the soviet union: a real dictatorship?

[danyboy27]

A dictator is a men of unlimited power, he is the one who make laws and judgement, he have the absolute control.

Based on the verry definition of what a dictator is, i fail to see how the soviet union was at any moment a dictatorship at all, if anything it was an olygarchy or a aristocracy who always rulled it.

the sucession from stalin to krutchev is a sound demonstration of that fact, the elites get their shit together and decided who would lead the executive from now on, and this process was constantly repeated over the year with bresnev and gorbatchev.

i am not downplaying the atrocities who took place in the soviet union, but to me it just feel weird that the soviet union is still called a dictatorship these day, to me its pretty obvious that their governement was a governement of oligarch and elites back then, and is still is today.

the only difference between the soviet union and the russian federation is the type of aristocrats who are in power.

[ComradeMan]

I think people are referring to it as it was under Stalin.

[Bud Struggle]

the only difference between the soviet union and the russian federation is the type of aristocrats who are in power.

Add in the Tsars and you have the entire history of Russia.

[Dimentio]

A dictator is a men of unlimited power, he is the one who make laws and judgement, he have the absolute control.

Based on the verry definition of what a dictator is, i fail to see how the soviet union was at any moment a dictatorship at all, if anything it was an olygarchy or a aristocracy who always rulled it.

the sucession from stalin to krutchev is a sound demonstration of that fact, the elites get their shit together and decided who would lead the executive from now on, and this process was constantly repeated over the year with bresnev and gorbatchev.

i am not downplaying the atrocities who took place in the soviet union, but to me it just feel weird that the soviet union is still called a dictatorship these day, to me its pretty obvious that their governement was a governement of oligarch and elites back then, and is still is today.

the only difference between the soviet union and the russian federation is the type of aristocrats who are in power.'

Most dictatorships are really more or less oligarchical. Only a real few have been real dictatorships for a long time, and most dictators have needed to manuever between several interest groups in order to survive.

[Arlekino]

We walked freely in streets, we sang the songs what we wanted, there are many Soviet Soldiers patrolled in streets but they are never bother us. We talked freely in factories we allowed complain to Directors if we have problems, we even visited party secretary knocked to the door and complain. As myself was Komsomol member (Youth Communist) I faced some strange democracy.
I do not wish to put bright picture of Soviet Union, but is good to get opinions from ordinary working class people who was in Soviet Union.

[#FF0000]

We walked freely in streets, we sang the songs what we wanted, there are many Soviet Soldiers patrolled in streets but they are never bother us. We talked freely in factories we allowed complain to Directors if we have problems, we even visited party secretary knocked to the door and complain. As myself was Komsomol member (Youth Communist) I faced some strange democracy.
I do not wish to put bright picture of Soviet Union, but is good to get opinions from ordinary working class people who was in Soviet Union.

I have so many questions for you that I can't even think of what to ask.

When did you live in the Soviet Union? What were the worst or most difficult things about living in the USSR? What were the best things about living there?

[danyboy27]

'

Most dictatorships are really more or less oligarchical. Only a real few have been real dictatorships for a long time, and most dictators have needed to manuever between several interest groups in order to survive.

agreed, but there is a difference between a leader choosing his close friends to rule and an aristocracy electing members of the executive to rule the country.

just like any other aristocratic systems, the elected aristocrat might abuse of their power but, at the end sooner or later the aristocracy in such systems find a way to purge the executive and start over.

[ComradeMan]

agreed, but there is a difference between a leader choosing his close friends to rule and an aristocracy electing members of the executive to rule the country. .

What?

The executive that rule the country, chosen by the aristocracy, were/are the social circle, allies, friends and families or useful acquaintances of the aristocracy.

Nepotism is nepotism regardless.

[Arlekino]

I born in Breznev's era. Most difficult times I would say when Gorbochov came in power suddenly we have to stay longer in queues as we did in past as well but not that much. It was not very good to see when party members got better commodities than working class, we have to give some bribes to doctors to get better treatment but I remember my mother never ever give nothing and get same treatment as others. Difficult times for young soldiers it was hard bully going on them. I would say is realating with commodities jeans from black market it was costed fortuned.
Best of my memories when we used marched on 1st May day, lot of activities in working places, there was singing, dancing classes after work and you know what it was free. Regards democracy of freedom of speech, is hard to explain because I never experienced some KGB agents, but I do remember my friends who are too nationalistic are openly abused Russians, and nothing is happened.

I will try to search some Soviet film with English subtitles about ordinary working class life and I come back later.
Thanks

[Dimentio]

agreed, but there is a difference between a leader choosing his close friends to rule and an aristocracy electing members of the executive to rule the country.

just like any other aristocratic systems, the elected aristocrat might abuse of their power but, at the end sooner or later the aristocracy in such systems find a way to purge the executive and start over.

Yes, you are perhaps correct there. The idea that all non-democratic systems are dictatorships is simply based on dualistic idealism.

[danyboy27]

What?

The executive that rule the country, chosen by the aristocracy, were/are the social circle, allies, friends and families or useful acquaintances of the aristocracy.

Nepotism is nepotism regardless.

there is a difference. In one case, a person take the lead and bully his way out to rule everything, in the other case, its planned and decided by the aristocrats with the ultimate goal of having a functionnal executive.
,

[ComradeMan]

there is a difference. In one case, a person take the lead and bully his way out to rule everything, in the other case, its planned and decided by the aristocrats with the ultimate goal of having a functionnal executive.
,

Okay, I see what you mean- but how do you think the aristocratic class came about?

[Dimentio]

Okay, I see what you mean- but how do you think the aristocratic class came about?

They came about naturally I would say. If you have a group with access to state power, information and arms, they would naturally develop interests to keep the status quo, if nothing else because their downfall from grace could mean the end of their very lives. Eventually, they start to use their access to the state structure in order to improve their own lives at the expense of the majority.

[danyboy27]

They came about naturally I would say. If you have a group with access to state power, information and arms, they would naturally develop interests to keep the status quo, if nothing else because their downfall from grace could mean the end of their very lives. Eventually, they start to use their access to the state structure in order to improve their own lives at the expense of the majority.

and that how a state usually die. at the moment that those who rule it have been corrupted by the particular will and no longer serve the general will, there is no coming back. that what happened to rome and many other states, trought history.

[ComradeMan]

and that how a state usually die. at the moment that those who rule it have been corrupted by the particular will and no longer serve the general will, there is no coming back. that what happened to rome and many other states, trought history.

Rome is still here.

Caput mundi- civitas aeterna!!! I thought Rome fell because the nasty barbarians got a taste for wine.... LOL!!!

But states don't fall, they just mutate into other forms of states.....

[danyboy27]

Rome is still here.

Caput mundi- civitas aeterna!!! I thought Rome fell because the nasty barbarians got a taste for wine.... LOL!!!

But states don't fall, they just mutate into other forms of states.....

those arnt really mutation, but in fact completely new state emerging from the ruin of the others.

the result of the russian revolution was the death of the russian imperial state and the creation of the soviet union, same for france when they switched from imperial to aristocratic rule.


What really define a state is 3 things: laws, legislative and executive powers.

when the legislative and executive method drasticly change, then laws and the way they are voted drasticly change has well, and we cant really affirm that we talk about the same state anymore

[LibertarianSocialist1]

The Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[ComradeMan]

those arnt really mutation, but in fact completely new state emerging from the ruin of the others.
the result of the russian revolution was the death of the russian imperial state and the creation of the soviet union, same for france when they switched from imperial to aristocratic rule. What really define a state is 3 things: laws, legislative and executive powers. when the legislative and executive method drasticly change, then laws and the way they are voted drasticly change has well, and we cant really affirm that we talk about the same state anymore

That's what they'd like you to believe. There was some continuity, in fact a bit from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union which had not got rid of large "amounts" of private property even under Stalin.

Even the French Revolutionary constitutions were finally amended in order to protect the status quo and property rights. The English Commonwealth under Cromwell also dispensed with the demands of the Diggers and Levellers, in order to guarantee property rights.

Old wine in new bottles, I am afraid.

The propblem is that a state will always be a state. The problem is not so much with the ideology or who "governs" but with the inherent nature of what a state is and inevitably must be in order to remain... well....err.... a state.

[danyboy27]

The Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Not really, beccause the proletariat didnt choose how the state would be managed.

those who took this decision where the elite of the russian revolution, they decided how thing should be run, not the proletariat.

hey, that dosnt mean they only took bad decision, some of these people where verry capable, competent individuals.

[danyboy27]

That's what they'd like you to believe. There was some continuity, in fact a bit from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union which had not got rid of large "amounts" of private property even under Stalin.

Even the French Revolutionary constitutions were finally amended in order to protect the status quo and property rights. The English Commonwealth under Cromwell also dispensed with the demands of the Diggers and Levellers, in order to guarantee property rights.

Old wine in new bottles, I am afraid.

The propblem is that a state will always be a state. The problem is not so much with the ideology or who "governs" but with the inherent nature of what a state is and inevitably must be in order to remain... well....err.... a state.
OF course some variables need to be there in order to have a state, that dosnt mean the new and the old state are really similar.


Those who represent the interest of the people in a state will be sooner or later corrupted by the particular will. The result is always the same:massive alteration in the legislative system, dissosiation of the people and the state. they no longer feel that the general will is served and slowly start to disobey to laws, they dissosiate themselve with the current state.

no matter how functionnal and just a state is, its doomed to collapse sooner or later, its in its inherent nature.