , it wasn't Kruschev that turned the USSR into the bureaucratic state that we all think of when we think about the soviet union (in the five seconds between starting the thought and where Marxist analysis kicks in).

The fact of the matter is that a socialist state is where workers have power , and in the soviet union under stalin their was a complete disregard for democracy and also the rights of the working class .

The accusations of everyone who disagrees is a trotskysist I thought would have died out by now:confused:
Stalins and after Stalins idea on European revolution or any revolution is just oppurtunism , basically they only supported it when it would strenthen their position in the world .
Stalins policy firstly is riddled with mediocrity and half decisions.

Theirs the example of Spain in which the communist party of Spain (Stalinist) surpressed anarchist , left-wing communists and trotskysists .And instead of giving arms to the communists he sold them to them with conditions . How did he even expect the left to win when Franco was being supported by Hitler and Mussolini (Free of charge).

Another example is that of Germany before Hitler , the Comintern said the communist party cannot ally with the SPD(reformists) against the nazi party .
In fact it has to be said Stalin did far far more to work against European revolution than he ever did to spread it .

Ironic as it seems the best book out their in my opinion on the analysis of the soviet union under Stalin has to be "The revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky . Check it out .

I'm sorry I can't answer all of your questions .

[Cumannach]

Stalin was not a trotskyite adventurist. He didn't believe the USSR could just impose socialism on other countries, if, firstly, the masses had not yet reached the point at which they could accept intervention from a foreign socialist country and not see it as an act of foreign imperialism, and secondly, if so doing would drag the USSR into a war against much stronger capitalist nations which would see the USSR defeated and socialism destroyed in the USSR and everywhere esle.

Stalin's Soviet Union was practically the only country to materially aid the Spanish, at significant risk of drawing itself into a war, ignoring the international embargo.

[Pogue]

A socialist state is impossible if you use the proper Marxist definition not the Leninist one.

[Black Sheep]

A socialist state is impossible if you use the proper Marxist definition not the Leninist one.
Can you post both of them please?

[Pogue]

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. They meant the same thing, the cllassless, stateless, collective society.

It was Lenin who referred to socialism as the state stage. Thats where the differentiation came from.

[Post-Something]

- the undermining of soviets' power (<<<more detailed info on that will be appreciated)

You might want to have a look at this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-problems-practical-t101944/index.html

[manic expression]

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. They meant the same thing, the cllassless, stateless, collective society.

It was Lenin who referred to socialism as the state stage. Thats where the differentiation came from.

He also used "socialism" to describe feudalist reactionaries.

Marx was an enthusiastic supporter of the Dicatorship of the Proletariat, as well as the model of the Paris Commune. This is what is called socialism. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.

[Black Sheep]

He also used "socialism" to describe feudalist reactionaries.

Marx was an enthusiastic supporter of the Dicatorship of the Proletariat, as well as the model of the Paris Commune. This is what is called socialism. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.
So Marx supported an immediate application of communist mode of production?
And the state socialist period was proposed by Lenin?( a dialectics product i presume)

Paris Commune-
but marx criticised it because he said they did not tear down the establishments of the bourgeoisie state..

[manic expression]

So Marx supported an immediate application of communist mode of production?
And the state socialist period was proposed by Lenin?( a dialectics product i presume)

Paris Commune-
but marx criticised it because he said they did not tear down the establishments of the bourgeoisie state..

No, Marx clearly stated that the workers would take state power in order to carry out the revolution against the bourgeoisie. Communism could only be achieved once class conflict had disappeared, and class conflict exists after you overthrow a class. Lenin did not create the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (what we know as socialism), for it was a creation of both the working class and Marx's platform.

Yes, Marx definitely criticized the Paris Commune on a few points, including the fact that they didn't smash the state (as you noted). However, Marx did not encourage the smashing of a state with no state to replace it: the proletarian state must then be made after the destruction of the bourgeois state. This is precisely what the workers did in Russia beginning November 1917; the Bolsheviks learned from the Commune in this manner.