Misproportion as anti-communist propaganda

[Toppler]

Here's an example of it http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-not-communist-t130144/index.html?p=1699654#post1699654


Oh, and by "the good ol' days of communism", I assume you aren't referring to when Russian peasants had to eat their family members rotting carcasses...

This is the power of capitalist propaganda. It takes a real, horrible but relatively brief event (1932-1933 famine), paints it as purposeful genocide (of the Ukrainians, despite the fact that nearly all grain growing regions of the USSR were affected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Famine_en_URSS_1933.jpg ), paints its consequences as "horrors of communism" despite the fact that every major famine includes instances of cannibalism, bark eating ... whatever in India, medieval Western europe or 1932-33 USSR.

But the major manipulation lies in misproportion. An event that lasted 1 year is generalized to the claim that people in the USSR were starving and eating corpses not for 1 year but for the entire history, and then it places blame for the event on communism rather than Stalin's policies and drought.

All the while is done disregarding, that except for the 3 brief famines that occured in the USSR (all before 1953), citizens were generally very well fed, while under the Czar they starved all the time and famines were not a question of enough food --> no food, but barely enough food to stay alive --> no food.

Through I wouldn't credit Stalin too much for anything, I think this article sums it up quite nicely:

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/free-market-starvation/


Under Communism, the peasant had plenty of food to eat for the first time in centuries. In the early 1930′s, the Soviet Union saw the largest harvests in its history, big harvests that continued for decades. All of this is forgotten, and all we know is famine, famine, famine. One wonders how Stalin doubled life expectancy in the USSR while the people starved.

It is also interesting how the anti-communist propagandists dwell on horrible but brief things, my mom's from Ukraine (born in 1971) yet she barely knew that some famine happened in the 1930s, and said that while she hates Stalin, she will always love the USSR. The fact is, nobody in the USSR had to go hungry after 1948 (the last famine).

[Queercommie Girl]

Funny how you could understand the demonisation of Stalinist Russia as a kind of Western propaganda but can't do the same for the demonisation of Maoist China. Does this reflect an implicit racism on your part against non-European cultures, I wonder?

[Toppler]

Funny how you could understand the demonisation of Stalinist Russia as a kind of Western propaganda but can't do the same for the demonisation of Maoist China. Does this reflect an implicit racism on your part against non-European cultures, I wonder?

Stalin didn't send goons to put shit into the mouth of people during the famine.

Also, I am not apologizing Stalin. Stalin sucked, the point it that propaganda uses horrible but brief events from his rule to smear the entire USSR and communism. I think that Mao and Stalin were psychopaths, do I condemn the entire USSR and PRC for it? No, they weren't ruled just by these 2 guys.

Stalin also, to my knowledge, didn't do a "Cultural revolution" that included ritualized cannibalism, including that of children of the "enemies of the people". But of course I am racist for pointing that out. Will I be anti-German when I'll criticize Hitler next?

I would personally say that the positive gains in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were done despite of Stalin and Mao, not because of them. If the USSR had somebody like Lenin or Khrustchev all the time it would've been far better off.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin didn't send goons to put shit into the mouth of people during the famine.


And Mao didn't either. But someone like you who solely relies on either Western sources or the statements of corrupt Chinese bureaucrats will never admit that.



Also, I am not apologizing Stalin. Stalin sucked, the point it that propaganda uses horrible but brief events from his rule to smear the entire USSR and communism. I think that Mao and Stalin were psychopaths, do I condemn the entire USSR and PRC for it? No, they weren't ruled just by these 2 guys.
Stalin and Mao were not psychopaths, that's a ridiculous abstract psychological critique of serious historical figures. The distortions that existed in Stalinism and Maoism cannot be attributed to such BS individualistic causes, but rather to problems that are systematic in nature.

The USSR and PRC were distorted polities, lacking sufficient worker's democracy, whatever Stalin or Mao were like as people are largely irrelevant.

Indeed, even real psychopathic criminals are really just a social product of capitalist society, as every genuine Marxist must surely realise. There is simply no such thing as an "intrinsically evil person", that's the kind of BS that comes out of reactionary Abrahamic religions and right-wing Bush-supporters who consider 9-11 as the work of "intrinsically evil Islamists" upon the "good Christian people of the West".

Abstract idealistic ethics is not compatible with Historical Materialism. All "good" and "evil" are created by society, not by some kind of ridiculous quasi-mystical source.

Hitler technically isn't a "psychopath" either, despite being ultra-reactionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin also, to my knowledge, didn't do a "Cultural revolution" that included ritualized cannibalism, including that of children of the "enemies of the people". But of course I am racist for pointing that out. Will I be anti-German when I'll criticize Hitler next?


You are an idiot. While the Cultural Revolution did become too chaotic in some parts of China, I seriously doubt this kind of ridiculous claim about "cannibalism of children". When can you stop simply relying on Western sources about Maoist China?

Also, even if such things occurred, they occurred not as a result of Mao's directives, but completely acting contrary to them. I challenge you to show me where exactly Mao called for "ritual cannibalism" in any of his political writings and directives, in the same way that Hitler called for the complete extermination of the Jewish people.



I would personally say that the positive gains in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were done despite of Stalin and Mao, not because of them. If the USSR had somebody like Lenin or Khrustchev all the time it would've been far better off.

While I think Lenin is clearly a better Marxist than Stalin, to put Lenin and Khruschev into the same category is clearly ridiculous. Don't you know that Khruschev used the army and shot and killed protesting workers in the USSR? He did nothing to restore genuine worker's democracy, despite his anti-Stalin rhetoric. In fact, Soviet bureaucrats from Khruschev onwards became increasingly elitist, cut off from the masses of people, corrupt and capitalist-leaning, finally culminating in the complete destruction of the Soviet state in 1991.

But someone like you who apologises for "sweatshops" in China today obviously won't realise this kind of thing. You'd consider today's China, with a Ginni Index of 0.5, to be a better "socialist system" than China under Mao! :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Regarding anti-communist propaganda, it's hypocritical for the capitalist West to focus so much on the "Stalinists in Ukraine" or the "Maoists in Tibet", while turning a blind eye to the enslavement and genocide of millions of native Americans and black Africans in the United States and elsewhere.

The "horrors" of Stalinist industrialisation are nothing compared to the horrors of capitalist industrialisation in the United States.

[Omsk]

Regarding anti-communist propaganda, it's hypocritical for the capitalist West to focus so much on the "Stalinists in Ukraine" or the "Maoists in Tibet", while turning a blind eye to the enslavement and genocide of millions of native Americans and black Africans in the United States and elsewhere.
Yes,the west tends to 'turn a blind eye' towards any kind of anti-communist massacres,the crimes commited by anti-communist's over normal,working class people,for instance,the Bodo League massacre,the Shanghai Massacre,the white terror in hungary,the NATO war crimes,and many more,not to mention the Slaughter of Indian population by the imperialist dog's that invaded the land,or the who-knows-how many islands cleared of all inhabitance by the imperialist troops.And ofcourse,the crimes against black Africans and the North American natives.And,if you go that far into the past,you might mention the slaughter done by the conquistador's.
They are good at hiding war crimes and other horrible act's when the commiter's are their ally's,for instance,in West Germany,suddenly,the 'Evil nazi bastards!!!' are our friends,and the true enemies are the red dogs in East Germany. :( There are many examples of these kind of cover-ups,but the imperialist media and propaganda achieved its goal,they have been almost forgoten.

[ComradeOm]

Under Communism, the peasant had plenty of food to eat for the first time in centuries. In the early 1930′s, the Soviet Union saw the largest harvests in its history, big harvests that continued for decades. All of this is forgotten, and all we know is famine, famine, famineWhat? This statement is wrong on so many levels. 7-8 million Soviet citizens (not the 1.5 million suggested in that article) didn't die due to overconsumption. The reason that famine is so inextricably linked with the Stalinist system is because the latter oversaw a humanitarian disaster of the highest magnitude. Such statistics, whatever Uncle Joe might have thought, are indeed tragic. Secondly, the statement is simply wrong and is unsustainable eithout recourse to Stalinist propaganda figures. Davies et al (Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union) have calculated that the grain harvests of the late 1930s (1938-39) were less bountiful than that of the 1913 (in fairness, this was an excellent year). The harvests of the "early 1930s" were significantly worse than the yields achieved under the NEP or the last years of the Tsardom

Really, this is beyond just being wrong. the author acknowledges that "a famine in the Ukraine in 1932 killed 1.5 million people" before blithely going on to declare that this was the same period in which "the Soviet Union saw the largest harvests in its history". Millions dying of starvation, rationing introduced to the cities... and bumper harvests all round? Really?


All the while is done disregarding, that except for the 3 brief famines that occured in the USSR (all before 1953), citizens were generally very well fed, while under the Czar they starved all the time and famines were not a question of enough food --> no food, but barely enough food to stay alive --> no foodYou really need to do more research. It is simply false to say that "citizens were generally very well fed" during the Stalinist period. Aside from the little matter of millions of deaths, the introduction of the Stalinist economy was accompanied by at least a decade of lean times. Fitzpatrick notes that "[shortages] were a central fact of economic and daily life" during the 1930s. And this was in the cities. Life on a collective farm was infinitely worse. But then this was the reason for the creation of kolkhozy in the first place: "The principal reason for collectivisation [was the] procurement of produce at minimum cost... . The peasant members were very poorly paid since they divided amongst themselves whatever was available, with no guaranteed minimum of any kind". From Nove Economic History of the USSR. And if you want actual calorie data... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html?p=1780465#post1780465)

[Queercommie Girl]

While I am Trotskyism-leaning and very critical of Stalinism in many ways, I seriously feel this excessive focus on "Stalinist crimes" is counter-productive to serious and genuine Marxists.

As I said repeatedly, Stalinist industrialisation was much more humane on the whole than Western capitalist industrialisation in the United States, which was literally hell on earth for the black slaves and native Americans.

Now, why the fuck would self-proclaimed liberal socialists in the West criticise Stalin and Mao more than they would criticise a brutal and genocidal slave-owner like Thomas Jefferson? (Who is an even more reactionary slavelord than Julius Caesar was nearly 2000 years before him) I think this is seriously out of order for Marxists of any tendency. Efforts must be diverted to combat this kind of BS attitude.

[ComradeOm]

How many people on this site (to take a flawed microcosm of 'the Left') uphold Jefferson to be a major socialist thinker? How many self-proclaimed 'Jeffersonians' do we have on RevLeft? Who here insists that enslaving blacks on plantations is a basic component of a socialist economy? Does anyone really think that the mass deportations and massacres of the Native Americans is laudable because they were probably all 'counter-revolutionaries' anyway? Of course not

The Soviet Union is just one of many brutal despotisms throughout history. It is one of the few however that is somehow held up as an example of actually existing socialism. There are people on this site who advocate, with straight face, Stalinist policies of mass murder, enslavement and impoverishment in the name of socialism. This is unacceptable. Now I do not go out on the street preaching about nutritional levels in 1930s Soviet Russia, but I will not let the lies and propaganda go unchallenged here. The easiest way to challenge the claims of Stalinism (if futile when confronted with true believers) is to reveal them for the gross distortions and myths that they are

(Its also worth noting of course that the crimes of the Stalinist system stand independent of those of any other regime. The existence of hardship in other industrialising nations - and I do not accept that the USSR was superior in this regard - in no way validates the privations visited upon the Soviet people in the name of Stalin's socialism)

Does this mean that I shirk from criticising the crimes of the bourgeoisie throughout history? Of course not. Thankfully however we rarely get people on RevLeft advocating those

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stalin didn't send goons to put shit into the mouth of people during the famine.

Also, I am not apologizing Stalin. Stalin sucked, the point it that propaganda uses horrible but brief events from his rule to smear the entire USSR and communism. I think that Mao and Stalin were psychopaths, do I condemn the entire USSR and PRC for it? No, they weren't ruled just by these 2 guys.

Stalin also, to my knowledge, didn't do a "Cultural revolution" that included ritualized cannibalism, including that of children of the "enemies of the people". But of course I am racist for pointing that out. Will I be anti-German when I'll criticize Hitler next?

I would personally say that the positive gains in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were done despite of Stalin and Mao, not because of them. If the USSR had somebody like Lenin or Khrustchev all the time it would've been far better off.

Strictly as a national political leader, couldn't people here distinguish between the Stalin of the 1930s and the Stalin of the post-war period? Had Yuri Andropov lived longer, he might have become similar in authoritarianism to the latter. I read some article of the time saying that Russians wanted more authoritarian rule but without a Stalin. Well, that article was wrong in lumping the two Stalins together.

[Queercommie Girl]

How many people on this site (to take a flawed microcosm of 'the Left') uphold Jefferson to be a major socialist thinker? How many self-proclaimed 'Jeffersonians' do we have on RevLeft? Who here insists that enslaving blacks on plantations is a basic component of a socialist economy? Does anyone really think that the mass deportations and massacres of the Native Americans is laudable because they were probably all 'counter-revolutionaries' anyway? Of course not

The Soviet Union is just one of many brutal despotisms throughout history. It is one of the few however that is somehow held up as an example of actually existing socialism. There are people on this site who advocate, with straight face, Stalinist policies of mass murder, enslavement and impoverishment in the name of socialism. This is unacceptable. Now I do not go out on the street preaching about nutritional levels in 1930s Soviet Russia, but I will not let the lies and propaganda go unchallenged here. The easiest way to challenge the claims of Stalinism (if futile when confronted with true believers) is to reveal them for the gross distortions and myths that they are

(Its also worth noting of course that the crimes of the Stalinist system stand independent of those of any other regime. The existence of hardship in other industrialising nations - and I do not accept that the USSR was superior in this regard - in no way validates the privations visited upon the Soviet people in the name of Stalin's socialism)

Does this mean that I shirk from criticising the crimes of the bourgeoisie throughout history? Of course not. Thankfully however we rarely get people on RevLeft advocating those

Well, as I said I'm Trotskyism-leaning, so I can see some of your points here.

However, how about actually have a systematic and rational critique of Stalinism, rather than just focus on the "personality" of Stalin? I'm not directly criticising you here, but I have seriously had enough with stupid idiots like Toppler who keep on labelling Stalin and Mao as some kind of "mad psychopath". Such bullshit psychological descriptions are completely contrary to the basic methods of Historical Materialism.

Interestingly bureaucrats like Khruschev also just focussed on going against the personality of Stalin, but he didn't do anything to correct the basic distortions in political superstructure that existed under Stalinism. From a Trotskyist perspective, the problem in Stalinism is actually quite simple: there is a lack of direct worker's democracy in the USSR. This is indeed the basis for all the other problems that emerged under Stalinism and later revisionism.

P.S. regarding Jefferson, you might want to refer to the "Is Thomas Jefferson a libertarian socialist?" thread in History.

[Geiseric]

Stalin actually was diagnosed with Paranoid Scyzophrenia, by his personal doctor who was killed soon after, so it's fair to say he was technically a psycopath. Also, Mao had sex with young girls! Which sane person would do that.

Also, we're not talking about fucking Capitalist west, we're talking about Mao and Stalin! When one government does something, does that mean it justifies another government,
who is called Communist, to do the same thing? As far as i'm concerned, Stalin had work camps (slaves) and killed about a million people in his purges, which is more than the number of indians killed on it's own. That stat, coupled with all of his other failures and results of his paranoia, and his own losses in WW2 as a result of having a new, inexperianced officer corps, is way more than the number of people the U.S. Gov't has directly killed. Trust me, i've been researching U.S. History for basically all my life, Stalin killed more in 20 years than we managed in 200.

[Omsk]

When one government does something, does that mean it justifies another government,
who is called Communist, to do the same thing?
What?The only justification i know of is the one that comes up when i am talking with Americans about their war-crimes in Vietnam,they tend to 'panic' and shout thing's like -
"But!But!But Stalin killed....bilions!"



which is more than the number of indians killed on it's own
Not true.


and his own losses in WW2
Catastrophic losses (civilian) were caused by alot of factor's,the hunger,a horrible war zone,a huge one,alot of war crimes and mass-slaughters,and by the winter.Russia had a huge population,so the situation was destined to be bloody from the very start.Which is tragic.


Trust me, i've been researching U.S. History for basically all my life
Research more. :p

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin actually was diagnosed with Paranoid Scyzophrenia, by his personal doctor who was killed soon after, so it's fair to say he was technically a psycopath. Also, Mao had sex with young girls! Which sane person would do that.


Having sex with children is not a sign of mental illness. Some people actually advocate the right to have sex with children. There were even several such people here on RevLeft before they were banned or restricted. Some Marxist groups like the Spartacist League, also advocates this.

Personally, I think pedophilia is wrong, but not a mental illness.

Why would you consider Mao's pedophilia more wrong than Jefferson's homophobia?

Also, I have doubts about a lot of these Western claims about Mao. Keep in mind that it is in the interests of the capitalist West (and also corrupt capitalism-leaning revisionist bureaucrats in China) to demonise Stalin and Mao as much as possible.



Also, we're not talking about fucking Capitalist west, we're talking about Mao and Stalin! When one government does something, does that mean it justifies another government, who is called Communist, to do the same thing? As far as i'm concerned, Stalin had work camps (slaves) and killed about a million people in his purges, which is more than the number of indians killed on it's own.
The Indian population in the US was never very high to begin with, yet the vast majority of them were wiped out by the white colonialists, under the banner of US capitalism. Stalinist purges, which never destroyed an entire group of people in a genocidal manner, cannot compare with this.



That stat, coupled with all of his other failures and results of his paranoia, and his own losses in WW2 as a result of having a new, inexperianced officer corps, is way more than the number of people the U.S. Gov't has directly killed. Trust me, i've been researching U.S. History for basically all my life, Stalin killed more in 20 years than we managed in 200.
Who is "we"? You shouldn't consider yourself to be on the same side as the US government and state. When I criticise the US state I don't criticise the American people. The job of a revolutionary socialist is ultimately to completely overthrow the capitalist US state and establish a Soviet state.

As for US history, you should read the book A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

[Geiseric]

I mean to read that, I don't know why I put "we," that was wierd. However, killing a million political dissidents is something the U.S. Government has never done. Maybe in the thousands, they were imprisoned, then released later, but never killed a million dissidents, and in the depression, the harshest time in the American Economy ever, people weren't starved to death.

[Queercommie Girl]

I mean to read that, I don't know why I put "we," that was wierd. However, killing a million political dissidents is something the U.S. Government has never done. Maybe in the thousands, they were imprisoned, then released later, but never killed a million dissidents, and in the depression, the harshest time in the American Economy ever, people weren't starved to death.

Many communists were executed during the Cold War era.

Not as many were killed because not as many communists existed in the US in the first place.

[Queercommie Girl]

and in the depression, the harshest time in the American Economy ever, people weren't starved to death.

Many black and native slaves however starved to death throughout US history.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin also, to my knowledge, didn't do a "Cultural revolution" that included ritualized cannibalism, including that of children of the "enemies of the people". But of course I am racist for pointing that out. Will I be anti-German when I'll criticize Hitler next?


Your demonisation of the Cultural Revolution is reactionary and ridiculous.

The Cultural Revolution was not implemented properly in some ways, but it was a progressive attempt at introducing mass democracy, including the right to strike for Chinese workers, aimed at challenging the corrupt and authoritarian reign of the bureaucracy. It was ideologically speaking one of the high points of the PRC, despite the empirical flaws in its implementation.

[Toppler]

ComradeOm I was not specifically talking about Stalinist period, but the USSR in general.

Also, was the awful Law of the Spikelets ever abolished? How were the conditions in the collective farms from 1950 to 1991?

Also, stop bringing the 1930s up please. I am aware that at that time USSR sucked more than any nation in the world ever because of Stalin's psychopathy.

The only thing I am saying is that much of capitalist propaganda takes the 1932-33 famine and potray it as the conditions typical for USSR, which is unimaginably slanderful dishonest propagandistic bullshit.

Do you have any calorie data for the 1940-1960 period? I have some maps here linked for 1961, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1961,2.svg and 1979-1981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_Energy_consumption_1979-1981.svg and both show very good nutritional status, superior to even many 1st world nations so I am curious about when the shift from "oppressive hungry Stalinist hellhole" to "pretty good place to live" occured.

[ComradeOm]

However, how about actually have a systematic and rational critique of Stalinism, rather than just focus on the "personality" of Stalin?Hence my careful use of the phrase 'the Stalinist system'. Anyone who claims that the atrocities committed in the USSR were due solely to Stalin's cruel and paranoid behaviour (even if this was always present and did increase markedly in his final years) would be mistaken

However it is called 'Stalinism' for a reason. By the 1930s Stalin was the prime architect of the Soviet state, unquestionably the most powerful man in the country and intimately involved in formulating and implementing the brutal policies that marked the period. However crude/primitive the Soviet state apparatus, at its centre sat the generalissimo and his close camarilla. Almost every major policy initiative in the USSR passed across Stalin's desk or was discussed in his office. As such I have absolutely no issues with holding him personally responsible, amongst others, for the crimes committed by the Soviet state


Do you have any calorie data for the 1940-1960 period? I have some maps here linked for 1961, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo...ion_1961,2.svg and 1979-1981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo..._1979-1981.svg and both show very good nutritional status, superior to even many 1st world nations so I am curious about when the shift from "oppressive hungry Stalinist hellhole" to "pretty good place to live" occured.Hmmm? AFAIK academic consensus is that Soviet per capita household consumption peaked at around a third (max) of US levels in the early 1980s. There was a lengthy and sustained increase in consumer consumption from the 1950s onwards but this was starting from an exceptionally low base. How much of this was due to nutritional deficits, as opposed to chronic shortages of consumer manufactured goods, I don't know but its safe to say that the USSR was definitely not some land of plenty. Brainerd's Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Sovet Union has some useful data series. [Edit: Wheatcroft's The Great Leap Upwards is also well worth checking out for an overview of the pre-1960 period]

As for when the 'shift' occurred, this would be with the dismantling of the Stalinist economy in the early 1950s. Both Khrushchev and Malenkov prioritised the production of consumer goods, expansion of welfare services, increased housing stock, etc, in a shift away from the former coercive methods of directing the economy and workforce

[Queercommie Girl]

Hence my careful use of the phrase 'the Stalinist system'. Anyone who claims that the atrocities committed in the USSR were due solely to Stalin's cruel and paranoid behaviour (even if this was always present and did increase markedly in his final years) would be mistaken

However it is called 'Stalinism' for a reason. By the 1930s Stalin was the prime architect of the Soviet state, unquestionably the most powerful man in the country and intimately involved in formulating and implementing the brutal policies that marked the period. However crude/primitive the Soviet state apparatus, at its centre sat the generalissimo and his close camarilla. Almost every major policy initiative in the USSR passed across Stalin's desk or was discussed in his office. As such I have absolutely no issues with holding him personally responsible, amongst others, for the crimes committed by the Soviet state

Hmmm? AFAIK academic consensus is that Soviet per capita household consumption peaked at around a third (max) of US levels in the early 1980s. There was a lengthy and sustained increase in consumer consumption from the 1950s onwards but this was starting from an exceptionally low base. How much of this was due to nutritional deficits, as opposed to chronic shortages of consumer manufactured goods, I don't know but its safe to say that the USSR was definitely not some land of plenty. Brainerd's Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Sovet Union has some useful data series. [Edit: Wheatcroft's The Great Leap Upwards is also well worth checking out for an overview of the pre-1960 period]

As for when the 'shift' occurred, this would be with the dismantling of the Stalinist economy in the early 1950s. Both Khrushchev and Malenkov prioritised the production of consumer goods, expansion of welfare services, increased housing stock, etc, in a shift away from the former coercive methods of directing the economy and workforce

Your critique of "Stalinism" generally follows the patterns of the bourgeois liberals, based on "human rights", "welfare", "living conditions" etc.

You don't seem to recognise that at the basis of almost every problem in the Soviet Union, is the lack of direct worker's democracy. A worker's state is not just some kind of "charity" where the "great bureaucratic leaders" treat the workers with "humanity" and "compassion". A worker's state is all about direct worker's power. Without this it's a deformed worker's state.

As a worker I'd rather live in a system with lower living conditions but where I have direct political power, than a system with higher living conditions, but where I just completely rely on the "charity" of the state.

And I'd rather live in a poor but equal society than a rich but highly unequal one.

Socialism is not just about "human rights", "welfare" and "living conditions". Socialism is all about direct Worker's Power and Economic Egalitarianism.

[Toppler]

Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Sovet Union[/i] has some useful data series. [Edit: Wheatcroft's The Great Leap Upwards is also well worth checking out for an overview of the pre-1960 period]

As for when the 'shift' occurred, this would be with the dismantling of the Stalinist economy in the early 1950s. Both Khrushchev and Malenkov prioritised the production of consumer goods, expansion of welfare services, increased housing stock, etc, in a shift away from the former coercive methods of directing the economy and workforce

Not a land of plenty, but not a land of hunger either. The consumption data you have certainly pertrain to general consumption, not just food, as you can see on the food maps the food intake in 1961 was already comparable with Western countries.

That's why I am looking for further calorie data.

[Toppler]

Iseul I see. You'd probably be satisfied with a society where everybody had nothing, as long as it is "equal". Envy much?

[ComradeOm]

Your critique of "Stalinism" generally follows the patterns of the bourgeois liberals, based on "human rights", "welfare", "living conditions" etcAnd you think that these are "liberal" criteria? My criticism of the Stalinist regime flows almost exclusively from my own firm belief in workers' rights. I have spent countless hours on this site demonstrating the degree to which the Soviet state oppressed and abused the Soviet working classes. My preference is not talk of "human rights" but solid archival evidence that displays the material depredations visited on the Soviet workers by their supposedly socialist state

Underpinning this criticism is the understanding that there is no such thing as "a system with lower living conditions but where I have direct political power". A socialist economy or political system cannot but prioritise the well-being of its citizens. That is the whole point of socialism! The most obvious signs of the lack of socialist governance (aka workers democracy) in the Stalinist USSR lie in the policies, laws and measures that reduced the living conditions of Soviet workers in the name of raising production. The mass violence and immiseration inflicted on the Soviet working class is evidence enough as to the anti-labour (or anti-democratic, if you will) nature of this regime. It is impossible for a ruling class to oppress itself! To be honest, I'd assumed that this was blindingly obvious

But then anyone who is rooting around the 1930s looking for reasons for this absence of democracy is looking in entirely the wrong place. Its about a decade or so off. The USSR was not a workers' state (deformed or not) in 1927 and Stalin cannot be blamed for its degeneration. The Stalinist system is worthy of criticism but not the argument that it represents a 'wrong turn' for Soviet socialism. Now I have devoted a similar number of hours to debating the causes of the revolution's degeneration, in which workers' democracy does feature prominently, but as far as I'm concerned that is an entirely separate topic


Not a land of plenty, but not a land of hunger eitherAnd no one has ever pretended as such. There were chronic shortages in the USSR but not the brink of starvation. You are attacking a strawman

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul I see. You'd probably be satisfied with a society where everybody had nothing, as long as it is "equal". Envy much?


I didn't say that. But as long as basic necessities are satisfied, yes I'd much rather have a system where no-one had a lot but everyone has similar incomes, than a society like the PRC today.

Frugality is a virtue. That's something a corrupt revisionist like you don't understand.

Economic egalitarianism is fundamental to socialism. Otherwise what's the point of fighting against capitalism?

But a revisionist scum like you who apologises for sweatshops will never understand this, because you'd put "economic development" before economic equality.

[Queercommie Girl]

It is impossible for a ruling class to oppress itself! To be honest, I'd assumed that this was blindingly obvious


No the Stalinist USSR was still a "deformed worker's state". The bureaucracy cannot be a separate class in its own right, but only an elitist caste.

A "class" is not a single slab of concrete, mind you. It is perfectly possible for some layers of a ruling class to heavily oppress other layers.

For instance, the United States is ruled by the capitalist class, correct? But anyone can see that empirically small businessmen are heavily oppressed by the ruling financial capitalists.



But then anyone who is rooting around the 1930s looking for reasons for this absence of democracy is looking in entirely the wrong place. Its about a decade or so off. The USSR was not a workers' state (deformed or not) in 1927 and Stalin cannot be blamed for its degeneration. The Stalinist system is worthy of criticism but not the argument that it represents a 'wrong turn' for Soviet socialism.


But Leninist USSR did have worker's democracy.

[red cat]

I mean to read that, I don't know why I put "we," that was wierd. Relax, it was just your subconscious nationalism. That is what makes so many progressives embrace anti-Soviet, anti-China, self-proclaimed "leftist" lines because though they want to oppose the historical enemies of their bourgeois state, they cannot do it directly by taking a rightist stand. :lol:

[resurgence]

Stalin actually was diagnosed with Paranoid Scyzophrenia, by his personal doctor who was killed soon after, so it's fair to say he was technically a psycopath. Also, Mao had sex with young girls! Which sane person would do that.
.

Jiang Qing was an extremely strong woman and I really doubt that she would have tolerated such behaviour from Mao, infact I would take that stupid comment of yours to be an insult to that great revolutionary woman. Your Stalin reads like something out of mad 1950s cold war propaganda in the USA, actually scrub that it reads like something out of fascist propaganda in the 30s.

[resurgence]

But Leninist USSR did have worker's democracy.

There was actually more workers' democracy in Stalin's time, infact Stalin first came into conflict with Trotsky on this issue (Stalin being for workers' democracy and Trotsky opposing it).

[ComradeOm]

But Leninist USSR did have worker's democracy.Unfortunately no, it didn't. Or rather, by the end of the Civil War* the democratic Soviet movement had degenerated to the point where it was no longer responsible to or representative of the Soviet working class. Many of the trappings remained of workers' democracy remained - and some even continued to function fitfully throughout the NEP period - but the revolution had failed to install a lasting democratic workers state. If the "Leninist USSR" had been truly democratic then it would not have given rise to the "Stalinist USSR"

*At the very latest. I would place the critical period around late 1918-19

[Toppler]

The term you use as "consumption" would be more properly called ""the amount of shit people buy". Also, 1/3 in the 1980s of that of the US is somehow supposed to be bad? Come on, most nations in the world buy less than 1/5 that of the US and the poorest ones 1/100.

I am not attacking a strawman. I am not attacking you, but the people who portray USSR as some sort of hellhole. And chronic shortages - yes, but not that of food. There were shortages of some foodstuffs, but not food in general. And in reality, in most capitalist countries, the real selection of the consumer goods available is far lower than in the 1953-1991 USSR. The shelves might be full, but cappie countries are full of people who can barely afford even the most basic foodstuffs. Mind you, I am not talking about imperialist paradises like USA or UK that had the luxory of effectively enslaving millions and despoiling countless poor countries, but the hard reality most of the world suffer. USSR not a land of plenty - of what? For who? It was definitely a land of plenty when it comes to food at least after 1961 as the calorie map and what my mother told me shows. And compared to India or even Turkey or Portugal before the 1980s it was a land of plenty, considering people from these countries wouldn't care that they cannot buy the new Walkman in the USSR, they'd glad to have a job and a well fed stomach.

[Toppler]

The term you use as "consumption" would be more properly called ""the amount of shit people buy". Also, 1/3 in the 1980s of that of the US is somehow supposed to be bad? Come on, most nations in the world buy less than 1/5 that of the US and the poorest ones 1/100.

I am not attacking a strawman. I am not attacking you, but the people who portray USSR as some sort of hellhole. And chronic shortages - yes, but not that of food. There were shortages of some foodstuffs, but not food in general. And in reality, in most capitalist countries, the real selection of the consumer goods available is far lower than in the 1953-1991 USSR. The shelves might be full, but cappie countries are full of people who can barely afford even the most basic foodstuffs. Mind you, I am not talking about imperialist paradises like USA or UK that had the luxory of effectively enslaving millions and despoiling countless poor countries, but the hard reality most of the world suffer. USSR not a land of plenty - of what? For who? It was definitely a land of plenty when it comes to food at least after 1961 as the calorie map and what my mother told me shows. And compared to India or even Turkey or Portugal before the 1980s it was a land of plenty, considering people from these countries wouldn't care that they cannot buy the new Walkman in the USSR, they'd glad to have a job and a well fed stomach.

And how do you define "Stalinist USSR"? Was 1953-1991 USSR "Stalinist"? It was definitely better than the Leninist USSR although a lot of it has to do with development.

We can agree that 1930s-1940s-early 1950s USSR sucked majorly.

The fact is, today's Russia is poorer, and eats less than it did in 1970s. Still, even now, it is miles ahead from actual "third world".

[Omsk]

We can agree that 1930s-1940s-early 1950s USSR sucked majorly.
Definitely,although,i would say 'were really hard' because life 'sucked' in almost all countries before,during and after the second war.It was especially hard in Russia though.But dont put all the blame on Soviet politicians,the life was sometimes hard because of other factor's too.

[ComradeOm]

The term you use as "consumption" would be more properly called ""the amount of shit people buy"Yes. You have a problem with people consuming? This "shit people buy" is a measure of the amount of goods (both basic and luxury) available to a household. Having less access to these goods implies a lower standard of living. It is not a goal of socialism to make people equally impoverished or to instill some form of 'barracks communism'


Also, 1/3 in the 1980s of that of the US is somehow supposed to be bad? Come on, most nations in the world buy less than 1/5 that of the US and the poorest ones 1/100Except that this is simply not the case. To take one indicator (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hou_fin_con_exp_cur_us_percap-expenditure-current-us-per-capita), US households do not spend significantly more on private consumption than other Western nations. And yes, the USSR being able to provide its citizens with a fraction of the goods/services enjoyed by the average US household is an obvious problem


And compared to India or even Turkey or Portugal before the 1980s it was a land of plenty, considering people from these countries wouldn't care that they cannot buy the new Walkman in the USSR, they'd glad to have a job and a well fed stomach.By which logic Turkey is today a land of plenty when compared to Somalia or Sudan

[Toppler]

Except that this is simply not the case. To take one indicator (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hou_fin_con_exp_cur_us_percap-expenditure-current-us-per-capita), US households do not spend significantly more on private consumption than other Western nations. And yes, the USSR being able to provide its citizens with a fraction of the goods/services enjoyed by the average US household is an obvious problem

By which logic Turkey is today a land of plenty when compared to Somalia or Sudan

You do realize this criticism is pathetic right? If everybody consumed the same amount of shit as the West we would need 5 Earths. I live in a country that probably consumes less than 1/3 that of US right now and I live pretty fine. If you accept the vapid, obese, greedy US lifestyle as the norm, then please fuck off. Every old person here will tell you that this vapid consumer culture has ruined our nation. Guess what? As long as the citizens have their basic needs fully satisfied, they don't need to live in opulent luxury. You have a problem with every fucking country in the world except your 13 luxurious "Western" states? Fuck your West.

[ComradeOm]

So its consumer spending (inspired by the US nonetheless) that's "ruining our nation"? I had no idea. I suppose that's what I get for not taking my political cues from senior citizens. Except... my father didn't have indoor plumbing as a child. He either walked several miles to school or hitched a lift on a horse and cart. It was a huge event if anyone from the village travelled the 80km or so to visit the capital. Medical services were basic in the extreme - with infant mortality over ten times what it is today - and only one house in the village possessed a television. No, one of the reasons why you rarely hear elderly Irish complaining about the prevalence of consumer goods and services is that they can remember a time without them. Irish living standards have improved immeasurably (well, we can measure them and they're impressive) in the past forty years alone

Now you tell me to "fuck off" but if you think that this improvement in living standards is a bad thing and that people are somehow "vapid and obese" for seeking to improve them, well you can just take your own advice. Communism is a society of abundance and one in which all peoples' material needs are met - not just the "basic" ones - and "luxury" is available to all. So stuff your puritan outrage at people 'decadent' enough to subsist above the breadline

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually communism does not say anything about "luxury" being necessarily a good thing.

But what is "luxury" and what is "basic necessities" is something that is open to interpretation.

Communism is a producerist culture, not a consumerist culture based on the fetishisation of commodities. Doesn't mean having some consumer goods is a bad thing though.