What type of Communist am I?

[Flavio]

Hey,
I have a question for you guys. I am a recently "converted" communist. I have always agreed with left wing beliefs, but only now I have turned into a communist. But my dilemma is, I don't know specifically which type of communist I am, specifically. So if you guys could post what kinds of communists are there and a brief description, I would appreciate it immensely, honestly.

Thank you

[Marxaveli]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&cat=3

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org

[Azraella]

Edit: oops, sorry. I can describe anarcho-communism later. I must have misread something but my brain is ugh...

[Broletariat]

Yo flavio, don't worry about any tendency bullshit, just take yo time and learn as much as you can before declaring allegiance to any one sectarian side.

[Obs]

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org)
No you can't.

[mrmikhail]

I identify as an anarcho-communist. I have a nearly perfect -10, -10 (I'm a -9.76 economic and a -9.83 on social based on that run through of the test)

I have about the exact same score on political compass, but I identify as a Trotskyist :confused:

but on the OP, in order to find your sect of communism, you should read into the different areas and make your decision based on the views of the different groups compared to your own views, Here (http://www.marxists.org/) is a great resource with every Marxist theorist there is.

[Commissar Rykov]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&cat=3

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org

That test doesn't help with anything. As others have said do a lot of reading and studying don't worry about fitting into a tendency if you eventually do then great but don't worry about it.

[Marxaveli]

No you can't.

Sure you can. Most of us will be -8 to -10 on the economic scale, but we vary greatly on the social scale. I agree about not worrying too much about tendencies though....

[Obs]

Sure you can. Most of us will be -8 to -10 on the economic scale, but we vary greatly on the social scale.
No we don't.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Don't worry about that sort of things
let your views stand for themselves, and let the pundits handle the labeling.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.politicalcompass.org)That test is better for 'Americans who have just begun to learn that there is more to politics than just left & right'. For someone with a more complex view like communism, many of it's questions are irreverent and it even has many factors missing. It also does not point out specific tendencies.

[Black_Rose]

How rare/common are <-8.0 on economics in the United States or in France or Germany?

[Q]

If you are genuinely a communist, then don't be a follower of this or that "great figure", be a leader and think for yourself. As a great left proverb is saying: "if 'great' people appear great, it is because we are on our knees, let us rise!" and that message couldn't be better placed towards the sectarian left, with its bureaucratic sects and memberships that have to act as robots due to the "party line".

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well ask yourself a few questions to find out. Do you believe the working class need a vangaurd to force/lead them to be free(vangaurdist), or that the only way they will be free is if they free themselves(spontaneous-ist or whatever)? Do you believe in a transitory phase between class society and communism of proletacracy(marxist), or that state and property should be dismantled simultaneously (anarchist).If you're delusional enough to believe exclusive national property is any more legitimate then exclusive private property then you are a silly goose.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I am personally a Marxist-Leninist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) (look here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) also). I believe the following:


Socialism In One Country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country)
Anti-Revisionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism)
The Sub-Ideology, Stalinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) *Not all Marxist-Leninists promote this*
The Sub-Ideology, Maoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) *Not all Marxists-Leninists promote this*
I am pro-Cuba, pro-Castro
I personally believe that although the USSR did have many problems, it was still better off than America. Most other M-Ls will agree with me here.

I still recommend that you study other variants of communism as well. It is always a good idea to know the facts from multiple sources & views before you decide.;)

[Jose Gracchus]

^ That's some wild shit right there.

On what basis was it 'better off than America'? I think you'll be hard pressed to find any measure where it was, aside for some social support for some of the poorest and lowest skilled sections of society (i.e., if you compared janitorial workers in Leningrad under Brezhnev to, say, the worst areas of black poverty in the U.S., it might come favorable for them--but Central Asia and many national republics had massive underinvestment, low availability of services and goods, and endemic-though-shrouded underemployment).

For the organized, industrial working class, I find it hard to imagine that for any period of the USSR's history their social security and living standards were better than those of the U.S. It was a much poorer country, and it had a very dysfunctional economic and social system.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.

[Black_Rose]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.

The Soviet economy was under pressure due to low oil prices, an exorbitant and onerous arms race that prevent economy resources from being allocated to consumer goods, and their lack of influence on the world's financial system. It wasn't because of the inane bullshit of socialism's alleged innate inefficiency and byzantine bureaucracy.



I am personally a Marxist-Leninist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) (look here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) also). I believe the following:


Socialism In One Country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country)
Anti-Revisionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism)
The Sub-Ideology, Stalinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) *Not all Marxist-Leninists promote this*
The Sub-Ideology, Maoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) *Not all Marxists-Leninists promote this*
I am pro-Cuba, pro-Castro
I personally believe that although the USSR did have many problems, it was still better off than America. Most other M-Ls will agree with me here.

I still recommend that you study other variants of communism as well. It is always a good idea to know the facts from multiple sources & views before you decide.;)


I agree with "socialism in one country" as a medium-term strategic decision in certain contexts; it is not a teleological prescription for socialism. While the policy of "socialism in one country" temporary postpones the imperative of facilitating revolution in countries that are sympathetic to socialism, it is a necessary phase in the evolution of socialist nation so it could have the capacity to industrialize in order to provide its citizens with consumer goods, so the citizens can experience tangible material benefits of socialism, and fortify a system of national defense to protect itself from minatory imperialist nations. In other words, a socialist country needs to consolidate its power and influence with in its own domain and adjacent countries before precipitating revolution and cooperating with out socialist countries.

[Obs]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.
You're utterly wrong. The USSR was never going to achieve actual socialism in the circumstances within which it was created, and was straight-up capitalist for most of its time in existence. Even recognising this, we can still appreciate and learn from the achievements made in the time that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat (even if you believe this period extended into the Stalin era, my point stands).

[Iron Felix]

Is it not enough to be just a Communist, or is it neccesary to join Lenin's or Stalin's or Mao's or Trotsky's personality cult?

[thefinalmarch]

It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.
Yeah sure man whatever, believe in the "great men" theory of history all you want. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.
hold up, I thought that the party was the class and that the soviet union was a class dictatorship. So if the SU was a dictatorship of the proletariat how can one man have that power. Unless it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship of a few individuals. In that case the SU was never socialist and vanguardism is once again proven to be shit.

[Tim Finnegan]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.
I was under the impression that, for Marx, a given social order could either collapse with the "common ruin of the contending classes", or would be transcended by the revolutionary class who proceeded to form a new social order in their own image. I don't really remember anything about historically regressive transitions at the hands of malicious Great Men. That sounds like something that he would have been altogether sceptical of.

[Jose Gracchus]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.

I would like to be polite. I really would. Although, I get the impression you know you have done no research or reading into the actual words of the USSR's bureaucrats and political leaders. Which means you could not possibly be replying in good faith.

Gorbachev did fail to reform the USSR, and it did break-up. But Gorbachev was put in power by the Soviet ruling class, and he was as a reformer precisely because the USSR was in a major economic crisis and the economy was literally shrinking. Just because Jeffrey Sachs and Yeltsin's wet-dreams added injury to the Soviet people's insult, does not mean that LOL CONTINUE WITH BREZHNEVISM MATES was a real option. The USSR was unable to continue subsidizing their Eastern Bloc satellites, the military was bleeding the budget white, there was escalating and worsening shortages and breakdowns, and oil prices plummeted, depriving them of their single source of foreign hard currency (without which they were falling ever-behind technologically, when the West was undergoing a revolution in computer and information technology). This is all a matter of historical record. More to the point, it was precisely the Soviet ruling class which was most distressed about its crisis, and eagerly abandoned any commitments in pursuit of improving the economic system, with little qualms about increased market mechanisms.

Stalin's forced-draft command system was not a sound basis for scientific economic planning, and was an utter failure. It was even when it was started; assets were destroyed during the First Five Year Plan (Nove, Economic History of the USSR).

But hey, who needs to read books. I should have just NUH UH!

[Rafiq]

No you can't.

I wish I could thank posts on tapatalk!

[Manic Impressive]

I would like to be polite. I really would. Although, I get the impression you know you have done no research or reading into the actual words of the USSR's bureaucrats and political leaders. Which means you could not possibly be replying in good faith.

Gorbachev did fail to reform the USSR, and it did break-up. But Gorbachev was put in power by the Soviet ruling class, and he was as a reformer precisely because the USSR was in a major economic crisis and the economy was literally shrinking. Just because Jeffrey Sachs and Yeltsin's wet-dreams added injury to the Soviet people's insult, does not mean that LOL CONTINUE WITH BREZHNEVISM MATES was a real option. The USSR was unable to continue subsidizing their Eastern Bloc satellites, the military was bleeding the budget white, there was escalating and worsening shortages and breakdowns, and oil prices plummeted, depriving them of their single source of foreign hard currency (without which they were falling ever-behind technologically, when the West was undergoing a revolution in computer and information technology). This is all a matter of historical record. More to the point, it was precisely the Soviet ruling class which was most distressed about its crisis, and eagerly abandoned any commitments in pursuit of improving the economic system, with little qualms about increased market mechanisms.

Stalin's forced-draft command system was not a sound basis for scientific economic planning, and was an utter failure. It was even when it was started; assets were destroyed during the First Five Year Plan (Nove, Economic History of the USSR).

But hey, who needs to read books. I should have just NUH UH!
All fairly irrelevant really seeing as it was state capitalism. It could have built a wonderful planned economy there could have been welfare programs the likes of which the world has never seen. But in the end it's still capitalism.

[Rafiq]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.

Disgusting Idealism.

Gorbachev didn't agree to those reforms for no reason. He had to.

Inb4 liquidate communism quote.

Gorbachev only said that was his goal to get publicity and lick the ass of liberalism, act like he was 'a good guy the whole time'.

[Rafiq]

And some people here are so hypocritical. You laugh at the stupidity of a person saying a great event was caused by one man for no reason yet you blame Stalin for the destruction of the Russian Revolution.

[Black_Rose]

I would like to be polite. I really would. Although, I get the impression you know you have done no research or reading into the actual words of the USSR's bureaucrats and political leaders. Which means you could not possibly be replying in good faith.

Gorbachev did fail to reform the USSR, and it did break-up. But Gorbachev was put in power by the Soviet ruling class, and he was as a reformer precisely because the USSR was in a major economic crisis and the economy was literally shrinking. Just because Jeffrey Sachs and Yeltsin's wet-dreams added injury to the Soviet people's insult, does not mean that LOL CONTINUE WITH BREZHNEVISM MATES was a real option. The USSR was unable to continue subsidizing their Eastern Bloc satellites, the military was bleeding the budget white, there was escalating and worsening shortages and breakdowns, and oil prices plummeted, depriving them of their single source of foreign hard currency (without which they were falling ever-behind technologically, when the West was undergoing a revolution in computer and information technology). This is all a matter of historical record. More to the point, it was precisely the Soviet ruling class which was most distressed about its crisis, and eagerly abandoned any commitments in pursuit of improving the economic system, with little qualms about increased market mechanisms.

Stalin's forced-draft command system was not a sound basis for scientific economic planning, and was an utter failure. It was even when it was started; assets were destroyed during the First Five Year Plan (Nove, Economic History of the USSR).

But hey, who needs to read books. I should have just NUH UH!

I already noted that the USSR was negatively impacted by low oil prices, lack of control of the world's reserve currency, and military expenditures.

Do you have an online resource, written from a revolutionary leftist (but non-sectarian or slightly Marxist-Leninist) perspective about the nature of the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Also, could you please elaborate on the nature of the Eastern satellite subsidies. To me, these subsidies share a geopolitical strategic purpose; it is not just a mere humanitarian gesture - an economically strong socialist nation should economically subsidize a developing socialist country, so the developing can direct its economic efforts into building productive capital and infrastructure so it can be capable of providing for the needs of its citizens and be economically independent and not reliant on Western capital and access to Western markets. In this case, the policy of economic subsidies to developing socialist nations is the antithesis of "socialism in one country". "Socialism in one country" is not a viable foreign policy when belligerent imperialist powers do not adhere to the principles of Westphalian sovereignty by constantly using their military presence to enforce their interests on other nations.

[Black_Rose]

hold up, I thought that the party was the class and that the soviet union was a class dictatorship. So if the SU was a dictatorship of the proletariat how can one man have that power. Unless it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship of a few individuals. In that case the SU was never socialist and vanguardism is once again proven to be shit.

I would prefer if anarchists and Trotskyists refrain from regurgitating the Animal Farm depiction of the Soviet Union.

While it is true that the Soviet nomenklatura enjoyed some privileges that regular workers did not enjoy, the SU was practically economically egalitarian, relative to Western capitalist countries.

In 1967, the decile ratio, the ratio of the average income of the lowest decile to the highest decile was only 4.5, compared to about 15.7 for France and the United States. Even if we assume that first 9 deciles received the same amount of income, the top decile in the Soviet Union receive only a maximum of 33% of the national income.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GtzRWlv6DggC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 28)


All fairly irrelevant really seeing as it was state capitalism. It could have built a wonderful planned economy there could have been welfare programs the likes of which the world has never seen. But in the end it's still capitalism.

Sounds like you just want a larger, more gratuitous welfare state, and you think a bottom-up communist economy is the optimal vehicle for achieving that end. You sound like me while I was a liberal and social democrat a few years ago. Yes, while we should readily acknowledge that the capitalist welfare states, particularly the Scandinavian welfare states, have done a commendable job in protecting its citizens from the travails of capitalism, we should remember why we are revolutionary leftists. We embrace the socialism or communism as a teleological objective (rather than a mere transition state) because we know that we must remove the influence of the bourgeoisie from the realm of politics and economics, depriving them of their power to exploit domestic and foreign workers for their own class benefit and to cajole governments into imperialist military expeditions. The welfare state is certainly not revolutionary and does not accomplish that. Before the welfare state in the Soviet Union could be expanded, the Soviet Union had to support its fellow satellites and defend itself from imperialism.

Helping other socialist nations plays a critical role in the anabolism of socialism (as opposed to the catabolic catharsis of the repression and physical liquidation of reactionaries)

[Lanky Wanker]

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org

Aren't we supposed to say no to the political compass?

[Manic Impressive]

I would prefer if anarchists and Trotskyists refrain from regurgitating the Animal Farm depiction of the Soviet Union.

While it is true that the Soviet nomenklatura enjoyed some privileges that regular workers did not enjoy, the SU was practically economically egalitarian, relative to Western capitalist countries.

In 1967, the decile ratio, the ratio of the average income of the lowest decile to the highest decile was only 4.5, compared to about 15.7 for France and the United States. Even if we assume that first 9 deciles received the same amount of income, the top decile in the Soviet Union receive only a maximum of 33% of the national income.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GtzRWlv6DggC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 28)



Sounds like you just want a larger, more gratuitous welfare state, and you think a bottom-up communist economy is the optimal vehicle for achieving that end. You sound like me while I was a liberal and social democrat a few years ago. Yes, while we should readily acknowledge that the capitalist welfare states, particularly the Scandinavian welfare states, have done a commendable job in protecting its citizens from the travails of capitalism, we should remember why we are revolutionary leftists. We embrace the socialism or communism as a teleological objective (rather than a mere transition state) because we know that we must remove the influence of the bourgeoisie from the realm of politics and economics, depriving them of their power to exploit domestic and foreign workers for their own class benefit and to cajole governments into imperialist military expeditions. The welfare state is certainly not revolutionary and does not accomplish that. Before the welfare state in the Soviet Union could be expanded, the Soviet Union had to support its fellow satellites and defend itself from imperialism.

Helping other socialist nations plays a critical role in the anabolism of socialism (as opposed to the catabolic catharsis of the repression and physical liquidation of reactionaries)
wow way to misinterpret what I said. Perhaps you just see nothing wrong with capitalism, if uncle Vlad and uncle Joe say it's ok and that in fact it is socialism then it must be ok right? What you missed was the bit where I said "it's still capitalism". People can criticize or defend the SU's economy but it doesn't really matter because it's still capitalism. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig and you can put a Red Flag on capitalism but it's still capitalism.

[Jose Gracchus]

I already noted that the USSR was negatively impacted by low oil prices, lack of control of the world's reserve currency, and military expenditures.

Way more than that. There was massive data and plan-fulfillment falsification, endemic by late Brezhnev, abysmal labor productivity, and extremely poor quality control. Economic growth was very depressed, with extensive methods of accumulation having run their course.


Do you have an online resource, written from a revolutionary leftist (but non-sectarian or slightly Marxist-Leninist) perspective about the nature of the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Is there a reason why Alec Nove, Hillel Ticktin, and others are not suitable sources? Do they lie about the primary documents and data?


Also, could you please elaborate on the nature of the Eastern satellite subsidies. To me, these subsidies share a geopolitical strategic purpose; it is not just a mere humanitarian gesture - an economically strong socialist nation should economically subsidize a developing socialist country, so the developing can direct its economic efforts into building productive capital and infrastructure so it can be capable of providing for the needs of its citizens and be economically independent and not reliant on Western capital and access to Western markets.

That is not what occurred. The Stalinists ransacked Eastern Europe of productive industry and even slave labor (why the public subjected to fascist jackboots should endure collective punishments for their bourgeoisie's crimes by those purportedly liberating them from 'exploiters' is left unanswered, naturally). They demanded that Eastern satellites supply labor and raw materials, both directly at low prices (while Soviet goods were sold at inflated prices), and indirectly (via contrivances as jointly-owned firms by the satellite state and the USSR). It was only after the Eastern Bloc proletariat rose up in massive strike waves, political insurrections, and outright armed rebellion (particularly East Germany in 1953, Poland in 1956, and Hungary in 1956) that there was a massive reversal in policy, allowing Eastern Bloc satellite CPs to make naked appeals to nationalism and such to stay in power. In economic policy, they began terminating net transfers to the USSR in favor of net subsidy by the USSR: the USSR was willing to subsidize consumer good production in order to allow their satellite CPs to remain in power, and sustain the Eastern Bloc as a defense-in-depth in strategic terms, and an ideological showcase in political terms.


In this case, the policy of economic subsidies to developing socialist nations is the antithesis of "socialism in one country". "Socialism in one country" is not a viable foreign policy when belligerent imperialist powers do not adhere to the principles of Westphalian sovereignty by constantly using their military presence to enforce their interests on other nations.

In typical Stalinist fashion, you admonish the bourgeoisie to not live up to its own rep (Westphalia? sovereignty? Earth to MLs: Stop trying to fill-in for the long extinct Jacobins of the world. The bourgeois revolution is over.) Who cares?

In any case, it was not any kind of socialism. The subsidizing of the sclerotic Eastern Bloc formations by the USSR was supplemented by Western (including IMF) loans. And given that this program of propping-up the doddering Stalinist apparati was promoted after 1956, this is after they even pretended to continue advancing toward 'socialism'. Why, "People's" Poland even decollectivized the agricultural sector, and basically gave kulaks their land back.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You have to read. Read up on Marx, read up on Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci, etc.

You can find them here:

marxists.org

[NewLeft]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&cat=3

You can also get a feeling for where you stand by taking this test: www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org)

According to the compass, I'm -10,-10? How! I'm authoritarian as fuck.

[Jose Gracchus]

While it is true that the Soviet nomenklatura enjoyed some privileges that regular workers did not enjoy, the SU was practically economically egalitarian, relative to Western capitalist countries.

In 1967, the decile ratio, the ratio of the average income of the lowest decile to the highest decile was only 4.5, compared to about 15.7 for France and the United States. Even if we assume that first 9 deciles received the same amount of income, the top decile in the Soviet Union receive only a maximum of 33% of the national income.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GtzRWlv6DggC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 28)

Wages are highly misleading in the USSR since (for a bunch of contingent reasons we won't go into right now) money did not play the same or as strong a role in the generalized commodity production of the USSR as it did in Western capitalist states. Most workers in the USSR had large savings, but had to wait in line to get many commodities, or had to resort to the black market or barter/blat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blat_(term)). You had a lot of money, but had to wait years to get the car.

Likewise, the Soviet upper class's economic and social power was manifested not primarily in very high salaries, which were useless for acquiring capital or even consumer goods as compared to the West. Instead, by virtue of their membership socially in the nomenklatura, they had access to major officials and office-holders, as well as specialist labor, to say nothing of abusing the office one acquires within the nomenklatura or the lesser apparatchikki itself. Besides these basically endemic forms of corruption and insider-dom, which in fact was integrally necessary of the Soviet economy and social formation, the nomenklatura had access to special shops with quality and foriegn consumer goods, as well as access to imports more generally, as well as hard currency.

Then of course there was the official perks and benefits of office, such as a dacha, chauffeured transportation in fine vehicles, access to party motor pools, party retreats, and all the special access to improved education and services for their children, who would follow their parents into the class.

[Rafiq]

Utopianism exists for both dreaming of the future... AND of dreaming of the past.

they are equally Utopian and counterrevolutionary.

[Thirsty Crow]

@americancommunist: I don't think it's correct to claim all the evidence tio the contarry that the econimic system of the former USSR wasn't dysfunctional. Alongside Nove and Ticktin, alreay mentioned by Jose G., I'd advise you to take a look at the following article:

http://libcom.org/history/labor-discipline-decline-soviet-system-don-filtzer

[Franz Fanonipants]

read Marx, don't worry about "types" of communist.

i'm technically an "authoritarian" communist, but i came to that conclusion by reading Marx. you'll end up where you will.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The USSR's economic system wasn't dysfunctional. It only collapsed because that anti-communist Gorbachev idiot purposely crashed it.
Believing that an entire class dynamic collapsed because one man wanted it to is anti-marxist. Society evolves through conflict between different contrasting elements, parastic and productive class, governor and governed, nation and nation. Society is not the way it is just because certain men want it to be that way, not to say some people aren't far more powerful than most.
Lenninism understands the class dynamics of capitalist society, but not much else at all, it seems.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I did some reading on the history of the USSR. I was totally wrong. End of discussion on my part.

[Black_Rose]

Jose,

I understand your use of a rebuking tone in your remarks. I will say I never was an obtuse apologist of the Soviet Union, nor was it my intention to suggest its foreign policy was done out of benevolence, and most of the material I read my M-Ls suggest that it collapse large because of US imperialism.

The reason why I felt compelled to defend the Soviet Union from criticism (and a factor in why I am an M-L) because I thought that acknowledging that the Soviet System (or any another other M-L economy) was inherently corrupt, inefficiency, or ineffective means surrendering the a viable alternative to capitalism. I believe that many leftists are liberals because they thought practical socialism has failed due to innate flaws as opposed to exogenous pressure, and by defending some aspects of the Soviet System, socialism would be salvaged.

I will read "Theories of Disintegration of the USSR" by Hillel Ticktin in order to fill the lacunae in my mind regard the collapse of the USSR.