Soviets destroyed Socialism

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

I respected the Soviets for a number of reasons, 1. Stalin's rapid industrialisation plans 2. They transformed probably the most backward European Nation into a superpower. 3. They got the first man in space Yuri Gargarin. Well anyways quite a lot of achievements they piled up over the years, but thats not what this post is about.

I can't help but think that the Soviet style Socialism was nothing but a fraud, under Lenin they duped the proletariat into supporting this "Workers Eutopia" instead the proletariat got robbed, and only a group of elite "Vanguards" got a say in how things were run, so much for dictatorship of the proletariat. And then Stalin comes along, spreads hes doctrine of Socialism in one country, takes full control of every aspect of how the country is run, forced immigrations of millions of people, all political opponents gets eliminated, all dissent punished with the full might of the state, Stalin was greedy and a megalomaniac, but he did implement some extreme economic plans for rapid industralisation, and it did work, albeit at the expense of millions of lives,all easily replaceable, and the now well oppressed working class, i doubt if he didn't wield absolute power, the 5 year plans would of worked out.

The Soviet Union, was a state run corporation, exploiting the people, they once promised a paradise. Red Fascism, the governmental elite was the superior and the worker an expendable product.

After WWII and the new territories they annexed, they started spreading their influence to other Socialist states, and these states adopted the Soviet Socialist model, which most people know today as simply Communism or Bolshevism, Leninism and Stalinism to the more educated, this model is fueled through oppression of the people, it is totalitarian in every sense, the workers are exploited far worse than in a Capitalist system, they don't have any democratic right to choose their government, they are imprisoned if they talk out against the ruling class, Cuba and North Korea are good examples of this.

This model has killed Socialism worldwide, a Socialist state should be in constant revolution, have democratic rights, workers should be in the forefront, which is impossible when you have the same Leader and Elite for decades, and you have no right to speak out.

Perhaps one days a true Socialist state will emerge, a true worker eutopia.

[scarletghoul]

Thats true, its not as if the success of the Russian Revolution give material and ideological support to socialist revolutionary movements around the world, resulting in socialism covering half of Europe, most of Asia, and parts of Africa and Latin America.....

[Jose Gracchus]

You do realize MLM considers many of the regimes you just referred to as "fascist" and "social-imperialist", right?

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

The russian revolution had a little influence, compared to when the soviets emerged from WWII a superpower, having annexed most of eastern europe and a part of germany. They were a true threat to the western democracies, being right on their doorstep, they were powerful, and smaller socialist states looked up to them, and most of them adopted some sort of stalinist model.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Thats true, its not as if the success of the Russian Revolution give material and ideological support to socialist revolutionary movements around the world, resulting in socialism covering half of Europe, most of Asia, and parts of Africa and Latin America.....

Cowardly answer. Where is the socialism? And how has any nation been objectively socialist in the sense that the working class controlled the means of production? Show me one country that had this feature. Note: a centralized state with a command economy does not equate to a system of which the economy is controlled by its workforce.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

the entire soviet model is social-imperialist, they annexed other territories all in the name of socialism, but they opppressed their conquered territories, why you think all the former soviet republics bailed when they could choose their own governments. PERESTROIKA!

[Ismail]

the entire soviet model is social-imperialist, they annexed other territories all in the name of socialism, but they opppressed their conquered territories, why you think all the former soviet republics bailed when they could choose their own governments. PERESTROIKA!Is this why the majority of Soviet citizens voted to retain the Union in 1991?

Also Perestroika wrecked the Soviet economy and any possible claim that the working-class ruled in the USSR. I of course would argue that their ownership of the means of production was already on its way out by the 1950's.

You're free to give some examples of the "exploitation" of the Baltics or Moldavia.


The russian revolution had a little influence, compared to when the soviets emerged from WWII a superpower, having annexed most of eastern europe and a part of germany. They were a true threat to the western democracies, being right on their doorstep, they were powerful, and smaller socialist states looked up to them, and most of them adopted some sort of stalinist model.Uh, what? How on earth did the Soviets "annex" East Germany and the East European countries?

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Is this why the majority of Soviet citizens voted to retain the Union in 1991?


thats true man, probably with the reforms gorbachev implemented they got alot more outside exposure, and they gave into the hysteria, they wanted to be free

[Ismail]

thats true man, probably with the reforms gorbachev implemented they got alot more outside exposure, and they gave into the hysteria, they wanted to be free... in 1991 the reforms were well on their way. I'm saying that you're confusing the interests of, say, Saparmurat Niyazov with the views of all Turkmen when you say stuff like "THEY WANTED TO BE FREE" even though they wanted to remain in the Union.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Uh, what? How on earth did the Soviets "annex" East Germany and the East European countries?

the Soviet Union annexed parts of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania after WWII ended.

the eastern bloc was made into puppet socialist states. but they were still basically under control of the kremlin, the allys didnt allow stalin to annex these territories, but he basically did, just called it something else

[Ismail]

the Soviet Union annexed parts of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania after WWII ended."The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority....

Compared to 1939, the Poland of 1945 was 20 percent smaller, but no matter how badly the war had hit German Pomerania and Silesia, the basic infrastructure there remained superior to that of the eastern Polish provinces lost to the USSR, and the three-hundred-mile-long Baltic Sea coast offered opportunities for new industries such as shipbuilding."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread! 1989 and the Civil War That Brought Down Communism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)

As for Moldavia, the Soviets claimed it since Lenin's time.


the eastern bloc was made into puppet socialist states. but they were still basically under control of the kremlin, the allys didnt allow stalin to annex these territories, but he basically did, just called it something elseNo he didn't. You could claim that they were certainly under the influence of the Soviets, but they weren't annexed.

[Flying Trotsky]

Is this why the majority of Soviet citizens voted to retain the Union in 1991?

Just because the old Union was popular doesn't necessarily mean that it was Socialist.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

.

No he didn't. You could claim that they were certainly under the influence of the Soviets, but they weren't annexed.[/QUOTE]

they were soviet controlled puppet states,

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow. Winston Churchill

[Ismail]

Just because the old Union was popular doesn't necessarily mean that it was Socialist.Not my point. I obviously don't think it was after the 60's, but that doesn't mean that it was not generally supported by most people living within it.


Winston ChurchillWhy do you quote an anti-communist who wanted to strangle the Bolshevik state in its infancy? The West was also backing the Greek government, which was brutally suppressing a communist rebellion while the US Government began to control even the composition of the Greek government's ministerial cabinet. (See William Blum's book Killing Hope)

Imperialism is an economic relationship, it isn't "influence" or "control" or whatever. Obviously communist parties which praised Stalin as the glorious leader of humanity are going to follow the USSR, but there was no imperialism anymore than the efforts of the Bolsheviks to unite the various regions which would later form the USSR could be called "imperialism."

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Imperialism is an economic relationship, it isn't "influence" or "control" or whatever. Obviously communist parties which praised Stalin as the glorious leader of humanity are going to follow the USSR, but there was no imperialism anymore than the efforts of the Bolsheviks to unite the various regions which would later form the USSR could be called "imperialism."[/QUOTE]

Well the soviets installed new governments, implemented restrictions on emigration and implemented a soviet economic model in the eastern bloc states, they were directed by the five year plans

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Well the soviets did implement economic plans in eastern bloc states to tie in with their central planned model, they operated on five year plans, but they focused on extensive rather than intensive development, the soviets focused too much on heavy industries like they had in the past, and the economic plans failed

[Ismail]

Well the soviets installed new governments, implemented restrictions on emigration and implemented a soviet economic model in the eastern bloc states, they were directed by the five year plansI don't see how this constitutes "imperialism." Most of the governments the Soviets installed were bourgeois ones. Obviously the bourgeois parties in these states opposed the rise of People's Democracies, but the Communists were able to maneuver to make said parties impotent within the 1946-1949 period.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

don't see how this constitutes "imperialism." Most of the governments the Soviets installed were bourgeois ones. Obviously the bourgeois parties in these states opposed the rise of People's Democracies, but the Communists were able to maneuver to make said parties impotent within the 1946-1949 period.

imperialism is an unequal relationship in terms of territory, economy and culture, one power asserts its control , the other power is subordinate, the soviets forced economical changes, and was culturally superior

[Ismail]

imperialism is an unequal relationship in terms of territory, economy and culture, one power asserts its control , the other power is subordinate, the soviets forced economical changes, and was culturally superiorThis is not the Leninist definition of imperialism. The Communist Parties had political superiority over the bourgeois parties.

And what's wrong with forcing economic changes? What do you think a revolution is? Should the Soviets have just left the bourgeois state machinery and economic relations intact? Should the Communist Parties have accepted gradual marginalization (such as what was going to occur in Czechoslovakia) by the bourgeoisie?

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

This is not the Leninist definition of imperialism. The Communist Parties had political superiority over the bourgeois parties.

And what's wrong with forcing economic changes? What do you think a revolution is? Should the Soviets have just left the bourgeois state machinery and economic relations intact? Should the Communist Parties have accepted gradual marginalization (such as what was going to occur in Czechoslovakia) by the bourgeoisie?

the soviet elite forced economic changes, to exploit the weaker state, it was not a revolution of the working class, the soviet elite basically just took over, exploiting the proletariat further, and just putting their elite in charge, thats not a dictatorship of the proletariat

[Ismail]

the soviet elite forced economic changes, to exploit the weaker state, it was not a revolution of the working class, the soviet elite basically just took over, exploiting the proletariat further, and just putting their elite in charge, thats not a dictatorship of the proletariatThe heads of the Communist Parties were not part of the "Soviet elite." The 1948 Czechoslovak CP coup, the "Salami tactics" of the Hungarian CP, the "Fatherland Front" of Dimitrov (who had years of revolutionary experience), the KPD in East Germany, etc. coordinated their activities with the Soviets to some extent, but they were not mere "puppets." They consolidated power using their own tactics.

Also saying that the proletariat was exploited "further" is ridiculous. Feudal remnants were abolished, great strides were made in healthcare and education, trade unions and various other mass organizations emerged, etc. Say what you want about the class character of these states, but arguing that post-1945 Eastern Europe saw greater exploitation is absurd.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

The heads of the Communist Parties were not part of the "Soviet elite." The 1948 Czechoslovak CP coup, the "Salami tactics" of the Hungarian CP, the "Fatherland Front" of Dimitrov (who had years of revolutionary experience), the KPD in East Germany, etc. coordinated their activities with the Soviets to some extent, but they were not mere "puppets." They consolidated power using their own tactics.

Also saying that the proletariat was exploited "further" is ridiculous. Feudal remnants were abolished, great strides were made in healthcare and education, trade unions and various other mass organizations emerged, etc. Say what you want about socialism, but arguing that post-1945 Eastern Europe saw greater exploitation is absurd.

i am a socialist my friend, and true revolution, is the people in numbers taking power from the ruling class, ending exploitation of the worker, and empowering themselves with the tools of production. the proletariat should be the main driving force in revolution, not the communist party elite who aligned themselves with the soviets, thus integrating a communist government that isn't for the people. the overthrowing of the ruling class shouldnt put a communist elite in their place, and thats what happened

[JoeySteel]

Congratulations Ismail on your patience to argue against someone who is doing nothing but make assertions (mostly comical ones) with no evidence. Luckily it's educational for observers to learn the basics of storybook anti-communist trope versus reality :laugh:

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Congratulations Ismail on your patience to argue against someone who is doing nothing but make assertions (mostly comical ones) with no evidence. Luckily it's educational for observers to learn the basics of storybook anti-communist trope versus reality :laugh:

i am a socialist, i just hated the soviet state-capitalist model, the higher ups exploited the people, it was severe oppression marketed as total freedom

[Gustav HK]

i am a socialist, i just hated the soviet state-capitalist model, the higher ups exploited the people, it was severe oppression marketed as total freedom

Yes, if you mean what happened after Stalin.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

ah i hate that man with passion, nothing but a criminal

[Rêve Rouge]

i am a socialist, i just hated the soviet state-capitalist model, the higher ups exploited the people, it was severe oppression marketed as total freedom


More specifically, you are a libertarian socialist.

Some could argue that the Soviet Union ran under a state socialist economy. A state capitalist economy would resemble something more along the lines of corporatism or corporatocracy.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

More specifically, you are a libertarian socialist.

Some could argue that the Soviet Union ran under a state socialist economy. A state capitalist economy would resemble something more along the lines of corporatism or corporatocracy.

members of the communist party became the new ruling class, thats why i say state-capitalism

[Pretty Flaco]

The US does imperialistic actions after a war and makes sure people friendly to it are in power and it's imperialism but the USSR does the same and it's not?

[OhYesIdid]

More specifically, you are a libertarian socialist. Not that there's anything wrong with that...right?:reda: The fact that there was a heirarchy does not mean it was capitalism. Capitalism is a system where a small group control the means of production, giving them power over those that do not, but also use an often already existing nation-state to justify their power. I think the term Red Fascism is more correct (and better for propaganda purposes). There can be heirarchical relations and no capitalism to be found. If the idea of one person ruling over another bothers you so much, might I interest you in this fine bottle of pure, distilled Anarchy?

http://fitness.vpxsports.com/Portals/75121/images/Anarchy-Bottle_STRAW1.png
Fight Opression! Spread the Whealth! Now with 40% less Lenin!

[Pretty Flaco]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...right?:reda: The fact that there was a heirarchy does not mean it was capitalism. Capitalism is a system where a small group control the means of production, giving them power over those that do not, but also use an often already existing nation-state to justify their power. I think the term Red Fascism is more correct (and better for propaganda purposes). There can be heirarchical relations and no capitalism to be found. If the idea of one person ruling over another bothers you so much, might I interest you in this fine bottle of pure, distilled Anarchy?

http://fitness.vpxsports.com/Portals/75121/images/Anarchy-Bottle_STRAW1.png
Fight Opression! Spread the Whealth! Now with 40% less Lenin!

"Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management."

If the working class isn't the ruling class then it's not socialism. Just because it isn't capitalism doesn't mean that by default it's good for the working class.

[OhYesIdid]

I didn't say it was, Broshevik, and my bit about Anarchy was only half-sarcastic.

[Pretty Flaco]

I didn't say it was, Broshevik, and my bit about Anarchy was only half-sarcastic.

Well it sounded very apologetic of the soviet union to me. :tongue_smilie:
my bad

[Rêve Rouge]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...right?:reda:

Not at all. Just thought it'd be nice to point that out. Socialism is a very broad ideology with no single agreed definition.


The fact that there was a heirarchy does not mean it was capitalism. Capitalism is a system where a small group control the means of production, giving them power over those that do not, but also use an often already existing nation-state to justify their power. I think the term Red Fascism is more correct (and better for propaganda purposes). There can be heirarchical relations and no capitalism to be found.

Ya, this is the general idea I was trying to present to him. Capitalism needs the state to survive. But the state doesn't necessarily need capitalism to survive. Take ancient Egypt as an extreme example with the pharaohs in control of the state.

[Ismail]

The US does imperialistic actions after a war and makes sure people friendly to it are in power and it's imperialism but the USSR does the same and it's not?Probably because the US actually was an imperialist power. Again, would you argue that Lenin was an "imperialist" due to his wish to have seen the Bolsheviks conquer Poland?

Imperialism is about economic relationships. It is, as Lenin said, the highest stage of capitalism.

[CHE with an AK]

:cursing: ... I'm continually amazed at how much right-wing claptrap makes its ways into these forums.


:hammersickle: Revleft needs a 5 year plan to root out the 5th column. :hammersickle:

[Comintern1919]

Ha, really, all those stalinist with their arguments. Just because someone doens't like Stalin, doesn't mean, he has no idea, he's stupid, he's no socialist etc., nonsense. There are enough evidence that he was a tyrant. How else can you explain that so much communists are against Stalin?

The USSR was a stae capitalism. Why? Because the ruling class had more privileges then the working class. How I know that? My whole family, their friends and the families of my friends lived in the GDR. I now will quote one of my post I wrote, it's more about the GDR but most also count for the USSR, as the GDR was nothing more than a puppet of the USSR:



[...] you have no idea how life has been in the GDR. Sure, I wasn't there, either. But my mom was, my grandparents were, my teachers were, the friends of all them were, the families of them, and they all agree that they hadn't a good life, and were glad the Mauer and the GDR (and so also the USSR) did fall. I don't say everything was bad. Most East Germans agree that they were much closer, much more comrade-like. They helped each other, 'cause thanks to the authoritarian Politbüro (yes, they were authorian!). Just because someone or something is communist, doesn't mean it's good. And if so many were against it (the Berliner Mauerfall shows how much were), it cant be good. I may be only one of few who think so, but I think, that communism is about the PEOPLE, that they can become HAPPY, EQUAL, which they weren't in the GDR (and USSR). Of course the member of the SED were, as they had more than the average, the poorer german, WHICH IS AGAINST ALL WHAT COMMUNISM STANDS FOR, This is the way capitalists life! And don't you dare to say it wasn't so, it was, or do all my family, all the germans who crossed the Berliner Mauer, who cried that they could flee, do all those people lie? Well, I know for sure, my mom doesn't, as she isn't against communism, but is clearly against the GDR. Just search for "Berliner Mauerfall" at youtube, and see, how much people were GREATLY happy.

And, as I had to write quite often, sure, Stalin made the USSR powerful, yes, they had a great deal ending WW2 (even though Stalin and Hitler had a pact of non-aggression, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which HITLER broke, NOT Stalin, and which secured Stalin an imperialist-like goal, half of Poland), but POWER doesn't mean it's GOOD! That's the way capitalists think. In communism, it's about the PEOPLE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY for the WEAK.




And I'm quite sure the USSR was imperialist. For me, imperialism means economical and political exploiting a country by force against the will of the population. How else can you explain the use of military force by the USSR everytime a country wanted to be free of Soviet Hold over them? Even though they still wanted to remain communists.




[...] the KPD in East Germany [...]

If you must use my country, please do it correct. The KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) was before Nazi-Germany. In the DDR (GDR), it was the SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) while Today it's the DKP (Deutsche kommunistische Partei).

[Astarte]

The Russian Revolution represented the ancient non-Western managerial societies re-emerging on the stage of history (what some have called "Oriental Despotism") as a modernized anti-capital, anti-private property mode of society.

In all aspects the managerial society is more efficient in terms of building, coordinating and maintaining society than the chaotic modes of the ancient Greek slave states, the Medieval European feudal system, and even today modern international capitalism.

To me the Soviet Union represented the proto-type of a new anti-private property class society which we will see unfolding over the next century or two once capitalism completely fails on a global scale. It will be historically superior to global capitalism in all ways, especially in terms of delivering the necessities of life to all peoples of the world, building infrastructure, and constantly improving living standards, since the new party class will have to base its power on meeting the above mentioned conditions or find an end in stagnation and decay as the USSR did.

[litster]

from alot of language i hear from alot of socialists, i suspect they would all act in the same authoritarian way, because often we think the we and we alone know best who protect the poor uneducated defenceless working class.

why do you think the left is so fragmented.

this is why i like men like Tony Benn so much (i know some of you may not shall this respect) because he has a faith in the working class and the people to be able to run them selves.

Soviet Russia never had the democrat freedom that we in England had strove for for centuries (and i hope still fight for because we need to), English Socialism i believe would look very different to russian.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

this is why i like men like Tony Benn so much (i know some of you may not shall this respect) because he has a faith in the working class and the people to be able to run them selves.

Soviet Russia never had the democrat freedom that we in England had strove for for centuries (and i hope still fight for because we need to), English Socialism i believe would look very different to russian.

Tony Benn is a social-democrat responsible for some disastrous economic restructuring during the 1970's, responsible for the sackings of hundreds of thousands of workers.

[litster]

Tony Benn is a social-democrat responsible for some disastrous economic restructuring during the 1970's, responsible for the sackings of hundreds of thousands of workers.

sound like Thatcher...

[litster]

Tony Benn is a social-democrat responsible for some disastrous economic restructuring during the 1970's, responsible for the sackings of hundreds of thousands of workers.

as true as that may be, he has done more for workers in this country and more for the moral of the working class, and the everyone who believes in peace and justice, than you do and your comments do,

and if you refer to my earlier point about how we all think that what we think is right and only we know the truth....

[Ismail]

There are enough evidence that he was a tyrant. How else can you explain that so much communists are against Stalin?How does this follow? Tons of people hate communism, does that mean communism is bad? This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.


I now will quote one of my post I wrote, it's more about the GDR but most also count for the USSR, as the GDR was nothing more than a puppet of the USSR:After the 1950's the East German leadership followed in lockstep with the Soviet revisionists. You might be interested in reading this about pro-Albanian East Germans against the revisionist, state-capitalist regime in the GDR: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n1/gdrkpd.htm

As for your quote, eastern Poland was also known as West Ukraine and West Byelorussia. Poland acquired these territories in the Treaty of Riga in 1921 and oppressed both Ukrainians and Byelorussians within the territory. It's not much different from Moldavia, where the Romanian seizure of it in was unrecognized by the Bolshevik government under Lenin. Neither regaining Moldavia nor regaining West Ukraine and West Byelorussia were imperialist acts.


How else can you explain the use of military force by the USSR everytime a country wanted to be free of Soviet Hold over them?By 1968 the USSR was indeed a state-capitalist and social-imperialist country. It was denouncing as "revisionist" the same revisionists it had placed in power (that is, Dubček and Co.) to begin with. It is also somewhat similar in Hungary, where the revisionists first promoted the anti-"Stalinist" Nagy only to later replace him with a more loyal revisionist in the form of Kádár. The internal situation in both countries, though, was significantly different. Both China and Albania denounced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.


If you must use my country, please do it correct. The KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) was before Nazi-Germany. In the DDR (GDR), it was the SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) while Today it's the DKP (Deutsche kommunistische Partei).The SED was founded in 1946 as a merger of the KPD and the eastern section of the SPD. By saying "KPD" I was making a point that its rise to prominence in the Eastern Zone was not simply because the Soviets waved a magic wand. Part of its rise was in forming the Democratic Bloc uniting all anti-fascist political forces and successfully uniting with the SPD after struggling against right-wing elements within it.

[ColonelCossack]

wait, so... communes destroyed communism? Because isn't "soviet" russian for "commune"?

Nah, I know you meant the government of the soviet union :P

[Gustav HK]

"Soviet" or "Совет" is Russian for "council".

"Commune" will be "kommuna" or "коммуна".

[Aspiring Humanist]

Thats true, its not as if the success of the Russian Revolution give material and ideological support to socialist revolutionary movements around the world, resulting in socialism covering half of Europe, most of Asia, and parts of Africa and Latin America.....


Soviet Satellite states, China, Indochina, African states were socialist

http://images.wikia.com/spongebob/images/0/06/Opposite_Day.jpg

[Imposter Marxist]

I can't help but think that the Soviet style Socialism was nothing but a fraud, under Lenin they duped the proletariat into supporting this "Workers Eutopia"

They got duped? The majority of the soviets were in support of Lenin's goals. How was it a fraud? Are you complaining that it wasn't perfect after the revolution? Where they had to deal with counter-revolutionaries, imperialist pressure and invasion, and a myraid of other problems? Sorry it didn't work out just peachy.



And then Stalin comes along, spreads hes doctrine of Socialism in one country, takes full control of every aspect of how the country is run,

Yes, Stalin personally took control of every aspect of the USSR himself.



forced immigrations of millions of people,

He forced immigration upon people. :confused:




all political opponents gets eliminated,

No.



all dissent punished with the full might of the state,

:rolleyes: Yeah, he went through every city and found anyone who a single dissenting view and then disembolwed them and paraded their bodies through the streets of Leningrad.



Stalin was greedy and a megalomaniac,
What personal wealth did Stalin accumulate?




but he did implement some extreme economic plans for rapid industralisation, and it did work, albeit at the expense of millions of lives,
What are you talking about? What do you mean? The kulaks? The famine? Clarify, because you are making no sense.




i doubt if he didn't wield absolute power, the 5 year plans would of worked out.


He didn't wield aboslute power. And what the HELL are you even talking about? The Five Year Plans were a mind blowing victory for the Soviet Union. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm



The Soviet Union, was a state run corporation,
Explain how it was run like a corporation? What are you talking about?



After WWII and the new territories they annexed, they started spreading their influence to other Socialist states,
This makes no sense at all. They did not "Annex" anything. Each country had their own government.


this model is fueled through oppression of the people, it is totalitarian in every sense, the workers are exploited far worse than in a Capitalist system,

How was it fueled through the oppression of the people? What the HELL is Totalitarianism? It doesn't exist. Thats a huge buzzword that I hear from capitalists and anarchists constantly. Please, define this, I'd like to have a discussion with you about the nature of it, and what it means.



they don't have any democratic right to choose their government,
You're implying that we do in capitalist countries? Show me how.



Cuba and North Korea are good examples of this.

What're you talking about?


This model has killed Socialism worldwide,
Stop blaming workers. Stop blaming Communists. It is the Imperialists fault socialism is gone more then anything.



a Socialist state should be in constant revolution
You sound like a Maoist here, for irony.



Perhaps one days a true Socialist state will emerge, a true worker eutopia


Ill tell you this, don't expect flowers and cake for ANY future socialist movement, revolution, or state. There will only be ruthless attacks from Imperialists. You should be ready for reality.

[Telenus]

The only true instance of Socialism was the Paris Commune. Lrn2Marxism. :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

The only true instance of Socialism was the Paris Commune. Lrn2Marxism. :rolleyes:Marx in 1881 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm): "Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."

[OhYesIdid]

Marx in 1881 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm): "Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."

Your point? The people might not have had proper theoretical formation, but the commune was communist nonetheless

[CommieTroll]

Your point? The people might not have had proper theoretical formation, but the commune was communist nonetheless

How so? It wasn't Communist, The Paris Commune wasn't a stateless, classless society, and how can any government achieve proper Socialism/Communism in under two months?

[OhYesIdid]

here
[...]the true spirit of the Commune is not to be found in the garments the young proletariat of 1871 draped itself in. This movement has always been a vital first step in the world proletariat’s struggle for its emancipation, because of the promise it held for the future. This was the first time in. history that the official power of the bourgeoisie had been overthrown in one of its capitals. And this immense combat was the work of the proletariat, and no other class. Certainly, this proletariat was little developed, had scarcely emerged from its old craft status, and dragged behind it all the weight of the petty bourgeoisie and the illusions born of 1789: nonetheless, it was the motive force behind the Commune. Although the revolution was not yet a historic possibility (because the proletariat was still too immature, and because capitalism had not exhausted its capacity to develop the productive forces), the Commune heralded the direction that future proletarian combats would have to take. [...] Moreover, while the Commune took to itself the principles of the bourgeois revolution, it certainly did not give them the same content. For the bourgeoisie, “liberty” means free trade, and the liberty to exploit wage labour; “equality” means nothing more than equality between bourgeois in their struggle against aristocratic privileges; “fraternity” means harmony between capital and labour, in other words the submission of the exploited to their exploiters. For the workers of the Commune, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” meant the abolition of wage slavery, of the exploitation of man by man, and of a society divided into classes. This vision of another world, heralded by the Commune itself, was reflected in the way the working class organised social life during its two months existence. The Commune’s real class nature lies in its economic and political measures, not in the slogans it dredged up from the past.

[OhYesIdid]

teh thrilling conclusion


Two days after its proclamation, the Commune confirmed its power by directly attacking the state apparatus through a whole series of political measures: abolition of the police forces dedicated to social repression, of the standing army, and of conscription (the only recognised armed force was the National Guard); the destruction of all state administration, the confiscation of church property, the destruction of the guillotine, compulsory free education, etc, not to mention such symbolic actions as the destruction of the Vendôme column, the symbol of ruling class chauvinism erected by Napoleon 1st. The same day, the Commune confirmed its proletarian nature by declaring that “the flag of the Commune is that of the Universal Republic”. This principle of proletarian internationalism was clearly affirmed by the election of foreigners to the Commune (such as the Pole Dornbrovski, in charge of Defence, and the Hungarian Frankel, responsible for Labour).

Amongst all these political measures was one which particularly demonstrates how false is the idea that the Parisian proletariat rebelled to defend the democratic Republic: that is, the permanent revocability of the Commune’s delegates, who were constantly responsible to whichever body had elected them. This was well before the appearance, in the 1905 Russian revolution, of the workers’ councils - the “finally discovered form of the proletarian dictatorship” as Lenin put it. This principle of revocability which the proletariat adopted in its seizure of power once again confirms the proletarian nature of the Commune. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of which the “democratic” state is only the most pernicious variant, concentrates the exploiters’ state power in the hands of a minority to oppress and exploit the vast majority of producers. The principle of the proletarian revolution on the other hand is that no power should arise to place itself over society. Only a class which aims at the abolition of any domination over society by a minority of oppressors can exercise power in this way.