"Was the soviet union totalitarian?"

[maskerade]

Basically I have to discuss this in my tutorial for uni, and the monumental reading list I've been assigned is your usual liberal drivel. So please, dear revlefters, give me some ammunition!

[Revolutionair]

I don't think Stalin had enough resources to spy on every Soviet citizen, he devoted most of the country's energy on building armies (first against Germany, then against a possible attack from the US).

There might have been some pro-Stalin propaganda posters, but in the West it is possible to see our political leaders live 24/7 on TV, who is more exposed to the government leadership?

While reading your post I came up with a really sarcastic version, read at your own risk:
How to win the debate:
Bring a portrait of Stalin with you to the debate. Don't lay it down on the ground or on a desk, you must keep it between your arms at all times.
Deny any criticism on Stalin, the Soviet Union or any other 'socialist' state. It they trick you into admitting that the killing of all the old Bolsheviks is bad, blame it on Trotsky.
If one of them criticizes the killing of the POUM leadership, scream "REVISIONIST!"

I hope that helped.

[RED DAVE]

Basically I have to discuss this in my tutorial for uni, and the monumental reading list I've been assigned is your usual liberal drivel. So please, dear revlefters, give me some ammunition!The short answer is: Yes. While Soviet citizens, on paper, had the same democratic rights as anyone in the Western bourgeois democracies, in fact, to exercise freedom of speech to criticize the government, to publish an opposition journal, run and opposition candidate, to organize an independent union, was extremely dangerous if not impossible.

RED DAVE

[CommunityBeliever]

The short answer is: Yes. While Soviet citizens, on paper, had the same democratic rights as anyone in the Western bourgeois democracies, in fact, to exercise freedom of speech to criticize the government, to publish an opposition journal, run and opposition candidate, to organize an independent union, was extremely dangerous if not impossible.Regardless of what time period you are referring to (probably post-Brezhnev), I read that former Soviet citizens appreciated the ability to speak out against their boss and other such things even if it came at the cost of not being able to write an opposition journal, after all, I don't think that's the sort of thing the average citizen does. Of course, that's not what is going to be mentioned in Western bullshit-based propaganda films which always seem to focus on the "totalitarian" state.

I would also like to mention that at some points, cracking down on opposition made complete sense when you faced invasion from the rest of the world, and the biggest invasion force ever assembly by the Nazis. If a Western country like the U.S had such threats to its existence you can bet it would crack down on opposition in a way that makes the internment cams and Guantanamo look like minor efforts.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Was it totalitarian? Probably.

A more interesting topic to write on would how much the west integrates the same methods of surveillance and management we like to decry as "totalitarian" when in the context of the Soviet Union.

[Tim Cornelis]

No one can deny the Soviet Union was totalitarian under Stalin.


Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. (source: wikipedia)

Yep, that's the Soviet Union alright.

[redtex]

Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

(source: wikipedia)

Wait, that sounds a lot like where I live. Weird.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wait, that sounds a lot like where I live. Weird.

I don't like it when terms are used left and right devoid of historical or factual meaning, like applying "fascist" to every moderately right-wing tendency, or to socialism and communism for that matter.

Totalitarianism is: "Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror."

You say that sounds like where you live: Texas.

Does the state of Texas have a monopoly on mass media? No.
Is there widespread, all-encompassing propaganda (not just any propaganda)? No.
Is it a single party state? No.
Personality cultism? No. The closest thing to personality cultism are the adoration of the founding fathers.
Control over the economy? Hardly.
Mass surveillance? Hardly.
Widespread use of terror? Concentration camps? Widespread murder of dissidents? No, no, and no.

[Yugo45]

Depends who you ask.

[ComradeOm]

No. Stalinist Russia was a brutal dictatorship that employed mass violence against its population but, as I've argued at length before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/discarding-totalitarianism-relevance-t140232/index.html?p=1834419#post1834419), there are serious problems with the very concept of totalitarianism

[DarkPast]

Wait, that sounds a lot like where I live. Weird.

There is a difference: In America there are two parties, and you can vote for who will oppress you.

[Geiseric]

Several companies, in the end owned by people with the same intrests are our only news sources, london has more cameras than north korea in it, responses to terror threats i.e. 9/11 go unheard, and then once the attacks happen it's turned into propaganda in order to gain support for imperialism! That sounds pretty totalitarian to me, it's not blatant. We do have a cult of personality about our president, who's seen as the guy who'll bring change or the guy who will lead the fight for "freedom and liberty," whatever the fuck that means, and the news in the U.S. is making everybody scared to death of their neighbors to the point where nobody in my town even walks to school anymore.

[Tablo]

Several companies, in the end owned by people with the same intrests are our only news sources, london has more cameras than north korea in it, responses to terror threats i.e. 9/11 go unheard, and then once the attacks happen it's turned into propaganda in order to gain support for imperialism! That sounds pretty totalitarian to me, it's not blatant. We do have a cult of personality about our president, who's seen as the guy who'll bring change or the guy who will lead the fight for "freedom and liberty," whatever the fuck that means, and the news in the U.S. is making everybody scared to death of their neighbors to the point where nobody in my town even walks to school anymore.
To be fair, a lot of the media trash talks Obama.. just for the wrong reasons most of the time. I really don't think we have a cult of personality. Maybe for the founding fathers.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No one can deny the Soviet Union was totalitarian under Stalin.

(source: wikipedia)

Yep, that's the Soviet Union alright.

That's a rather shallow description of just about any authoritarian state with access to some resources. Wikipedia doesn't hold much water in this regard, and "totalitarian" is generally a slur used as a special word to single out particular authoritarian states (indeed there is no doubt that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian state) as being exceptionally evil and repugnant compared to others (thus justifying collaboration and support of lesser evil authoritarian states in U.S. policy-makers minds)

[Tim Cornelis]

That's a rather shallow description of just about any authoritarian state with access to some resources. Wikipedia doesn't hold much water in this regard, and "totalitarian" is generally a slur used as a special word to single out particular authoritarian states (indeed there is no doubt that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian state) as being exceptionally evil and repugnant compared to others (thus justifying collaboration and support of lesser evil authoritarian states in U.S. policy-makers minds)

Actually no, the wikipedia description is accurate. Just because "totalitarian" is supposedly used as a slure--I've actually mostly heard it in the context of actual totalitarian states (nazi-germany, ussr, north korea)--does not mean it does not exist. The fact that "fascism" is used as a slur to denounce most any ideal does not mean fascism does not exist.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was totalitarian, not authoritarian. Belarus is a good example of authoritarianism: state without idealism, leader without charisma, corruption, etc. North Korea is a good example of totalitarianism.

The Soviet Union was totalitarian under Stalin, authoritarian post-Stalin.

[Tim Cornelis]

Several companies, in the end owned by people with the same intrests are our only news sources, london has more cameras than north korea in it, responses to terror threats i.e. 9/11 go unheard, and then once the attacks happen it's turned into propaganda in order to gain support for imperialism! That sounds pretty totalitarian to me, it's not blatant. We do have a cult of personality about our president, who's seen as the guy who'll bring change or the guy who will lead the fight for "freedom and liberty," whatever the fuck that means, and the news in the U.S. is making everybody scared to death of their neighbors to the point where nobody in my town even walks to school anymore.

If that is your definition of totalitarianism, then you are completely separating the meaning from the word--as happened with fascism. It has no real meaning if we're going to use it to describe any system which even remotely or barely resembles totalitarianism.

North Korea is the only authentically totalitarian state that exists today. Chad, Burma are close and could be described as totalitarian. Saudia Arabia might be included as well.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Actually no, the wikipedia description is accurate. Just because "totalitarian" is supposedly used as a slure--I've actually mostly heard it in the context of actual totalitarian states (nazi-germany, ussr, north korea)--does not mean it does not exist. The fact that "fascism" is used as a slur to denounce most any ideal does not mean fascism does not exist.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was totalitarian, not authoritarian. Belarus is a good example of authoritarianism: state without idealism, leader without charisma, corruption, etc. North Korea is a good example of totalitarianism.

The Soviet Union was totalitarian under Stalin, authoritarian post-Stalin.

Nazi-Germany was also not totalitarian. Both the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Nazi-Germany were far too ideologically plural to be in any meaningful way considered totalitarian, a term which has its origins in Italian fascism (which also was not totalitarian in practice, though definitely in ideology), which implies a total synthesis of the social forces of society. North Korea could potentially be considered a border-line case as it does indeed go further than a lot of the other places where such has been alleged, probably owing to its small population and overall isolation, yet even there it is a vague case. Furthermore is not necessarily about a cult of personality, but rather about a cult of leadership; who the rulers is irrelevant, it is the position that is worshipped, not the person.

[Misanthrope]

A non-totalitarian state is an oxymoron.

[Susurrus]

North Korea is the only authentically totalitarian state that exists today. Chad, Burma are close and could be described as totalitarian. Saudia Arabia might be included as well.

I would add Iran to that. Possibly the RF too, since Putin's party is the one that holds the reigns regardless of elections.

[Sir Comradical]

Perhaps, but it's okay for a workers' state to be totalitarian in some situations like war or when there are food shortages due to objective material circumstances. Is it totalitarian to conscript workers to fight a war? Probably. Is it justified? If they're defending a workers' state then yes, yes it is.

[Geiseric]

I can't see a totalitarian state being justifiable, being authoritarian is basic marxism however. Totalitarianism is pointless anyways. If we go through the revolution with an internationalist world perspective, totalitarianism will not be necessary. A revolution in itself is the most authoritarian act there is however. Totalitarian is the result of class relations being at their most stressed point however, when Fascism is allowed to evolve.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Basically I have to discuss this in my tutorial for uni, and the monumental reading list I've been assigned is your usual liberal drivel. So please, dear revlefters, give me some ammunition!

I think the term "totalitarianism," is a rather empty phrase used primarily against states which the capitalist West has deemed as a threat; ideaologically, socially, politically, etc. I think also the perception of the USSR being 'totalitarian' is largely due to bourgeois propaganda and capitalist hegemony and is a byproduct of the Cold War era.

I think it's all about how you choose to view things, to put it shortly.


No one can deny the Soviet Union was totalitarian under Stalin.


Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

(source: wikipedia)

Yep, that's the Soviet Union alright.

That definition can apply to any state really both in the past and present day.

[#FF0000]

No.

It still sucked tho

[#FF0000]

A revolution in itself is the most authoritarian act there is however

only if you think oppressive violence and violence against oppression are the same thing

[Jose Gracchus]

No. Stalinist Russia was a brutal dictatorship that employed mass violence against its population but, as I've argued at length before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/discarding-totalitarianism-relevance-t140232/index.html?p=1834419#post1834419), there are serious problems with the very concept of totalitarianism

This.

'Totalitarianism' is a very specific thesis regarding supposed structural and fundamental similarities between the Third Reich and the USSR. What they have in common is the Western political catechism requires the denunciation of both. Sadly for most of the Stalinist critics here though, the stereotype of 'totalitarianism', however useless in real analysis, more closely resembles the USSR under Stalin than Germany under Hitler.

[robbo203]

I would also like to mention that at some points, cracking down on opposition made complete sense when you faced invasion from the rest of the world, and the biggest invasion force ever assembly by the Nazis. If a Western country like the U.S had such threats to its existence you can bet it would crack down on opposition in a way that makes the internment cams and Guantanamo look like minor efforts.


And would you then rally behind the US government in that event in its efforts to crush dissidents - like communists? Explaining someone's motive is not the same as justifying it. No communist worth their salt would fall in line with the self serving rationalisations employed by the capitalist state - be this the ex soviet union or the USA - to take whatever measures it requires to defend or promotes its own interests

[redtex]

I don't like it when terms are used left and right devoid of historical or factual meaning, like applying "fascist" to every moderately right-wing tendency, or to socialism and communism for that matter.

Totalitarianism is: "Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror."

You say that sounds like where you live: Texas.

Does the state of Texas have a monopoly on mass media? No.
Is there widespread, all-encompassing propaganda (not just any propaganda)? No.
Is it a single party state? No.
Personality cultism? No. The closest thing to personality cultism are the adoration of the founding fathers.
Control over the economy? Hardly.
Mass surveillance? Hardly.
Widespread use of terror? Concentration camps? Widespread murder of dissidents? No, no, and no.

Granted, comrade, I was sort of joking here. I was speaking of the US and yes the US is not a totalitarian state, but it has similarities.

Does the state of Texas have a monopoly on mass media? No, but they are closely aligned. The mass media in the US only parrot what the two major parties tell them and pretty much ignore any other view points. I don't feel like my voice is heard in the mass media.

Is there widespread, all-encompassing propaganda (not just any propaganda)? No, but the "main stream media" pretty much toes the party lines and we only get new/information from the two major parties and anything else is ignored.

Is it a single party state? No, but the differences between the two major parties are minor at best, meaningless at worst. Obama's forgeign policy is virtually identical to Bush's. Same with the "war on terror" and economic policies. The two major parties are two heads of the same dragon.

Personality cultism? No, but is is a cult of nationalism. Land of the free home of the brave. Everywhere I go I see flags. You go to a ball game they sing the national anthem. My children have to listen to the pledge of allegiance every morning at school. It's not the same as a cult of personality, but it is delusional nonetheless. We are constantly told that America is the best greatest most free nation in the world when we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Control over the economy? No, but ask the right libertarians and they would say too much interference with the economy.

Mass surveillance? The state has a pretty impressive surveillance grid in place to monitor us. The state has the capability to read private emails, monitor your cell phone calls, track you by cell phone, etc.. I wouldn't underestimate the ability the state has to monitor us. What do you think the Department of Homeland security is doing? They are looking at us looking for domestic terrorists and they have a virtually infinite budget and a compliant court that allows them to do pretty much whatever they want.

Widespread use of terror? No, but they do use terrorism as an excuse to take away our rights. Personally, I do feel terrorised by the state and their police.

Concentration camps? No, but there is Guantanamo and other secret prisons. They hold people prisoner indefinitely denying them habeas corpus rights. I'm not comparing Guantanamo to a concentration camp. Obviously concentration camps can't be compared to Guantanamo.

Widespread murder of dissidents? No, but the state has claimed the right to murder dissidents/terrorists like Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, using drones and CIA hit squads. It's not widespread but it has happened.

[RexCactus]

The CCCP shifted between periods of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism depending on the Head of State at the time. For instance, under Lenin, the State took an Authoritarian approach, but had partially liberalised the markets through the NEP (Lenin further opened up a plethora of social liberties unseen under Tsarist Russia). One of the first actions of Stalin was to tear down the NEP and implement the State-controlled Five Year Plans. Furthermore, with the creation of the KGB and the transformation of the V-Cheka, Stalinist CCCP had the opportunity (and heavily used this) to locate dissidents and "enemies of the State" and remove them. In Stalinist CCCP, Stalin practically had a god-like status, not totally unlike Kim Il-sung in the DPRK today. If Stalin wanted something done, it was done, unless you wanted to be killed, excommunicated, deported, or forced into labour. This is, in essence, Totalitarianism, the total control of society, be it social, economic, or political (see the one-party State system and the dominance of the quasi-Feudal nomenklatura).

After Stalin came Khrushchyov, who attempted to "destalinise" the CCCP through major reforms of what had been "status quo." Part of this was reverting to a more Authoritarian stance (over the Totalitarian one, which was no longer as feasible considering Stalin's death and the dissipation of the cult of the personality), though the competence of this stance is highly questionable. This mattered little, as Bryezhnev reinforced old Stalinist policies, tightening State control and furthering militarisation, creating the largest, most powerful army in the world. Under Bryezhnev, a new cult of the personality began to emerge as he too was given near-absolute control over the functions of the State through its bureaucratic nomenklatura.

Following Bryezhnev (at least in terms of importance) was Gorbachyov, who in large part again reversed the State stance. He saw a rigid and ineffective government which was very much incapable of its Totalitarian ideology. Gorbachyov therefore advocated for the Liberalisation of the Sovyet Union, fighting to return to more NEP-like policies (though the Five Year Plans remained in effect); he attempted to transform the CCCP more the same way that Deng Xiaoping reformed Mao Tse-tung's PRC. This rapidly attempted to move from Totalitarianism (Ultra-Statism) through Authoritarianism to get to a governmental point of Centrism, which was highly unstable, and, due to other problems associated with the declining Sovyet economy and the extreme military expenditure (not to mention the member States that were rapidly leaving the Union), the CCCP eventually collapsed in 1991, forming current political boundaries and the CSTO.

[Geiseric]

only if you think oppressive violence and violence against oppression are the same thing

Well if a revolution happened here, I can't see it being THAT violent, however shouldn't we oppress people who are in the way of the revolution? People like George Bush and Dick Cheyney? What if there's theoretically a capitalist backlash against a new workers state?

[Commissar Rykov]

Well if a revolution happened here, I can't see it being THAT violent, however shouldn't we oppress people who are in the way of the revolution? People like George Bush and Dick Cheyney? What if there's theoretically a capitalist backlash against a new workers state?
With those two all you need is some trials and they will get hanged for Crimes against Humanity. I imagine most of the Bourgeoisie Masters could be brought up on charges with a plethora of evidence and executed.

[#FF0000]

OP, Sheila Fitzpatrick wrote a lot on the USSR and how the Totalitarian model ain't shit. Look into some of her work.

[Rodrigo]

totalitarianism1. a system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups.
2. autocracy in one of its several varieties.
3. the character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state. — totalitarian, n., adj.
See also: Government-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


totalitarianism - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)



totalitarianism - the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government

The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.


F.A. Hayek helped develop the idea of totalitarianism in his classic defense of economic competition The Road to Serfdom (1944). In his Introduction, Hayek contrasts Western Anglo values with Nazi Germany, stating that "the conflict between the National-Socialist "Right" and the "Left" in Germany is the kind of conflict that will always arise between rival socialist factions". He later conflates "Germany, Italy and Russia" going on to say that "the history of these countries in the years before the rise of the totalitarian system showed few features with which we are not familiar" (Chapter 1, The Abandoned Road).


totalitarism n


totalitarianism (system where state wields absolute control)


totalitarianism (uncountable)


A system of government in which the people have virtually no authority and the state wields absolute control, for example, a dictatorship.



Totalitarianism is just a way anticommunists found to say "Nazism = Communism. Period." It's based on false premises/bullshit propaganda:
The Soviet State controlled everything in the countries. There was no freedom. The Communist States want to be glorified. One-party dictatorship. <ABC> was/is a dictator/an absolutist/etc.
These things have nothing to do with any socialist State or any socialist politician or political leader, including Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Il Sung, the most defamed ever.

The Marxists' concepts of State and class dictatorship (in our society, bourgeoisie dictatorship and proletariat dictatorship) completely nullify this vague and fallacious concept of "totalitarian State" or "absolute State", specially when talking about socialist countries, where real freedom for the working class is achieved or tried to be achieved, with freedom of organization and discussion on workplaces, collectivization of the land, collective productivity, communes, people's assemblies, etc. And in capitalism, the freedom for capitalist classes like industrialists or landowners to "tame" and dominate in every aspect over the workers. But just because in a socialist country there's no enterprise "freedom", "free" market, "free" competition and other liberal stupidities like these, their dogmatic conclusion, their supreme truth about communism is: it's totalitarian and there's no freedom. Period.

[ComradeOm]

OP, Sheila Fitzpatrick wrote a lot on the USSR and how the Totalitarian model ain't shit. Look into some of her work.Hmmm? Fitzpatrick's work has explicitly criticised the totalitarian thesis. See her contributions to Beyond Totalitarianism, for example*

Unless of course by the "totalitarian model" you mean Stalinism. Leaving aside the staggering irony of actually embracing that label, I can't see how anyone can read Fitzpatrick's works and come away with a favourable impression of life under Stalinism

*Even if I do agree with some of her critics in that by downplaying the importance/role of class, Fitzpatrick remains implicitly constrained by the very school that she criticises

[Wanted Man]

Belarus is a good example of authoritarianism: state without idealism, leader without charisma, corruption, etc.

Well I'm certainly glad to live in the Netherlands, a country with a very idealistic state, a charismatic leader and no corruption at all. :blink: Your definitions are shit.


Hmmm? Fitzpatrick's work has explicitly criticised the totalitarian thesis. See her contributions to Beyond Totalitarianism, for example*

Unless of course by the "totalitarian model" you mean Stalinism. Leaving aside the staggering irony of actually embracing that label, I can't see how anyone can read Fitzpatrick's works and come away with a favourable impression of life under Stalinism

*Even if I do agree with some of her critics in that by downplaying the importance/role of class, Fitzpatrick remains implicitly constrained by the very school that she criticises

Yeah, that's what he's saying.

[Sir Comradical]

No.

It still sucked tho

These cool kids disagree.

http://englishrussia.com/images/more_pictures_ussr_70/74.jpg

[EvilRedGuy]

Totalitarian means a society which has no totalitarity for specific things. No tolerance to other views. So the Western imperialism and capitalism can be called totalitarian.

But yeah... Soviet Union didn't tolerate much either, but whether that was justified depends on the different views on RevLeft, each tendency will answer differently.

[#FF0000]

These cool kids disagree.

http://englishrussia.com/images/more_pictures_ussr_70/74.jpg

I can find tons of pictures of smiling kids from any part of the globe. This doesn't mean anything.


Hmmm? Fitzpatrick's work has explicitly criticised the totalitarian thesis. See her contributions to Beyond Totalitarianism, for example*

Unless of course by the "totalitarian model" you mean Stalinism. Leaving aside the staggering irony of actually embracing that label, I can't see how anyone can read Fitzpatrick's works and come away with a favourable impression of life under Stalinism

*Even if I do agree with some of her critics in that by downplaying the importance/role of class, Fitzpatrick remains implicitly constrained by the very school that she criticises

Oh, yeah this is what I was saying. Sheila Fitzpatrick is hella critical of totalitarianism and all that.

[Iron Felix]

It depends on the era. In the late 30s, if you were to say anything critical of Stalin at a Party Congress, you would disappear and no one would see you again. What I find funnier is that if another person at the Party Congress would object to critique of Stalin and say "This is Russia! Here we don't say anything critical of Stalin, fool!" this person would disappear even faster.

On the other hand, if you were to claim that the Soviet Union was undemocratic and totalitarian in the 80s, people would laugh at you in the streets and say "Big news dipshit" and nothing would happen.

[Iron Felix]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindsaystark/2645199018/http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindsaystark/2645199018/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindsaystark/2645199018/)

The kids are smiling, meaning Ethiopia is a fucking paradise!

[Sir Comradical]

I can find tons of pictures of smiling kids from any part of the globe. This doesn't mean anything.

No but seriously, I don't know why you'd say that it "sucked" though. It provided a decent standard of living, much better than in most of the world. It depends on your point of reference, if you went to the USSR from a poor country (like some of my relatives) you'd think you arrived in the richest place on earth.

[maskerade]

OP, Sheila Fitzpatrick wrote a lot on the USSR and how the Totalitarian model ain't shit. Look into some of her work.

which specific works? I've checked out 'Everyday Stalinism' but it makes no mention of totalitarianism.

[Invader Zim]

No but seriously, I don't know why you'd say that it "sucked" though. It provided a decent standard of living, much better than in most of the world.

Provided you weren't in a slave labour camp.

[Sir Comradical]

Provided you weren't in a slave labour camp.

And Krushchev shut them down.