Questions about the USSR

[Aurorus Ruber]

Most of us here would agree that one should not accept the "official" line regarding the USSR uncritically because it obviously reflects interests of American capitalism. Thus we question the frequent claims that the Ukrainian famines were deliberate attempts at genocide, that the Soviet command economy suffered chronic inefficiencies, and so forth. As supporters of Lenin and even Stalin, though, many people here would appear to go further and defend its many controversial actions and even uphold it as a model of socialism. I don't mean to start an explosive feud over tendencies or attack the Soviet Union by any means. Rather, as someone steeped in notions of liberal democracy and individual freedom, I find it truly intriguing that people would favor a model widely branded as totalitarian. I figure it behooves me to give this position a fair hearing before dismissing it out of hand.

First of all, how do the Leninists and Stalinists defend the political system of the Soviet Union, widely considered thoroughly undemocratic and totalitarian? I understand the position that it needed revolutionary terror to suppress the counterrevolution that sprang up against it. This necessitated establishing the Cheka as secret police, harshly punishing political dissidents, and suppressing criticism that could undermine a fragile Bolshevik government. But these policies, and similar ones like the Stalinist purges, continued throughout the existence of the Soviet regime, long after it had decisively secured power in the civil war. The only reason I can imagine it would need such measures (apart from sheer power hunger) is an endless tide of counterrevolution that continually threatened the government.

That brings me to my next point, namely how does one account for all the apparent unpopularity of Communist governments? My readings suggest that even in the face of overwhelming opposition, people repeatedly challenged the Soviet government. From the Hungarian revolt of 1956 to the establishment of Solidarnosc, one gets the sense of pervasive rejection of socialism. I hear much about the reactionary ambitions of Solidarnosc and the Hungarian rebels. I have never heard any explanation for why millions of people would risk their lives for free market capitalism or even fascism if socialism worked so well for them.

Even if millions did disagree with the government, did minor forms of discontent (excluding stuff like armed revolts obviously) really threaten the government? I can understand the decision to use force to restore order in a state undergoing fascist counterrevolution. But the Communist governments relentlessly suppressed far more benign alternatives to the Communist party, even competing tendencies of socialism. Similarly they persecuted people aggressively simply for reading subversive literture or speaking ill of the regime, sending them to the notorious gulags and so forth. It seems obvious to me that merely permitting criticism of the government should have little impact on its stability. The fact that anti-capitalist literature is perfectly legal in the West has not threatened capitalism to any noticeable degree. It seems incredible that capitalism can survive thousands of websites and protest songs, not to mention a copy of the Communist Manifesto in nearly every library, but socialism cannot survive comparable opposition.

And finally, what do we make of the claims that the Soviet model of economics failed miserably at supplying people's needs? Pretty much every account of Soviet economics I've seen describes chronic shortages of even basic supplies requiring people to wait hours in line if they got what they needed at all. Likewise one hears about Soviet goods having markedly poor craftmanship and very little variety. All these suggest both a lower standard of living and a highly inefficient economic system that compares unfavorably to capitalist markets.

Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not attacking the Soviet Union or its supporters, just curious about your reasoning. Perhaps my questions reflect lack of sufficient research or unthinking acceptance of propaganda on my part, in which case I apologize.

[Born in the USSR]

1.The socialist USSR held out against bourgeois world for 74 years.Compare:bougeoise France was manage to hold agaist feudal Europe for 27 years.Is this comparison in favour of capitalism or of socialism?

2.No point to compare the living standard of the USSR with other countries,it 'd show nothing.We must compare the life in the USSR with a life in pre-Soviet and post-Soviet Russia.The comparison 'd not be in favour of capitalism again.

3.The political regime was not equal in the USSR in the different times.The more powerfull the country became,the more liberal became the regime.Look:Brezhnev's USSR was much liberal than Stalin's,but stalinism was softer than Lenin's "military communism".

[Die Rote Fahne]

1.The socialist USSR held out against bourgeois world for 74 years.Compare:bougeoise France was manage to hold agaist feudal Europe for 27 years.Is this comparison in favour of capitalism or of socialism?

2.No point to compare the living standard of the USSR with other countries,it 'd show nothing.We must compare the life in the USSR with a life in pre-Soviet and post-Soviet Russia.The comparison 'd not be on favour of capitalism again.

3.The political regime was not equal in the USSR in the different times.The more powerfull the country became,the more liberal became the regime.Look:Brezhnev's USSR was much liberal than Stalin's,but stalinism was softer than Lenin's "military communism".

On you're second point, the USSR was not socialist. I want that noted here. It was State Capitalist/Bureaucratic Collectivist.

On you're third point, you are wrong, very very wrong. Lenin secularised the nation legalizing homosexuality, freedom of speech (although he may have limited it to an extent), etc. Stalin revoked both, restricted the press, increased the size of the military, engaged in imperialism and totalitarianism. The reforms of post-Stalin Russia were merely capitalistic and far from "liberal".

[ZeroNowhere]

2.No point to compare the living standard of the USSR with other countries,it 'd show nothing.We must compare the life in the USSR with a life in pre-Soviet and post-Soviet Russia.The comparison 'd not be on favour of capitalism again.Of course, pre-Soviet Russia is certainly where one should look for a paradigmatic example of capitalism.


1.The socialist USSR held out against bourgeois world for 74 years.Compare:bougeoise France was manage to hold agaist feudal Europe for 27 years.Is this comparison in favour of capitalism or of socialism?So you hold that the USSR was socialist for 74 years? Really?

In fact, I'm fairly sure that the USSR didn't even exist for 74 years, and even disregarding that, Lenin certainly didn't take the view that Russia had developed socialism in his time, but rather at most completed the bourgeois revolution.

[Born in the USSR]

The theory of "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union is the most primitive attempt of the explanation of shortcomings and contradictions that existed in Soviet society.

Try to understand that capitalism,is it "state" or not, is unable to eliminate private property, and hence, the isolation of individual producers, competition, anarchy and crises, unemployment and all the other "delights".

I do not have time to write more today but I'm going to do it soon.

[robbo203]

The theory of "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union is the most primitive attempt of the explanation of shortcomings and contradictions that existed in Soviet society..

Sounds like a pretty primitive attempt to dismiss the theory of state capitalism


Try to understand that capitalism,is it "state" or not, is unable to eliminate private property, and hence, the isolation of individual producers, competition, anarchy and crises, unemployment and all the other "delights"...

State ownership of the means of production is not common ownership. It is actually a form of private or sectional ownership in the sense that it is owned by the state as an insititution separate from civil society. Those who control the state are actually the de facto owners of the means of production. They constitute a de facto state capitalist class. Engels anticipated in this insight in his 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

It is of course utter nonsense to suggest there was no competition in the Soviet Union. In fact the very dictates of the planning system required state enterrpises to effectively compete with each other. It is also nonsense to suggest there was no unemployment in the Soviet Union. What you mean is there was no "official" unemplyment but there was of course a fair amount of disguised unemployment. It benefitted state enterprises to keep workers on the payroll even when there was no work for them

[Crimson Commissar]

I'm pretty sure in the USSR, the working class played a huge part in how the state was run. Therefore, state ownership of the economy was basically workers' control of the economy.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I'm pretty sure in the USSR, the working class played a huge part in how the state was run. Therefore, state ownership of the economy was basically workers' control of the economy.

In what way did the working class influence the state? I've always read that the USSR had sham elections at best, in that voters could only choose between one candidate already selected by the Party leadership and so forth. Of course, I am basing this impression on Western sources which I'm sure supporters of the USSR would view rather critically. I suppose I'm really looking for the opposing perspective.

[Crimson Commissar]

In what way did the working class influence the state? I've always read that the USSR had sham elections at best, in that voters could only choose between one candidate already selected by the Party leadership and so forth. Of course, I am basing this impression on Western sources which I'm sure supporters of the USSR would view rather critically. I suppose I'm really looking for the opposing perspective.
A nation doesn't need to have elections to be democratic.

[Jose Gracchus]

How else do you propose leadership be kept accountable to the empirical working class?

[Toppler]

And finally, what do we make of the claims that the Soviet model of economics failed miserably at supplying people's needs? Pretty much every account of Soviet economics I've seen describes chronic shortages of even basic supplies requiring people to wait hours in line if they got what they needed at all. Likewise one hears about Soviet goods having markedly poor craftmanship and very little variety. All these suggest both a lower standard of living and a highly inefficient economic system that compares unfavorably to capitalist markets.

Ask Born in the USSR or Rasyte. You know, the "communist queue" stereotype comes from Perestroika. My parents from CSSR (which was an Eastern Bloc state) remember lines for mandarines, oranges, bananas etc. Not basic goods. The fact is, except for the 1921 and 1932-1933 famines, nobody was hungry in the USSR or Eastern Bloc. This is not the situation today. There were no homeless, starving or malnourished people etc.

The "low quality goods" is bullshit. The food standards in both CSSR and USSR were much higher than the EU standards. And, granted, the electronics were not very high performace and were very expensive. But you know what? My family's first TV, 1960s, vacuum tube, black and white, made in CSSR, once caught fire because of overheating and grandpa had to unplug it and throw it into a bathtub with some water. You know what? It worked afterwards needing only minor repairs. The goods back then were made to last. Not like the super cheap high tech Chinese shit today that is made to stop functioning after 4 years because they want you to buy more. The "low quality" Soviet/CSSR electronics regularly lasted 30 or more years.

I dare you to burn a modern ultra hi tech 3D TV and then throw it into water. I guess it wouldn't work afterwards.

And, even if all the "Soviet goods sucks and lines blahblahblah" shit was true (it isn't), it still beats living in the 3rd world. What is ironic is that India where 45 percent of kids are malnourished, 75.6 percent of people live under 1.25 dollars per day, most people suffer from anemia, kids eat rotten fruit from giant garbage piles in the slums, is called a "booming economy" by the West. Yet USSR with universal literacy, food, poverty (under 4 dollars a day, not 1.25) in the Eastern Bloc and the USSR being cca 4 percents ... is described as a "failiure". Seriously, fuck capitalism. Search for "The Real Reason for the Shining Path" if you want to read something more about it.

[Crimson Commissar]

How else do you propose leadership be kept accountable to the empirical working class?
Why does there need to be a formal election for the working class to be in power? As I said earlier in this thread, the working class had huge power in the USSR, and it was entirely possible for a regular working citizen to take a direct role in the management of the Soviet government. The definition of democratic isn't just "elections every few years just for the sake of changing the ruling party", a democratic society is one in which the people rule. And in the Soviet Union, the people DID rule.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why does there need to be a formal election for the working class to be in power? As I said earlier in this thread, the working class had huge power in the USSR, and it was entirely possible for a regular working citizen to take a direct role in the management of the Soviet government. The definition of democratic isn't just "elections every few years just for the sake of changing the ruling party", a democratic society is one in which the people rule. And in the Soviet Union, the people DID rule.

A farce. Working people need political organizing and political participation in order to realize their collective needs socially. The fact is there's no historical evidence to support your contention. The conditions were better, because the Soviet ruling class suppressed capital for some time and established a kind of "social contract" with workers: living standards will go up, but you have to shut up. The "people" (what you mean by that I do not know - non-working people were disenfranchised until the Stalin Constitution, when executions were going up to nearly a million per year) did not rule. This process began as early as late 1917, really began to move in 1919, and then following the Civil War from 1920-1924 working people's power was definitively crushed. Simon Pirani's book The Russian Revolution in Retreat is one of the canonical takes on this process.

Don't be naive. People don't petition to lose their elections. Party apparatchiks who want to keep their power no matter what, do. All free societies will feature some multi-party politics because it is natural where people have the freedom to do so at least a few will.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Why does there need to be a formal election for the working class to be in power? As I said earlier in this thread, the working class had huge power in the USSR, and it was entirely possible for a regular working citizen to take a direct role in the management of the Soviet government. The definition of democratic isn't just "elections every few years just for the sake of changing the ruling party", a democratic society is one in which the people rule. And in the Soviet Union, the people DID rule.

Well as I asked before, how did the working class exercise such power without elections?


Ask Born in the USSR or Rasyte. You know, the "communist queue" stereotype comes from Perestroika. My parents from CSSR (which was an Eastern Bloc state) remember lines for mandarines, oranges, bananas etc. Not basic goods. The fact is, except for the 1921 and 1932-1933 famines, nobody was hungry in the USSR or Eastern Bloc. This is not the situation today. There were no homeless, starving or malnourished people etc.

I do find it striking, at least, that I hear a lot about shortages of everything but almost never about the massive die-offs one would expect apart from the famines. If people were always waiting in line for hours for survival goods that were depleted more often than not, one would expect mass starvation rather than mere hardship. Wikipedia (not sure how seriously people here take it) has an entire article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union) discussing consumer goods and the frequent shortfalls said to plague them.

[Born in the USSR]

The theory of "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union is the most primitive attempt of the explanation of shortcomings and contradictions that existed in Soviet society.

I do not have time to write more today but I'm going to do it soon.

Read my blog.

[Chambered Word]

Why does there need to be a formal election for the working class to be in power? As I said earlier in this thread, the working class had huge power in the USSR, and it was entirely possible for a regular working citizen to take a direct role in the management of the Soviet government. The definition of democratic isn't just "elections every few years just for the sake of changing the ruling party", a democratic society is one in which the people rule. And in the Soviet Union, the people DID rule.

We have this similar system in Australia where working class people can join the bureaucracy and manage capital. I also find the populist 'the people' rhetoric nauseating. Way to totally paper over the class divide and eschew Marxist analysis.

[Crimson Commissar]

We have this similar system in Australia where working class people can join the bureaucracy and manage capital. I also find the populist 'the people' rhetoric nauseating. Way to totally paper over the class divide and eschew Marxist analysis.
Fuck no, everyone knows it's near impossible to become a part of the ruling class under capitalism unless you are born into it. This sounds very similar to the crap right-wingers throw around about "anyone can make it to the top if they work hard enough!". Bullshit. Nothing but bullshit.

There is no real class division in socialism. The working class was essentially the only class in the USSR until Gorbachev's reforms, all members of the ruling class had been forced into exile or stripped of all their power. If the ruling class ever exists under any socialist state, then it's clear that they aren't doing their job right.

[Jose Gracchus]

There is no real class division in socialism. The working class was essentially the only class in the USSR until Gorbachev's reforms, all members of the ruling class had been forced into exile or stripped of all their power. If the ruling class ever exists under any socialist state, then it's clear that they aren't doing their job right.

Not true. Remunerations including perks, privileges, and multiple salaries could be a 100:1 ratio from base level employees to major state officials. The problem only progressively got worse and worse over the duration of the USSR. Hard to imagine that characterizes a socialist society moving toward communism.

You also completely ignored my argument before.

[Rakhmetov]

Read Professor Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds

http://books.google.com/books?id=WSsGEsBUsVcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=blackshirts+and+reds&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=nYRRTdWzI8iUtwe_rqGmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dr-michael-parenti-t114609/index.html?t=114609&highlight=michael+parenti+criticizes+anarchists

[Toppler]

1. The queues, at least in the CSSR, were 2x a week at worst. You must remember, back then people bought things in huge amounts to compensate for it. This Western bullshit about lining up for goods everyday is fucking bullshit, sometimes, there was even overproduction.

2. The queues, at least in the CSSR, were more caused by the fact that the shops were open from 7:00 to 12:00 and then from 13:00 to 17:00. Basically, people hurried to buy stuff because there were no 24 hour supermarkets.

Seriously, when I read bullshit like this I want to kill myself. Always the same Western textbook bullshit. WEST WEST WEST WEST WEST FUCK IT. Sometimes I wonder if the commies should not have used MORE repression to prevent this bullshit from taking over the world. Both of my parents lived under socialist systems. Neither remember any hardship or "1984" bullshit. And neither do any of the old people I've talked to, even anti-communists. Even they say "communism sucked because they did not allow private enterprise" or "communism sucked because they nationalized the private property of my family" or "communism sucks because it creates a nanny state that restricts freedom". Not "zomg we wer starvin commies are teh evilz".

The flats that the majority of urban people in Slovakia live in today were not built by the West. The industry in our country was not build by the West. Our original culture was not created by the West. The West was not the benefactor that put us under a system in which nobody starved or was homeless.

I am not against democracy. But I am against "democracy" as "the bullshit US believes in".

And seriously, go tell some of the homeless people on our streets that communism sucks because people had to stay in a queue if they wanted bananas or other tropical, imported fruit. Or the kids in Bangladesh that are so hungry that they eat rotten fruit from rodent infested garbage http://www.beadifference.com/2009/05/snapshots-from-a-bangladesh-slum/ . Do it.

[Jose Gracchus]

Is that in reply to me or TOP?

Yeah working people were often better off then. That is true, and Western anticommunism is wrong. But it is also true the USSR et al were not really societies of, by, and for, the working class. And if you dared to feel politically motivated, and even to utter heresies of other socialism, could get you fired, jailed, etc. That's not workers' power. They are both recognitions of matters of fact.

[NGNM85]

yQsceZ9skQI

[The Author]

The flats that the majority of urban people in Slovakia live in today were not built by the West. The industry in our country was not build by the West. Our original culture was not created by the West. The West was not the benefactor that put us under a system in which nobody starved or was homeless.

I also seem to recall reading that all of the factories and plants in the Slovakian part of the CSSR were dismantled by the West in the 1990s for short-term profit gain when they broke up Slovakia from the Czech Republic, Nazi-style. Now, I can imagine that Slovakia is just another country very deeply in debt and stuck to the chains of the IMF and the World Bank and capitalists of the West.


Sometimes I wonder if the commies should not have used MORE repression to prevent this bullshit from taking over the world.

I hear you. Seeing the high levels of crime and poverty and corruption going on in the Eastern Bloc and China today, I've grown to appreciate the significance of "Stalinist" repression as a check against these ills caused by class conflict and exploitation.

[robbo203]

I hear you. Seeing the high levels of crime and poverty and corruption going on in the Eastern Bloc and China today, I've grown to appreciate the significance of "Stalinist" repression as a check against these ills caused by class conflict and exploitation.


Ah, the sigh of nostalgia from the conservative. You want to replace one shitty, oppressive and anti-working class regime we have today with another from yesteryear. Ever thought of raising your sights a little higher?

[Crimson Commissar]

Ah, the sigh of nostalgia from the conservative. You want to replace one shitty, oppressive and anti-working class regime we have today with another from yesteryear. Ever thought of raising your sights a little higher?
Libertarian communism has never achieved anything, you know. What we need is democratic communism, but not so concerned with "freedom" and "liberty" that it's too afraid to actually defend itself. It often seems that you libertarian leftists are more concerned with freedom of speech for capitalists and fascists than you are actually concerned about liberating the working class. :rolleyes:

[Toppler]

Well, I agree I was a bit angry writing the post. I don't really support repression. And libertarian communism worked in Hungary under Kadar and better than the Sovietized systems http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2009/10/goulash-and-solidarity-as-happy-as.html . But I don't support Western pretendodemocracy (even if I obviously prefer it over Pol Pot style rule or Idi Amin) either, and the Western propaganda, for example about the "booming economy" of India (while half of India's kids are underweight and 46 percents of kids under three suffer from malnutrition [and cca 15 from serious wasting aka starvation] See for example this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/world/asia/13malnutrition.html?_r=1 http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/india-starving-baby.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Starved_child.jpg ), is creepy.

By the way, here is a caloric map of the world:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1961,2.svg/2000px-World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1961,2.svg.png

You see, in 1961 the caloric intake of a person in the USSR was higher than that of a person in France.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1979-1981.svg/2000px-World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1979-1981.svg.png

Again, Eastern Bloc and USSR eats as much, and even a bit more, than Western countries.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1989-1991.svg/2000px-World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1989-1991.svg.png

Again...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/World_map_of_Energy_consumption_2001-2003.svg/2000px-World_map_of_Energy_consumption_2001-2003.svg.png

The ex-communist countries now eat a bit less than the West during the Cold War, and rich Western countries are overeating by as much as 1200 calories over the healthy limit.

The communist regimes had 4 brief famines 2 of them during the early 20th century in the USSR (1921, 1933-1934 and 1947-1948) and 1 of them in Maoist China during the GLP which castrophically deviated from any sane Marxist goverment (and which was an extremely poor, starving country even before, Mao's catastrophic policies only pushed the existing hungerfest over the edge). Countries like India exist in what is basically an unending famine http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/the-real-reason-for-the-shining-path/ note the ending of that artice.

[Toppler]

Is that in reply to me or TOP?

Yeah working people were often better off then. That is true, and Western anticommunism is wrong. But it is also true the USSR et al were not really societies of, by, and for, the working class. And if you dared to feel politically motivated, and even to utter heresies of other socialism, could get you fired, jailed, etc. That's not workers' power. They are both recognitions of matters of fact.

This was a reply to the bullshit about how there was hardship and lines everywhere etc. You have a valid point and I agree with you on this.

[Crimson Commissar]

Well, I agree I was a bit angry writing the post. I don't really support repression. And libertarian communism worked in Hungary under Kadar and better than the Sovietized systems http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2009/10/goulash-and-solidarity-as-happy-as.html.
Yeah, I support the democratic communism that existed in countries such as Hungary. What I dislike are these extreme libertarians that completely denounce socialism in the eastern bloc just because they killed a few capitalists. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Toppler]

Now, I can imagine that Slovakia is just another country very deeply in debt and stuck to the chains of the IMF and the World Bank and capitalists of the West.

Well, not really. We are quite prosperous. But still, you see homeless people on pretty much every shopping centre in the evenings. And every day in the new some new murders, thefts etc. occur. Life for the middle class (to which my family belongs to) is materially Western standard, but working class people struggle to pay the bills. Under state socialism the rent was cca 50 Kcs per month for a 2 room apartment and the minimum wages were 1500-2500 Kcs (in the 60-80s more for anybody higher up than an unskilled worker, the 50s wages were more like 400 Kcs a month even for skilled workers, but then at the time all of Europe struggled, hell, even Britain had queues and rationing http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/12/when-christmas-still-sparkled.html ), with prices like 1 Kcs for a bag of fresh milk, 3 Kcs for a litre of gasoline, 20 haliers (1 halier = 1/100 of a crown) for cigarettes etc. food and everyday stuff was very cheap, now the average wage is 750 Euros but the rent can be as high as 380 Euro in bad cases for a 2 room apartment and the minimum wage is 310 Euros, basically making people on minimum wage totally poor and forcing them to live in cramped 1 room + kitchen apartments.

Through it is true that for example, LP records costed usually 40-120 Kcs, so while there was no danger of ever being hungry or even having your stomach not stuffed with food to maximum if you wanted, things like LPs and casettes costed about as much as the monthly rent and 1/15th of the monthly income of an unskilled worker. And a hi-end (by the Eastern standard) hi-fi system with a gramophone and a stereo could cost as much as 5000 Ksc (through my dad managed to buy such a thing in the mid 80s, somehow).

We are still basically a Western country through. Just with far worse poverty for the working class. Nothing like Brazil, Russia or even Poland, but still, you wouldn't want to be a worker here. Still an Indian refugee would think this is paradise.

[Toppler]

Yeah, I support the democratic communism that existed in countries such as Hungary. What I dislike are these extreme libertarians that completely denounce socialism in the eastern bloc just because they killed a few capitalists. It's utterly ridiculous.

Well, then I agree with you. 99 percents of these killings occured in the 50s when Stalin was still dictating the things through, and the 1950s living standards were low (to be fair, this applied to all of Europe), so I definitely have no love for orthodox Stalinism.

[The Author]

Ah, the sigh of nostalgia from the conservative. You want to replace one shitty, oppressive and anti-working class regime we have today with another from yesteryear. Ever thought of raising your sights a little higher?

I didn't know advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat through violence against the exploiter class was an act of conservatism. But then, apparently, Barack Obama and David Cameron are socialists and this global financial and economic crisis is just an act of the evil communists and big Red China.

I didn't know people who rob you of your meager income and force you to live in shitty lodgings and spoon-feed you stories of "freedom of speech" and human rights and separate people by class status are entitled to be treated as human. But then, that element of "socialism with a human face" is a concept still popular among many communists. It was tried, it failed, and now it's time to go back to the fundamentals. Those of the exploiter class who treat you poorly, deserve the same in kind when the ball drops on them. I'm all for "democratization," but democratization is not enough to get to communism. There's the dictatorship part that needs to be applied, or else every attempt at revolution will just be another fancy, another indulgence in theory.

[Toppler]

The Author, sorry, but everybody welcomed socialism with a human face in 1968. Nobody liked the tanks that came after that. This line of reasoning is focused on bloody revenge, lowers communists to capitalist's level, and ultimately lowers the living standard when applied. No, "non revisionist" 1950s in the CSSR were not a paradise, in fact it is the age that even those who remember the socialist era fondly dislike. Why? Because it (1950s) sucked (even through things were built during that era, some positive achievements were done, and it was not as shitty as West would people like to believe, but many positive things occured during the Middle Ages and the Victorian era too). And branding all your opponents as "capitalist" and worthy only of hate and brutal death is a surefire ticket to building a terrestrial hell. Not saying the 1950s were terrestrial hell. But such attitudes can easily lead into it.

[Crimson Commissar]

The Author, sorry, but everybody welcomed socialism with a human face in 1968. Nobody liked the tanks that came after that. This line of reasoning is focused on bloody revenge, lowers communists to capitalist's level, and ultimately lowers the living standard when applied. No, "non revisionist" 1950s in the CSSR were not a paradise, in fact it is the age that even those who remember the socialist era fondly dislike. Why? Because it (1950s) sucked (even through things were built during that era, some positive achievements were done, and it was not as shitty as West would people like to believe, but many positive things occured during the Middle Ages and the Victorian era too). And branding all your opponents as "capitalist" and worthy only of hate and brutal death is a surefire ticket to building a terrestrial hell. Not saying the 1950s were terrestrial hell. But such attitudes can easily lead into it.
What other option was there for the USSR to take? They already had Tito pissing around with his "non-aligned movement" crap, and Hoxha in Albania going on some mad crusade against "revisionism". Then there was China that wanted absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Socialism. Losing Czechoslovakia aswell would have been yet another blow to socialist internationalism. And, I might be mistaken here, but wasn't the Soviet intervention over the fact that Czechoslovakia was basically trying to become a social democratic country? That's not "socialism with a human face", that's fucking capitalism.

[robbo203]

I didn't know advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat through violence against the exploiter class was an act of conservatism. .

No but advocating the return to just another form of capitalism - state run capitalism - in which a clear-cut exploiter class exploited the workers in the guise of a dictatorship over ...oops, of ....the proletariat, certainly is!

[Crimson Commissar]

No but advocating the return to just another form of capitalism - state run capitalism - in which a clear-cut exploiter class exploited the workers in the guise of a dictatorship over ...oops, of ....the proletariat, certainly is!
The Soviet Union abolished unemployment, gave everyone food and shelter, promoted the cause of socialism all over the world, and stood defiant in the face of capitalist imperialism. If this isn't socialism, what the fuck is?

[ComradeOm]

If this isn't socialism, what the fuck is?Workers controlling the means of production

[Crimson Commissar]

Workers controlling the means of production
Which is essentially what happened in the USSR.

[ComradeOm]

Which is essentially what happened in the USSR.Only if by "essentially" you mean "not at all". In the USSR there was no worker control of either the factory floor or the higher state organs. The last traces of the former disappeared with the introduction of the Stalinist economy, the latter probably didn't survive 1918. This had not been rectified by 1991. Anyone who believes that democratic principles prevailed in the USSR is either delusional or naive in the extreme

[Crimson Commissar]

Only if by "essentially" you mean "not at all". In the USSR there was no worker control of either the factory floor or the higher state organs. The last traces of the former disappeared with the introduction of the Stalinist economy, the latter probably didn't survive 1918. This had not been rectified by 1991. Anyone who believes that democratic principles prevailed in the USSR is either delusional or naive in the extreme
Despite what you think about this particular subject, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the extreme poverty and inequality of capitalism is on the same level as Soviet socialism, where such things were almost completely unknown.

[ComradeOm]

Poverty? Inequality? I could type for hours (and have done so on this site over the years) on the subject of Soviet living standards. That is not the point that we were discussing though. This was the claim that the Soviet workers controlled the means of production. You were saying about this...?

[Jose Gracchus]

What other option was there for the USSR to take? They already had Tito pissing around with his "non-aligned movement" crap, and Hoxha in Albania going on some mad crusade against "revisionism". Then there was China that wanted absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Socialism. Losing Czechoslovakia aswell would have been yet another blow to socialist internationalism. And, I might be mistaken here, but wasn't the Soviet intervention over the fact that Czechoslovakia was basically trying to become a social democratic country? That's not "socialism with a human face", that's fucking capitalism.

First of all, the USSR allowed a lot of economic reforms. They cared much, much, much less about "market tendencies" than allowing competitive elections. Consider the various USSR-loyal economic reforms and subsidies that developed in the late Cold War, and also the Kosygin Reform in the USSR itself in 1965. Consider that in 1956 it was not a top-down reform attempt to allow some competitive elections and more market socialism; there were soviets, factory committees, and armed workers. Peasants and workers were unwilling to capitulate to private property; while many peasants reparceled land, some simply took control of their kolkhoz. But a franchisee of the CPSU wasn't going to keep absolute power, so here come the tanks. Anti-Revisionists might be crazy, but they are right that the Soviet institution had turned away even in their own intentions from socialism for quite sometime; the late USSR was really an authoritarian, party-apparatchik-run, radical social democracy by the end, and pretty much even the hardline tendencies hoped for anything other than maintaining insulated and central political and social controls, even if production would be increasingly market and capital directed. That shows the old Soviet ruling class for what they really were.

Secondly, I love the ipso facto identification of "socialist internationalism" with "tank-enforced obedience to Moscow".

[S.Artesian]

Libertarian communism has never achieved anything, you know. What we need is democratic communism, but not so concerned with "freedom" and "liberty" that it's too afraid to actually defend itself. It often seems that you libertarian leftists are more concerned with freedom of speech for capitalists and fascists than you are actually concerned about liberating the working class. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, the fSU really "defended itself," defended working class revolutions... sure it did, in so many places-- in Vietnam in the 1930s, in Vietnam again at the close of WW2, supporting the return of French colonialism, in Spain, in Portugal, East Germany, in Chile with Allende's Unidad Popular, supporting the bourgeoisie in Italy, the US, immobilizing the workers in their struggles.

Right, the whole point is that in not advancing the proletarian revolution but engaging in various iterations of popular fronts internationally, the fSU was incapable of defending the remnants of October.

I'm not concerned with any absolute "freedom of speech." I'm concerned with the concrete roles of the fSU and its allied parties in the liberation of the working class that you think is your private property. And that concrete role was one of anti-liberation, but rather accommodation to capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

Yeah, I support the democratic communism that existed in countries such as Hungary. What I dislike are these extreme libertarians that completely denounce socialism in the eastern bloc just because they killed a few capitalists. It's utterly ridiculous.


Are you kidding me? The "democratic communism" that existed in Hungary, that was instituted in the years following the defeat of the workers revolution there was the most capitalistic of the "market socialisms" introduced into the Comecon countries prior to the collapse of the USSR.

[Jose Gracchus]

Are you kidding me? The "democratic communism" that existed in Hungary, that was instituted in the years following the defeat of the workers revolution there was the most capitalistic of the "market socialisms" introduced into the Comecon countries prior to the collapse of the USSR.

By "workers' revolution", do you mean in 1919 or 1956?

[S.Artesian]

By "workers' revolution", do you mean in 1919 or 1956?

1956. After suppressing the revolution, the government proceeded to introduce many "market" reforms.

[Joe Payne]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Libertarians believe in freedom of speech for Fascists, huh? We don't defend ourselves either? Apparently you've never heard of ARA, ANTIFA, AFA...or the CNT militias? Mujeres Libres? Or RIAU? Or the KAPD? Or the WFM's (one of the founding unions of the IWW) armed battles with the US Army? Or anarchist guerrilla resistance against Castro? Or anarchist guerilla resistance against Mao? Or the sailors of Kronstadt? Or the Band of Heroes of Korea? I could go on.

On the USSR? Fuck even trots (at least the ISO kind) know there was nothing socialist about the USSR when Stalin took power. Kronstadt was the last chance for the revolution to be saved from the machinations of the Bolshevik Party. After 1921, everything went to complete shit. Things were pretty good though up until about April of 1918. Ya know, before the Cheka began to murder and imprison workers for being too revolutionary for the Bolshies.

[Jose Gracchus]

To be fair, the entire party was not the Bonapartists (just those who won out), and there were a lot of Bolshevik workers (including ones who got repressed themselves).

[Kiev Communard]

Which is essentially what happened in the USSR.

Err.., no, it didn't. It was a control by managers and planners over workers and employees, not vice versa.

[Joe Payne]

To be fair, the entire party was not the Bonapartists (just those who won out), and there were a lot of Bolshevik workers (including ones who got repressed themselves).


Yeah I understand that, however by the time of Kronstadt the workers had been leaving the party in droves, and even the Workers' Opposition towed the line on Kronstadt in the end. So even when workers in the party opposed the Bonapartists, they still only did so as a loyal opposition, and in the end all died for it. Hooray Stalin!

[Aurorus Ruber]

What does one make of the numerous rebellions launched against the various Communist governments, the Kronstadt rebellion, the Hungarian revolution, and so forth? At first glance these would all seem to suggest that much of the population greatly resented living under Communism, enough to risk their lives in fighting one of the most powerful militaries in the world. It hardly makes sense to face off against Soviet tanks and certain death, after all, if the Communist system really did provide a decent standard of living.