Fall of the Soviet Union: Victory Or Defeat?

[AK]

Was the fall of the Soviet Union a victory or a defeat? Explain your answer. I'd say a victory against Capitalism in its worst form: State Capitalism.

[pranabjyoti]

No, it's a defeat that started with the empowering of Khrushchev and end in 1989. But, actually, in my opinion, it is a defeat for world proletariat. They hadn't shown the ability to rise up together in favor of their world leader against united imperialist forces.

[Soviet]

And do you know,you smart aleck,what happened with people of the USSR after this "victory?Do you know how many people were killed in wars?Only in Tajikistan were murdered in 1990s about 100 000.Do you know that Russia loses every year without any war 800 000 of population?Is this you make glad?What's the course of this bloodthristieness?

[GPDP]

This is not an easy question to answer. It's not black and white.

Was the USSR a mockery of socialism, at the very least since the 50's (and I would argue far before that)? Yes, it was. In many respects, it wasn't that great a place, though obviously not as horrible as American propaganda painted it. And you could make the argument that its existence impeded the growth of actual socialist revolution, so in a certain sense, if ever there was to be real socialism, the USSR, as it currently existed, had to go.

However, its demise was, nevertheless, a blow to the socialist movement in another sense. The fall of the USSR served to (falsely) discredit the name of socialism as a failed, unworkable system that only leads to tyranny and eventually destruction, and now the bourgeois forever have a historical example to use to make this point, and to implicitly argue for capitalism as the only real alternative. The left now stands weaker than it ever has been, though I am not sure if we can fully attribute this to the fall of the USSR.

And of course, I haven't even gotten into the nightmare Russia and much of Eastern Europe has turned into as a result of its degeneration into mafia-run capitalism. So many people have died since then due to the collapse of the Soviet system, imperfect and oppressive as it may have been, and the far-right is more potent than ever in those countries.

It's definitely a huge mixed bag. I don't exactly shed a tear for the old USSR. I just wish it had fallen in favor of something better, something actually representative of socialism, instead of what actually happened.

[AK]

And do you know,you smart aleck,what happened with people of the USSR after this "victory?Do you know how many people were killed in wars?Only in Tajikistan were murdered in 1990s about 100 000.Do you know that Russia loses every year without any war 800 000 of population?Is this you make glad?What's the course of this bloodthristieness?

I'm not talking about what happened long after as a result of any other system, but more of the immediate downfall of the USSR - stick to the topic.

[pranabjyoti]

And do you know,you smart aleck,what happened with people of the USSR after this "victory?Do you know how many people were killed in wars?Only in Tajikistan were murdered in 1990s about 100 000.Do you know that Russia loses every year without any war 800 000 of population?Is this you make glad?What's the course of this bloodthristieness?
If what you have said is true, can you or anybody explain how so much people, who are ruthlessly tortured by "Stalin regime" will take in arms and fight shoulder to shoulder to defeat the Nazis. PLEASE, DON'T SAY THAT THEY JUST THOUGHT NAZIS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STALIN.
So far I know, in the third world colonies, a huge lot of people were supporting Nazis and Fascists as they were fighting with their colonial masters.

[Agnapostate]

I'd go with the "mixed bag" assessment also. However, I'd first say that the Soviet Union didn't "fall" or "collapse" in any particularly valid sense of those words; its dissolution was engineered by political officials acting against a popular desire for its preservation. I support the libertarian position of the USSR not being characterized by legitimately socialist conditions due to the authoritarianism and power consolidation of the ruling class there, but the very reason that the self-description of "socialism" even emerged was as an appeal to populist sentiments in favor of socialism, just as the reference to republicanism was an appeal to anti-monarchist populist sentiments. And reliable evidence indicates that a substantial number of Soviet citizens favored the implementation of "legitimate socialism," which they evidently believed had not been present in the country up to that point, with another significant number favoring social democratic capitalism such as that of Scandinavia, and only a small minority favoring Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

[Soviet]

I'm not talking about what happened long after as a result of any other system, but more of the immediate downfall of the USSR - stick to the topic.
1992-1996 is not "long after".I'm talking about results of what you call a "victory".The falling of the USSR was a great catastrophe for all Soviets.Was it a victory?Yes,it was a victory of capitalist West,it won the cold war.Capitalistic ass-kisser can be happy .

[Soviet]

If what you have said is true, can you or anybody explain how so much people, who are ruthlessly tortured by "Stalin regime" will take in arms and fight shoulder to shoulder to defeat the Nazis. PLEASE, DON'T SAY THAT THEY JUST THOUGHT NAZIS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STALIN.
So far I know, in the third world colonies, a huge lot of people were supporting Nazis and Fascists as they were fighting with their colonial masters.

I don't know who was "ruthlessly tortured by Stalin regime".My pearants were not tortured,my grandpearants were not tortured too - I don't know anybody who was tortured.Your question doesn't have a point.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have just made my mind up that the fall of the USSR was a defeat.

You do have to say that the USSR was not representing socialism in the way that most of us would want it to. It could also be said that, had the Union not been dissolved, it is not likely that under Gorbachev or any of crew the Soviet Union had any sort of a credible future as a burgeoning socialist entity.

In this way, I am not and have never been a strong supporter of the USSR. It has two histories (1917-53 and onwards to its dissolution), neither of which, it seems, were something where the workers were democratically empowered as a class.

However, it is clear that the capitalist world has been able to propagandise that the fall of the USSR and GDR was the proof that no type of socialism could work, and that capitalism was the winning ideology (hence the flood of moronic theses' such as Fukuyama: End of History). In doing so, many social democrats, democratic socialists and former Communists were roped into either all out capitalism or one of its reformist branches. The revolutionary left has thus become extremely isolated, and I believe that, Latin America aside, the left is in serious trouble and has been waning with increasing severity since the late 90s, when the battle of ideological education seemed to be lost with a whimper.

For me, the tragic state of British revolutionary politics emphasises this point perfectly. There is no uniting party and this is to the extreme discredit of those on the left (notwithstanding the strong role played by the capitalists, mind).

[pranabjyoti]

I don't know who was "ruthlessly tortured by Stalin regime".My pearants were not tortured,my grandpearants were not tortured too - I don't know anybody who was tortured.Your question doesn't have a point.
Kindly read my post attentively, I am just supporting what you want to say.

[Искра]

Since defeat of working class started in 1918, fall of Soviet Union was victory, because this state capitalist regime which people used to connect with communism died and proved that you can't have communism if you exploit working class under hammer and sickle. Also, communists and anarchists (in other parts of the World) could continue their practice without being repressed or judged as "Soviet Union collaborators".

[pranabjyoti]

Since defeat of working class started in 1918, fall of Soviet Union was victory, because this state capitalist regime which people used to connect with communism died and proved that you can't have communism if you exploit working class under hammer and sickle. Also, communists and anarchists (in other parts of the World) could continue their practice without being repressed or judged as "Soviet Union collaborators".
Capitalism means exploitation of working class. In "state capitalism", where the surplus of labor (I hope you have little knowledge of Marxian economy) will go and who were enjoying the surplus? I am curious to understand how a "workers victory" can accompany sharp increase in wealth difference, degradation of life standard of the working class without any kind of imperialist intervention and inside sabotage?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I say a victory for true socialism actually.

The brutal regime which saw Stalin and led on to be an imperialistic power in itself fell and ended the butchering of Marxist ideology.

[pranabjyoti]

I say a victory for true socialism actually.
The brutal regime which saw Stalin and led on to be an imperialistic power in itself fell and ended the butchering of Marxist ideology.
The "brutal regime" is a result of imperialist intervention and counter reactionary sabotage from inside. One have to be tough and "brutal" to fight continuously.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The "brutal regime" is a result of imperialist intervention and counter reactionary sabotage from inside. One have to be tough and "brutal" to fight continuously.

98 of the 139 members of the 1936 Central Committee were 'counter-reactionaries', all looking to re-establish capitalism were they?

Give me a break.:rolleyes:

Cuba has been the subject of an economic blockade since the inception of socialism there, it has had no major economic support from socialist countries for 20 years. Why are there not millions of Cubans dying at the hands of Castro?

It doesn't help to defend that which, whilst under our banner, was not socialism.

[bailey_187]

I say a victory for true socialism actually.
.


Bollocks.

How much increased support do you "true socialists" have since the collapse of the USSR?
Are you really closer to creating your perfect society?
Do people no longer bring up "the evil crimes of Stalin" or the "USSR police state" since the USSR collapsed?

One good thing is that the Archives are open, disproving a lot of anti-communist history lies, but is the ability to make a cheap ideological point at the expense of the destruction of the USSR and the destruction and suffering it has bought the ex-Soviet people a victory? No.


Most former-Soviet people think the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy. But no, you in Canada will decide it is a victory because you no longer have a country claiming your ideology that you find hard to defend.

[bailey_187]

98 of the 139 members of the 1936 Central Committee were 'counter-reactionaries', all looking to re-establish capitalism were they?

At the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B) Stalin said mistakes were made, innocents were killed.
Read John Arch Getty - 'The Road to Terror' if you actually want to understand the purges. Alternatively you could just continue to talk rubbish you learnt in Humanities GCSE.




Cuba has been the subject of an economic blockade since the inception of socialism there, it has had no major economic support from socialist countries for 20 years. Why are there not millions of Cubans dying at the hands of Castro?


Millions were not executed in the purges. About 700,000 were.
In its early days, Cuba had the protection of the USSR. No longer is Cuba seen as a great threat to America



It doesn't help to defend that which, whilst under our banner, was not socialism.

Why? Because you said so?
It does not help to, after a century of Proletarian revolution, claim that no lasting society was ever created out of it.

You seem to not mind Cuba. Do you believe they are Socialist? If so, why is the USSR not?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Most former-Soviet people think the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy.

Proof?

The poll last year that found Stalin to be the 2nd most revered person in Russian history can be left aside, because that does not mean most people thought the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy.

The referendum which was (wrongly) ignored by Gorbachev, Yeltsin et al at the time points to people being educated enough to realise what the Nomenklatura didn't; that the dissolution of the Union would lead to economic catastrophe and nationalist conflict.

It is true that Russia in the 1990s was absolutely shambolic, compared to the relative calm of the previous 20 years. However, one cannot simply equate the failings of post-Communist Russia and a couple of opinion polls with genuine sentiment for the socialism that the USSR implemented.

I do agree with your first point, that the collapse of the USSR has led to the equally foolish capitalist notion of the collapse of Communism in one area of the world somehow proving that all socialism is barbaric, totalitarian, anti-democratic etc.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Neither success nor victory. Either way it is a defeat for the working class of Russia.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

At the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B) Stalin said mistakes were made, innocents were killed.
Read John Arch Getty - 'The Road to Terror' if you actually want to understand the purges. Alternatively you could just continue to talk rubbish you learnt in Humanities GCSE.




Millions were not executed in the purges. About 700,000 were.
In its early days, Cuba had the protection of the USSR. No longer is Cuba seen as a great threat to America



Why? Because you said so?
It does not help to, after a century of Proletarian revolution, claim that no lasting society was ever created out of it.

You seem to not mind Cuba. Do you believe they are Socialist? If so, why is the USSR not?


Well, no, let's not gloss over this fact. In what way is the murder of the vast majority of democratically elected Central Committee members some detail to gloss over?

[bailey_187]

Proof?

" A poll last year found that 60 percent of Russians still viewed the demise of the Soviet Union as a "tragedy." "

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5A23TB20091103

From a quick google search



one cannot simply equate the failings of post-Communist Russia and a couple of opinion polls with genuine sentiment for the socialism that the USSR implemented.

Then how the fuck does ONE?
I suppose you just know?



I do agree with your first point, that the collapse of the USSR has led to the equally foolish capitalist notion of the collapse of Communism in one area of the world somehow proving that all socialism is barbaric, totalitarian, anti-democratic etc.

huh?

[Q]

Quoting from Socialism Today (http://socialismtoday.org/133/stalinism.html):


Far-reaching consequences


THE WORKING CLASS internationally has also paid a heavy price. The collapse ushered in by 1989 was not just of the Stalinist apparatus but, with it, the planned economies, the main gain inherited from the Russian revolution itself. The social counter-revolution which has turned back the wheel of history in these states also decisively changed world relations for a period. Alone amongst Marxists, the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) recognised just what this reverse represented. It was an historic defeat for the working class. Before this an alternative model for running the economy – despite the monstrous distortions of Stalinism – existed in Russia, Eastern Europe and, to some extent, China as well. That was now eliminated. Fidel Castro compared the demise of these states as equivalent to ‘the sun being blotted out’. For Marxists, these societies did not represent the sun. But they did, at least in their economic form, represent an alternative which, on the basis of workers’ democracy, could take society forward.



While recognising what had taken place, we also showed that this defeat was not on the scale of the 1930s, when Hitler, Mussolini and Franco crushed the workers’ organisations, thereby laying the basis for the catastrophe of the second world war. The defeat at the end of the 1980s was more of an ideological character which allowed the capitalist ideologues to jeer at any future socialist project.


Nevertheless, while the collapse of Stalinism was largely an ideological blow to the working class internationally, it also had serious material repercussions. It led to the wholesale political collapse of the leaders of the workers’ organisations, who abandoned socialism even as a historic aim and embraced capitalist ideas in one form or another. Not just in Britain, with the advent of New Labour, but internationally the former workers’ parties imploded into capitalist formations. They only differed from openly bourgeois parties in the same way as ‘radical’ liberal capitalist parties did in the past and still do in the USA, in the form of Democrats and Republicans – different sides of the same capitalist coin. In the trade unions, the leaderships in the main abandoned any idea of an alternative to capitalism. They therefore sought to accommodate themselves to the system, bargaining between labour and capital, rather than offering a fundamental challenge.


If you accept capitalism, you accept its logic, the laws of capitalism, especially the drive by the capitalists to maximise the greatest profitability on behalf of the bosses to the detriment of the working class. This goes hand-in-hand with ‘social partnership’. This can lead to ‘business trade unionism’, which limits any militant movement of the working class for more than the bosses can allegedly give. In fact, the development of tame trade union leaders, accommodating to the limits of the system, together with the abandonment of the historic aim of socialism by the leaders of the workers’ organisations, enormously bolstered the confidence and the power of the capitalists. This facilitated – without real resistance from the trade union leaders – the massive income disparity on a scale not seen since before the first world war. Unbridled capitalism has not been checked by the trade union leaders. On the contrary, it has given full scope to them to remorselessly squeeze the working class for greater output – with a smaller and smaller share going to wages – all on the altar of a revived capitalism.


So yes, the fall of the USSR was a defeat for the working class.

[bailey_187]

Well, no, let's not gloss over this fact. In what way is the murder of the vast majority of democratically elected Central Committee members some detail to gloss over?

Lets not gloss over the fact that the excesses were not purely the result of Stalin being "power hungry" or "evil"

As Josh Wheatcroft explains in his article "The scale and nature of German and Soviet repression and mass killings, 1930-45." Europe-Asia Studies, Dec 1996 v48 n8 p1319(35)

"seems likely that he [Stalin] thought many of them guilty of crimes against the state."

"He signed the papers and insisted on documentation. "

"He was careful about documenting these executions"

It would appear that Stalin believed those who were executed were genuinely guilty.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You really are clutching at straws here.

What happened to a fair trial? Or is it fair to execute people based on the (wrong) gut feeling of the man at the top?

It was not just those 98, either. Circa 1,100 of the 1,900ish deputes that attended the same Congress were also executed.

Now, how did Stalin have time to have each of these cases documented, read the documentation and, being effectively a lay judge, come to a balanced conclusion that each and everyone one of the 1,100 deputies whom he examined, were guilty of crimes harsh enough to deserve the death penalty?

[bailey_187]

You really are clutching at straws here.

What happened to a fair trial? Or is it fair to execute people based on the (wrong) gut feeling of the man at the top?

It was not just those 98, either. Circa 1,100 of the 1,900ish deputes that attended the same Congress were also executed.

Now, how did Stalin have time to have each of these cases documented, read the documentation and, being effectively a lay judge, come to a balanced conclusion that each and everyone one of the 1,100 deputies whom he examined, were guilty of crimes harsh enough to deserve the death penalty?

Since when were the cases decided by Stalin's gut feeling? I didnt say they were.

So you agree, Stalin did not decide the fate of all those executed?

[Comrade B]

By '89 communism in the Soviet Union had already fallen. Note the massive differences (sarcasm) between Putin's (the only man in real power) Russia and post Stalin Soviet Union. (not to say that Stalin's Soviet Union was communist either).

'22 was the real defeat.

[bailey_187]

Note the massive differences between Putin's (the only man in real power) Russia and post Stalin Soviet Union.


Indeed, there were massive differences. So massive infact, you might even say it was a different way of organising society, a different "mode of production"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Since when were the cases decided by Stalin's gut feeling? I didnt say they were.

So you agree, Stalin did not decide the fate of all those executed?

I do not speculate on what I do not know.

Your defence of these 1,100 executions was that Stalin genuinely believed each and every one was guilty of such counter-reactionary actions that they should be sentenced to death. My point is, how would it be possible for a layman to sift through so much evidence, and know each case so personally, to know that each individual was deserving of the death penalty?

Because, if he could not be sure of guilt in even one case, yet signed the necessary papers, he is as callous as the next murderer.

[bailey_187]

I do not speculate on what I do not know.

Your defence of these 1,100 executions was that Stalin genuinely believed each and every one was guilty of such counter-reactionary actions that they should be sentenced to death. My point is, how would it be possible for a layman to sift through so much evidence, and know each case so personally, to know that each individual was deserving of the death penalty?

Because, if he could not be sure of guilt in even one case, yet signed the necessary papers, he is as callous as the next murderer.

When did i say Stalin read through each case and proclaimed them all as guilty? WHEN?

Stalin, it would appear, genuinely believed there was a conspiracy to overthrow the USSR.

YOU are the one who holds Stalin as the reason for the executions.

Stalin believed there was a conspiracy to overthrow the USSR. He did not investigate each case and i have not said that he did.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You raised Wheatcroft as evidence. I assume that when you quote an academic text, you usually agree with its contents.

So there was no fair trial, Stalin signed the execution papers of 1,100 senior party members (in addition to hundreds of thousands more at least) without knowing about the case. Where was the safety mechanism there? Or is it okay to make a mistake that costs so many lives, as long as it safeguards the 'revolution'?

[Tatarin]

It was a defeat for the working class, but not the defeat of communism.

However, in a nearby thread, only 11% supports capitalism outright. So no, they didn't really win. Recent events in Nepal, and the support of at least a strong social democratic system in Venezuela, to name a few, are proof that everything is not lost. Or just imagine how many people lost their faith in "that's how things are" in this recent economic downturn.

You can only spit that long on the people. Sooner or later, they will spit back.

[FSL]

You raised Wheatcroft as evidence. I assume that when you quote an academic text, you usually agree with its contents.

So there was no fair trial, Stalin signed the execution papers of 1,100 senior party members (in addition to hundreds of thousands more at least) without knowing about the case. Where was the safety mechanism there? Or is it okay to make a mistake that costs so many lives, as long as it safeguards the 'revolution'?


I am so tempted to answer yes to your last question, simply to spite you.

In any case you might want to explain how it is the gc's job to read the files of a number of people accused. I 'm "guessing" there were judges in the trial and they did.
And unless you went through every single file paying the utmost attention to the slightest detail, why should anyone trust your opinion on the trials?

If anything, I know that many of the convicted were opposed to critical elements of socialism, like collectivisation. That certainly removes a great chunk of their credibility.

[Wanted Man]

I'm not talking about what happened long after as a result of any other system, but more of the immediate downfall of the USSR - stick to the topic.

Because everything in history exists in perfect isolation, and nothing is ever interconnected, and historical events can always be judged as "good" and "bad" completely separate from each other. Marxism FTW!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am so tempted to answer yes to your last question, simply to spite you.

In any case you might want to explain how it is the gc's job to read the files of a number of people accused. I 'm "guessing" there were judges in the trial and they did.
And unless you went through every single file paying the utmost attention to the slightest detail, why should anyone trust your opinion on the trials?

If anything, I know that many of the convicted were opposed to critical elements of socialism, like collectivisation. That certainly removes a great chunk of their credibility.

Answering your last paragraph, if they were so opposed to collectivisation, why wait until 1937-38 to punish them? There were trials relating to industrial sabotage, anti-collectivsation actions and the like many years before party members were executed.

What Stalin, and Stalin's people (I . won't pretend that Stalin knew about every single death) did was to execute the majority of senior party comrades, because they did not subscribe to his notion of socialism. I am not going to get involved in a debate as to the success or failure of the USSR under Stalin, I am merely stating that what was done to many admirable senior Bolsheviks under his rule was wrong.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And go on, answer that last question, just to spite me. Fuck the lives of the condemned. If someone gets in the way of socialism, get rid of them. If the majority of the party doesn't like our view of socialism, get rid of them. Yes?:confused:

[FSL]

Answering your last paragraph, if they were so opposed to collectivisation, why wait until 1937-38 to punish them? There were trials relating to industrial sabotage, anti-collectivsation actions and the like many years before party members were executed.

What Stalin, and Stalin's people (I . won't pretend that Stalin knew about every single death) did was to execute the majority of senior party comrades, because they did not subscribe to his notion of socialism. I am not going to get involved in a debate as to the success or failure of the USSR under Stalin, I am merely stating that what was done to many admirable senior Bolsheviks under his rule was wrong.


They didn't wait, a number of them was expelled from the party and then allowed back in after apologizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryutin_Affair


Apparently, not all the apologies were perfectly honest.




And go on, answer that last question, just to spite me. Fuck the lives of the condemned. If someone gets in the way of socialism, get rid of them. If the majority of the party doesn't like our view of socialism, get rid of them. Yes?:confused:


That is an awfully crude analysis of what measures is a revolutionary state to take to defend its existence but since you want to be spited...
*shrugs*


Pretty much.

[the last donut of the night]

This question is a complicated one.

As we all know (or should), the USSR was a betrayal of everything communist revolutionaries should fight for. It was a state-capitalist regime, where party bureaucrats -- and not the workers -- controlled the state and industry. Freedom of press was almost non-existent.

However, it wasn't as bad as American propaganda portrayed it to be. The USSR, along with the other 'socialist' states, gave job security, a decent life, and high education (at no cost) for all of its citizens. We know today how many Hungarians, Russians, and East Germans miss the old 'socialism'.

And today we see the enormous disaster the fall of the USSR created. Millions lost their lives to high inflation, rising food and energy prices, and the rampant nationalism after the fall of the Berlin wall. Let us all keep in mind that these conditions were brought on by the liberating spirit of capitalism.:rolleyes:

It also discredited our movement and gave the right-wing more strawmen to argue against us.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They didn't wait, a number of them was expelled from the party and then allowed back in after apologizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryutin_Affair


Apparently, not all the apologies were perfectly honest.






That is an awfully crude analysis of what measures is a revolutionary state to take to defend its existence but since you want to be spited...
*shrugs*


Pretty much.

Sourcing Wikipedia in an intellectual argument? Right.

What happened to Ryutin in the end?

How can you possibly defend mass murder for the sake of propelling your own narrow political agenda? You are not a true socialist if you truly accept this sort of behaviour.

[Radical]

Those that voted yes can go straight to hell

[the last donut of the night]

Those that voted yes can go straight to hell

Oh because that's how we argue in the left.
"DON'T AGREE WITH US?!"

"GO TO HELLZ, STALIN PWNZ 4EVAHHH"

[Radical]

Oh because that's how we argue in the left.
"DON'T AGREE WITH US?!"

"GO TO HELLZ, STALIN PWNZ 4EVAHHH"

Thankfully you're idea's are so irrelivent in societies across the world that you may aswel go straight to hell.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

the end of a repressive imperial state is always good (though it still exists in different forms today) whether it is neoliberal capitalist or state capitalist such as the USSR

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Indeed, there were massive differences. So massive infact, you might even say it was a different way of organising society, a different "mode of production"

and if you think that mode of production was under workers control and not the centralized bureaucracy and party elites in the USSR, you are delusional

as has already been stated, '22 was the real defeat when the revolution was hijacked.

[Q]

Thankfully you're idea's are so irrelivent in societies across the world that you may aswel go straight to hell.
So said the banned guy. Tee hee.

[FSL]

73% in the left view 1989 as a defeat. And all that propaganda from cappies and anarchists seems to have gone to waste...


I feel for them.
Honestly.:)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

73% in the left view 1989 as a defeat. And all that propaganda from cappies and anarchists seems to have gone to waste...


I feel for them.
Honestly.:)

Well, no, that isn't accurate. 60 people have voted in this poll. How many members are there on this website?

And you say that others are the propagandists.:rolleyes:

[pranabjyoti]

I have repeated reading the phrase "workers control", but I am very eager to know how this can be done in reality, without any representative party, without any kind of organization that will end up in "repression".

[fatpanda]

I'm no fan of the eastern block , but this was mainly a counterrevolutionary uprising.

[GPDP]

You know what?

I'm going to vote defeat.

Again, I have no love for the old USSR, but in light of what happened in the aftermath, and the implications that carry on to this day, things have quite simply gotten worse for workers worldwide. Sure, there is some resistance in places like South America, but overall, capitalism now rules the world unhindered, and we're all worse off for it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The two terms presented here are quite black and white and that never really covers the right answer.

As far as the question goes, however, I'd say that in the most broad sense the fall of the Soviet Union was a victory, and that the Russians exiting Eastern Europe was certainly a step forward. Now, naturally, the claims that living standards in these countries have decreased and that is a valid point, however, the removal of foreign troops would, in my opinion, take precedence. Though there were many countries which should have been weened off of Mocows control (Yugoslavia comes to mind) but for the most part I'd say it wasn't necessarily a progressive step, but something that was bound to happen and needed to happen. Not too different from that day when America packs up and leaves Europe and Japan., though the removal of the US won't facilitate the uprisings and overthrowing of the system which occured and forced the Russians and the soviet system out.