Russia Soviet Union.

[Noah]

Hello there people,

I know this gets mentioned alot and it can become tedious BUT.

Today this history teacher told the students that Russia was communist. Just because they call themselves communist doesn't mean they are! All the students believed him and he made communism sound so terrible by using really stupid examples of communism like 'if you have 10 pounds and i have 1 penny then the money is shared out so we can be equal, this is communism' but that's wrong because there is no currency in communism.

How were the Russians communist, I mean yes Lenin took it to socialism and Stalin, made it stronger and then it collapsed under him too (is this correct?).

But the people never owned the means of production.

There were still ranks in the army which meant men werent equal.

Stalin was a fascist, he hated Jews (correct?)

Currency wasn't abolished, by what i understand?

Didn't the Soviet Union only just touch socialism because the workplace was a little more democratic and that's about as far as it got?


Do you think Russia was communist?

Thanks

Yours,
Noah

[Amusing Scrotum]

How were the Russians communist, I mean yes Lenin took it to socialism and Stalin, made it stronger and then it collapsed under him too (is this correct?).


Stalinists' would argue it collapsed after Stalin's death and the bureaucrats took over. Trotskyists' that would argue it collapsed after the death of Lenin and the expulsion of Trotsky. Leninists' would argue it collapsed after Lenin's death, an argument similar to Trotskyists. And anti Russian Marxists', such as myself, would argue it collapsed after the Bolsheviks' seized power. With the final nail in the Russian Socialist coffin being the defeat of the Kronstadt rebellion.

I think the precise answer is that Bolshevik Russia doomed itself to failure as soon as it started persecuting other Socialists, just after the Civil War.


But the people never owned the means of production.

The State owned the means of production, making Russia fully nationalised. A step towards Socialism, but not a giant one.


There were still ranks in the army which meant men werent equal.


Ranks are unimportant, its how those ranks come about. Whether the Soldiers' picked their Officers', socialisation, which didn't happen, or whether the Party Leaders' picked the Officers', dictatorial rule, which did happen.


Stalin was a fascist, he hated Jews (correct?)


Socially fascist, yes. Economically, no.

Keep in mind though anti semitism was rampant in that period of history, as it has been for most of history.


Currency wasn't abolished, by what i understand?


A Socialist or semi Socialist country keeps money, it just makes wages equal through progressive taxation etc.

Communism has no currency. Socialism does.


Didn't the Soviet Union only just touch socialism because the workplace was a little more democratic and that's about as far as it got?


It nationalised industries, but it didn't socialise them. This process is often referred to as State Capitalism.


Do you think Russia was communist?

Fuck no.

[More Fire for the People]

Today this history teacher told the students that Russia was communist.
Russia began to work towards socialism, which must be acheived before communism. This process was halted by revisionists (Nikita Kruschev and his group, revisionism is the process of making socialism more appealing to the rich elite).



How were the Russians communist, I mean yes Lenin took it to socialism and Stalin, made it stronger and then it collapsed under him too (is this correct?).
Lenin laid the theoritical foundations for the development of socialism and put them into practice briefly from 1917-1924. Afterwards socialism was continued to be built by people like Stalin. This process continued until the election of Nikita Kruschev to power.


But the people never owned the means of production.
They, in fact did. The people owned the means of production through the power of "soviets" which were councils of workers that handled the day-to-day task of industry.


There were still ranks in the army which meant men werent equal.
This more or less was true but the Russian army as composed of soldiers that were equal and they elected the "commanders" of the army.


Stalin was a fascist, he hated Jews (correct?)
No, Stalin made a few errors but he was not a fascist.

On Jews
Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. -- Josef Stalin


Currency wasn't abolished, by what i understand?
The use of currency could not have been abolished because the reality of the situation was that currency could not be abolished at the time.


Didn't the Soviet Union only just touch socialism because the workplace was a little more democratic and that's about as far as it got?
No! The Soviet Union was the first long-term workers' state with the intentions of building socialism. Socialism cannot happen over night, it must be built over time.


Do you think Russia was communist?
From 1917-1953, I believe so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:33 PM
How were the Russians communist, I mean yes Lenin took it to socialism and Stalin, made it stronger and then it collapsed under him too (is this correct?).

But the people never owned the means of production.

There were still ranks in the army which meant men werent equal.

Stalin was a fascist, he hated Jews (correct?)
I'm no apologist for stalin, but he was definately not a fascist. There was lots of anti-semitism in Russia before and after the revolution, but the revolution itself actually combated anti-semitism to a degree and jews and women and people of other tradditionally powerless groups of people became leaders for a time.

I think the Russian revolution showed that a socialist revolution and things like worker's councils (soviets) were possible, but I think Russia was only socialist (or moving towards a socialist society) for a brief ammount of time. Eventually strikes were even outlawed and how can you have worker's power if workers can't even strike.

[which doctor]

History class is the best time to admit your a communist. Stand up to your teacher and debate with him that communism is a classless, stateless, currencyless, and a hiearchyless society. The other students will just sit there listening to you two debate and maybe you will change some of their minds and take your side.

[Noah]

It is crazy how teachers can influence children even if the kids don't know anything behind the issue.

It only seems like me who questions things the rest sit there like they've been hypnotized.

[Forward Union]

Teaching children that the USSR was communist is as stupid as telling them the earth is flat. Teachers need to be confronted immediately, and their lies put to sleep.

[Wanted Man]

No doubt. Keep in mind though that many comrades have two major problems with this.

1: They do not have a full understanding of class contradictions and struggle, or the history of the USSR, and they also often are not aware of all the refutations of the lies about the USSR.
2: They're often insecure about or not good at debating "mano-a-mano" and having to improvise(a big difference compared to debating on the net).

Of course these are things that will cure over time, although also depending on one's motivation, but it's still something that must be taken into account.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 11 2005, 04:46 PM



Do you think Russia was communist?
From 1917-1953, I believe so
:lol: :lol: :lol:


no it wasnt

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by workersunity+Oct 12 2005, 01:02 PM--> (workersunity @ Oct 12 2005, 01:02 PM)
Diego [email protected] 11 2005, 04:46 PM



Do you think Russia was communist?
From 1917-1953, I believe so
:lol: :lol: :lol:


no it wasnt [/b]
Prove it wasn't building socialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Prove it wasn't building socialism.

Building Socialism is different from it actually being Communist.

Socialism is the step before Communism and been as they were just "building socialism" this means Russia hadn't even reached the stage where it could implement Communism.

[enigma2517]

Yeah totally different things.

Was it a stateless/classless society? Hells no

Now, two things

a.) Since Russia had not even gone through the capitalist stage of development yet (it was still largely feudal) it could not have possibly been socialist because the material conditions for such a thing did not exist.

b.) Socialism's trademark is participatory economics. Since the Soviets (worker councils) became more or less ceremonial by 1918, I'd say that any trace of "socialism" stopped there.

In conclusion, the USSR was state capitalist, from beginning to end.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, I agree that in layman's terms that Russia was not communist, I think we can all agree. But Russia was building socialism, the first phase of communism.

[JKP]

Workers in the Soviet Union had the same amount of power as workers here: absolutely none. Things like the Kronstadt rebellion and suppression of the cCech uprisings help support that thesis.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:32 PM
Workers in the Soviet Union had the same amount of power as workers here: absolutely none. Things like the Kronstadt rebellion and suppression of the cCech uprisings help support that thesis.
Yes, but think about who did this.
Konstradt was suppressed by the oppurtunist Trotsky and the Czech opposition was smashed by the imperialist Kruschev.

[JKP]

Those events I mentioned are only footnotes. The main thing is that the Soviet Union was just another class society like our own. An elite "red bureaucracy" ran the show, with no regard for the workers.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes, I agree that in layman's terms that Russia was not communist, I think we can all agree. But Russia was building socialism, the first phase of communism.

Then don't make such erroneous statements, building Socialism is in no way Communism. It may be a step on the road to Communism, but it is not Communism.


Yes, but think about who did this.
Konstradt was suppressed by the oppurtunist Trotsky and the Czech opposition was smashed by the imperialist Kruschev.

Trotsky did not act on his own, he would have had to had permission from Lenin to suppress the uprising.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:09 PM
Those events I mentioned are only footnotes. The main thing is that the Soviet Union was just another class society like our own. An elite "red bureaucracy" ran the show, with no regard for the workers.
Of course, except for the fact that for the first 36 years all representatives were subject to popular election and recall by democratic-soviets.

[JKP]

But guess what? By late 1918 the soviets were already nothing less than ceremonial bodies.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:44 PM
But guess what? By late 1918 the soviets were already nothing less than ceremonial bodies.
I ask you, prove it.

[JKP]

In the period between November 1917 and, say, April 1918, the soviets had already been reduced to ceremonial bodies that simply approved whatever the Bolsheviks decreed. Any soviet in which the Bolsheviks lost their majority was (1) dissolved; (2) merged with a near-by soviet that re-established a Bolshevik majority; or (3) had additional delegates appointed in sufficient numbers to restore a Bolshevik majority.

This all happened before the civil war began.

Further, the new rules that essentially wiped out any possibility of rank-and-file control of the party itself were adopted in 1921...when the civil war was over.

RS

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:59 PM
In the period between November 1917 and, say, April 1918, the soviets had already been reduced to ceremonial bodies that simply approved whatever the Bolsheviks decreed. Any soviet in which the Bolsheviks lost their majority was (1) dissolved; (2) merged with a near-by soviet that re-established a Bolshevik majority; or (3) had additional delegates appointed in sufficient numbers to restore a Bolshevik majority.

This all happened before the civil war began.

Further, the new rules that essentially wiped out any possibility of rank-and-file control of the party itself were adopted in 1921...when the civil war was over.

RS
Proof requires reliable sources.

[JKP]

Read "The CNT And The Russian Revolution."

By Ignacio De Llorens

[Noah]

I would just like to say the amount of people in England, Manchester especially children who have no idea when it comes to communism and look at the past where communism has never existed makes me really really worried.

[Led Zeppelin]

Prove it wasn't building socialism.

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin

Did Stalin do that after the industrialization was completed? (after the USSR had the material conditions required for socialism)

No he didn't, he was certainly progressive for the USSR, but building socialism? No.

He was building socialism in about the same way capitalism would have built socialism; economically.

[sanpal]

In 60th years one of the headers mounted on roofs of buildings in the Soviet Union, said: " The Present generation of Soviet people will live at communism". As far as I remember, term of execution for this purpose was determined by the ideologists of CP of the SU in 20 years (hehe, we already should live at communism in 80th :D ). Thus the party-government of the former USSR led by Khruschev officially determined sociopolitical system of that period as not communist but as socialist (the road to communism). It's known that that period was the heat of the cold war and the term "communist country" was given by the western ideologists (may be a bit it is reasonable in western view because of merging the Communist Party and the State apparatus of the Soviet Union in the uniform mechanism).