Stop blaming USSR!

[kami888]

Agrr, it's getting so annoying how so many people blame USSR for all the historical failures of communism.

I might agree that Stalin was harsh and cruel, but he was not the only leader of USSR! How about Lenin and Khrusckev?
I might agree that totalitarian rule is not the original marxian idea, but the political system is not the only thing USSR should be known for. How about social and economic system?

Most of the data that's being provided by the forum members is taken from some bourgeois sources and is way exaggerated.

I think that instead of complaining that USSR was not communist, we should acknowledge that communism has failed in past and must make certain conclusions so it does not happen again.

Anyone with me :mellow: ?

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:04 AM
I think that instead of complaining that USSR was not communist, we should acknowledge that communism has failed in past and must make certain conclusions so it does not happen again.

Great idea... Let's look at what they did in the USSR and do the exact opposite.

[Guerrilla22]

the fact is; the USSR never achieved communism, it was only a socialist state, the same holds true for all over countries that are mislabeled as communist.
socialism failed, not communism.

[Hate Is Art]

Kami, sorry If you think I was solely blaming the CCCP in my previous posts, I was merely taking an objective historical eye to the situation.

And I completly agree, the CCCP had a huge weight on it's shoulder as the first ever Socialist state, it failed yes, it was always doomed to failure (IMO) but we can learn from it's mistakes as we learn from the mistakes of every failed Communist experiment and as a scientist learns from his, rationaly.

We can not get caught up in the former glorys of the CCCP, we have to be objective else we will not learn at all. Preventing a man like Stalin taking control of a Socialist state should be a prime objective of any future socialist revolutions.

[kami888]

I'm just wondering, if the civil war would not force the power to concentrate around the CC_CPSU, would it be somthing of what we are trying to achieve now?



Let's look at what they did in the USSR and do the exact opposite.
If you do the exact opposite you will either end up with capitalism or fascism.

edit: CC_CPSU = central committee of the communist party of the soviet union.
Remember, right after the october revolution, Russia was not totalitarian, the powere belonged to the soviets (local power blocks) which elected representatives in order to deal with more global issues.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:04 AM

I might agree that Stalin was harsh and cruel, but he was not the only leader of USSR! How about Lenin and Khrusckev?

And aside of that, what about all of the people in the government who carried the shit out?

"The worst things happen when good men do nothing." If that even is the real quote.

[kami888]

And aside of that, what about all of the people in the government who carried the shit out?

As you know, when Stalin took power he left only his supporters in the government. The oppositions, and possible oppositions (later reffered as Trotskyists) were either eliminated or sent away, like trotsky himself.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:04 AM
Agrr, it's getting so annoying how so many people blame USSR for all the historical failures of communism.

I might agree that Stalin was harsh and cruel, but he was not the only leader of USSR! How about Lenin and Khrusckev?
I might agree that totalitarian rule is not the original marxian idea, but the political system is not the only thing USSR should be known for. How about social and economic system?

Most of the data that's being provided by the forum members is taken from some bourgeois sources and is way exaggerated.

I think that instead of complaining that USSR was not communist, we should acknowledge that communism has failed in past and must make certain conclusions so it does not happen again.

Anyone with me :mellow: ?
Hello Kami,

The USSR, not just under Stalin but also under Kruschev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, was a totalitarian monstrous repressive regime. It was certainly not socialism as envisaged by Marx, Engels and Lenin!

I invite you to read the following text. It greatly illuminates the problem of what happened in the USSR, and how we can prevent it from happening again!

http://www.trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html

Also you can visit the web site, www.marxist.com. There you get up-to-date Marxist analysis of events.

[kami888]

under Kruschev, Brezhnev
Really? <_<

and Gorbachev
wow&#33; :blink:


It was certainly not socialism as envisaged by Marx, Engels and Lenin&#33;
I know, that&#39;s why i raised a question in one of my previous posts:
Was it possible not to centralize power in the Politburo, and if it was, would it actually be better or not?
Here are my doubts about it:

1. The heavy government opposition and the civil war (accompanied with the foreign invasions) made it very hard for the USSR to keep it&#39;s soviet electorate system.
2. The Soviet electorate system was basically an unusual implementation of representative democracy. But as i described in other thread like this one, representative democracy goes against communism :unsure: . So implementing representative democracy under communism would be another example of half-communism, half-capitalism.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:50 AM
the fact is; the USSR never achieved communism, it was only a socialist state, the same holds true for all over countries that are mislabeled as communist.
socialism failed, not communism.
Communism is a form of socialism, hense the reason that Marx actually called his ideals "scientific socialism". He simply too socialist ideals and principals and placed them into a materialistic context with set stages and sceintific method.

To suggest that socialism failed, is even more of a falicy than suggesting that communism did, it is an oxymoron to suggest that socialism failed but communism did not, as communism is mearly a bramch of socialism.

A basic yet accurate definition of socialism is, "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."

Communism on the other hand is a classless version of socialism where the end result is the eventual elimination of the state apparatus, or anarchism. Yet still a system where the means of production and what remaining political power is owned collectivly by everyone. An advanced socialist system.

[nakba]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 23 2004, 05:28 AM
Great idea... Let&#39;s look at what they did in the USSR and do the exact opposite.
in that case every country in the world would still be a mix of a capitalist with a feudalist state...


long live anti-bolchevism yay&#33;

[cccpcommie]

ok im a true communist, and im not corrupt nor am i american born. ever since i was young i wanted to be in a communist army and let me tell you that back then russia sucked ballz and sed"fuck the tsar" and took what ever seemed better.thats why they are now capitalist

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:38 PM
Communism is a form of socialism, hense the reason that Marx actually called his ideals "scientific socialism". He simply too socialist ideals and principals and placed them into a materialistic context with set stages and sceintific method.

To suggest that socialism failed, is even more of a falicy than suggesting that communism did, it is an oxymoron to suggest that socialism failed but communism did not, as communism is mearly a bramch of socialism.

A basic yet accurate definition of socialism is, "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."

Communism on the other hand is a classless version of socialism where the end result is the eventual elimination of the state apparatus, or anarchism. Yet still a system where the means of production and what remaining political power is owned collectivly by everyone. An advanced socialist system.
They are in fact different, as socailism was described as the first step towards communism, as socialism, a system that involves an organized government, collapsed in the Soviet Union, without communism ever achieved, the socialist system of the USSR failed, not the communist system, which never actually existed in the Soviet Union.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:00 AM
They are in fact different, as socailism was described as the first step towards communism, as socialism, a system that involves an organized government, collapsed in the Soviet Union, without communism ever achieved, the socialist system of the USSR failed, not the communist system, which never actually existed in the Soviet Union.
Yes they are different, Communism is a refined classless verson, with no government.

When refering to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx was refering to a transition period between capitalism and communism, not socialism, or at least not a modern day definition of socialim. His idea was that the state would wither away, and what would remain would be an anarchist clasless society. It is a more modern Leninist principal to label the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialist. Which I suppose is accurate, the dictatorship of the proletariat is an ever changing state, it can not be given a specific ideology, as it is does not remain under a static system, so it can not be labeled, Marxist-Leninism, communism, or anything so specific.

However it is wrong to suggest that the USSR was such a state with a static ideology ideology, the USSR was a Marxist-Leninst state. Marxist Leninsim is of course a socialist ideology which seeks a socialist state, but it cannot be labeled as socialism in the same way as its far more specific than that.

[Guerrilla22]

Okay, good point. So to sum thi whole thing up; the Soviet Union strayed very far from the Marxist-Lenisit ideology on which it was founded on.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:32 AM
Okay, good point. So to sum thi whole thing up; the Soviet Union strayed very far from the Marxist-Lenisit ideology on which it was founded on.
Or maybe they didn&#39;t stray from that road at all? Depends what you believe ^_^

Some day, people will realize the only way forwards is together, not behind some leader.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:32 AM
Okay, good point. So to sum thi whole thing up; the Soviet Union strayed very far from the Marxist-Lenisit ideology on which it was founded on.
As Che y says, that depends on your point of view, I tend to agree, that as an ideology Marxist Leninism is not intrinsically wrong, but it has been abused, which I imagine is your view. However some others would disagree, as Che y pointed out.

[kami888]

Yes they are different, Communism is a refined classless verson, with no government.
So you are saying Marx was anarchist? :D

[Guerrilla22]

Actually, true communism, as defined by Marx is in fact anarchism (society run by the workers, minus a government)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:15 PM
So you are saying Marx was anarchist? :D
Yes, if you actually read any Marxism you will see for your self. The end result of communism is anarchism.

Please go to the "New to it all" forum, and start reading up. There are quite a few threads for this kind of discussion, which I believe that you may benefit from.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:14 AM
Yes, if you actually read any Marxism you will see for your self. The end result of communism is anarchism.


That doesnt make Marx an anarchist.

Marx and the anarchists are both communists, but Marx clearly had a different method then they did, and it was not an anarchist method- clearly- because it involved a state.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:15 AM
That doesnt make Marx an anarchist.

Marx and the anarchists are both communists, but Marx clearly had a different method then they did, and it was not an anarchist method- clearly- because it involved a state.
Near enough, marxism and Anarchism are so deaply entwined that the end result is identical. As you pointed out the differance is how to achieve the end result. Surley the important thing is what is achieved not how you get there?

[Dio]

In the end, anarchy is the result of all government forms. Then comes the change, wether its progressive, or regressive, its all good.


Near enough, marxism and Anarchism are so deaply entwined that the end result is identical.

Thats completley untrue, Marxism and Anarchism are not entwined, where in Marxism the end result should be a utopian state, where in Anarchism the end result is usually warlordism like in Afghanistan right now.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:21 PM
In the end, anarchy is the result of all government forms. Then comes the change, wether its progressive, or regressive, its all good.



Thats completley untrue, Marxism and Anarchism are not entwined, where in Marxism the end result should be a utopian state, where in Anarchism the end result is usually warlordism like in Afghanistan right now.
Thats completley untrue

Nope.

Marxism and Anarchism are not entwined

Your wrong.

where in Marxism the end result should be a utopian state

Marx was a materialist who didn&#39;t believe in utopia&#39;s.

where in Anarchism the end result is usually warlordism like in Afghanistan right now.

Nope, try reading some Anarchist philosphy. Anarchism is completely opposted to the exstance of "Masters" thus a War lord is incompatable with anarchism as a war lord would have authority.


The end result of Marxism is a classless, stateless socialist society.

The end result of Anarchism is a classless, stateless socialist society.

[JohnTheMarxist]

We should learn from Marx and Lenin but we also must think for ourselves in changing modern times. We cannot rigidly follow one set of ideas. The USSR had many achievements and many faults. There are some misconseptions on the period that Stalin was in power too. the USSR was th elast place anyone thought there would be a revolution. It was poor and the classes uneducated. Under Stalin there was a period of counter-revolution. the Kulaks "land owners" were charging outrageous ammounts of money for goods and when the people and government couldnt pay them they starved the cities, they had tobe defeated. Also, a new rich class emerged becaus eth evast majority wa silliterate and uneducated..the capitalist doctors and othe rprofessionals knew this and tried to force th epoeple to pay them huge ammounts of money to perform needed tasks. The USSR wa sinvaded with foreign armies, went through food shortages, had intenral fascists sabotaging things and there wa sa fight between party members..some said the country had to move further left..other ssaid the only way to survive was to open up the countyr to capital to build up the infrastrucutre. Stalin was not some rich guy who stole all the goods..he live din a modest 2 bedroom home. He repealed many of the parties liberal social stances such as homosexual freedom and aboriton freedoms to appease the country folk which is still inexcusable. The whole world wanted this thrid world country to fail, yet it industrialized and became a superpower within 5-10 yrs..the fastest of any nation..ESPECIALLY one as poor as the soviet union. Besides the Kulaks holding back food severe weather and war also played a part in starvation which in turn created disease. Many capitalist countries have fallen to the same problems, and they were much better off than the USSR. Instead of constantly criticizing revolutionary peoples, we should criticize fascist imperialists and greedy capitalists.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:21 PM




Thats completley untrue, Marxism and Anarchism are not entwined, where in Marxism the end result should be a utopian state, where in Anarchism the end result is usually warlordism like in Afghanistan right now.
That is not anarchist ideology however, what you are describing is more like the Nihlist ideology of survival of the fittest and everyone for themselves.

[Salvador Allende]

I&#39;m sorry, but when Koba took over, the USSR was nothing but a giant agricultural state with poverty and illiteracy reigning supreme. by 1936 it was an industrial giant with little poverty and a strong literacy rate, where for the first time in Russian history women had an equal place in the work force and everyone had health care. Koba proceeded to help the rising Marxist movements in East Europe after WWII and by 1953 there were over 900 million more people under Socialism. Khruschev came to power and split the movement which was just recovering from Trotskyist revisionism. By 1966, only 5 leaders had kept their countries in Socialism and out of Khruschevism. Those leaders were, Mao, Hoxha, Ceausescu, Kim Il-Sung and Fidel Castro. By 1990 only 2 of those nations were still Marxist-Leninist thanks to the revisionism taking over in many nations and killing itself. We should not blame the USSR for the revisionist tendancies, rather than the people who promoted and led the revisionists. We should blame Kautsky, Trotsky, Xiaoping and Khruschev for introducing revisionism in it&#39;s main 4 forms.

[YKTMX]

I see the debate hasn&#39;t moved along in this forum anyway. :(

[DaCuBaN]

where in Marxism the end result should be a utopian state, where in Anarchism the end result is usually warlordism like in Afghanistan right now.

I often think the original people who daubed themselves &#39;anarchists&#39; did so just to spite us. It creates so much confusion. Anarchism is a stateless ideology, and this is the only thing it really shares in common with the word Anarchy - that there is no state as such.

It&#39;s quite utopian in that it cannot be enforced as such - you would end up reverting to something resembling feudalism if such methods were attempted. Ergo, it follows that anarchism requires some form of mental evolution - that is all persons must understand their responsibilities to society - before it can become a reality.

In other words, exactly the same as communism. The difference is purely in the methodology. The confusion all sprouts from the hideously restrictive nature of lingual communication, and the fact that those damn anarchists didn&#39;t just &#39;make up&#39; a word to suit the ideology.

*sigh*

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:35 AM
That is not anarchist ideology however, what you are describing is more like the Nihlist ideology of survival of the fittest and everyone for themselves.
I believe what the comrade meant was that tribalism and warlordism are the end result of anarchism in reality. That tribalism and warlordism are not part of the anarchist ethos is plain to see; he was talking about the end result.

And, in the end, that is why I am not an anarchist. There is nothing to stop thugs with Kalashnikovs and family ties (a potent mix, at least in Afghanistan) from taking over and dismantling the free healthcare (and all the rest) of society.

The best resistance an anarchist society would be vigilantes. The best resistance in a socialist society would be the army&#33;

FOOTNOTE: I&#39;m by no means an expert on anarchism. If I have misunderstood the ideology, please enlighten me. I&#39;m not at all hostile to anarchism, I just do not think it is in the best interests of humanity.

[Dio]

Ok... Lets stop with this post-modern thinking here. Instead of saying "youre wrong apperantly, and i am right, because i say i am" lets try and provide some proof for the bullshittery we keep spewing.

I looked up Marxism on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) (Couldn&#39;t read it all because im in a rush) and it said the following.


Some of these ideas were shared by anarchists, though they differed in their beliefs on how to bring about an end to the class society. Socialist thinkers suggested that the working class should take over the existing capitalist state, turning it into a workers revolutionary state, which would put in place the democratic structures necessary, and then "wither away". On the anarchist side people such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin argued that the state per se was the problem, and that destroying it should be the aim of any revolutionary activity.

Many governments, political parties, social movements, and academic theorists have claimed to be founded on Marxist principles. Social democratic movements in 20th century Europe, the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries, Mao and other revolutionaries in agrarian developing countries are particularly important examples. These struggles have added new ideas to Marx and otherwise transmuted Marxism so much that it is difficult to specify its core.

It is usual to speak of Marxian theory when referring to political study that draws of the work of Marx for the analysis and understanding of existing (usually capitalist) economies, but rejects the more speculative predictions that Marx and many of his followers made about post-capitalist societies

The only one to find connections from Marxism/Communism would be an anarchist, i believe. I couldn&#39;t find any anarchist convictions of Marx, so if you could find it you can prove me wrong.

[Lietuva]

The USSR failed and did stray far from its communistic ideals, then again no country in history has ever been truly communistic. I believe it got derailed with Stalin. Then again, communism shouldn&#39;t have started in a country where 99% of the population are agricultural serfs. It should have started somewhere more industrialized.