USSR

[PinkoCommieScum]

I've seen a lot of people here saying that the USSR was the most democratic place in the world from 1917-1923 and big steps were taken towards Communism. Could anyone explain this in a more detailed manner or give me a link where I can read up on it?

[LSD]

I've seen a lot of people here saying that the USSR was the most democratic place in the world from 1917-1923

Anyone who says such a thing is ignorant of history.

the period you're refering to includes a massive civil war and the effective reintroduction of capitalism, not that it had ever really been eliminated. "War Communism" was nothing near democracy and hardly communist.

After 1921, Lenin's NEP was just plain repackaged capitalism.


Sorry, the USSR was never communist and never democratic.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 01:09 AM

I've seen a lot of people here saying that the USSR was the most democratic place in the world from 1917-1923

Anyone who says such a thing is ignorant of history.

the period you're refering to includes a massive civil war and the effective reintroduction of capitalism, not that it had ever really been eliminated. "War Communism" was nothing near democracy and hardly communist.

After 1921, Lenin's NEP was just plain repackaged capitalism.


Sorry, the USSR was never communist and never democratic.
they say they were communist, and to a point they were, but true communism has never been formed there or anywhere

[1949]

I don't remember anyone saying that the Soviet Union during Lenin's lifetime was a communist society. The leadership was made of communists, because they were people whose final goal was communism, but the society that existed in the Soviet Union was a socialist society. Although, to be fair, Stalin, in the late 1930's, began to hold the mistaken idea that antagonistic classes had been abolished from the Soviet Union and that they were moving from "socialism in one country" (which was possible, and existed in the Soviet Union (1917-1956) as well as the People's Republic of China (1949-1976)) to "communism in one country" (which was and is impossible). This is talked about a little bit in this thread: Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1091569000)

[Guest1]

"Communism in one country" is not possible for the simple reason that no industrialized nation could ever be entirely self-sustainable.

Communism is international in nature for a reason.

[1949]

I agree, CyM, which is why I said in my previous post that Stalin's idea was mistaken.

Didn't Marx and Engels believe in the possibility of "communism in one country", though? There is a paragraph from Engels's introduction to The Civil War In France which suggests that they might have:

"By 1871, large-scale industry had already so much ceased to be an exceptional case even in Paris, the centre of artistic handicrafts, that by far the most important decree of the Commune instituted an organization of large-scale industry and even of manufacture which was not only to be based on the association of the workers in each factory, but also to combine all these associations in one great union; in short, an organization which, as Marx quite rightly says in The Civil War, must necessarily have led in the end to Communism, that is to say, the direct opposite of the Proudhon doctrine. And, therefore, the Commune was also the grave of the Proudhon school of Socialism. Today this school has vanished from French working-class circles; here, among the Possibilist[16] no less than among the "Marxists," Marx's theory now rules unchallenged. Only among the "radical" bourgeoisie are there still Proudhonists." (emphasis added)

[Guest1]

In 1871, an industrialized nation was entirely different than what we consider industrialized today.

Marx and Engles did predict the internationalization of human society and the means of production, but no where near to the extent it has been internationalized today. They couldn't have, considering the nature of the advancements we have witnessed.

We can certainly implement vast changes in the organization of the means of productiont hat have characteristics of Communism, far beyond what Mao and Stalin claimed our limits were, but Communism itself can only really be established by internationalizing the struggle. In an advanced Capitalist country, the power of the working class after seizing control of the means of production must, and will, be directed towards supporting the radicalization of workers in neighbouring countries.

[YKTMX]

must, and will, be directed towards supporting the radicalization of workers in neighbouring countries

Interesting. In what form will this be?

[Guest1]

Building links with unions and radical organizations is a top priority of course. I personally like the idea of building an international, in a federal delegated structure, that is meant not to indoctrinate, but to build and connect between organizations on the ground. Workers after the revolution can share their experiences, what worked, what didn't, with those struggling with their own proletarian movement.

Material support will also be very important, though not in the form of monetary support. Rather, it should take the form of workers after revolution being directly involved in supporting workers' movements. How depends on the specific workers and what they as a group wish to do.

Workers involved in the computer industry for example, could communicate with those organizations and host their websites for free, thereby eliminating one expense and worry. Workers involved in printing, could offer their services in producing pamphlets and flyers (though this of course would be more difficult to coordinate depending on distance).

In a more theoretically radical situation, Workers involved in steel mills could perhaps support automobile workers' factory occupations by ensuring they aren't cut off by the bosses.

[YKTMX]

Sounds lovely.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 01:09 AM

Sorry, the USSR was never communist and never democratic.
No-one ever said it was communist!

But it was democratic....it's called socialist democracy!

[LSD]

But it was democratic....it's called socialist democracy!

I'm sorry ...are you claiming that the USSR was a social democracy?

...you'll have to explain that one! :lol:

[Salvador Allende]

I think the USSR was quite democratically run at least until Khruschev. There were serious errors that took place in the Socialist USSR that led to the reintroduction of capitalism under Khruschev, however, until 1956 they were still Socialist and exploitation of the proletariat had left society. The major errors were mainly because it was the first time Socialism was really being built and no one really knew how to achieve a further stage of it. Also, a popular theory was that no matter what happened society always moved forward and thus no matter what happened Capitalism could not come back.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2004, 02:13 AM

But it was democratic....it's called socialist democracy!

I'm sorry ...are you claiming that the USSR was a social democracy?

...you'll have to explain that one! :lol:
I believe he said socialist democracy.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2004, 01:13 AM

I'm sorry ...are you claiming that the USSR was a social democracy?

...you'll have to explain that one! :lol:
I said SOCIALIST democracy, that is: the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a basic part of Marxist theory of the state!!!! The word "dictatorship" has a concrete meaning in that context.' it is a mechanism for the disarmament and expropriation of the bourgeois class and the exercise of state power by the working class, a mechanism to prevent any reestablishment of private property in the means of production and thus any reintroduction of the exploitation of wage-earners by capitalists. But it in no way means dictatorial rule over the vast majority of people. The founding congress of the Communist International stated explicitly that "proletarian dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., an insignificant minority of the population, the landowners and capitalists. It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such a change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism-the toiling classes. . . . all this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics." ("Thesis and Reports on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," Lenin, Collected Works, vol.28, pp.464.465)

Did i explain it to you well enough? <_< :marx:

[LSD]

I&#39;m sorry, but the USSR was hardly democratic under Lenin, let alone under Stalin. What you&#39;re calling "socialist democracy" seems a hell of a lot like authoritarianism.

Stalin was never democratically empowered, nor democratically responsbey, no matter how you define democracy&#33; As long as your definition mentions something about popular interests, then the idea of a "democratic USSR" falls flat on its face.

The USSR was a failed eperiment in decidedly authoritarian communism. Lenin was an admitted authoritarian, Stalin&#39;s style of governing is certainly not in doubt.

PinkoCommieScum&#39;s question was specifically about the USSR between 1917 and 1923. I&#39;m not sure why 1923, maybe because Lenin retired in that year(?), but, regardless, that period was no more "socialist democratic" than any other.

A true democratic communist society has not yet been achieved in any lasting manner, that certainly doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be done, but it does mean that we must strive towards it specifically, which requires that we shed ourselves of any nostalgia or apologetics towards a country that merely called itself communist but never was.

The USSR was not communist and was not democratic.

Good riddance.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Are you a revisionist? Or just plain Supid?

The USSR NEVER said it was Communist, they NEVER reached that stage&#33;&#33;&#33; The the USSR was a SOCIALIST country&#33; They said so themsleves. Thats why it was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

I suggest you read up Marxist theory a bit more...you seem to be very unenlightened about the difference between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM and you also seem completely FUCKED UP about the meaning of SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY...did you not read my last post? or were you too stupid to understand it? :angry:

[LSD]

The USSR NEVER said it was Communist, they NEVER reached that stage&#33;&#33;&#33; The the USSR was a SOCIALIST country&#33; They said so themsleves. Thats why it was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

The USSR was ruled by the communist party and claimed to be espousing communism. Yes they asserted that they were at the socialist stage but certainly always contended that they were ideologically communist.

I disagree with that contention.

I don&#39;t think the USSR was communist, I don&#39;t think they were approaching communist, I don&#39;t think they were a "stage" before communism.

The USSR was authoritarian state-capitalist with elements of state-socialism and commanded markets. Sure they called themselves socialist, so did the NSDAP.

So what?


I suggest you read up Marxist theory a bit more...you seem to be very unenlightened about the difference between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM

:lol:

Believe it or not political theories do evolve over a century and a half.

If we learn one thing from the failure of the USSR it is that authoritarian communism doesn&#39;t work.

The "socialist stage", the "withering of the state", the "dictatorship of the proletariat": 19th century ideas that have been decidedly debunked.


and you also seem completely FUCKED UP about the meaning of SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY..

Well, that may be because the defintion you provided was so vague.

But regardless, the question isn&#39;t what "socialist democracy" is, the question is was the USSR democratic?, and if you claim that it was you must provide comcrete examples of democracy at work, not mere theoretical claims of "socialist democracy".

Tell me, who ran against Stalin in the elections of 1950... how many votes did they get.

How many citizen&#39;s intitatives were approved?
How many leaders were democratically recalled?
How many people actually had any influence in government?

Democracy at work?


Are you a revisionist? Or just plain Supid?

you seem to be very unenlightened

you also seem completely FUCKED UP

did you not read my last post? or were you too stupid to understand it?

I love you too. :wub:

[Salvador Allende]

31 million people debated in public forums about how to do the 1936 constitution. That is pretty democratic sounding to me. The USSR was quite democratic until the capitalist restoration under Khruschev.

[LSD]

Ah yes, the 1936 constitution, also known as the "Stalin Consitution"

While nominally an excellent piece of legislation, the government hardly ever read it let alone followed its dictates. It certainly didn&#39;t stop Stalin from continuing his purges, nor from maintaining his vast secret police network. It confirmed the power of the presidium and maintainted a one-party state, effectively eminating any possibility of true democratic dessent.

The 1936 constitution was nothing but an attempt to appear more "friendly" to the west to gain their support against Germany, nothing more.

[Salvador Allende]

The people held power in the Stalin-era like they never had before anywhere in the world for a decent period of time. It is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the party is merely there to be a structural organization to protect this dictatorship. While the modern Socialist states all have multiple parties (Cuba has 5 parties and the DPRK has 3) the USSR was fully democratic until 1956 with only 1.

[LSD]

The people held power in the Stalin-era like they never had before anywhere in the world for a decent period of time. It is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the party is merely there to be a structural organization to protect this dictatorship. While the modern Socialist states all have multiple parties (Cuba has 5 parties and the DPRK has 3) the USSR was fully democratic until 1956 with only 1.

:lol:

What, because you say so?

Provide examples&#33; More importantly, disprove the rather glarring evidence to the contrary. Like, say, Stalin&#39;s iron grip on power for nearly thirty yearsor the purges of the thirties, or the secret police, or the suppresion of free speech, or the suppression of science...

The USSR under Stalin is a classic example of an authoritarian state.

[Salvador Allende]

Stalin was only General Secretary, a relatively unimportant position. Molotov and Kalinin both held higher posts as did most everyone in the Congress of Soviets. If you actually look at how the USSR was organized by Lenin you can clearly see that. The purges were nothing more than the removal of Kulaks to send them to Siberia to work on projects or be put into labour camps. Or maybe you mean the Moscow Trials which found Zinoviev and Kamenev guilty of treason and the assassination of Sergei Kirov. Another View on Stalin gives a slightly bourgeois but still pretty unbiased look at that era and of Stalin himself.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 27 2004, 11:25 AM
Thats why it was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

It&#39;s kind of a funny name if you think about it. It wasn&#39;t really united, so there was no union there. The Soviets had no power, so there was nothing Soviet about it. It was actually State Capitalism, and not socialist at all. And, it was a centralized state, not really a republic. Not a very fitting name at all :D

[Dio]

Sure the Soviet Union had "trappings" of communism, and socialism (the nomenclature is irrelevant, so stop arguing about what it was) But you cant put a democratic sticker on USSR anyday.

[chebol]

Cuba only has ONE political party- the Cuban Communist Party. Any other "Cuban party" is an illegal (if functioning in Cuba) or foreign dissident group, existing with ongoing US financial support. Many of these groups are in fact little more than front groups for terrorist organisations.

[LSD]

Stalin was only General Secretary, a relatively unimportant position. Molotov and Kalinin both held higher posts as did most everyone in the Congress of Soviets.

uh huh....

riiiiight.....but then what was with all those enormous pictures of Comrade "unimportant position". Stalin. You know, the "father"?

Sorry, but Stalin was far more than a petty bureaucrat.


f you actually look at how the USSR was organized by Lenin you can clearly see that

Lenin, oh yes, another fierce democrat&#33; :lol: :rolleyes:


The purges were nothing more than the removal of Kulaks to send them to Siberia to work on projects or be put into labour camps. Or maybe you mean the Moscow Trials which found Zinoviev and Kamenev guilty of treason and the assassination of Sergei Kirov.

Or how about Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda, Krestinsky, Rakovsky, Radek, not to mention Mikhail Tukhachevsky.

Over a hundred "party members" were killed, and thats just among the rulling class.

You already mentioned the Kulaks (I&#39;m still waiting for an explanation for how that was "democratic), but how about the Red Army? Fifty percent or Red Army officers were killed by Stalin&#33;&#33; Fifty percent in cold blood. Ninety percent of all regiment commanders&#33;&#33;

Yezhov, and later Beria, would "reform" the NKVD and murder tens of thousands. Millions more were sent to those "labour" camps you mentioned.

And, finally, what about Stalin&#39;s "russification"? His attempt to create an "ethnically unified" USSR?

None of this was "democratic", none of it was communist.

[Salvador Allende]

Actually, only about 56 people were executed as part of the trials, I don&#39;t see how you could bring it to 100 without some far rounding. And yes, Stalin did do many good things because the economic ideas were his and thus he does get a place in history as a great man, also his commanding of the Red Army in World War II was superb and let to a victory. But I guess it is very easy to criticize considering you have done so much good. I never claimed any of it was Communist, Communism is not Socialism, but I can see shoving words in my mouth can be very useful in internet debates. The NKVD leader before Beria was executed for treason because he used the camps to send his enemies to. Beria himself was headed down the same route and would have suffered the same fate had he not poisoned Stalin.

To Chebol, Cuba has multiple parties incase you didn&#39;t realize that. Many people assume and think they only have one party because many other Socialist or fake-Socialist nations only had 1, but if you look into it there are about 5-6 parties including the Communist Party.

You people still have said nothing truly credible and as far as I can tell have not made an effort to read Another View or any other credible sources by people who lived there in that time.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Are you saying Stalin was poisoned?


Do you know the names of these Cuban parties?

Is this the book you talk about?


http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[chebol]

Salvador Allende, let me state again, UNEQUIVOCALLY, there is only ONE legaly registered political party in Cuba, and that is the Communist Party (which does not run in elections).
I challenge you to name any other legal party extant in Cuba, and explain it&#39;s functioning.

[LSD]

And yes, Stalin did do many good things because the economic ideas were his and thus he does get a place in history as a great man, also his commanding of the Red Army in World War II was superb and let to a victory.

Actually, I would contend that the Red Army won WWII in spite of Stalin not because of him. Whenever he directly attempted to command, it almost always turned out bady. Stalin&#39;s best command decision was leaving the army to run itself, something that Hitler never managed to learn.

But I notice you didn&#39;t address what Stalin did to the Red Army before the War. I&#39;ll remind you: "Fifty percent or Red Army officers were killed by Stalin&#33;&#33; Fifty percent in cold blood. Ninety percent of all regiment commanders&#33;&#33;"

You also didn&#39;t address the Kulaks or Stalin&#39;s ethnic policies.


The NKVD leader before Beria was executed for treason because he used the camps to send his enemies to. Beria himself was headed down the same route and would have suffered the same fate had he not poisoned Stalin.

Beria was a disgusting piece of shit.

As for "poisoning Stalin", I&#39;m afraid that when you make claims like that you need this thing called proof. You see, simply saying it doesn&#39;t make it true.

Stalin knew what Beria was doing: his corruption, his murders, his rapes..., but did nothing. What&#39;s eating you is that this flies in the face of your "noble comrade" image. I guess thinking that Stalin was going to arrest Beria, but was killed before he could, makes it easier. But the evidence doesn&#39;t support it.


Actually, only about 56 people were executed as part of the trials, I don&#39;t see how you could bring it to 100 without some far rounding.

You&#39;re only including high level officials, not their families as well as lower-level members.


But I guess it is very easy to criticize considering you have done so much good.

Ooh, tsk. tsk. I&#39;m hurt. :D

Honestly, this from a man who claims that Stalin&#39;s position was "relatively unimportant"&#33;

I notice you haven&#39;t brought that up again&#33; :lol:

[chebol]

And let me add, I am not criticising Cuba for only having one political party. The Communist Party does not openly run in elections (and other parties certainly do not run either, as if this were a country which expressed itself through the vehicles of bourgeois democracy), as elections are centred around the delegation of local or industrial representatives to the assembly. These individuals are recallable, and need not be in the party (but often are).

If you are refering to groups such as the CANF, Concertación Democrática Cubana (CDC), Cuban Democratic Platform, Partido Cubano Ortodox, Partido Liberal Democrático de Cuba, Partido pro-Derechos Humanos, Partido Social Revolucionario Democrático de Cuba, Partido Solidaridad Democrática (PSD), Solidaridad Cubana, etc; these are not legal parties, but are foreign based fronts for the creation of dissent, terrorism and a return to capitalism in Cuba.

I suggest you do your research first, before asserting falsities.

[Salvador Allende]

Actually, I have addressed the Kulak issue. They were rich land owners who refused to give up the land to the peasants that worked on them and thus were punished. According to the memoirs of Zhukov in Moscow Stalin took personal command of the Red Army and because of this they stopped the Germans before they reached Moscow. As for the poisoning I can see you are not well read, recently a group from Russia and the USA proposed the theory that he was poisoned with warfarin. it is flavorless and causes strokes and hemorrhages. Also, in Molotov&#39;s memoirs he mentions that Beria would frequently boast that he had poisoned Stalin and warfarin was a favourite assassination tool of the NKVD.

Stalin did only hold minor posts until 1941 holding the title of General Secretary which was a very unimportant post. The titles of President and Premier belonged to Kalinin and Molotov until 1941 when Stalin was elected Premier. All of his accomplishments until then had simply been his massive effort in the economy. I notice how you still seem to ignore facts and prove you have a lack of reading outside of bourgeois sources on their Socialist era.

[chebol]

Just as an aside, would those who are currently criticising Soviet democracy like to give examples of where they think *real* democracy is or has been- just to give us a frame of reference for when you&#39;re criticising the lack of it in post-revolutionary Russia? And, while you&#39;re at it, could you give an indication of what you think *democracy* is? It&#39;s all too easy to be critical of Stalin and his crimes, but noone is really addressing the issue of democratic control within the Soviet Union.

[LSD]

Stalin did only hold minor posts until 1941 holding the title of General Secretary which was a very unimportant post. The titles of President and Premier belonged to Kalinin and Molotov until 1941 when Stalin was elected Premier.

Titles and "positions" are meaningless. Augustus fassioned himself "first citizen", so what? Augustus was Roman Emperor and Stalin was Soviet dictator.


As for the poisoning I can see you are not well read, recently a group from Russia and the USA proposed the theory that he was poisoned with warfarin. it is flavorless and causes strokes and hemorrhages. Also, in Molotov&#39;s memoirs he mentions that Beria would frequently boast that he had poisoned Stalin and warfarin was a favourite assassination tool of the NKVD.

That is a theory based on inconclusive evidence and hypothesis. You cannot declare it to be fact.

Most historians still believe Stalin died of natural causes, and until more evidence is presented, that is how it will remain.


According to the memoirs of Zhukov in Moscow Stalin took personal command of the Red Army and because of this they stopped the Germans before they reached Moscow.

hmmm.. again you avoid discussing Stalin&#39;s "purges" of the Red Army.


I notice how you still seem to ignore facts and prove you have a lack of reading outside of bourgeois sources on their Socialist era.

Yes, and I notice that you avoid the very simple issue of Societ Democracy which is what this entire thread is about.

Even if Stalin was a "great man" (which he certainly was not), he was not democratically responsible.

The Soviet Union was never a democratic nation.


It&#39;s all too easy to be critical of Stalin and his crimes, but noone is really addressing the issue of democratic control within the Soviet Union.

"democratic control within the Soviet Union"

That is a rather simple topic, there was none.


And, while you&#39;re at it, could you give an indication of what you think *democracy* is?

Democracy, very briefly, is the ability of all members of society to participate equally in management and governance of that society.


Just as an aside, would those who are currently criticising Soviet democracy like to give examples of where they think *real* democracy is or has been- just to give us a frame of reference for when you&#39;re criticising the lack of it in post-revolutionary Russia?

I think pre-Cleonic Athens was a good example. I think the Paris commune of 1871 was a better one, albeit a short-lived one. Anarchist Civil War Spain is another limited but worthy example.

I don&#39;t think there have been any truly long-lasting modern democracies.

But, I do think that there have been many countries that have been more democratic than the USSR&#33;

While no capitalist country can be democratic because of the innately authoritarian nature of capitalism, I believe that most western countries today are more democratic than the USSR ever was&#33;

[Salvador Allende]

Wow, so you&#39;re saying a bourgeois republic is more democratic than Socialism?&#33; That tells a lot, thank you.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

He didn&#39;t say that. Don&#39;t dodge.

He said

I believe that most western countries today are more democratic than the USSR ever was&#33;

Note the word USSR instead of socialism.

[LSD]

Wow, so you&#39;re saying a bourgeois republic is more democratic than Socialism?&#33;

Come on, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re above that.

I believe that a "bougeois republic" is more democratic than the USSR, not socialism:

"no capitalist country can be democratic because of the innately authoritarian nature of capitalism"

Socialism is not synonymous with the USSR&#33; In fact, quite the opposite.


That tells a lot, thank you.

What it says about you is that you&#39;re incapable of refuting the actual points I made&#33;

Do you believe that the USSR was more demoratic than a "bourgeois republic"?

If so provide proof&#33;

You claimed that Stalin was "relatively unimportant".. provide proof&#33;

You claim there was "democratic control within the Soviet Union".. provide proof&#33;


Attacking me as "bouregois" or "reactionary" is easy, and it says a great deal more about the credibility of your argument than it does about that of mine.

[Imyr]

I believe that a "bougeois republic" is more democratic than the USSR

Proof?


Socialism is not synonymous with the USSR&#33; In fact, quite the opposite.

Explain.


Do you believe that the USSR was more demoratic than a "bourgeois republic"?


I do.


If so provide proof&#33;

The CCCP was run by committees, or soviets, not demi-god dictators. The mere idea of one man ruling an entire modern nation is ridiculous&#33; When Hitler attempted dictatorship it ruined Germany. It would be impossible for one man to yield such immense power. That is my proof.


You claimed that Stalin was "relatively unimportant".. provide proof&#33;

Stalin was the "general secretary". What a glorious position&#33; For each poster of Stalin, there were a thousand more with either Marx, Engels, or Lenin. Many posters did not even depict any particular person, but rather glorified the Soviet worker. Stalin was a single man, with faults and flaws as any man. He was not a supreme dictator.

[LSD]

Explain.

Socialism is a political theory.

The USSR was a country.

Hence socialism and the USSR are not synoymous.


Stalin was the "general secretary". What a glorious position&#33; For each poster of Stalin, there were a thousand more with either Marx, Engels, or Lenin. Many posters did not even depict any particular person, but rather glorified the Soviet worker.

hmm... so posters of Stalin along side those of Lenin (founder of the country), Marx and Engles (Authors of the ideology)... no, I guess Stalin wasn&#39;t important at all&#33; :lol:

Of course there were posters other than those of Stalin, but the very fact that there were posters of Stalin, and so many of them, demonstrates his importance.

Notice that when soviet troops invaded Finland, it wasn&#39;t posters of the "worker" they carried, it was posters of "papa" Stalin.


Stalin was a single man, with faults and flaws as any man. He was not a supreme dictator.

He was indeed a single man, and he did indeed have faults and flaws&#33; How this proves he was not a dictator, I don&#39;t know&#33; :P

The reasons he was a dictator have nothing to do with whether he had "flaws" or not, they have to do with his dictatorial powers.




The CCCP was run by committees, or soviets, not demi-god dictators. The mere idea of one man ruling an entire modern nation is ridiculous&#33; When Hitler attempted dictatorship it ruined Germany. It would be impossible for one man to yield such immense power. That is my proof.

Absolute tripe&#33;

The historical ignorance that comment shows is astounding&#33; German was never more powerful than when Hitler ruled&#33; In ten years he took it from impoverished subserviant dependency to master of Europe&#33;

Look at what Napolean did&#33; Look at what Bismarck did&#33;

Besides which, there are plenty of examples of modern dictatorships; the idea that it is "impossible" is laughable&#33;

What about Spain or Italy or China or North Korea or most of the Middle East??

It&#39;s rather shocking that somehow you believe authoritarianism is extinct&#33;

"The mere idea of one man ruling an entire modern nation is ridiculous&#33;"

:lol: :lol:

Ridiculous?&#33;?

I&#39;m sure that Hitler&#39;s 20 million victims are laughing along with you.
I&#39;m sure General Pinochet&#39;s victims are laughing as well.

How about the current citizens of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

How about the hundreds of millions of Africans who live under the rule of "one man"?

Do you think they find the concept "ridiculous"?



Proof?

I do.

While, by design, a bourgeois democracy does not allow full enfranchisement due to its inherent economic inequality, it does allow marginal participation by most of the population. That is, while we have no influence on any issue of real fundamental consequence, when it comes to immediate ephemeral issues, we do, laregely, have a say.

How much say, of course, is dependent on how big our wallet is, BUT it&#39;s a hell of a lot better than the system that the Soviet system employed which was basically bourgeois democarcy without the voting&#33;

Like in any bourgeois republic, it was "who you know" that made all the difference, but unlike in bouregois republics, if you didn&#39;t "know" anyone you had zero influence of government.

For most people the rulling communist party was as distant as the NSDAP in its country. It had zero accountability, zero public scrutiny.

So, are "bouregois republics" demcratic? No, but they are more democratic than the USSR.

[Salvador Allende]

The USSR was Socialist and despite Trot and Anarchist rumours, sources from that era show that Stalin was not a dictator and did not have complete control over anything. His efforts to send more supplies to Spain were blocked by laws making it illegal to intervene. The USSR was Socialist and was the first Socialist nation, the USSR in the Socialist era is to dismiss Socialism. North Korea most certainly is a dictatorship as was the USSR, it&#39;s called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[LSD]

The USSR was Socialist and despite Trot and Anarchist rumours, sources from that era show that Stalin was not a dictator and did not have complete control over anything.

The exact extent of Stalin&#39;s personal control over the minutae of Soviet politics is irrelevent.

I think we can all agree that he was the leading figure in the party and government.

With that in mind, the relevent question is whether or not he was democratically responsbible.

He wasn&#39;t, and all your condemnation of "trot and anarchist rumours" can&#39;t hide the very simple fact that, ultimately, the Soviet Communist party was accountable to no one but the Soviet Communist Party.

That is not democracy, it&#39;s authoritarianism.


The USSR was Socialist and was the first Socialist nation, the USSR in the Socialist era is to dismiss Socialism.

I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t understand this statement.

You can&#39;t use a stative verb to link a noun phrase and an infinitive verb phrase.


North Korea most certainly is a dictatorship as was the USSR, it&#39;s called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, that would be the proletariat also known as Kim Jong Il&#33; :lol:

[Red Skyscraper]

Lysergic, can you give me some sources that made you reach the conclusions that you had concerning the USSR, and um, Stalin?

[Red Skyscraper]

So, Lysergic, are you going to answer or not?

[trotsky_lives]

QUOTE:His efforts to send more supplies to Spain were blocked by laws making it illegal to intervene


Absolutely brilliant. Not joking, you have really made me laugh there. Can you please tell me when revolution is legal? When the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin and Trotsky seized power at the head of the Russian proletariat, did they not break one or two tzarist laws?

Revolution is never legal or practical until the hour of revolution strkes, then it alone is legal and practical. You salvador, have not learnt your marxism. That is one of the most pathetic, spineless excuses I hve ever heard. Actually, it is so bad you are almost making Stalin look like a genuine revolutionary... thats some doing

[trotsky_lives]

QUOTE ; And yes, Stalin did do many good things because the economic ideas were his and thus he does get a place in history as a great man, also his commanding of the Red Army in World War II was superb and let to a victory

Your lies - however clever they appear - don&#39;t change facts. I don&#39;t know how many times in my life I have had to explain that Stalin WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOVIET UNION. Rather than reading prescribed lies from Progress Publishers. Either way, niether me nor yopu need to quote from stalin or trotsky on what they said or did at different junctures. History will be our truth. As early as 1925 Trotsky in A New Course[I] [/Iargued for the implementation of the five year plans. Now Salvador, what year did Stalin do a somersault the Moscow state circus would have been proud of, and call for five year plans? 1928. A good three years after trotsky argued for them. Of course, it was possible (and necessary) to talk of five year plans in 1928 because trotsky was out of the picture in Alma Ata and then Turkey. The kulak had grown fat on the continuation of the NEP and were strangling the spluttering Soviet economy. But let us recall the marvellous, far-sighted and wise words of comrade Stalin in 1924 in answer to trotsky’s call for the five year plans and electrification, "it would be like giving the peasantry a gramophone instead of a cow."

It seems 80 years after these words were uttered, 77 years after Stalin did a perfect 10 of a somersault on the question of electrification, the Stalinists of today have learned none of the lessons, but all of the lies.

Like i said I don&#39;t need to quote from Stalin or trosky - these are historical facts. On your points relating to the superb military brilliance of Stalin. well I&#39;ll leve that for some other time, needless to say I think the military achievement s of Trotsky and his building of the Red Army during the Civil War should not be left out

[Red Skyscraper]

As early as 1925 Trotsky in A New Course[I] [/Iargued for the implementation of the five year plans.

Where in "A New Course" does Trotsky say this, exactly?

[LSD]

Lysergic, can you give me some sources that made you reach the conclusions that you had concerning the USSR, and um, Stalin?

Oh, you know, mostly Trotskyist propaganda and Bouregois revisionism&#33; :lol:

Honestly, the evidence of the lack of democracy within the Soviet Union is hardly difficult to find.

Looking at Soviet newsreels from the period or actual Communist Party decrees is enough to understand that accountability simply did not exist.

Again, whether or not Stalin was "good man" is irrelevent to this discussion, the only thing you have to show is that the Soviet Union was a democracy.

You have not done so.

[Red Skyscraper]

You know, rather than trying to attack me, why don&#39;t you just give me your sources and leave it at that? I would really like to know what you have read, I&#39;m not trying to start up a political war here, I&#39;m only curious. So why don&#39;t you give me some print sources, and the specific bibliographic information of those Soviet newsreels, and the Communist Party decrees, so I can look this up for myself? I mean, I&#39;ve heard the Stalin and "USSR not democratic" argument a million times. The point is, instead of giving me the whole "Stalin=evil" speech, give me the exact information of the stuff you read, watch, and listen to so I can do research for myself, without having someone tell me what they think was true or not true.

And trotsky_lives, I&#39;m still waiting for a response?

[Salvador Allende]

Trotsky was so revolutionary and brilliant that he couldn&#39;t even sign a treaty with Germany and let his own arrogance get in his way. The law was passed by the Congress of Soviets to not allow intervention to break this law would have been going against the Soviets and would have been a dictator&#39;s move instead of listening to the democratic voice. You have provided no evidance to prove that the USSR was not democratically run while I have mentioned a few sources to prove my point, please respond and actually show some proof.

[LSD]

Well, the newsreels and newspapers I got from the library so I can&#39;t really link to them.

The Soviet Union was never really subtle about its intention to excersize total authority, look at Lenin&#39;s November 3rd "Draft Decree on Workers&#39; Control" or his famous line on Stalin: "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands".

"unlimited authority"? Not something one would ever find in a democratic society&#33;

How about Lenin&#39;s "The Immediate Tasks of the Proletariat Government"?

You know, "Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process".

"Unquestioning submission"?&#33;?&#33;

Or how about: "While the revolution in Germany is slow in "coming forth," our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter [the Great] hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting against barbarism."

"dictatorial methods"? "barbarous methods"?&#33;

That was from Lenin&#39;s "Left Wing&#39; Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality", by the way.

And how about Lenin&#39;s much vaunted "The State and Revolution"?

"We want the socialist revolution with human nature as it is now, with human nature that cannot dispense with subordination, control and managers".

"subordination, control and managers", an excellent description of the Soviet government from the man who created it.

"Control" and "subordination"... but democracy? No.

For a good analysis of relevent Soviet decrees I would suggest you read The Bolsheviks and Workers Control but, really, none of this is "new information", no one argues that the Soviet Union was democratic&#33; Hell, even Stalinist sources (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/im/stalin50th.html) agree with me on this one&#33;

:lol:&#33;

[trotsky_lives]

QUOTE; "Those same years (1923-28) were passed in a struggle of the ruling coalition, Stalin, Molotov, Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin (Zinoviev and Kamenev went over to the Opposition in the beginning of 1926), against the advocates of "super-industrialisation" and planned leadership. The future historian will re-establish with no small surprise the moods of spiteful disbelief in bold economic initiative with which the government of the socialist state was wholly imbued. An acceleration of the tempo of industrialisation took place empirically, under impulses from without, with a crude smashing of all calculations and an extraordinary increase of overhead expenses. The demand for a five-year plan, when advanced by the Opposition in 1923, was met with mockery in the spirit of the petty bourgeois who fears "a leap into the unknown." As late as April 1927, Stalin asserted at a plenary meeting of the Central Committee that to attempt to build the Dnieperstroy hydro-electric station would be the same thing for us as for a muzhik to buy a gramophone instead of a cow. This winged aphorism summed up the whole program. It is worth nothing that during those years the bourgeois press of the whole world, and the social-democratic press after it, repeated with sympathy the official attribution to the "Left Opposition" of industrial romanticism."

Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed

Chapter 2 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE ZIGZAGS OF THE LEADERSHIP
1. "Military Communism", the "New Economic Policy" (NEP) and the Course Toward the Kulak

Red skyscrapper
The New Course was written in 1923 (not 1925, as I wrongly asserted), mainly in response to the increasing undemocratic nature of the internal regime in the party. I do not have a copy of it at hand but will review it tonight and report on it tomorrow (indeed I may be wrong on citing The New Course as the actual article in which Trotsky raises the call for a five year plan. Either way It is a well known fact that Trotsky and the Left Opposition were the first to call for the implementation of a series of five year plans, which greatly angered stalin and his epigones. If it turns out that the demand for five plans was not put forward in The New Course, then I apologise but will supply proof of the call in that year [1923] regardless. Trotskyism - as an extension of Mgarxism - rests on the fact that the truth is concrete. Therefore, we have no problems admitting our mistakes (unlike the Stalinists) and correcting ourselves.)

For those interested in the particularities of this issue, I would recommend reading the Revolution Betrayed, especially the first two chapters. Also "Lenin and Trotsky: what they really stood for" is an excellent response to the slurs of the Stalinists

[Imyr]

Socialism is a political theory.

The USSR was a country.

Hence socialism and the USSR are not synoymous.

Explain how they are "...in fact, quite the opposite."


hmm... so posters of Stalin along side those of Lenin (founder of the country), Marx and Engles (Authors of the ideology)... no, I guess Stalin wasn&#39;t important at all&#33;

Of course there were posters other than those of Stalin, but the very fact that there were posters of Stalin, and so many of them, demonstrates his importance.

Notice that when soviet troops invaded Finland, it wasn&#39;t posters of the "worker" they carried, it was posters of "papa" Stalin.

Stalin was definitely an important member of the Communist Party. I am not debating that. I am unfamiliar with the types of posters carried by troops in Finland. Do you have a text I could be referred to?


He was indeed a single man, and he did indeed have faults and flaws&#33; How this proves he was not a dictator, I don&#39;t know&#33;

The reasons he was a dictator have nothing to do with whether he had "flaws" or not, they have to do with his dictatorial powers.

My proof was before that statement. Please show proof that Stalin had dictatoral powers.


Absolute tripe&#33;

The historical ignorance that comment shows is astounding&#33; German was never more powerful than when Hitler ruled&#33; In ten years he took it from impoverished subserviant dependency to master of Europe&#33;

The miraculous economic recovery was a paper manipulation. The factories and industry already existed before the Nazis, they merely followed common sense and declared that the problem was currency.


Look at what Napolean did&#33; Look at what Bismarck did&#33;

Napoleon lost the entire French army. Bismarck united a few German provinces. Big deal.


Besides which, there are plenty of examples of modern dictatorships; the idea that it is "impossible" is laughable&#33;

Do you honestly believe that one man can rule an entire country? These men are puppets for the business oligarchs.



What about Spain or Italy or China or North Korea or most of the Middle East??

What about them?


It&#39;s rather shocking that somehow you believe authoritarianism is extinct&#33;

Authoritarianism is very much alive. I never declared the contrary.


Ridiculous?&#33;?

I&#39;m sure that Hitler&#39;s 20 million victims are laughing along with you.
I&#39;m sure General Pinochet&#39;s victims are laughing as well.

Hitler and Pincochet were puppets of the ruling classes. They were given the appearance of having power, when in fact it was the oligarchs.


How about the current citizens of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

How about them?


How about the hundreds of millions of Africans who live under the rule of "one man"?

Which Africans, exactly?


Do you think they find the concept "ridiculous"?

What they think is irrelevant in regards to the truth.


While, by design, a bourgeois democracy does not allow full enfranchisement due to its inherent economic inequality, it does allow marginal participation by most of the population. That is, while we have no influence on any issue of real fundamental consequence, when it comes to immediate ephemeral issues, we do, laregely, have a say.

How wonderful.


How much say, of course, is dependent on how big our wallet is, BUT it&#39;s a hell of a lot better than the system that the Soviet system employed which was basically bourgeois democarcy without the voting&#33;

Uh, I&#39;d like some proof for your wild accusation.


Like in any bourgeois republic, it was "who you know" that made all the difference, but unlike in bouregois republics, if you didn&#39;t "know" anyone you had zero influence of government.

Politics is a social activity, it&#39;s always who you know&#33; What is your point?


For most people the rulling communist party was as distant as the NSDAP in its country. It had zero accountability, zero public scrutiny.

If the Communist party was so distant then how did they accomplish so much? The party did have accountability, many of its members were severely punished for their mistakes.


So, are "bouregois republics" demcratic? No, but they are more democratic than the USSR.

Explain.

[trotsky_lives]

Red Skyscraper

It appears I was right. In Chapter 7 of The New Course, entitled Planned Economy (1042) Trotsky repeatedly alludes to and calls for a the need for overall plan to develop industry. Specifically he refers to the railways because of their necessity in developing the overall economy - how else would the agricultural produce get from the country to the cities and how else would the industrial produce get from the cities to the rural communities.

At this time, the leadership, which included Kamenev, Zinoviev, Stalin and Bukharin ridiculed this fantastic ideas. Trotsky and the Opposition again re-stated the call for a five year plan in Trotsky&#39;s book, Whither Russia, Toward Capitalism or Socialism in 1925.

In 1926 the Stalinists put forward a plan which would begin with a coefficient of 9 for the first year dropping to 4 in the last year (a slowing down of economic growth). Trotsky and the Opposition argued against these ridiculous coefficients (Even under capitalism, the rate of growth had been 6). He argued for a coefficient of 18-20. The first year bore out the correctness of the Oppositions position.

Unfortunately, never being able to correct themselves - only to over correct themselves, the Stalinists then put forward the idea of the Five Year Plan in Four Years. This had a disasterous affect on the Soviet economy, wrecking and putting out of use many machines throughout Russia. Such is the brilliant successes at the hands of comrade Stalin

[LSD]

Stalin was definitely an important member of the Communist Party. I am not debating that. I am unfamiliar with the types of posters carried by troops in Finland. Do you have a text I could be referred to?

Yes, Finnish battle reports.

I would suggest also looking at Finnish Newsreels and battle-front video.


The miraculous economic recovery was a paper manipulation. The factories and industry already existed before the Nazis, they merely followed common sense and declared that the problem was currency.

Again, you show yourself to be woefully ignorant of history.

Hitler&#39;s biggest economic innovation was his public works projects. Much like Roosevelt, he focused on employing massa mounts of the population on massive government projects, such as the autobann.

Also, don&#39;t dismiss his currency initiatives, or his restructuring of that "industry [that] already existed".

Whatever your particular "theory" on the subject, the fact remains that Hitler completely turned around the German economy, and that&#39;s historical fact.


Napoleon lost the entire French army.

After concquering half of Europe.


Bismarck united a few German provinces. Big deal.

And then he defeated Fracne.

Big deal.


Do you honestly believe that one man can rule an entire country? These men are puppets for the business oligarchs.

:lol:

Wow, just ... wow...

Dictatorship is ....impossible...

OK... :lol: :D :lol:

So, Hussein didn&#39;t rule Iraq, and Qadaffi doen&#39;t rule Lybia and Pinochet didn&#39;t rule Chile?

Man, its amazing how much history disagrees with this particular theory of yours...


What about them?

Spain was a dictatorship.
Italy was a dictatorship.
China is effectively a dictatorship.
North Korea is a dictatorship
Most of the Middle East is a dictatorship in one form or another:
Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, etc...


Which Africans, exactly?

Well the ones living under Robert Mugabe or Omar Al-Bashir or any of the other dozens of dictators on that continent.


Authoritarianism is very much alive. I never declared the contrary.

Right... it&#39;s just that one man can&#39;t rule...

So how many can?

What&#39;s the limit? Can 20 men rule? 15? 10?

I hope you see that its ludicrous to place a minimum number, history has shown that, indeed, it is quite possible and even quite common for a single man to rule a country. As a matter of fact, it was how most of the world was for most of human history&#33;


Hitler and Pincochet were puppets of the ruling classes. They were given the appearance of having power, when in fact it was the oligarchs.

Exactly how much study have you done on this subject? Because what your saying defies all logic.

Hitler was supported by the economic oligarchy but upon his ascension he screwed them over too.

Hitler had far more than the "appearance of power", he had power.


How wonderful.

No, it&#39;s terrible, which is why we need a change, but not a change towards Leninism or state-capitalism&#33;&#33;


If the Communist party was so distant then how did they accomplish so much? The party did have accountability, many of its members were severely punished for their mistakes.

:lol:

Top down accountability is not what I meant&#33; :lol:

I thought we were talking about democracy, well democracy means being democractically accountable, not accountable to the "party"&#33;


Uh, I&#39;d like some proof for your wild accusation.

What "wild accusation"?

That the Soviet Union was effectively bouregois?

Well, let&#39;s see, the workers didn&#39;t control the means of production, the state was not democratically responsible, social classes persisted, party members "got rich", there was a thriving black (and even not so black) market, the government actively promoted "market" economics... and on ... and on....


Explain how they are "...in fact, quite the opposite."

The USSR was "quite the opposite" of socialism because it was not socialist&#33;

Read The Bolsheviks and Worker Control if you don&#39;t believe me.


Explain.

Bouregois republics = Bad
USSR = Worse.

Understand?

[vivalache22]

WE CAN NOT BE SURE OF HAVING SOME THING TO LIVE FOR, UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO DIE FOR IT.
- Ernesto &#39;Che&#39; Guevara

That pritty much sums up any thing any one has to say on this website...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2004, 02:40 PM
Stalin was never democratically empowered, nor democratically responsbey, no matter how you define democracy&#33; As long as your definition mentions something about popular interests, then the idea of a "democratic USSR" falls flat on its face.

Stalin was elected by his party, as most party leaders in the world are. If you define democracy as it is is western liberal democracies then you can say that in this sense Stalin was a democratically elected leader.

Do you know how the Soviet system worked? You should read Sidney Webb and Beatrice Potter&#39;s Soviet Communism. They went to the USSR twice in the 30s for long trips in which they detailed the exact workings of the political system in the USSR. It is very interesting and dismisses a lot of the absurd myths surrounding the political system in the USSR.


no one argues that the Soviet Union was democratic&#33; Hell, even Stalinist sources agree with me on this one&#33;

Mao said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is democratic for one class and dictatorship for another class. All societies are dictatorships, dictatorships of a particular class. However, the question that is being discussed here is whether the USSR was a proletarian dictatorship and therefore democratic or the dictatorship of a particular clique.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Communism is international in nature for a reason.

Why do you say this?

Primitive communism has existed several places throughout history.

On the period of 1917-1923

the period you&#39;re refering to includes a massive civil war and the effective reintroduction of capitalism

[Djehuti]

I would like to recomend the excellent site:
Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution - how the revolution degenerated
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/