The Eastern Bloc

[Marxach-Léinínach]

What were the class characters of the People's Democracies in Eastern Europe while Stalin was still alive, when they were under the leadership of Marxist-Leninists like Boleslaw Bierut, Klement Gottwald, Wilhelm Pieck etc.?

Were they socialist back then before Khrushchevism came along, or were they always state capitalist due to not having socialist revolutions, albeit more ideologically sound under the Marxist-Leninist leadership?

[enrici]

They were oppressive dictatorships. I may be new to the left, but I don't think we should be looking to them as examples. I think we should remind ourselves that true socialism has yet to be achieved!

[fa2991]

Tito was pretty great, but I'm sure you don't want to hear that. :lol:

[Red Commissar]

If you are Hoxhaist you should already know this answer.

[NecroCommie]

They were oppressive dictatorships. I may be new to the left, but I don't think we should be looking to them as examples. I think we should remind ourselves that true socialism has yet to be achieved!
A historical analysis is always more complex than that. Even the most hardocore "stalinists" don't want to copy soviet union as it was.

And because historical analysis i always more complex than that, the only real way to learn the class character of the SU is to read alot. As a marxist-leninist my position can be simplified to the statement: It was the best choice, but not a good choice.

[Gustav HK]

Well first Wilhelm Pieck is a bit problematic, since he actually followed Khruschev and became a revisionist.

They probably were on the way to build socialism, and probably did have DoP, but i don´t think they had achived full-built socialism yet (as USSR did in mid-thirties, announced in 1936).

Moreover I think that the communists in those countries came to power in a bit problematic way (by help of the Red Army), of course many people in those countries supported the communists, and in Bulgaria there was a revolution that gave power to the Fatherland Front in 1944, and in Czechoslovakia the people supported the KSC in 1948.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Well first Wilhelm Pieck is a bit problematic, since he actually followed Khruschev and became a revisionist.

Did he? In "The Khrushchevites", Hoxha says he was a good comrade and that by the end of his life he was only the honorary president and it was Ulbricht etc. actually running the GDR. If he did side with Khrushchev though, then besides him then.

[bie]

Were they socialist back then before Khrushchevism came along, or were they always state capitalist due to not having socialist revolutions, albeit more ideologically sound under the Marxist-Leninist leadership?
"Eastern Block" consisted of socialist republics, that were never "state capitalist" (I advice to leave that silly concept). In Poland for example, after Bierut death, the leadership of the party turned right a little and the revisionist got more influence (e.g. plans for the collectivization of agriculture were abandoned). Since that time we have been observing constant factional struggle and further rise of revisionism and opportunism, that eventually resulted in the victory of the counterrevolution in 1989. In 1989 socialist system was replaced by ruthless capitalism in the process of the privatisation of the socially owned property. Does it answer your question?

[Gustav HK]

Did he? In "The Khrushchevites", Hoxha says he was a good comrade and that by the end of his life he was only the honorary president and it was Ulbricht etc. actually running the GDR. If he did side with Khrushchev though, then besides him then.
Oh, I am sorry then (if he was a marxist-leninist to his death).

I knew that the leader of DDR wasn´t removed after 1956, but went on the new road. Turns out that it was not Pieck but Ulbricht.