Was The USSR Communist?

[MrCharizma]

Title pretty much says it all, just trying to get an in-depth knowledge of the Soviet Union, including the way people lived, lifestyles, statistics, police, etc.
Along with you know, the dictatorship of Stalin and all that jazz.

[bie]

For start it is good to mention that there was no "dictatorship of Stalin". It is the common practice for imperialism to create false image of the "rogue" state that dares not to comply with its colonialist policies. Therefore that sort of concepts are invented by imperialist agents (not only USSR but also Cuba, North Korea, Peoples Democracies of Eastern Europe etc.). The one "bad guy" who "breaks human rights" is the invariant part of the imperialist propaganda.

In fact (according to the constitution of 1936) Stalin was the representative of one of Moscow constituencies to the Supreme Soviet of USSR and he was appointed to a 30 membered Presidium, that was accountable before the representative assembly in all its activities. In 1941 Stalin was appointed to the post of the Prime Minister. Stalin's authority never exceed the one that the western head of states had, even more - Roosvelt or Churchill had more "dictatorial" powers (especially presidents of USA have very autocratic powers, like eg. appointing the whole Cabinet etc.).

Lots of information about USSR can be found in the book "Soviet Communism. A New Civilization" by S.B. Webb

[Muzk]

Short answer: No.
Bad answer: Post above( lol i trol u)



"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.


By definition communism had not been achieved in the USSR.
Nor socialism.
However, Russia had a workers guided revolution. It is believed that the USSR was stuck inbetween capitalism and socialism, and that it could not go on with its transition due to heavy bureaocratic degeneration, as well as economic backwardness and isolation.

Why is the first reply an apology for Stalin though...?


People lived in a horrible way(not saying it was better pre-soviet, but it could have been so much better), the standard of living did not rise much until Krushshev came and did his free market reforms, even though there sure as hell was a giant economical boom due to a planned economy (which also wasn't done in an effective way)

Statistics aren't that great IMO stalinists are just going to use those that help them get their point of view across and the same with others. And they'll, of course, use statistics and sources which are pro-Stalin anyways, because all the others are imperialist traitors!!1

[bie]

Why is the first reply an apology for Stalin though...?
No, it is just a small correction. MrCharisma asked for indepth answers. Very good analysis from the marxist-leninist perspective of the socialism in USSR was done by the Greek comrades - it is here: here (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-thesis-socialism/).

And they'll, of course, use statistics and sources which are pro-Stalin anyways, because all the others are imperialist traitors!!
Ah, because we all know that USA or Nazi Germany plays fair and it would never make up anything that is not true. Get real. We all have to be very careful about the sources.

[Fietsketting]

for start it is good to mention that there was no "dictatorship of stalin". It is the common practice for imperialism to create false image of the "rogue" state that dares not to comply with its colonialist policies. Therefore that sort of concepts are invented by imperialist agents (not only ussr but also cuba, north korea, peoples democracies of eastern europe etc.).



When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The People's Stick!

[bie]

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The People's Stick!
According to your philosophy people must like to be beaten if even now there are thousands of people in Russia who get out to the street with Stalin posters. These people know USSR from their own experience, not from anarchist, trotskyist or imperialist papers.

http://photos.upi.com/story/t/ef2163208a2bc45efbde6d98e3f4059c/Russian-leader-chastises-Stalin.jpg
http://gdb.rferl.org/CAAC4178-6A23-409D-8A2B-B46E8E5DEB72_mw800_mh600_s.jpg

There are the people who actually lived in USSR. Stalin is considered to be one of the greatest political leaders of all times (by the people of Russia).
It couldn't be so bad than, if so many prefer soviet communism over "democracy and freedom". Interestingly, most of the critique of the Soviet Union
comes not from the country itself but from the capitalist West!

[Muzk]

Awesome. Now if there weren't also people wanting to live under Hitler again. Or Bush lovers. Your argument is not an argument, but distortion of facts.

silly tankies...

[bie]

Awesome. Now if there weren't also people wanting to live under Hitler again. Or Bush lovers. Your argument is not an argument, but distortion of facts.

silly tankies...
I don't see too many Germans going out to the streets with Hitler's posters, nor British with the murderer Churchill nor Americans with the Roosevelt posters. I am curious, what are your sources of knowledge on USSR?

[Muzk]

wikipedia and fbi.gov ofc

[scarletghoul]

Awesome. Now if there weren't also people wanting to live under Hitler again. Or Bush lovers. Your argument is not an argument, but distortion of facts.

silly tankies...
Pro-Hitler sentiment in Germany seems to be a pretty small minority. In Russia however it's common to have a neutral or positive view of Stalin. This is despite decades of anti-Stalin government propaganda from the 50s onwards.

[Muzk]

this thread already degenerated into a fuckfest

[scarletghoul]

And yes, the USSR was in the first stage of communism (socialism, dictatorship of the proletariat, but not yet stateless).

As you must have noticed however there's like a million differant answers to that question depending on who you ask..

[bie]

this thread already degenerated into a fuckfest
Is it what you do when you run out of arguments?

[Kassad]

this thread already degenerated into a fuckfest

Is it really that hard to stay on topic or reply to someone's assertions? Consider this a verbal warning for spamming.

[Muzk]

Is it what you do when you run out of arguments?

wheres the discussion? all i see are some pictures of old people in warm clothes holding up pictures of a guy with a mustache



Is it really that hard to stay on topic or reply to someone's assertions? Consider this a verbal warning for spamming.
who didnt stay on topic?

[Sasha]

According to your philosophy people must like to be beaten if even now there are thousands of people in Russia who get out to the street with Stalin posters. These people know USSR from their own experience, not from anarchist, trotskyist or imperialist papers.

http://photos.upi.com/story/t/ef2163208a2bc45efbde6d98e3f4059c/Russian-leader-chastises-Stalin.jpg
http://gdb.rferl.org/CAAC4178-6A23-409D-8A2B-B46E8E5DEB72_mw800_mh600_s.jpg

There are the people who actually lived in USSR. Stalin is considered to be one of the greatest political leaders of all times (by the people of Russia).
It couldn't be so bad than, if so many prefer soviet communism over "democracy and freedom". Interestingly, most of the critique of the Soviet Union
comes not from the country itself but from the capitalist West!

http://www.patriotsmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ronald-reagan-sign.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SCfwBkF65oY/SlQV-LoUAAI/AAAAAAAAOrA/wpS1PYT5Pqo/s400/TEA+CL+7-4-9+Govt+Problem,+Not+Solution-+Reagan.png
ronald reagan is considered by thousands of americans to be one of the greatest political leader of all time.
your argument is irrelevant

[bie]

ronald reagan is considered by thousands of americans to be one of the greatest political leader of all time.
Really? How many % of Americans consider Reagan to be the greatest political leader of all time? I don't think there is too much of that. Aren't that pictures from Reagan presidential campaign?

your argument is irrelevant
Well, I would rather listen to what the people say or at least consider that before running into the theoretical dogmatisms. By the way - it is really irrelevant what thousands of people who lived in USSR think only because it doesn't fit into one's dogmas?

[Zanthorus]

Well it's pretty obvious that the USSR hadn't reached the "higher phase of communism", even the most diehard Marxist-Leninist isn't going to deny that. However from here on out we get into a bit of a definition game.

I'm of the school of thought that says that Marx used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably to mean the same thing, the post-capitalist and post-capital society which emerges out of a drawn out revolutionary process which produces communist consciousness on a mass scale and raises the working class the position of ruling class in order to represent the workers particular interests as the general interests of society. I'm also of the school of thought that says that the latter was what was meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat", and that Marx believed that after the DoTP, the "political act" which is common to every revolution in bringing down the olrd ruling power, when the revolution came to it's social tasks of dissolving the old order and constructing a new society, "set[ting] free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant", socialism would "throw it's political mask aside." The lower phase of communism comes after this proletarian dictature, or "revolutionary workers government" and differs from the "higher phase" mainly only in the question of distribution. Probably my worst crime is in believing that this sketch of communist revolution is, far from being "ultra-left utopianism", eminently practicable and justifiable on the basis of Marx's method of "scientific socialism" and therefore a decent benchmark against which to judge. Others on this site will, of course, strongly disagree with me.


Interestingly, most of the critique of the Soviet Union comes not from the country itself but from the capitalist West!

There was a group in the early years of the Soviet Union, originally called the Workers Group of the Russian Communist Party, which later merged with the remnants of the Communist Workers Party of Russia to form a group named after the latter. They included workers, ex-Bolsheviks and militants of the communist left among their ranks such as Gabriel Miasnikov. They considered Russia as being state-capitalist, although they affirmed that the October revolution was a proletarian revolution against groups like the Workers Truth and the original Communist Workers Party of Russia whose position they regarded as a capitulation to Menshevism. They continued to exist until they were wiped out in the purges in 1938 and had several factions abroad which published the regular bulletins they produced. They were also boosted by the addition of militants from the ranks of the left-wing of the Democratic Centralist Fraction of the RCP(B) and the "irreconcilables" of the Left Opposition.

There was also the Left Opposition themselves I guess, although most of their demands were fulfilled by the move away from the NEP towards five year plans in 1928 and the majority decided to stay with the party leaving Trotsky to argue out the "degenerated workers state" thesis in exile (I believe he was actually told by one of the old LO members to stop being sectarian).

[Sasha]

Aren't that pictures from Reagan presidential campaign?

nope, they are from an massive tea-party rally somewhere in the last year.

anyway, its irrelevant, i for the same point could have posted pictures of people holding pics of anyone ranging from thatcher to pinnochet and hitler.

hell, Finlands nazi-collaborator and civil war white general Manderheim is considerd the father of the fatherland by most fins.

and over here in the netherlands, assasinated never spend one day in parliament rightwing biggot politcian Pim Fortuijn won the election for "greatest Dutchman ever alive", there by beating people like the father of the nation willem van oranje, anne frank, rembrant, van gogh etc etc

[ComradeOm]

We all have to be very careful about the sourcesWhich is why you recommended a 1935 hagiography by two near-delusional fellow travelers that has been directly contradicted by almost all recent research into the period?

But of course, this research was largely conducted by Western or Russian academics using material held by the latter. Their word can not be trusted. Nor can that of Soviet researchers in the post-Stalin period (the 'revisionists'). So I guess the only real material that we can use are those works published by the Soviet state, or its endorsed ideological allies abroad, while Stalin was alive...?

[Fietsketting]

According to your philosophy people must like to be beaten if even now there are thousands of people in Russia who get out to the street with Stalin posters. These people know USSR from their own experience, not from anarchist, trotskyist or imperialist papers.

Ofcourse, maybe they fell for the russian imperialism propaganda machine?

Pervasive censorship, omnipresent onesided party propaganda? With "truths repressed, falsehoods in every field were incessantly rubbed in in print, at endless meetings, in school, in mass demonstrations, on the radio".

Sorry to burst your bubble this but thats not communism!


There are the people who actually lived in USSR. Stalin is considered to be one of the greatest political leaders of all times (by the people of Russia). It couldn't be so bad than, if so many prefer soviet communism over "democracy and freedom". There are millions who think Kim Jong-il (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) is a one of the greatest political leader as well and we all agree on that fact that he is a dictator right?


Interestingly, most of the critique of the Soviet Union
comes not from the country itself but from the capitalist West!

Critique gets you into a Gulag, maybe thats the reason? Slave labour in a Workers State. Priceless.

[bie]

anyway, its irrelevant, i for the same point could have posted pictures of people holding pics of anyone ranging from thatcher to pinnochet and hitler.

hell, Finlands nazi-collaborator and civil war white general Manderheim is considerd the father of the fatherland by most fins.

and over here in the netherlands, assasinated never spend one day in parliament rightwing biggot politcian Pim Fortuijn won the election for "greatest Dutchman ever alive", there by beating people like the father of the nation willem van oranje, anne frank, rembrant, van gogh etc etc
ok, but how can you explain that most of the today's Stalin's supporters are army veterans and pensioners (people who actually lived under Stalin's)? I can understand media brainwashing and capitalism propaganda - eg. many Polish people consider pope the big man - this is due to the brainwash. Anticommunist have only one explanation - it is "sentiment", "nostalgia". But - why this "sentiment" is not common worldwide? Why don't we see crowds of people carrying eg. kings portraits? Only ones that symbolizes the victory of socialism..

Ofcourse, maybe they fell for the russian imperialism propaganda machine?
Knowing that those pictures were made in 2010 this cannot be the case for any rationally thinking man. Maybe it is you who fell for the anticommunist imperialist propaganda machine? Think about that, I don't want to offend you, but consider that.

Pervasive censorship, omnipresent onesided party propaganda? With "truths repressed, falsehoods in every field were incessantly rubbed in in print, at endless meetings, in school, in mass demonstrations, on the radio".That was never the case. It is nothing but the bunch of lies - pure imperialist propaganda - ugly, anticommunist and antipeople. Do you know who is the author of that quote?

Robert Conquest: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest)
One of the best known CIA sponsored pseudo-historian, British intelligence officer:


Conquest then joined the Foreign Office's Information Research Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Research_Department) (IRD), a unit created for the purpose of combating communist influence and actively promoting anti-communist ideas, by fostering relationships with journalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist), trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and other organizations.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest#cite_note-camb-0) In 1956, Conquest left the IRD and became a freelance writer and historian. Some of his books were partly distributed through Praeger Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Publishing_Group), a US company which published a number of books at the request of the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA).(...) In November 2005, Conquest was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom) by George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)Look - I recommend to be more critical. Not all that you were told in Holland, USA, Germany etc. about socialist states especially by individuals like Robert Conquest have to be true. In most of the cases it is nothing but the bunch of lies invented in order to impose the ruthless imperialist dictatorship of the Capital. Don't be the one that is supporting this.


Critique gets you into a Gulag, maybe thats the reason? Slave labour in a Workers State. Priceless.Are you sure that in your "ideal anarchist society" you want criminals, murderers, rapers to be completely free?

[Dimentio]

Communism means that the means of production are controlled by those working with them. That was hardly the case with the Soviet Union, where control always efficiently lied in the hands of the bureaucracy.

The Soviet economy was in some aspects really similar to the economic system employed by Ancient Egypt and the Incan Empire. One could almost call it an "industrial palace economy" where all means of production were controlled through the state which in its own right was controlled by bureaucrats professing to belong to an ideology (the Incan Empire and Pharaonic Egypt were also ultimately narrow oligarchies controlled by religious elites).

[bie]

No. Communism is when the society as a whole controls the whole production process in the interest of the society (not private profiteers). And this was the case in USSR. However you may say that communism in USSR was immature as goods were not distributed freely, the monetary-commodity relations (characteristic to capitalism) still existed. "Means of productions directly controlled by those working with them" is nothing but petit-bourgeoisie utopia - eg. factories would still compete with each other, unemployment would still exist etc. In socialism means of production are social property and it was also the case in USSR.

[Dimentio]

No. Communism is when the society as a whole controls the whole production process in the interest of the society (not private profiteers). And this was the case in USSR. However you may say that communism in USSR was immature as goods were not distributed freely, the monetary-commodity relations (characteristic to capitalism) still existed. "Means of productions directly controlled by those working with them" is nothing but petit-bourgeoisie utopia - eg. factories would still compete with each other, unemployment would still exist etc. In socialism means of production are social property and it was also the case in USSR.

"Society" as a whole was evidently not controlled by the entire people in the USSR.

[bie]

"Society" as a whole was evidently not controlled by the entire people in the USSR.
What makes you think that it is so evident? In fact power in USSR was shared between manual workers, peasants and intelligentsia. The class of exploiters in cities (bourgeousie) was expropriated as well as class of exploiters in countryside (kulaks). That was the main difference in the constitution of power between capitalist states (when bourgeoisie holds all the power) and USSR.

[Shokaract]

The fact that deviations from the 'official' verdict and statistics on Stalin are seen as 'pro-Stalin' indicates the success of the Cold War anti-communist program.

From Talbot's review of Origins of the Great Purges:

Getty's book portrays the U.S.S.R. as far from being a rigidly centralised state. The "totalitarian" thesis is, simply, untenable. The central Communist party apparatus experienced major problems in ensuring its directives were observed in the regional and local areas. The myth of the Bolshevik party as a monolithic machine is further eroded by the clear evidence, from primary sources, of substantial and protracted inner-party discussions and disagreements.

A more objective picture of Joseph Stalin is emerging as a mediator cautiously responding to party disputes.

Why is bie considered a 'Stalin apologist' but Americans are not generally considered 'Truman apologists'?



There are millions who think Kim Jong-il (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il) is a one of the greatest political leader as well and we all agree on that fact that he is a dictator right?

Is that the same thing as having support from over 50% of Russia 57 years after Stalin's death and after decades of de-Stalinization and a barage of Western anti-communist pronouncements? This cannot simply be attributed to a long-dead 'cult of personality'.

[Chimurenga.]

ronald reagan is considered by thousands of americans to be one of the greatest political leader of all time.
your argument is irrelevant

Ronald Reagan hasn't been condemned by the ruling class or it's leaders for the past twenty years since his presidency. Was there ever an Anti-Reagan campaign by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama? I don't fucking think so. Everyone from Khrushchev to Medvedev today has promoted nothing but ill words for Stalin. You lose.

Silly anarkids.....

[Dimentio]

What makes you think that it is so evident? In fact power in USSR was shared between manual workers, peasants and intelligentsia. The class of exploiters in cities (bourgeousie) was expropriated as well as class of exploiters in countryside (kulaks). That was the main difference in the constitution of power between capitalist states (when bourgeoisie holds all the power) and USSR.

Could the workers recall their representatives from the Supreme Soviet?

Could they chose between several different candidates to represent them in the Supreme Soviet?

Could they put up posters calling the general secretary an ass?

Why were most general secretaries elected with the entire politiburo supporting them?

I rest my case.

The Soviet Union was a society with a high degree of apathy. In terms of popular participation, I would say it was on par with Nazi Germany (though the German regime probably was more popular amongst the broad layers of the German people). Just look at how many people defended the Soviet Union when it disbanded! It was first in connection to Yeltsin's privatisations that there were widespread protests.

[bie]

Could the workers recall their representatives from the Supreme Soviet?

Of course. USSR was one of the few countries in which democracy was not only the official form of the state, but also its political practice. All delegates were appointed by the majority voting and could be recalled at any time if their performance was not satisfactory by the electors. Therefore every single Soviet official was accountable for its decisions not only to its superiors but also to the electors from the lower stages of the pyramid of Soviets.

The worker's and people's right to recall its representative found its explication in Soviet Constitution from 1936, art. 142.

ARTICLE 142. It is the duty of every deputy to report to his electors on his work and on the work of the Soviet of Working People's Deputies, and he is liable to be recalled at any time in the manner established by law upon decision of a majority of the electors.(Russian Constitution from 1936 chapter IX (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap11))

The rule of recalling the representative was also confirmed in the Soviet Constitution from 1977. During the decade 1970-1980 from 2 millions of delegates 4 thousands were actually recalled by electors.


Could they chose between several different candidates to represent them in the Supreme Soviet?
Of course. The Supreme Soviet was constituted by the direct, secret ballot, where 1 representative for ap. 300 000 people (1936). One person had one vote, which could be given to any of the candidates. The following subjects were obliged to put propose its candidates: Party, trade unions, social and workers organizations, cultural and scientific associations, general assemblies in the workplaces, kolchozes and army. Each citizen could propose his candidate at the social meeting. The list of candidates was approved by the electoral assembly, and its decision could be objected to the higher electoral authority. The rejection of approval of the candidate could be also objected to the higher electoral council by the proposing body.

The elections were taking place in work free day. The candidate in order to be elected has to get absolute majority of votes. This type of democracy is clearly superior to all the systems that we know by now.


Could they put up posters calling the general secretary an ass?
It depends. If you are working for the Nazi war propaganda or for the restoration of monarchy and capitalism, you could have problems.


Why were most general secretaries elected with the entire politiburo supporting them?
It was not Politburo that elected General Secretaries but the plenum of the Central Committee in the open voting. There is nothing wrong if the candidate was supported by the majority of the organization or other Party bodies.

The Soviet Union was a society with a high degree of apathy
This is true to some point. The number of people and workers engaged in the decision making process through the means of various commissions, trade unions, social organizations etc. was the highest in all the countries in the world. The huge progress had been done in the countryside (where 200 000 000 of Soviet people lived) especially during late 1920s and 1930s, where the number of electors increased from 39 millions (55%) in 1927 to 77 millions (85%) in 1934. (source: Webb, 1940, p. 15).

The late Soviet period, however can be seen as the regression of the democracy and stagnation. Many of the workers, despite possessed power, authority etc. did not engage in politics. The revolutionary spirit was weaker and the new generation of Soviet people had grown up, that didn't know what capitalism and exploitation was. That new generation had less interest in the revolutionary politics and it was also more susceptible to Western imperialist propaganda that eventually helped to bring the Soviet Union down.

And the final word - many people at this forum say a lot about USSR etc. But before stating "what Soviet Union was" or "what Soviet Union wasn't" I will recommend to learn some basics.

[Zanthorus]

Er, the Soviet consitution? From what I gathered most consider the constitution to have been a worthless piece of paper. Do you have any actual evidence of elections occuring in the Soviet union? Genuine question.

[bie]

Er, the Soviet consitution? From what I gathered most consider the constitution to have been a worthless piece of paper. Do you have any actual evidence of elections occuring in the Soviet union? Genuine question.
Who objects the importance of the Soviet constitution? I am also curious. Regardless of ones opinions, the Soviet Constitution was the most important legal document. If you need the evidence or the example of its application or importance - just have look at the map of the world. All countries like Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia etc. etc all were once Soviet Republics. They left the Soviet Union on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Soviets of each Republic - ie. according to the Soviet Constitution (for the comparison - for the country to leave European Union, it needs a transitional period of 2 years). For example - 1990 elections to Supreme Soviet in Lithuania were won by nationalists who got 91 from 131 seats in the Supreme Soviet. A day after elections Supreme Soviet declared the secession from USSR. Details are here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_parliamentary_election,_1990) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_the_Re-Establishment_of_the_State_of_Lithuania).

Therefore it wasn't "worthless" paper if on its basis dozen of new countries arose. If you neneed more details, about elections in USSR, here (http://books.google.ie/books?id=e9CPy7ukI9gC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=electio ns+in+ussr&source=bl&ots=AwhBi5EvND&sig=Z8vWfhdvhaqaauGmr_e9V2LZ1qM&hl=pl&ei=cUxUTI6vGIKD4Qbs9s2mBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=elections%20in%20ussr&f=false) is the colection of documents from USSR (in English).

[thesadmafioso]

Well I had originally intended on just writing some general bits on Soviet history, but since this seems to have degenerated into a flurry of Stalin bashing it would seem that I may have to turn my attentions elsewhere.

When we are making an analysis of democratic procedures under Joseph Stalin, and when we are attempting to make criticism of them, it is necessary to take into account the social context of the time period during which this was occurring. The Soviet Union in the 1930's was still a young, and relatively weak nation on the national scale, and it was just beginning to emerge onto the world stage. The Bolshevik revolution and the bloody civil war which occurred in its aftermath were still fresh in memory, as well as the struggle which it represented. All of what was fought for in this aforementioned conflict was still in the process of being consolidated, and for the most part this was still a revolutionary period in the sense that its legitimacy was still in the process of being established. This was also a decade with war looming on the horizon, with the rise of fascism in Europe and the volatility which the ideology represents making it all but certain. The 1940's represented more threats to the Soviet Union and international socialism as well, through both WWII and the ensuing cold war. So we see that Stalin hardly was given decent circumstances to build a workers state and to focus upon the niceties of democracy.

It is with this in mind which we must judge the actions of Stalin, the historical circumstances of the time period which he ruled. Judging him by the standard of modern morality in a time of relative peace or against socialism in its purest form simply makes for an entirely unfair comparison. Yes, the means which he used were harsh at times, but you must also look at the accomplishments made because of such. The Soviet Union emerged as a major world super power in the time which Stalin presided over the role of general secretary , it became a massive center of industry, it staved off the Nazi war machine and toppled the main proprietor of fascism in the world, literacy rates soared, ect. This is only to name a few of the more notable achievements made under Stalin, of course.

In short, to judge the means used by a leader, also judge the ends achieved through such and the circumstances under which they were used.

[La Comédie Noire]

People tend to romanticize the past. Things were better under Stalin, yes, but is that really saying much? Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many people were out there defending the USSR when it first fell? Not many.

[Chimurenga.]

People tend to romanticize the past. Things were better under Stalin, yes, but is that really saying much? Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many people were out there defending the USSR when it first fell? Not many.

If I recall correctly, a year or two prior to the overthrow of the USSR, Russia for the first time itself received reactionary newspapers from the US and all over which could've contributed massively to this. This would've built some idea in the peoples heads that the US route was the way to go and they should embrace consumerism and reforms.

[robbo203]

What makes you think that it is so evident? In fact power in USSR was shared between manual workers, peasants and intelligentsia. The class of exploiters in cities (bourgeousie) was expropriated as well as class of exploiters in countryside (kulaks). That was the main difference in the constitution of power between capitalist states (when bourgeoisie holds all the power) and USSR.

What utter tosh. If we are getting all legalistic rather than looking at the de facto distribution of power in the state capitalist Soviet Union which unquestionably was massively skewed in favour of the Nomenklatura - you would have to be a blind fool to deny this - it might also be said of the western capitalist states, that the bourgeosie there could also just as easily deny that they "hold all power". Everyone they could argue is "equal under the law" because this is what the constitution explicitly says. Not only that, they could argue the process of bourgeois elections which enables the electorate to vote out a goivernment and replace it with another is an addtional reason why the bourgeoisie does not "hold all the power" in these states. The red bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union would not even have that flimsy excuse at their disposal.

It always amuses me that apologists for soviet state capitalism should adopt a sociological standpoint when analysiing the class relations of western capitalism but when it comes to analysing the class relations of the Soviet Union itself should adopt an utterly idealistic and legalistic standpoint, attaching absolute weight to the ideological subterfuge embodied in the written constitution and no weight whatsoever to what went on in the real world outside of their ivory tower outlook

[thesadmafioso]

People tend to romanticize the past. Things were better under Stalin, yes, but is that really saying much? Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many people were out there defending the USSR when it first fell? Not many.

Actually, there were a number of protests over Yeltsins taking of power, perhaps you should check your facts before making such inflammatory and outright incorrect remarks.

[ComradeOm]

People tend to romanticize the past. Things were better under Stalin, yes...Funny thing - they weren't (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1777194&postcount=5). Stalin oversaw what Alec Nove has called 'the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'. People don't so much "romanticise the past" as invent a new one

[bie]

What utter tosh. If we are getting all legalistic rather than looking at the de facto distribution of power in the state capitalist Soviet Union which unquestionably was massively skewed in favour of the Nomenklatura - you would have to be a blind fool to deny this - it might also be said of the western capitalist states, that the bourgeosie there could also just as easily deny that they "hold all power". Everyone they could argue is "equal under the law" because this is what the constitution explicitly says. Not only that, they could argue the process of bourgeois elections which enables the electorate to vote out a goivernment and replace it with another is an addtional reason why the bourgeoisie does not "hold all the power" in these states. The red bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union would not even have that flimsy excuse at their disposal.

It always amuses me that apologists for soviet state capitalism should adopt a sociological standpoint when analyzing the class relations of western capitalism but when it comes to analysing the class relations of the Soviet Union itself should adopt an utterly idealistic and legalistic standpoint, attaching absolute weight to the ideological subterfuge embodied in the written constitution and no weight whatsoever to what went on in the real world outside of their ivory tower outlook.

What a strange collection of sectarian hypocrisy and common ignorance! At first, we were discussing elements of democratic mechanisms in USSR, particularly the possibility to recall the deputy and some legal aspects of organization of power as well as the class aspects. I am sure that when discussing legal issues it is highly undesirable for some to become legalistic, but in this case it was also proved that the previously described law found many practical applications.

Let me repeat: The rule of recalling the representative was also confirmed in the Soviet Constitution from 1977. During the decade 1970-1980 from 2 millions of delegates 4 thousands were actually recalled by electors.

It was also proved that the number of deputies and the proportion of the population involved directly (non as electors only) in the decision making process (in the various commissions, soviets, social organizations, trade unions etc.) was the highest in the world. And concerning the majority of the population (rural) the biggest progress was done in the decade 1925-1935, when the per cent of peasants involved in the soviet administration increased from 55% to 85%. Read it carefully once again.

Second thing was the look at distribution of power. You claim it is "legalistic", therefore you mixed up that two things. No, it is not. This is sociological class analysis. Let me remind:

In fact power in USSR was shared between manual workers, peasants and intelligentsia. The class of exploiters in cities (bourgeousie) was expropriated as well as class of exploiters in countryside (kulaks).

As the second part is self-evident (or maybe you want to object that as well?), the first in not obvious and requires more explanation. It is clear that the soviet society in its mature period was constituted of that three social stratas (they were not all classes de facto): peasant workers (kolchoz and sovchoz), proletariat and intelligentsia (cadres). As the majority of the political power was concentrated in hands of a Marxist-Leninist political party, it is necessary to make the sociological, class analysis of the composition of the communist party and its decisions. For a start, we make an methodological assumption, that is well established in the Marxist tradition, that the state in not a class. It is not Obama or Bush that is in power in the capitalist society, it is the social class - bourgeoisie, that Obama or Bush is the representative of its interests. As stated by Bucharin in his "ABC of communism"


We must never forget the class character of the State. The State must not be conceived as constituting a 'third power' standing above the classes; from head to foot it is a class organization. Under the dictatorship of the workers it is a working-class organization. Under the dominion of the bourgeoisie it is just as definitely an economic organization as is a trust or a syndicate.

It always amuses me that the critics of the Soviet socialism should adopt this sociological standpoint when analyzing class relations in the western capitalism but when it comes to analyzing class relations in the Soviet Union should adopt naive, literal and non-scientific standpoint, attaching the absolute weight to the representatives, completely forgetting who they represent and which classes are supporting them. To make it simple, they ignore the class character of power in the socialist state. It is not only the methodological mistake, but a huge hypocrisy, mainly because the same people "forget" to do this mistake in the analysis of the capitalist society. If ones accept the theory that the officials constitute a social class (that is of course incorrect), at least be consistent and apply this theory evenly to all the societies. In light of this theory, it is not the group of bourgeoisie rentiers and billionairs that hold the power in US, but the officials - the "nomenclature": politicians, managers etc. We see it is naive and fundamentally wrong.

Coming back to the socialist societies and Marxist Leninist political party class composition. First lets realize that its composition is dynamic, that it changes with time. We can see easily that the "bureaucracy power" model, which says that the power in USSR was in the hands of the group of people called "nomenclature" or "bureaucracy" is not suitable for this purpose, because it is static. It is the same problem with so called "totalitarian" models, that simply are time-independent. They cannot explain dynamics or changes within the party-society-state system of relationships. It ignores the variety of Soviet models and its intrinsic dynamics. "Bureaucracy power" model (as well as "totalitarian" model) trivially say that for the whole period of existence the power in hands of "bureaucracy". We can easily see the limitations of this simply ahistorical and static approach, that is unable to account for its dynamic. Obviously, we need something else. A different, Marxist approach that gives an account for the variety of Soviet models and their dynamics. I refer to the book of Bahman Azad, Heroic struggle-Bitter defeat.

Lets take the "mature socialism" period. In 1972 40% of the CP members were manual workers, over 1 mln of workers in in towns and countries have been elected to Party primary committees of enterprises and shops. They make up nearly 40% of members and candidates for party membership and almost 30% among the regional, territorial and Central Committees of the CPSU in the Union Republics. Besides, overs 80% of the secretaries of regional, territorial and central committees of the CP of the Union Republics (full-time workers) started out as workers and farmers. There were 1 195 workers among the delegates to the 24th Congress of the CPSU, 32 workers and farmers were elected to the Central Committee and the Central Auditing Commission of CPSU. As visible the remaining of the % of the membership is constituted by the peasants and intelligentsia. This is the class constitution of the party. Lets look at the society.

In 1973 in USSR 61% of the people were manual workers, 26% were intelligentsia and white collar workers and 14% were peasants on the collective farms. To reject the absurd and nonsense claim of the existence the upper, privileged strata of "bureaucracy", "red bourgeoisie", "nomenclature" or even social class we look at the stratification of incomes. Lets consider model from 1965-1973. The highest paid income group were industrial engineering and technical personnel who earned about an average of 1.27 times the wage of industrial workers. The spread between the highest and the lowest income decreased in that period from 3.20 in 1965 to 2.12 in 1973. Lets have a look at average wages of the personnel in machine-building industry in Leningrad, 1965 (source: O.J. Shkaratan, 1973).


Personnel in unskilled manual labor and low skilled non manual labor without special training: 97.5 roubles/month
Personnel in skilled non manual labor without special education: 83.6 roubles/month
Personnel in skilled, primarily manual labor, employed on machines and mechanisms: 107.5 roubles/month
Personnel in skilled, primarily manual, hand labor: 120 roubles/month
Personnel in highly skilled work, combing mental and manual functions: 129.0 roubles/month
Personnel in skilled mental work: 109.8 roubles/month
Highly skilled scientific and technical personnel: 127 roubles/month
Executives of labor collectives, public and state organizations: 172.9 roubles/month

The highest paid positions in 1960s were:


President of Soviet Academy of Science: 1 500 roubles/month
University President: 1 200 roubles/month
Famous artists and performers: ap. 1000 roubles/month
Government officials: 600 roubles/month
Enterprise directors: from 190-400 roubles/month
Chief of administration: 170-190 roubles/month
Chief of personnel department: 135-170 roubles/month
Engineer: 135-150 roubles/month
Senior work superintendent: 180-200 roubles/month
Accounting personnel: 90-145 roubles/month

..and the average wages for different income groups in 1973 (source: J. Hough, 1974)


Employees of state apparatus: 126 roubles/month
Industrial engineering and technical personnel: 185 roubles/month
Education and culture employees: 121 roubles/month
Trade and service employees: 102 roubles/month
Industrial white collar workers: 119 roubles/month
Industrial workers: 146 roubles/month
State farm workers: 116 roubles/month
Collective farmers: 87 roubles/month
All workers and employees (excluding collective farmers): 135 roubles/month

As we see, only income group that earns more than industrial workers are industrial engineers and technical personnel.

It is important to note, that in the period of 1940-1975 there existed a significant trend toward equalization of payments. In 1956 the ratio of of average wages of the 10% of the highest paid to the 10% of the lowest paid (collective farmers) was 8:1, in 1975 went down to 4:1. In USA similar ratio was roughly 12:1. Therefore we may have an idea of how egalitarian soviet society was. As we can see, the very highest income in USSR (that were very few) were 10 times more that the average industrial wage. State ministers earned from 2.7 to 4.0 times more than ordinary worker. In capitalist countries, the 1000 of the real bourgeoisie rentiers in 1973 had income more than 1 mln USD/year, that concerning 8 632 USD annual wage in manufacturing make it 10 times less egalitarian than the Soviet Society.

As we can see, there is no place in egalitarian Soviet socialism for the privileged groups or stratas. It was the education and skills that were the basis for the stratification of income. Interestingly, some of the critics of the late Soviet system from the Marxst-Leninist perspective (eg. Bahman Azad) point out that the excessive wage equalization caused the decrease in the labor productivity ("or you stand or you lie down - you get your 1000") and was the actual factor of the economic growth slowdown. Therefore wage equalization should be applied carefully as the mechanism of the cental planning, not as the principle of the socialism in its transition towards communist society. Wage differentials should be maintained in order to control the distribution, quality and quantity of labor. Too rapid wage equalization (as in 1970-80) caused degeneration of the system in terms of the decreased labor productivity with respect to growing consumer demand.

As we see, the myth of stratification or inequalities in USSR has no real basis, that makes all the theories from starting from "totalitarian" paradigm though all kinds of "bureaucracy power" ending up with the nonsense claim of "state capitalism" pure inventions of one imagination. But lets concentrate on the positive aspect of the discussion.

There is an answer for all home-grown "critics" of USSR - what is your positive model of the socialist society? Can you answer the question in the separate threat and we can critically discuss your ideas?

[bie]

If I recall correctly, a year or two prior to the overthrow of the USSR, Russia for the first time itself received reactionary newspapers from the US and all over which could've contributed massively to this. This would've built some idea in the peoples heads that the US route was the way to go and they should embrace consumerism and reforms.
True. Let me quote Gus Hall, chairman of CP, USA. (from: Bahman Azad, Heroic struggle-bitter defeat, 2000)

"If you put together the lack of ideological education and the fact that during the past 5 years there has been no defense of socialism, you get the picture of how lopsided the ideological struggle has been. The seven newspapers that advocated socialism have been silenced. The mass media is open to every anti-socialist outfit from around the world. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have their offices in all the big cities and daily access to the airways. Every right wing U.S. TV preacher is on th air in the big cities in the Soviet Union. John Sununu, heads of FBI departments and leaders of Young Republicans regularly lectured to the staffs of the Central Committee and the Komsomol. The U.S. Army has sent instructors to lecture the Soviet Union on "making their military more democratic". U.S. advisers, economists, ideologues and professors are active adherents of capitalist economy and bourgeois democracy in every institute and every level of government. And of course, there are more student exchange programs, where Soviet men and women spend years at Harvard and Yale learning to become "entrepreneurs". While the Soviet Union has opened the floodgates for every foreign magazine and newspaper, including pornography and sensational garbage, they have canceled every foreign Communist newspaper. This extensive ideological penetration has been going on with the approval of Gorbachev and circle around him"

primary source: Gus Hall, "The Crisis in the Soviet Union", Remarks to the Special Meeting of the National Committee of CP USA, September 1991, p.3


Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many people were out there defending the USSR when it first fell? Not many.
There were a good few thousands. Here is the one video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPfUnwyFsI) and the other. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB7l3zXc5go)

"the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'.
Well, one could argue :) Are you sure?

People don't so much "romanticise the past" as invent a new one
As expected, trots know better than the people themselves, even those who lived in that period.

[The Hong Se Sun]

It all depends on who you ask and to be fair the USSR existed for a long time so this is a very open question

[ComradeOm]

Well, one could argue :) Are you sure?You can propose another such dramatic crash in living standards as that which accompanied the creation of the Stalinist economy?


As expected, trots know better than the people themselves, even those who lived in that period.You have perhaps heard the expression, 'the past is a foreign country'?

Statistics do not lie (at least not in the same way as human memories do) and anyone who claims that the 1930s were a time of plenty is mistaken. They are simply remembering incorrectly (possibly giving the omnipresent slogans more weight than they should) or happened to occupy a privileged position at the time

But then let's not pretend that there is a large and vocal percentage of the Russian population who are nostalgic for a Stalinist era they lived through. Anyone who was a young adult (say, 20) at the beginning of the First Five Year plan would be 100 today. Anyone who was the same age towards the end of the Stalinist period would be over eighty now. To have any memories at all of Stalin's rule they would have to be around 65 today - a less than 15% of the Russian population. Those who can actually remember the '30s and '40s are a tiny minority even of this

So no, I'm contradicting very few actual memories (assuming that they have even been expressed) but rather an artificial/false collective memory that fondly imagines, as always, a better but non-existent time

[bie]

You can propose another such dramatic crash in living standards as that which accompanied the creation of the Stalinist economy?
I don't think there was a such thing as "dramatic crash in living standards", however it was possible that accelerated industrialization in its first phase was a quite costly process (none one is neglecting that). Nonetheless - of course it was necessary and justified and the incoming war proved that in a quite a indisputable way. That period is known as the biggest social and economical progress in the history of this part of the world. The objective were accomplished with the wide support and enthusiasm of the workers and peasants. This is the reason for the people to remember this period well. It was not only about material conditions of living - but about seeing the world around you changing and improving every day, as the result of the common, fraternal work towards better future.

Concerning real dramatic crashes in the history - oh, the history of capitalism is quite rich in that. For example - dismantling the "stalinist" economy in 1990 caused the real dramatic crash in the conditions of living, that caused the life unprecedented drop in life expectancy by 7 years. Here is the video material. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeK6spOIVro&feature=related)


Statistics do not lie
Could you present us with that statistics?

Anyone who was a young adult (say, 20) at the beginning of the First Five Year plan would be 100 today
People who were 20 in 1955 now have 75 years.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think there was a such thing as "dramatic crash in living standards"There was. See links below


Nonetheless - of course it was necessary and justified and the incoming war proved that in a quite a indisputable wayYes. The usual excuse. Its okay to kill a few million citizens because otherwise the foreigners will invade and kill millions more! Excuse me if I don't condone the idea of grinding the working class on the basis that there are other threats on the horizon. For a communist that's akin to hanging yourself because you can't get hold of cyanide


The objective were accomplished with the wide support and enthusiasm of the workers and peasantsNo it wasn't. Kevin Murphy's Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory does an excellent job of demolishing that particular myth. For all the grand directives of the CC, the Stalinist industrialisation programme (entailing as it did drastic cuts in real wages and living standards) face resistance from the working class at factory level. The productivist plans were at best grudgingly accepted by demoralised and fragmented proletariat in the face of intense state/management pressure

As for the peasants, it is almost laughable to suggest that the dissolution of their communes was greeted with "wide support and enthusiasm". Your knowledge of the USSR seems to come directly from old propaganda posters - images of happy and rosy cheeked peasants embarking on a great new life in the kolkhozy with only the evil and shadowy kulaks causing discord. Not a thought that collectivisation might be accompanied by official coercion - be it physical force, extreme taxation, or the simple abolishment of existing peasant structures :rolleyes:

And both groups had good reason to be unhappy - the entire point of the Stalinist economy was to mobilise enough capital from within the USSR to fund industrialisation. This meant squeezing both the workers and peasants. For the latter this was a matter of forcing them onto collective farms where they were to supply grain at minimum cost to the state (which is why kolkhozy were favoured over sovkhozy). As for the workers, it meant working longer hours for less pay under worse conditions. It also meant 'volunteering' for state bonds - effectively a deduction of one months wages. The industrial progress of the USSR was built on the blood and bones of the proletariat


Concerning real dramatic crashes in the history - oh, the history of capitalism is quite rich in that. For example - dismantling the "stalinist" economy in 1990 caused the real dramatic crash in the conditions of living, that caused the life unprecedented drop in life expectancy by 7 years. Here is the video material. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeK6spOIVro&feature=related)How many people died? Was there food rationing in the cities?

It says something about Stalin and his regime that most of the great disasters of capitalism (and there's no questioning that Russia in 1990 experienced a disaster) pale when compared to the supposedly triumphant industrialisation effort


Could you present us with that statistics?Sure. I've already linked to some above. See this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html?p=1777194#post1777194), this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=21) (dealing with calorie consumption), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1589311&postcount=3). And here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1798298&postcount=2) a few reading references. You can add Murphy's work above to that last list

[bie]

There was. See links below
Sure. I've already linked to some above. See this post, this one (dealing with calorie consumption), here. And here's a few reading references. You can add Murphy's work above to that last list
Oh, really? The only information "under links below" is the decrease in consumption of kcal per person (again, knowing an amount of bias we can be skeptical about that) and the information, that consumption increased of 11% from 1928 to 1953. Concerning the fact, that in the rapid preparation to war, the increase in individual consumption is not a priority, this accusation is pretty silly. I think it will be vital to present the position of the Soviet authorities on that issue:


We are told: This is all very well; many new factories have been built, and the foundations for industrialisation have been laid; but it would have been far better to have renounced the policy of industrialisation, the policy of expanding the production of means of production, or at least to have relegated it to the background, so as to produce more cotton fabrics, shoes, clothing and other goods for mass consumption.

It is true that the output of goods for mass consumption was less than the amount required, and this creates certain difficulties. But, then, we must realise and take into account where such a policy of relegating the task of industrialisation to the background would have led us. Of course, out of the 1,500 million rubles in foreign currency that we spent during this period on equipment for our heavy industries, we could have set aside a half for importing cotton, hides, wool, rubber, etc. Then we would now have more cotton fabrics, shoes and clothing. But we would not have a tractor industry or an automobile industry; we would not have any thing like a big iron and steel industry; we would not have metal for the manufacture of machinery—and we would remain unarmed while encircled by capitalist countries armed with modern technique.

We would have deprived ourselves of the possibility of supplying agriculture with tractors and agricultural machinery — consequently, we would be without bread.

We would have deprived ourselves of the possibility of achieving victory over the capitalist elements in our country—consequently, we would have raised immeasurably the chances of the restoration of capitalism.

We would not have all the modern means of defence without which it is impossible for a country to be politically independent, without which a country becomes a target for military attacks of foreign enemies. Our position would be more or less analogous to the present position of China, which has no heavy industry and no war industry of its own and which is being molested by anyone who cares to do so.

In short, in that case we would have military intervention; not pacts of non-aggression, but war, dangerous and fatal war, a sanguinary and unequal war; for in such a war we would be almost unarmed in the face of an enemy having all the modern means of attack at his disposal.

This is how it works out, comrades.

It is obvious that no self-respecting government and no self-respecting party could adopt such a fatal point of view.

And it is precisely because the Party rejected this anti-revolutionary line—it is precisely for that reason that it achieved a decisive victory in the fulfilment of the five-year plan in the sphere of industry.

In carrying out the five-year plan and organising victory in the sphere of industrial development the Party pursued the policy of accelerating the development of industry to the utmost. The Party, as it were, spurred the country on and hastened its progress.

Was the Party right in pursuing the policy of accelerating development to the utmost?

Yes, it was absolutely right.

It was necessary to urge forward a country which was a hundred years behindhand and which was faced with mortal danger because of its backwardness. Only in this way was it possible to enable the country quickly to re-equip itself on the basis of modern technique and to emerge on to the high road at last.

Furthermore, we could not know just when the imperialists would attack the U.S.S.R. and interrupt our work of construction; but that they might attack us at any moment, taking advantage of the technical and economic weakness of our country—of that there could be no doubt. That is why the Party was obliged to spur the country on, so as not to lose time, so as to make the utmost use of the respite and to create in the U.S.S.R. the basis of industrialisation which is the foundation of its might. The Party could not afford to wait and manoeuvre; it had to pursue the policy of accelerating development to the utmost.

Finally, the Party had to put an end, in the shortest possible space of time, to the weakness of the country in the sphere of defence. The conditions prevailing at the time, the growth of armaments in the capitalist countries, the collapse of the idea of disarmament, the hatred of the international bourgeoisie for the U.S.S.R. — all this impelled the Party to accelerate the work of strengthening the defence capacity of the country, the basis of its independence.

source: The Results of the First Five-Year Plan Report Delivered on January 7, 1933 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm)

We can see clearly now - how dead right comrade Stalin was..

Its okay to kill a few million citizens because otherwise the foreigners will invade and kill millions more!
I am sure that Stalin killed them by bare hands. Sorry to say, but you degenerate here to a mere apologist of imperialist, anti-soviet propaganda of "millions of victims of communism.". It is all nothing but lies.

The productivist plans were at best grudgingly accepted by demoralized and fragmented proletariat in the face of intense state/management pressure
You are making laugh of us. It is so absurd that it is unbelievable. The most "demoralized" part of the working class the most hardworking. Incredible bullshit.

As for the peasants, it is almost laughable to suggest that the dissolution of their communes was greeted with "wide support and enthusiasm".
Again, this is the another essence of capitalist propaganda against Soviet Union.
"Village communes" never actually existed. This is an idealized image of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie propagandists.

Your knowledge of the USSR seems to come directly from old propaganda posters - images of happy and rosy cheeked peasants embarking on a great new life in the kolkhozy with only the evil and shadowy kulaks causing discord.
No. It is rather your knowledge of the USSR that comes directly from the pro-capitalist and anticommunist propaganda, including the creation of the horror image by the means of an abuse of rationality and urban legends.


How many people died? Was there food rationing in the cities?
Many millions. Food rationing could save many lives, unfortunately it does not exist under capitalism.

Can I ask you a question? Do you think that there should be no five-year plan? And my second question is: do you justify the statement that 1930s were ""the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history" by the mere fact that the consumption increased from 1928 to 1953 by 11%, or there are other arguments supporting that?

[FSL]

Just felt like pointing out that ComradeOm's "statistics" in daily calory intake shows that in 1921 (a year of freakin' famine) the average worker consumed 2500 calories. More than a perfectly healthy man. Also in 1927 the average worker consumed almost 4000 calories daily. So, obesity was something of a plague in the USSR back in the 20s, as people would eat until their stomachs burst.

This gave me a whole new appreciation of Stalin, in whose tyrannical reign at the very least a damn was given about people's health. Well done, Comrade Josef. I salute you.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=21
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/GreaterDCU/Misc/Calories.jpg

KCals consumed per day for Soviet workers and all peasants
(Not visible - peasant value for 1913 is 2913)

[bie]

True, it is almost twice as much as the recommended daily intake. It was also twice as much as world average in 1961 - 2.254 kcal/person/day. And more than contemporary, based on extensive consumption in fast-food chains, society of USA - for which it is main health concern. I didn't know that they had this problem in USSR in 1927 as well.:laugh:

edit: but how cleverly it is set-up! especially this "gap" - it creates a sense of sensation and gently suggests the reader to imagine the red line going down from 1933 to reach its "minimum of horrors" around 1929/30.

[robbo203]

What a strange collection of sectarian hypocrisy and common ignorance! .....

I wont go through your somewhat tediously long post point by point because, to be frank somewhere around half way through wading through it the eyes started to glaze over. Manifestly hackish attempts at justifying the unjustifiable such as yours, tend to have that effect. I will simply focus on one or two salient points.

The first point concerns your suggestion that the Soviet Union was actually a comparatively democratic society. You make much of the "fact", for example, that out of 2 million delegates in 1970-80 (delegates to what???) 4000 were recalled by the electors themselves. Big deal. In many western countries they are simply voted out of office if the electors dont like them. What concerns me much more is the actual process by which important decisions were made and there cannot be any doubt that in the Soviet Union they were made in a highly centralised top-down fashion. In no way does the fact that the base of the Soviet power pyramid might have been relatively broad detract from this fact. It does not alter the pyramidal shape of the power hierarchy... It simply means a few more were cooopted into rubber stamping decisions made from above, to routinely offer standing ovations when required to do so. Those at the base such as the party cells had very little if any, power at all. Supreme power emphatically lay with the General Secretary . Any criticism of the regime was severely curtailed by the banning of other political parties and internal factions within the party itself from the early 1920s. Critics faced police harrassment, arrest , banishment to the slave labour camps and even execution. You say nothing of such things but it rather blows a huge gaping hole in your whole argument doesnt it? It shows up your claim that the Soviet Union was some kind of democratic society to be laughable. The Soviet Union was in fact an oppresive dictatorship of the vanguard OVER the proletariat (and peasants)

Secondly you reject as absurd and nonsensical the claim that there existed in the Soviet Union "an upper, privileged strata of "bureaucracy", "red bourgeoisie", "nomenclature" or even social class" and you attempt to back up your argument by referring to data concerning the stratification of incomes in the Soviet Union. But the data you cite is highly misleading for several reasons. It ignores

1) the widespread practice of multiple incomes enjoyed by members of the ruling class
2) payments in kinds which in terms of their economic value often outweighed monetary payments - from splendid dachas to chauffer driven limos and much more
3) Undisclosed income - particularly after Stalin when members of the Soviet ruling class began to increasingly forge contacts and alliances with the Russian mafia

A more realistic account of income stratification in the Soviet Union is found in a number of other books I could cite. Ossowski and Patterson in, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness (Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116) mantain that the ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (). According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to their own retail outlets stocking western goods and various other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded - so much for your claim that there was no privilege) the ratio was more like 1:100. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success

Finally a point about the nomenklatura. It is important not to equate the party membership with the nomenklatura who were really a small but extremely powerful (and wealthy) elite within the party. This elite essentially represented the functional equivalent of the bourgeoise class in the western capitalist societies. The bourgeoisie were not strictly speaking expropriated as you claim i.e. no longer existed as a class. What changed was rather the process by which one could gain entry to of this class . Party membership was a necessary but not sufficient requirement in this respect

Interestingly, Stalin had argued in the 1930s that there were only two classes in the Soviet Union - the proletariat and the peasants. From a marxian standpoint this, of course, is complete nonsese. The existence of a proletariat of its very nature as an exploited class pressuposes the existence of an exploiting bourgeoisie. You cannot have a proletariat without also having a bourgeois class. This latter class exploited the Soviet proletariat via its de facto control of the state machine. Engels talked about how the state by taking over the means of production became the "national capitalist". Those who controlled the state were the embodiment of the national capitalist class - the red bourgeoisie.

[ComradeOm]

Just felt like pointing out that ComradeOm's "statistics" in daily calory intake shows that in 1921 (a year of freakin' famine) the average worker consumed 2500 calories. More than a perfectly healthy man. Also in 1927 the average worker consumed almost 4000 calories daily. So, obesity was something of a plague in the USSR back in the 20s, as people would eat until their stomachs burst1) "A perfectly healthy man" does not consume 2500 calories a day when engaged in manual labour. According to this article (PDF) (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf) the average American citizen [edit: during the same period] was consuming almost 3,500 KCals per day, while Oddy (Food, Diet and Economic Change Past and Present) suggests that the average Lancashire mill worker (hardly a privileged caste) was consuming 4,160 KCal per day in 1860

So yes, over 2,500 KCal per day would be considered excessive if you do nothing save sit in front of a computer and masturbate. Putting in a full shift in a heavy industry factory during the depths of the Russian winter will require quite a few more

2) Wheatcroft addresses your point in Soviet Statistics of Nutrition and Mortality During Times of Famine where he notes the importance of "the duration of extended food consumption stress. For a while the body can survive on the fat reserves in the body. But over an extended period of time this cannot be maintained. The Soviet data of the 1920s... enable us to build up a picture of the continued extent of food consumption stress, as well as its greatest intensity"

3) The figures are based on Soviet statistical surveys. As an aside, these were far ahead of their time and (save for the period in which the statistical bureau was disbanded) quite comprehensive. There are two data entries for each year, with three for some famine years, drawn from cities across the RSFSR. If its any consolation, it wouldn't be until the second half of the 20th C that Western governments would systematically conduct any such comparable research into their population's consumption

4) The figures are an all-Union average. For example, 1919 was a worse year in Leningrad (1,598 KCal per adult per day) and Moscow (2,006 KCal) than 1921 (2,690 and 2,744 KCals respectively). Conversely the opposite was the case in the likes of Ulianovsk and Samara where the summer of 1919 was relatively plentiful (3,285 and 3,137) than the famine of 1921 (2,032 and 2,025)

5) I took care to differentiate between workers and peasants. The latter were certainly not dying of obesity either during the famine years or beyond


edit: but how cleverly it is set-up! especially this "gap" - it creates a sense of sensation and gently suggests the reader to imagine the red line going down from 1933 to reach its "minimum of horrors" around 1929/30Oh? There was no famine in the USSR during these years?


Oh, really?Yes. I know that Stalin did not write any of the works I recommended but I still expect you to do some reading. I am not going to transcribe entire books just for you


I am sure that Stalin killed them by bare hands. Sorry to say, but you degenerate here to a mere apologist of imperialist, anti-soviet propaganda of "millions of victims of communism.". It is all nothing but lies.Millions of people died during the collectivisation drive. This is fact. The exact causes of these deaths is of course more debatable but labelling every suggestion that it was the result of gross economic mismanagement as "imperialist anti-soviet propaganda" is pathetic


"Village communes" never actually existed. This is an idealized image of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie propagandistsReally? The obshchina never existed? Fancy that. I wonder what Lenin (maybe you'll respect him at least) was referring to in this work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/mar/19.htm#bkV17E080) when he talks of the "peasant village commune"? Or the entire paper that he devotes to it here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/agrquest/iii.htm)? Was Lenin a petty bourgeoisie propagandist?

I would usually first point you to a wealth of historical research on the commune and its role in the Russian Revolution and beyond. But really I don't think there's much point. Anyone who claims to have any knowledge of the above but denies, or is ignorant of, the existence of the communes (which, interesting enough, were officially abolished in the USSR in 1930... strange for a non-existent structure) really is beyond all hope


No. It is rather your knowledge of the USSR that comes directly from the pro-capitalist and anticommunist propaganda, including the creation of the horror image by the means of an abuse of rationality and urban legendsAnd this is it. The crux of the matter. My knowledge of the USSR comes from sources that have not been officially condoned by the USSR during the Stalinist period. Ergo they are merely "anticommunist propaganda". The very idea that living standards could have declined despite the above consumption data being based on Soviet records is simply a "pro-capitalist creation of the horror image". There can be no questioning the official 'truth' because this itself is evidence of anti-communism

Which is why its always worthless talking to you Stalinoids. Your minds are like little metal balls - nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Instead you are happy to stick to the same faulty logic. The USSR was socialist and anyone who criticises a socialist society is a counter-revolutionary. Any evidence that the USSR was not socialist is therefore only presented by counter-revolutionaries and can therefore be dismissed

It'd be laughable if it wasn't so depressing

[Niccolò Rossi]

Just felt like pointing out that ComradeOm's "statistics" in daily calory intake shows that in 1921 (a year of freakin' famine) the average worker consumed 2500 calories. More than a perfectly healthy man. Also in 1927 the average worker consumed almost 4000 calories daily. So, obesity was something of a plague in the USSR back in the 20s, as people would eat until their stomachs burst.

This gave me a whole new appreciation of Stalin, in whose tyrannical reign at the very least a damn was given about people's health. Well done, Comrade Josef. I salute you.

I can't comment on the validity of the statistics presented in the graph quoted, however, you really don't know what your talking about when it comes to calorie consumption. If you've ever done a day of manual labour in your life or eaten anything other than 2 minute noodles, you'd know this.

2500 calories may or may not be 'more than [necessary for] a perfectly healthy man'. This statement is contingent upon the level of physical activity your sample man is engaging in and the food that makes up the calorie count.

Eating 2500 calories of lean proteins, healthy fats and complex carbohydrates is very different to eating 2500 calories of sugar loaded, deep fried, highly processed, nutrionally empty 'food'!

Also, whilst you might be exaggerating, 4000 calories is certainly not a 'stomach bursting' quantity. I eat somewhat north of 4000 calories daily. Last time I checked, I'm hardly what you could call obese. In fact, I personally know an olympic lifter who when he was training at the Australian Institute of Sport when he was 17 who was consuming 11,000 calories a day. Similarly, I've heard of lumbar jacks in the pacific northwest in years gone by being prepared meals in communal kitchens of 10,000 calories a day.

Stop talking out your arse.

Nic.

EDIT: ComradeOm beat me to it...

[Victory]

It reached the early stages of Socialism. However, it was not fully Socialist and after the death of Stalin, the leadership betrayed the objective of Socialism.

[Arlekino]

When I talk with older population about Soviet Union I get more positives than negatives, regards Stalinism era and compare forest of brothers well it was more cruel from forest of brothers. I wish to mention in Baltic States are plenty of Lumpa Proletoriats as calling "Bomza", I tell you honest they look like from concentration camps, starving, without food, society don't want them, they are not modern in capitalist views. Have a look on you tube how they live. Advance capitalism and gangs in government I wonder why we so nostalgia about Soviet Union.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, I would call the USSR State Industrialist society to distinguish it from the State Capitalism currently practiced in "People's" China, where the State is no longer the sole legal owner of the means of production and the ruling class is composed of the peculiar coalition of the CCP nomenklatura and the bureaucratic capitalists ("national" Chinese bourgeoisie connected with the State apparatus via the illegal and semi-legal "business" ties) with the Chinese representatives of the multinationals owning industrial enterprises in China (mainly top managers playing the role of the traditional comprador bourgeoisie).

On the other hand, the Soviet State could not be equated, contrary to the "totalitarianism" theories, with the Fascist states of Central Europe in 1930s - 1940s, both because of the different historical role (despite its oppressive character the USSR still played enormous role in economic and socio-cultural advancement of the masses of the population of former Russian Empire, freeing them from the shackles of the superstition, dependence on subsistence agriculture and enforced hereditary inequality, unlike the openly elitist and xenophobic Fascist regimes that, in my view, to a certain extent resembled a sort of Industrial Absolutism with Führerprinzip instead of Divine Right of Kings and nationalistic-racial mysticism in place of organized religion).

The Soviet ruling class was relatively open to the strangers and the system of "worker-and-peasants" quota for the Party membership allowed some representatives of the working class to enter the ranks of the highest bureaucracy up to the late Brezhnev Epoch. Besides, each member of the Soviet nomenckatura was entitled to his or her class privileges only as long as he or she remained in the service of the State, which played the role of the truly monopolistic industrial and financial corporation. It was the private (i.e. alienated from the rest of society) or more precisely corporate property of the State that dominated in the USSR, not the relatively insignificant and mostly illegal private, that is owned by the individual small capitalists, enterprises.

[Zanthorus]

"Village communes" never actually existed. This is an idealized image of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie propagandists.

Um, the Obshchina was the reason Marx thought that Russia could reach socialism without going through a stage of capitalist development provided that there was a working class revolution in the west.

[bie]

Um, the Obshchina was the reason Marx thought that Russia could reach socialism without going through a stage of capitalist development provided that there was a working class revolution in the west.

Well, I didn't know I will encouter here supporters of feudalism, but - anyway - Russian "village communes" were highly stratified and class-divided entities, consituted mostly of poor peasants, that could not afford to run its own business, therefore had to work as labourers for feudal owners and later for the rich peasants - kulaks. Few millions of them had to emigrate every year to Southern Causasus and Ukraine in order to find seasonal jobs, other reinforced city unemployed crowds. The Russian village consisted mostly of illiterate and highly backward population. The relations in many places resembled medieval times. So that were the "peasant communes". Many people in USSR were greatful to the communist party to put an end to the exploitation, exterme poverty and illiteracy in the countryside in a very short period of time, giving rise the modern, mechanized agriculture. Therefore when ones tell me that "Stalin destroyed peasants communes" - they belong to the group characterized by Trotsky as "optimists for the past".

[FSL]

1) "A perfectly healthy man" does not consume 2500 calories a day when engaged in manual labour. According to this article (PDF) (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf) the average American citizen [edit: during the same period] was consuming almost 3,500 KCals per day, while Oddy (Food, Diet and Economic Change Past and Present) suggests that the average Lancashire mill worker (hardly a privileged caste) was consuming 4,160 KCal per day in 1860


According to that article "Total food supply available for consumption" was as much. Actual calorie intake is only calculated after 1970 and is persistently shown to be something like 1200 calories less than the other one. It averaged 2200-2500 during the 70s and the first half of the 80s and has been rising since to go past 3000 now.
It even states that:

ERS’s loss-adjusted annual
per capita food supply series (adjusted
for spoilage, cooking losses,
plate waste, and other food losses
accumulated throughout the marketing
system and the home) suggests
that average daily calorie
consumption in 2000 was 12 percent,
or roughly 300 calories, above
the 1985 level (fig. 1)

Which means that in 1985 calories per day were exactly at 2500 while already on the rise the few years before.
Are you always so lazy when it comes to reading?



According to this taken from here (http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5686e/y5686e07.htm#bm07)



Sedentary or light activity: If this PAL was from a female population, 30 to 50 years old, with mean weight of 55 kg and mean BMR of 5.40 MJ/day (1 290 kcal/day), TEE = 1.53 × 5.40 = 8.26 MJ (1 975 kcal), or 150 kJ (36 kcal)/kg/d.
Active or moderately active: If this PAL was from a female population, 20 to 25 years old, with mean weight of 57 kg and mean BMR of 5.60 MJ/day (1 338 kcal/day), TEE = 1.76 × 5.60 = 9.86 MJ (2 355 kcal), or 173 kJ (41 kcal)/kg/d.
Vigorous or vigorously active: If this PAL was from a male population, 20 to 25 years old, with mean weight of 70 kg and mean BMR of 7.30 MJ/day (1 745 kcal/day), TEE = 2.25 × 7.30 = 16.42 MJ (3 925 kcal), or 235 kJ (56 kcal)/kg/d.


A young male who's vigorously active and weighs 70kgs (so rather healthy I guess) needs 3925 calories. Of course, its way less for women or people less active.
That's the upper end of the spectrum. The word "average" means something different.

It means something like this(http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51&subcategoryid=165):


The recommended daily calorie intake varies depending on how old you are. For the average adult this is about 2,000 per day (women) and 2,500 per day (men).
(That's from the National Healthcare System. Is this going to be the first capitalist sourse you'll ever deny? Maybe they're in in The Stalin Conspiracy? Maybe you're more of an expert?)

Hmm, 2000 for women and 2500 for men? Which would bring total average to around 2200-2300 calories per day? Which (what an amazing coincidence!) just so happens to be what people used to get in the US (most industrialized nation on earth) in the 70s and early 80s, just a bit before the complete commercialization of food and the obesity epidemic currently underway.


If you want to argue that in 1920s Soviet Union people consumed more calories than the average modern American then go ahead and do so. But you can't really stop looking a bit dumb while doing so.





I can't comment on the validity of the statistics presented in the graph quoted, however, you really don't know what your talking about when it comes to calorie consumption. If you've ever done a day of manual labour in your life or eaten anything other than 2 minute noodles, you'd know this.

2500 calories may or may not be 'more than [necessary for] a perfectly healthy man'. This statement is contingent upon the level of physical activity your sample man is engaging in and the food that makes up the calorie count.

Eating 2500 calories of lean proteins, healthy fats and complex carbohydrates is very different to eating 2500 calories of sugar loaded, deep fried, highly processed, nutrionally empty 'food'!

Also, whilst you might be exaggerating, 4000 calories is certainly not a 'stomach bursting' quantity. I eat somewhat north of 4000 calories daily. Last time I checked, I'm hardly what you could call obese. In fact, I personally know an olympic lifter who when he was training at the Australian Institute of Sport when he was 17 who was consuming 11,000 calories a day. Similarly, I've heard of lumbar jacks in the pacific northwest in years gone by being prepared meals in communal kitchens of 10,000 calories a day.

Stop talking out your arse.

Nic.

EDIT: ComradeOm beat me to it...


He did beat you to it so it's only fair he gets the bigger reply. 2500 calories are fine for a healthy, "average" man. I don't speak out my arse when I say that, I only repeat the opinions of just about every respected scientist on that field.
If someone is engaged in strenuous manual labor or training for the Olympics or whatever is completely besides the point. For every guy like that there's a teacher or a doctor or a cashier or just your plain old model. I'm not bringing them up, am I?

Who is obese and who's not isn't a matter of opinion but of mass. If you do take more than 4000 calories daily without working in construction or spending a couple of hours at the gym, I 'd doubt you're that far from being obese. If you are engaging in activities like these, then you're far from the average person.




In any case, it's shown that the daily calorie intake considered normal is 2000 and 2500 calories for women and men and it's shown that this is pretty much what people used to get a few decades ago in the -quite developed- United States. For those who want to believe it's quite normal and a common thing to eat upwards of 4000 calories per day, well... just do it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Who is obese and who's not isn't a matter of opinion but of mass.

Well not quite. Body Mass Indexes (BMI) are more or less useless as a measure of healthy weight ranges. I personally know quite a few blokes who fall into the obese range despite having body fat levels under 15% according to BMI. Body fat percentages are much more useful.


If you do take more than 4000 calories daily without working in construction or spending a couple of hours at the gym, I 'd doubt you're that far from being obese.

For the record I work full-time as a labourer in my holidays and on weekends (now that I'm back at uni). I also spend little over 3hrs in the gym a week.

Of course, working a manual job in Russia in the 1920's and 30's was evidently even more common than it is today in the West.

Nic.

[Salmonella]

Much was communistic. Not all, in my opinion.

[ComradeOm]

Well, I didn't know I will encouter here supporters of feudalism...This is of course typical. At first bie flatly denies that there was such a thing as a "village commune" (accusing me of being a "bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie propagandist" in the process). When it is put to him that actually they did exist, they were referenced by both Lenin and Marx, and form a pretty important feature in pre- and post-revolutionary society, then we get accusations of "supporting feudalism" when not one person here has expressed a positive opinion of them


Are you always so lazy when it comes to reading?No, I'm not going to take that. Not from some idiot who consistently refuses to bring any reference material (save internet links) of his own to the table. Its easy to nitpick when you are not offering anything, isn't it?

Fine then, I've gone back to the books so feel free to argue with the below. Note that I'm not basing these on government calculators and 'working backwards' but on conditions that were roughly contemporary to the period in question - that is 19th C and early 20th C industrial and agrarian societies

Komlos (Modern Economic Growth and the Biological Standard of Living) gives an average of 3400 KCal for Americans in the 19th C (with the upper bound, for workers, being 3900) while Michael Turner (After the Famine) notes that labourers in the north of England were consuming up to 3,200 calories per day at the beginning of the 19th C. Interestingly, Clarkson and Crawford's Feast and Famine gives a high range of 3400-4800 for Irish labourers just prior to the famine in Ireland, indicating the role that diet composition (in this case carbohydrate rich potatoes - which were also, along with bread, staples of the Russian diet) plays in calorie intake. The latter is a conclusion that Filtzer and Goldman (A Dream Deferred) explicitly make when discussing the diet of Russian workers. I've already provided the Oddy figures for the 1860s (strangely there was no comment about those). In the Soviet context, Allen (Farm to factory: a reinterpretation of the Soviet industrial revolution) includes Wheatcroft's figures but gives a slightly different high of 3180. To go in the opposite direct, Keys (Biology of Starvation) notes there was mass hunger in Germany 1917 despite the fact that calorie consumption had fallen to just under 2000 KCal

Now if your theory is correct (and that calorie consumption always increases) over time then each of these above figures is wrong. If, as you also suggest, 2500 calories is a maximum intake for manual workers (and that 3500 or above is tempting obesity) then these figures are also wrong as they suggest that 19th C societies were fonts of plenty with everyone gorging themselves to death

Now I've done the above not in any effort to convince you, I highly doubt that you'll so much as glance at one of these, but simply to tell you that you are wrong


If you do take more than 4000 calories daily without working in construction or spending a couple of hours at the gym...You see, this is why I get so angry at your stupidity. Its annoying to go out and do a bit of research only to see the opposing argument disintegrate as you go to post. I want you to think about the following very carefully:

Why do you suggest that construction workers can consume up to 4000 KCal a day without risking obesity? What is it about this job that consumes so much energy? The answer is clear - its tough manual labour that involves (if I can simplify) 'carrying shit around' all day. Yet you seem to imagine that life as a worker in 1920s Russia involved no such work and only required an office workers' energy intake. This is despite the fact that factory work in Russia was overwhelmingly a) heavy (as in 'heavy industry'), and b) labour intensive (as in a lack of mechanisation). So yes, I would expect it to demand more calories than "than the average modern American"... that much should be obvious to anyone with a) half and brain, b) any experience in today's industry, and c) even cursory knowledge of factory work/life in the early 20th C

[FSL]

No, I'm not going to take that. Not from some idiot who consistently refuses to bring any reference material (save internet links) of his own to the table. Its easy to nitpick when you are not offering anything, isn't it?

It would be more constructive if you actually spent a second on what I said. You posted that link, not me, and that link was mentioning 3500 calories as the "food available" regardless of whether it was even sold from the market. The actual calory intake was much less. Was I wrong there?




If, as you also suggest, 2500 calories is a maximum intake for manual workers (and that 3500 or above is tempting obesity)

Hey there Mr strawman. Oh, and the "2500 calories suggestion" comes from doctors, not me.




Why do you suggest that construction workers can consume up to 4000 KCal a day without risking obesity? What is it about this job that consumes so much energy? The answer is clear - its tough manual labour that involves (if I can simplify) 'carrying shit around' all day. Yet you seem to imagine that life as a worker in 1920s Russia involved no such work and only required an office workers' energy intake.

No, I seem to be reasonable and not imagine that just every man spent his whole day lifting mountains. There were "office workers" among them, there were children and old people, there were women for whom there was an effort to not be employed in physically stressing jobs (or at the time weren't empoyed at all).
Even in heavy industry (just so you know it isn't called like that because you constantly move heavy things around), which is the industry that produces means of production and as a result the organic composition of capital is much higher than in most areas of light industry, there were 8-hour shifts so you can't really compare them to some mill worker who clocked in 12 hours or more.

[bie]

This is of course typical. At first bie flatly denies that there was such a thing as a "village commune" (accusing me of being a "bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie propagandist" in the process). When it is put to him that actually they did exist, they were referenced by both Lenin and Marx, and form a pretty important feature in pre- and post-revolutionary society, then we get accusations of "supporting feudalism" when not one person here has expressed a positive opinion of them
Well, wasn't it you by any chance who said in post no. 44 that:

As for the peasants, it is almost laughable to suggest that the dissolution of their communes was greeted with "wide support and enthusiasm"
Therefore you attacked Soviet authorities (or you thought you attacked Stalin) for carrying on "dissolution of their communes". Therefore you automatically place yourself in the position of their defender. If you object Soviet policy on "dissolution of their communes", means quite that you wish to preserve "their communes". From this fact is a short way to the conclusion that:

- or you have no idea what was the Russian village like, (i.e. you accept its idealized image, created by petty-bourgeois and bourgeois propagandists) - with all its backwardness, inequalities, obscurantism, illiteracy, poverty and exploitation - a feudal or semi-feudal entity with more that 35% of very poor peasants- with no cart or horse, as stated by Lenin:

Chernyshevsky was a utopian socialist, who dreamed of a transition to socialism through the old, semi-feudal peasant village commune

- or - the second possibility is that you know how the villages were like, but nonetheless you think it was fine, and that "Stalin should leave village communes alone".

(1) If the first case is right - you are simply ignorant or under the influence of an idealized image. Let me explain it than. "Village communes" were feudal entities that were destroyed not by Stalin, but - by the historical progress - the continuous development of the productive forces - like all remains from the past. The objective of the communist Party policy was to bring the Soviet countryside from medieval to modern times - to fight illiteracy, backwardness and obscurantism; to modernize agricultural production and integrate it with the rest of the rapidly developing economy; to provide tractors and other machinery for productive units; to end up with the inefficient and obsolete model that was based on millions of small, privately owned farms, that hired labor for individual profit; to improve the efficiency of agricultural production in order to feed the rapidly growing cities population.

That were the objectives of the communists these times. Of course, as in real life, there were struggles and problems. It is easy to say - but difficult thing to do. The huge work had to be done at the local level of 70 000 of Sielsoviets, (that had by the way, almost unlimited authorities), from White Sea to Pacific Ocean. And not all village councils had members of the party of Komsomol within its structures. And rich peasants not always complied with soviet directives.

Anyway - everyone, who respects ideas of progress, justice and egalitarianism, can agree that communists were right on their policy towards countryside. They wanted to bring it from the medieval times to the XX century. And - the most interesting thing is - that they had succeeded! They put an end (for more than 50 years) to extreme poverty, sex inequality, unemployment, illiteracy, exploitation and backwardness of the peasant society. And those gains, which were achievements of the monstrous work carried on by millions of communists, organizers, activists, teachers, doctors, nurses etc. should be deeply appreciated by the members of the international progressive community.

(2) - in the second case - if you are aware of that all and you still reject communist party policy on the countryside - then you are just a apologist of feudalism - an "optimist for the past".

The point is here that in the lifespan of one generation it was possible to overcome the backwardness of the Soviet countryside by the almost heroic work of many millions of Soviet people. Hunger, illiteracy, exploitation, extreme poverty, obscurantism, sex and social inequalities, unemployment etc. - it was all eliminated.

And what trots have to say? I will repeat because it is so meaningful:

As for the peasants, it is almost laughable to suggest that the dissolution of their communes was greeted with "wide support and enthusiasm"
I have a very serious question to you: do you really care about that people? Or you are just interested in the high ranks of the political power?

edit: I still wait for an answer to the other question: should I understand that the statement: "Stalin oversaw what Alec Nove has called 'the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'" (by "ComradeOm") is based exclusively on your "calories statistics" or do you have an serious argument supporting that? Or it is just another trotskyist anti-communist bullshit taken from the moon?

[Thirsty Crow]

I still wait for an answer to the other question: should I understand that the statement: "Stalin oversaw what Alec Nove has called 'the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'" (by "ComradeOm") is based exclusively on your "calories statistics" or do you have an serious argument supporting that? Or it is just another trotskyist anti-communist bullshit taken from the moon?
Yes, empirical data corresponds completely to what the paranoids call "trotskyist anti-communism". Great.

[bie]

Yes, empirical data corresponds completely to what the paranoids call "trotskyist anti-communism". Great.
What empirical data? I am sure that such grave and serious claim (will remind: the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history') must be extremely well documented. I can wait, take your time.

[FSL]

It's not "trotskyist anticommunism" we're tallking about here, even he had some quality standards. It's just plain, old, bourgeois anticommunism that some "leftists" are oh so happy to make use of.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's not "trotskyist anticommunism" we're tallking about here, even he had some quality standards. It's just plain, old, bourgeois anticommunism that some "leftists" are oh so happy to make use of.
Just to vent my frustrations, I'll be out of your playground in a minute: why on Earth do you obssesively equate every single aspect of the official CPSU's line during Stalin with "true communism" and absolute validity, evident in the rejection of any kind of criticism as "bourgeois anticommunism" or some-other-term-bordering-on-this-one?????? :confused:

[ComradeOm]

Therefore you attacked Soviet authorities (or you thought you attacked Stalin) for carrying on "dissolution of their communes". Therefore you automatically place yourself in the position of their defenderAnd this demonstrates yet another facet of Stalinoid arguments: an inability to consider the world in any terms other than 'them and us'. If you do not uncritically support Stalin then you are automatically considered to support whatever the current deviation of the month is

What I noted was that there was widespread resistance to the abolition of the commune structures. And no, this was not confined solely to some 'kulak conspiracy'. The idea that the peasants reacted positively to the abolition of the commune or to being corralled onto collective farms is simply false. Had this been true then there would have been no need to deploy the whole range of repressive measures (some of which I've already mentioned) to ensure that rates of collectivisation were maintained. When these measures were temporarily relaxed (ie, after Dizzy) the rates of collectivisation did indeed fall with peasants leaving the kolkhozy en masse. Like it or not, life outside the kolkhozy was still considered better than life within. Which should come as no surprise to anyone

Now at no point in the above have I endorsed the commune or suggested that it was a positive institution. It is only in a binary worldview that a rejection of collectivisation (particularly in such a botched manner) becomes an endorsement of feudalism


Anyway - everyone, who respects ideas of progress, justice and egalitarianism, can agree that communists were right on their policy towards countryside. They wanted to bring it from the medieval times to the XX centuryFalse Stalinist assumption #147: There are no alternatives


And what trots have to say? I will repeat because it is so meaningful:I'm not a Trot, you moron


I have a very serious question to you: do you really care about that people? Or you are just interested in the high ranks of the political power?Quite a perverse statement coming from someone who is capable of writing off millions of deaths and the immiseration of the working class in the name of "overcoming backwardness". Is this just a slogan to you? Industrialisation is a laudable aim but not if it is achieved at the expense of the proletariat and fails to provide any material improvement to the working class


edit: I still wait for an answer to the other question: should I understand that the statement: "Stalin oversaw what Alec Nove has called 'the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'" (by "ComradeOm") is based exclusively on your "calories statistics" or do you have an serious argument supporting that? Or it is just another trotskyist anti-communist bullshit taken from the moon?How many works I have provided that back up the assertion that Soviet living standards plunged with the creation of the Stalinist economy? Your laziness is no excuse for your ignorance. Read Nove, read Davies, read Murphy, read Fitzpatrick, read Wheatcroft. Much of their works are available online via papers or Google Books. These are what my assertion is based on


There were "office workers" among them, there were children and old people, there were women for whom there was an effort to not be employed in physically stressing jobs (or at the time weren't empoyed at all).No, there weren't you muppet. Office workers were included in a separate category (which is not included on that graph), while the data was adjusted (by the original Soviet statisticians!) to account for children and non-working women. All of which you'd know if you didn't take pride in your own ignorance

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're not arguing from ignorance. If so, why don't you do us all a favour and present your figures as to calorie consumption during the first two decades of the USSR? If you want we can broaden this out as well to take in measures such as mortality rates or the average height of recruits (the latter is a particularly good measure for nutrition through the ages)

[FSL]

Just to vent my frustrations, I'll be out of your playground in a minute: why on Earth do you obssesively equate every single aspect of the official CPSU's line during Stalin with "true communism" and absolute validity, evident in the rejection of any kind of criticism as "bourgeois anticommunism" or some-other-term-bordering-on-this-one?????? :confused:

It has to do with
a) knowing what the official CPSU line during that period entailed and recognising that it pretty much was "true communism" (or better, it was the line a communist party should have in a country attempting to build socialism) and with
b) recognising that the critisism presented here comes from bourgeois sources.


Now, no one's stopping you from reading "Stalin: the sadist, the murderer, the communist" when you feel like getting some constructive criticism of the USSR and no one's stopping me from obsessively equating that with anticommunism.

[bie]

It's not "trotskyist anticommunism" we're tallking about here, even he had some quality standards. It's just plain, old, bourgeois anticommunism that some "leftists" are oh so happy to make use of.
True. It is much more obscure. Even Trotskyist do not usually follow the "millions of victims of communism/Stalin" line.


And this demonstrates yet another facet of Stalinoid arguments: an inability to consider the world in any terms other than 'them and us'. If you do not uncritically support Stalin then you are automatically considered to support whatever the current deviation of the month is

What I noted was that there was widespread resistance to the abolition of the commune structures. And no, this was not confined solely to some 'kulak conspiracy'. The idea that the peasants reacted positively to the abolition of the commune or to being corralled onto collective farms is simply false. Had this been true then there would have been no need to deploy the whole range of repressive measures (some of which I've already mentioned) to ensure that rates of collectivisation were maintained. When these measures were temporarily relaxed (ie, after Dizzy) the rates of collectivisation did indeed fall with peasants leaving the kolkhozy en masse. Like it or not, life outside the kolkhozy was still considered better than life within. Which should come as no surprise to anyone

Now at no point in the above have I endorsed the commune or suggested that it was a positive institution. It is only in a binary worldview that a rejection of collectivisation (particularly in such a botched manner) becomes an endorsement of feudalism

You don't understand what revolution and historical materialism is all about. The revolutionary situation, i.e. the sharp intensification of the class struggle, polarizes the society and divides it into two camps - camp of revolution and camp of counterrevolution. That two dialectical forces are in the constant conflict, that is the driving force of historical events concerning post-revolutionary societies. Camp of revolution imposes the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mean to build the classless, communist society, that will realize objective interests of the working class. Camp of the counterrevolution, by the means of military interventions and internal subversion tries to crush revolutionary forces and by the means of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie regress the society to the stage of capitalism, that realizes the objective interests of the bourgeoisie. And this is the perspective that need to be taken when we try to understand the history and dynamics of the socialist society - here USSR.

Therefore decisions of the communist party in USSR in late 1920 were not taken in vacuum. It was clear that the another military operation against USSR was on the way, and that world peace was unstable, and Soviets realized that they had only one decade to prepare themselves for another bloody war. In order to defend the country, the heavy industry base had to be built from basics: industry producing means of production, processing raw materials, producing modern military equipment: tanks, planes, etc. This objective was achieved by the successfully applied model of the central planning - the different, socialist type of economy, that allowed the productive forces, unrestricted by old relations of production, an unprecedented growth. But this growth required modernization and improvement of the agricultural production. It was realized that based on the small commodity production, highly inefficient peasant economy, cannot support the growth of the industry in cities. It was clearly seen that the structural changes on the countryside were necessary in order to carry on industrialization plan. And that those changes had to be done fast, as the phantom of another war was very close for all the time. So that was the background for the decision on the collectivization, decision that was proved to be right.

If there was no collectivization, there was no industrialization, if there was no industrialization - there was no victory over Nazism and and if there was no victory over Nazi - some remains of us would speak German working as the slave labor. Simple as that.


Quite a perverse statement coming from someone who is capable of writing off millions of deaths and the immiseration of the working class in the name of "overcoming backwardness"
Quite a perverse statement coming from a person who has claims for the Marxist tradition and at the same time supports the most obscure bourgeois propaganda of "millions of victims of communism". Even anticommunist Ukrainian prosecutor, V. Soldatenko, few day ago was forced to admit that no such thing as "man made famine in the 1930s" in the Ukraine. You are more anticommunist than the anticommunist officials. Congratulations!


How many works I have provided that back up the assertion that Soviet living standards plunged with the creation of the Stalinist economy? Your laziness is no excuse for your ignorance. Read Nove, read Davies, read Murphy, read Fitzpatrick, read Wheatcroft. Much of their works are available online via papers or Google Books. These are what my assertion is based on
I didn't ask you to state your favorite spectrum of the bourgeois historians (like eg. extreme right-wing historian Norman Davies, who is known for his support for equalization of Communism and Nazism). I asked you to explain your statement ("Stalin oversaw what Alec Nove has called 'the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history'). It shouldn't be difficult, as such "most precipitous decline" must have left lots of traces behind, which should not escape the attention of bourgeois anticommunist historians.

[Thirsty Crow]

It has to do with
a) knowing what the official CPSU line during that period entailed and recognising that it pretty much was "true communism" (or better, it was the line a communist party should have in a country attempting to build socialism) and with
b) recognising that the critisism presented here comes from bourgeois sources.


Now, no one's stopping you from reading "Stalin: the sadist, the murderer, the communist" when you feel like getting some constructive criticism of the USSR and no one's stopping me from obsessively equating that with anticommunism.
a) and what does that have to do with the current situation? As historical evaluation, ok, there are differing opinions within the revolutionary left (as much as you'd like to portray every revolutionary critical of the official line as "traitor", "opportunist", whatever), but what does this evaluation have to do with our contemporary struggle? It seems to me that every rabid Stalin apologist also exhibits a dangerous and decadent tendecy towards absolutizing this "official line" as the only viable strategy even today, which amounts to mental laziness and forgetfulness regarding the change in material and cultural conditions

b) what bourgeois sources? You possess almost no credibility in the use of the word since you easily pass that label around. And if we cling on to the this theory of absolute relativity of even empirical data, we'll end up nowhere since it's easy to point that at your direction as well and conclude that you are deluded by decades of outright propaganda.

[robbo203]

You don't understand what revolution and historical materialism is all about. The revolutionary situation, i.e. the sharp intensification of the class struggle, polarizes the society and divides it into two camps - camp of revolution and camp of counterrevolution. That two dialectical forces are in the constant conflict, that is the driving force of historical events concerning post-revolutionary societies. Camp of revolution imposes the dictatorship of the proletariat as a mean to build the classless, communist society, that will realize objective interests of the working class. Camp of the counterrevolution, by the means of military interventions and internal subversion tries to crush revolutionary forces and by the means of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie regress the society to the stage of capitalism, that realizes the objective interests of the bourgeoisie. And this is the perspective that need to be taken when we try to understand the history and dynamics of the socialist society - here USSR..

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you stalinists that the Soviet Union was not a socialist society and was nowhere near to achieving such a society. It was a system of state run capitalism exhibiting all the primary features of capitalism such as generalised wage labour. Lenin himself explicitly called for state capitalism as a "step forward" and advocated imitating the state capitalism of the German war economy. He dismissed the idea that a socialist society could be introduced in Russia at the time as absurd and anarchistic.

Problem is you dont have a clue about what a socialist revolution is really about and it shows all too clearly.

[Mike Russell]

The USSR and DDR were not socialist, but also not capitalist. No way am i going to spend too much time explaining why, but i'll say this. IF - the ussr was 'socialist', then why did money, and police not whither away. if one thinks that the state or money doesnt need the whither away to become a true socialist 'nation', then they break from the tradition of marx, engles, and lenin.
But it sure as hell wasnt capitalist!!!! the commanding heights of the economy was directed under a plan to increase production- to improve the standard of living for the working class; not to extract surplus value from the working class. Those who dont think that the commanding heights of an economy being non-capitalist doesnt matter, also breaks from marx, engles, and lenin.

production was controled by the jerks's plan in the CPSU. but distrobution was very 'capitalistic'. it was a transitional economy. you kids understand phases in a process, right? that whole thing about dialectics.

[robbo203]

The USSR and DDR were not socialist, but also not capitalist. No way am i going to spend too much time explaining why, but i'll say this. IF - the ussr was 'socialist', then why did money, and police not whither away. if one thinks that the state or money doesnt need the whither away to become a true socialist 'nation', then they break from the tradition of marx, engles, and lenin.
But it sure as hell wasnt capitalist!!!! the commanding heights of the economy was directed under a plan to increase production- to improve the standard of living for the working class; not to extract surplus value from the working class. Those who dont think that the commanding heights of an economy being non-capitalist doesnt matter, also breaks from marx, engles, and lenin.cs.

This is a myth. The commanding heights of the economy were not directed under a plan. In fact there was not a single plan in the history of the Soviet Union that was ever strictly fulfilled that would allow us to say that the economy had been directed by it. Planning was much more like the indicative planning in the West. What would usually happen is that plan would be frequently modified to make it seem that the targets had been fulfulled. Typically, the plan at the end of the planning implementation period would be a very different animal to the plan at the start. Also, it would sometimes happen that the plan would not even be available to state enterprises upon commencement of the imlementation period

In short, the plan far from directing the economy could be more accurately described as directed by the economy. Necessarily the Soviet economy had to entail a significant degree of decentralisation at the level of state enterprises; literally speaking a fully centralised economy is pure fantasy. There is absolutely no way it could be made to happen. Even the most sophisticated Leontief input-output matrix, aided and abetted by the most advanced computer technology available to humankind would be able to deliver such a thing. Even small changes in the real world would compel constant reformulation of the plan.

A more realistic description of the Soviet economy is that it was essentially a state capitalist economy bearing all the primary hallmarks of capitalism such as generalised wage labour with state enterprises operating as legal entities compelled to keep profit and loss accounts. The difference between this form of capitalism and capitalism in the West is that profits and losses ultimately reverted to the state and were redistributed according to the the wishes of the central authroties. But this is a minor difference, it did not alter the esentially profit oriented nature of the state enterprises themselves that could be penalised for failing to realise a profit (e.g. denial of bonuses). The other difference is the role of the state in the form of state agencies such as GOSSNAP (State Commission for Materials and Equipment Supply) in mediating between state enterprises - though in practice state enterprises developed an array of horizontal linkages between themselves which bypassed the offical channels.


While the was a degree of centralised state planning to imagine that this is incompatible with capitalism is absurd, It calls to mind Engels observation in Socialism Utopian and Scientific:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.

[hobo8675309]

yes, but they were corrupt and therefore not sucessful. they only way to prevent this is to have no leaders- that is, under direct democracy.

[Mike Russell]

This is a myth. The commanding heights of the economy were not directed under a plan.


Simply, you believe in the myth that theres a myth.

where your are mistaken is that the economy's state owned production plants' objective was to create profits. the objective of production for the state owned plants was to produce things that grew the economy's productive capitilibities. And the things that where produced were NOT made simply because there was a profitable market for it. Things were produced because the plan that was created by the jerks in the CPSU's plan, told the managers to produce it. First the plan, then production, then distrobution where they thought was best for the economy as a whole. Its misleading to call ALL surplus value reinvestment profit.

those products were not commodities because before they where made, they had a place to go. they there in fact made because they had a a place to go.

if i misspelled and used bad grammer, its cus im at work and writing fast and i didnt go to college, sorry. :)