opinions on warsaw pact

[Fury]

What do you think about the UdSSR and DDR (warsaw pact in general)? Are here any who support their evolution?

[Bostana]

A Stalinist response to NATO

[TheEmancipator]

A Bolshevist bourgeois Russian nationalist policy that had little interest in protecting the working class interests.

I still find it amusing some people think the Cold War was some kind of representation of class war or even a war of ideals. It was the two "victors" of WW2 (ie the bourgeois nationalist pen pushers) battling it out for geopolitical gaain in the world, only their battleground was the third world.

[Brutus]

A Stalinist response to NATO

In Warsaw pact each nation specialised in one area (corn, commodities, etcetera), so all the members would have better standards of living.

For the defence side, Botsana is correct.

[Brutus]

A Bolshevist bourgeois Russian nationalist policy that had little interest in protecting the working class interests.

it was not Bolshevist.
As a side note, the USSR always traded at a deficit with the other countries. It was just a state capitalist trade agreement "that had little interest in protecting the working class interests"

[TheEmancipator]

it was not Bolshevist.
As a side note, the USSR always traded at a deficit with the other countries. It was just a state capitalist trade agreement "that had little interest in protecting the working class interests"

I included Bolshevist because I think since the moment the Bolsheviks took over it became a bourgeois nationalist state instead of a socialist one (whether or not that was necessary is questionable). I like orthodox Bolsheviks, Lenin's early works, even some Trotskyists, but they must claim responsibility for the results.

[billydan]

all the countries in the warsaw pact were corrupt dictatorships. Not real socialism/communism.

[Old Bolshie]

What do you think about the UdSSR and DDR (warsaw pact in general)? Are here any who support their evolution?

Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist experiences which proved that is impossible to reach socialism in one country.


A Stalinist response to NATO

I would say a response from Soviet imperialism to American imperialism.


I included Bolshevist because I think since the moment the Bolsheviks took over it became a bourgeois nationalist state instead of a socialist one (whether or not that was necessary is questionable). I like orthodox Bolsheviks, Lenin's early works, even some Trotskyists, but they must claim responsibility for the results.

I agree with the bourgeois characterization in the sense that Lenin himself defined state bureaucracy as a bourgeois growth and even admitted the bourgeois nature of the state that he wasn't able to smash as it was the Bolshevik aim in 1917:

"There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed until we could say, that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

I just don't see how it was nationalistic before bureaucracy fully took over the state. During the first half of the 20's the minorities enjoyed the freest period of Russian History and the old nationalistic elements(Orthodox Church for instance) faced more repression than ever.

[TheEmancipator]

I agree with the bourgeois characterization in the sense that Lenin himself defined state bureaucracy as a bourgeois growth and even admitted the bourgeois nature of the state that he wasn't able to smash as it was the Bolshevik aim in 1917:

"There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed until we could say, that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

I just don't see how it was nationalistic before bureaucracy fully took over the state. During the first half of the 20's the minorities enjoyed the freest period of Russian History and the old nationalistic elements(Orthodox Church for instance) faced more repression than ever.

Because it pursued nationalist interests instead of socialist ones. The Warsaw Pact was essentially a subjugation of other nations by Russian nationalists in Moscow. Even before that, the non-agression pact demonstrates how little interests the bourgeois russian nationalist vanguard had in liberating Europe from nationalist rule. Instead they preferred to invade their old enemy Poland.

[Old Bolshie]

Because it pursued nationalist interests instead of socialist ones. The Warsaw Pact was essentially a subjugation of other nations by Russian nationalists in Moscow. Even before that, the non-agression pact demonstrates how little interests the bourgeois russian nationalist vanguard had in liberating Europe from nationalist rule. Instead they preferred to invade their old enemy Poland.

You didn't understand my comment. I said "before bureaucracy fully took over the state." which means late 20's with Stalin's ascension. From then onwards USSR got pretty nationalistic as I already stated many times in this forum and if you look at my response to Bostana I even considered the Warsaw Pact "a response from soviet imperialism".

[TheEmancipator]

You didn't understand my comment. I said "before bureaucracy fully took over the state." which means late 20's with Stalin's ascension. From then onwards USSR got pretty nationalistic as I already stated many times in this forum and if you look at my response to Bostana I even considered the Warsaw Pact "a response from soviet imperialism".

OK sorry, yes you are right, yet Lenin's policies still were oriented to the strengthening of Russia and not to the spread of the revolution world wide. Then again he probably didn't have a choice.

[Old Bolshie]

OK sorry, yes you are right, yet Lenin's policies still were oriented to the strengthening of Russia and not to the spread of the revolution world wide. Then again he probably didn't have a choice.

Considering Lenin's strong commitment to the III International (or Comintern) I would say that Lenin's policy was still more oriented to spread the revolution than to the strengthening of Russia. Lenin himself admitted that if the revolution didn't spread they were doomed.

Indeed, the strengthening of Russia as a stronghold of the world proletariat became the goal of soviet policy once "Socialism in One country" was adopted as state doctrine and the Comintern lost all the influence it had before.