Pictures from the Soviet Union.

[atlas]

I think these just impact me a lot because my teachers and textbooks alike had always said how oppressive and terrible the USSR, and communism in general was; these seem to say otherwise.

http://voffka.com/archives/2006/06/15/027924.html

The people all seem really happy.








...except for this girl:
http://voffka.com/pic/sovok/photo/sovkovie_photo_21.jpg

[Comrade-Z]

Yes, although the USSR was no paradise, it was a lot better than the western media made it out to be.

Most people seem to think that Stalinism was an omnipresent fact of life in the USSR. Not quite. It affected those in the Communist Party most heavily. And, during the late '20s and '30s, the peasantry. But for many people, especially people who weren't involved in politics, daily life was a lot like daily life in any other industrializing country. Possibly a bit better.

[Intelligitimate]

Comrade-Z is an evil Anarcho-Stalinist! How dare he say anything positive about the USSR! What kind of evil, demented person ever has anything positive to say about actually-existing socialism!? Only evil Stalinist scum, that's who!

[kaaos_af]

This picture proves to me that people are the same everywhere-

-'hey, hey! Don't give me a ticket! I've only been parked here a minute'
-'tell it to the commissar-I'm only doing my job, mate'
-'asshole! Don't you have something better to do!?'
-'whatch the mouth, bud.'

http://voffka.com/pic/sovok/photo/sovkovie_photo_15.jpg

[Xiao Banfa]

Big fucking surprise- socialism worked! If it wasn't for the arms race the USSR would still be around today.
Fucking yankee scum!

[atlas]

Well they seem so much more intimate with each other, as a community; that might be a part of Russian culture, but people today, at least where I am from, don't want anything to do with anybody else. In the land of consumerism people have become cynical, jaded and interested only in themselves. It just seems like they are happier just by being together, as opposed to consumerists; never satisfied with what they have.


But then again these could just be a few select photos...


EDIT: I get very thgouthful when I start drinking. <_<

[EusebioScrib]

The link isn&#39;t working for me, but I can probably guess what the picks look like.

Life in the USSR was not better than that in an industrialized nation. First off you had no say and were entirely powerless in everything you did, unlike the US or Britain or France where you did have some power to organize and had hope to change things. In the other nations your conditions were better as well. Russia&#39;s living conditions never surpassed that of the West.

State-capitalism is far more brutal than plain ole&#39; capitalism. It ranks up their next to Fascism. It&#39;s all the same shit, just different assholes.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:03 PM
Life in the USSR was not better than that in an industrialized nation.
No one said it was, read closer.

[EusebioScrib]

But for many people, especially people who weren&#39;t involved in politics, daily life was a lot like daily life in any other industrializing country. Possibly a bit better.


The people all seem really happy.


Big fucking surprise- socialism worked&#33; If it wasn&#39;t for the arms race the USSR would still be around today.
Fucking yankee scum&#33;

Don&#39;t know how serious the latter is...

[Ian]

Industrializing

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is overrated.

People smile all the time. It&#39;s instinct, innate. People smiled in Nazi Germany. People smile right now in Sudan. If you don&#39;t smile you will lead a very sad, unhealthy life. I guess you will possibly die soon if you do not smile.

I even smile at the mall even though the prices make me angry.

Nonetheless, some interesting photos. Just don&#39;t take it as a sign that "omg Soviet Union rocks".

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is overrated.

People smile all the time. It&#39;s instinct, innate. People smiled in Nazi Germany. People smile right now in Sudan. If you don&#39;t smile you will lead a very sad, unhealthy life. I guess you will possibly die soon if you do not smile.

I even smile at the mall even though the prices make me angry.

Nonetheless, some interesting photos. Just don&#39;t take it as a sign that "omg Soviet Union rocks".

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is overrated.

People smile all the time. It&#39;s instinct, innate. People smiled in Nazi Germany. People smile right now in Sudan. If you don&#39;t smile you will lead a very sad, unhealthy life. I guess you will possibly die soon if you do not smile.

I even smile at the mall even though the prices make me angry.

Nonetheless, some interesting photos. Just don&#39;t take it as a sign that "omg Soviet Union rocks".

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:54 AM
This is overrated.

People smile all the time. It&#39;s instinct, innate. People smiled in Nazi Germany. People smile right now in Sudan. If you don&#39;t smile you will lead a very sad, unhealthy life. I guess you will possibly die soon if you do not smile.

I even smile at the mall even though the prices make me angry.

Nonetheless, some interesting photos. Just don&#39;t take it as a sign that "omg Soviet Union rocks".
NWOG, is it so necessary for you to prove that every socialist state in the past has been Hell?

I mean, when you refuse to acknowledge the achievements of our comrades from the past, all you&#39;re doing is to help the capitalist-imperialist camp.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+Jun 24 2006, 04:42 PM--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ Jun 24 2006, 04:42 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 10:54 AM
This is overrated.

People smile all the time. It&#39;s instinct, innate. People smiled in Nazi Germany. People smile right now in Sudan. If you don&#39;t smile you will lead a very sad, unhealthy life. I guess you will possibly die soon if you do not smile.

I even smile at the mall even though the prices make me angry.

Nonetheless, some interesting photos. Just don&#39;t take it as a sign that "omg Soviet Union rocks".
NWOG, is it so necessary for you to prove that every socialist state in the past has been Hell?

I mean, when you refuse to acknowledge the achievements of our comrades from the past, all you&#39;re doing is to help the capitalist-imperialist camp. [/b]
So when you say Stalin is a bastard and the USSR sucks, you&#39;re a helper of the capitalists? Damn, please stop these nonsense. Stop gloryfying everything, we should discuss and not be blind on previous failures.

About the pics: right, ten pics of citizens in the USSR and suddenly that country is heaven? Sure.

[which doctor]

This is one photo that I don&#39;t understand.

http://voffka.com/pic/sovok/photo/sovkovie_photo_19.jpg

That computer looks relatively new. It looks like it was made after to fall of the soviets.

[Hiero]

Life in the USSR was not better than that in an industrialized nation

Life as a succesfull capitalist is pretty good to, but we can&#39;t all be capitalist can we?

Your not looking at the class situation. There are some benifits for the majority of citizens living in imperialist society. The welfare system is funded by imperialism, the majority of workers wages increases come from super profist from imperialism. The wealth of the world is concentrated in the industrial nations, so naturally, living in the industrial nations will result in a reasonable living, for most citizens.

With the USSR, China, Cuba and various other countries, we have seen the greatest standards of living that didn&#39;t come from great expliotation.

[Ol' Dirty]

If it weren&#39;t for Stalin, the USSR would&#39;ve been really nice. If Trotsky had been in, the USSR would have been much nicer.

Yeah, the western media made many lies about the USSR, as did the USSR about the West.

Despite a few things, the USSR was kinda cool. :) It&#39;s the government that usualy fucks things up. :(

[EusebioScrib]

Life as a succesfull capitalist is pretty good to, but we can&#39;t all be capitalist can we?

Umm...yea? I don&#39;t really get your comment...seems a bit outta place


Your not looking at the class situation.

No your not :lol:


There are some benifits for the majority of citizens living in imperialist society. The welfare system is funded by imperialism, the majority of workers wages increases come from super profist from imperialism. The wealth of the world is concentrated in the industrial nations, so naturally, living in the industrial nations will result in a reasonable living, for most citizens.

Ah yes, the classic Leninist perspective of viewing the world only through the eyes of capital. Tsk tsk...

Yea so whats your point? I know life is better in industrialized nations and it&#39;s all because we cooperate as a species in social productive relations. But I don&#39;t get what your trying to prove?

Hmm sounds kinda like a MIMer over here...


With the USSR, China, Cuba and various other countries, we have seen the greatest standards of living that didn&#39;t come from great expliotation.

:lol: Who are you kidding? What, there was no exploitation in those nations? You gotta be kidding. State-capitalism lives off surplus-value just as much as regulard capitalism does.




If it weren&#39;t for Stalin, the USSR would&#39;ve been really nice. If Trotsky had been in, the USSR would have been much nicer.

Stalin did just as he should have. Trotsky or anybody would have done the same as he did. It was entirely necessary for the development of capitalism in the USSR.


Yeah, the western media made many lies about the USSR, as did the USSR about the West.

Your point? It&#39;s just inter-imperialist slander. Who gives a fuck?



Despite a few things, the USSR was kinda cool. smile.gif It&#39;s the government that usualy fucks things up. sad.gif

Cool? Why? It&#39;s just capitalism. What&#39;s so cool? The USSR functioned just as it was meant to function. It wasn&#39;t "fucked up" in that regard. It was only "fucked up" for the workers because they were more exploited than in the West.

[Hiero]

You failed to address my point. You even failed to comprehend. It is reactionary to think the benifits of living in the west are because "we cooperate as a species in social productive relations".

What i was trying to prove is that in USSR, China and the various other countries which had a nationalised economy the living standards were vastly improved, and this was not dependent on imperialism.

The benifits of living in the imperialist countries is because of imperialism. If you are criticising the USSR based on the living standards of the West, then you are supporting imperialism, without even knowing it.

[EusebioScrib]

It is reactionary to think the benifits of living in the west are because "we cooperate as a species in social productive relations".

I didn&#39;t know historical materialism is reactionary...



What i was trying to prove is that in USSR, China and the various other countries which had a nationalised economy the living standards were vastly improved, and this was not dependent on imperialism.

Well you are right. They were just independent capitalist nations, although because of the threat of workers power in their nations they soon realized that they too would need to "expand their markets." The USSR did such a thing numerous times as did China on several occasions.


The benifits of living in the imperialist countries is because of imperialism. If you are criticising the USSR based on the living standards of the West, then you are supporting imperialism, without even knowing it.

Well, relatively, I do support imperialism. Why? Because it furthers "globalization" of capital and the equalization of capital, hence our qualitative change into communism. We have to go through it&#33;

[Comrade-Z]

Well, relatively, I do support imperialism. Why? Because it furthers "globalization" of capital and the equalization of capital, hence our qualitative change into communism. We have to go through it&#33;

Umm, you&#39;re on shaky ground with this argument. It&#39;s one thing to say that imperialism is an (unfortunately) historically inevitable derivative during the capitalist epoch. It&#39;s another thing to say that you support it and think it plays an integral role in advancing the world towards communism.

You think imperialism advances societies along towards communism? Look at Iraq, Iran, or even the entire continent of Africa&#33; Let&#39;s see...before imperial intervention, Iraq was a secular, emerging capitalist society. Now imperialism has plunged it back into the depths of feudalism. Iran: same thing. Africa...well, what can we say? That place has been fucked over big time, and as a result it will be lucky to, as a whole, hobble into the modern capitalist epoch by 2100.

You know, there are ways of achieving globalization and integration of markets that don&#39;t involve one country getting fucked over by another. In addition, imperialism prevents the development of what is indispensably needed alongside international market integration--international proletarian integration.

Pro-imperialism is an untenable position for a revolutionary leftist and internationalist.


Ah yes, the classic Leninist perspective of viewing the world only through the eyes of capital. Tsk tsk...

Actually, viewing the world through the eyes of capital makes a lot of sense. Know thy enemy, etc.


Cool? Why? It&#39;s just capitalism. What&#39;s so cool? The USSR functioned just as it was meant to function. It wasn&#39;t "fucked up" in that regard.

That&#39;s a good point worth re-iterating. You know, Lenin and company would probably be much more admired nowadays if they had been realistic and honest about what exactly they were accomplishing. Indeed, on a few occasions Lenin admitted that Russia&#39;s task in the near future was to "copy the State-Capitalism of the German State in WWI" (paraphrasing). These comments did not get widely distributed among the masses, of course.

[Hiero]

I didn&#39;t know historical materialism is reactionary...

You&#39;re not using historical materialism.


Well you are right. They were just independent capitalist nations, although because of the threat of workers power in their nations they soon realized that they too would need to "expand their markets." The USSR did such a thing numerous times as did China on several occasions.


Thats stupid, they were not capitalist nations, private property wasn&#39;t the rule of the economy, there is no more to say on this.

There is also a difference between socialist nations trading, cooperative investing in other socialist nations and the capitalist mode of investment. While it is questionable the motives of the USSR after Stalin investing in newly liberated countries in South East Asia, Africa and South America but you can not compare it to Western imperialism. To do so is to deny history.


Well, relatively, I do support imperialism. Why? Because it furthers "globalization" of capital and the equalization of capital, hence our qualitative change into communism. We have to go through it&#33;

Imperialism causes "underdevelopment". For instance it creates pet food industries in South America, while at same time people are under nourished. The only thing that imperialism does that may be helpfull is bring peasants into the most explioted working class in the world.

And the claim that it equalises capital, come on? Are you working for the World Bank? Imperialism is based on explioting 3rd world vulnerability, it centralises capital in the imperialist nations.

Imperialism is not the same as early capitalism. Countries which are semi colonies do still have to go through the capitalist stage, and they can under proletariat control, it is called the new democractic revolution. This is the progressive way, rather then what you support which is submiting to imperialism, which leads to underdevelopment.

So back to your original error, you can not compare citizens of imperialism to citizens of socialist countries or citizens of countries with a independent national economy. You ignore economics when you do.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:26 PM
If it weren&#39;t for Stalin, the USSR would&#39;ve been really nice. If Trotsky had been in, the USSR would have been much nicer.
Yes and no. Trotsky probably would have tried to emphasize inner-party democracy and consensus decision making but other than that the Left Opposition would have faced the same problems as the Stalin group — cholera, urban flight, famine, and the aftermath of the war.

[EusebioScrib]

You&#39;re not using historical materialism.

Could you explain how?


Thats stupid, they were not capitalist nations, private property wasn&#39;t the rule of the economy, there is no more to say on this.

This is a very simplistic view of capitalism. Here is a proper way of describing capitalism:



Political Economy by John Eaton pg 22

Three main features give capitalism its essential characteristics. These are as follows:
(1) Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people (the capitalist class) who owns the means of production, that is, raw materials, factories, machines, etc., as well as wealth in money form.
(2) Wide masses of people have no means of getting a living except by selling their power to work for wages (this class of propertyless workers Marx called the proletariat).
(3)Virtually all production is not for the personal use of the producers, but for exchange, for the sale on the market. Goods produced for exchange are termed commodities. Under capitalism, commodity production pervails.


Did these conditions not exist in the USSR? They most certainly did.

The Party, via Gosplan, controlled the means of production. They owned all wealth in the society and distributed it as they saw fit.

Most people were not high officials in the CC or Politburo, so they were forced to work for wages, which certainly existed in the USSR.

And production was for exchange, not use. That&#39;s a given.

However the only difference is that the USSR was state-monopoly-capitalist. That is the state and the capitalist class were one in the same. There was no distinction like there is in typical capitalism. The state was the bourgeoisie.

Check out this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51624) thread for more discussion on state-capitalism.



There is also a difference between socialist nations trading, cooperative investing in other socialist nations and the capitalist mode of investment. While it is questionable the motives of the USSR after Stalin investing in newly liberated countries in South East Asia, Africa and South America but you can not compare it to Western imperialism. To do so is to deny history.

What&#39;s the difference? That they add "Socialist" or "Communist" or "People&#39;s" or "Worker&#39;s" in front of it? :lol:



And the claim that it equalises capital, come on? Are you working for the World Bank? Imperialism is based on explioting 3rd world vulnerability, it centralises capital in the imperialist nations.

It most certainly does. Semi-colonial nations don&#39;t remain that way for ever. Their native bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie place holders, eventually rebel and become on an equal playing level with the previous imperialist nations. Examples are Venezuela, Iran, China and India.


Countries which are semi colonies do still have to go through the capitalist stage, and they can under proletariat control, it is called the new democractic revolution. This is the progressive way, rather then what you support which is submiting to imperialism, which leads to underdevelopment.

:lol: Sounds fine and dandy, but it&#39;s impossible. It doens&#39;t work that way. Proletarians cannot do the whole process of capitalism. We&#39;ve seen how such a "progressive way" is truely decietful and "guarded by batallions of lies."

[Hiero]

Could you explain how?

Your comparing parasites and oppressors to proletariats.


Did these conditions not exist in the USSR? They most certainly did.

The Party, via Gosplan, controlled the means of production. They owned all wealth in the society and distributed it as they saw fit.

Most people were not high officials in the CC or Politburo, so they were forced to work for wages, which certainly existed in the USSR.

And production was for exchange, not use. That&#39;s a given.

However the only difference is that the USSR was state-monopoly-capitalist. That is the state and the capitalist class were one in the same. There was no distinction like there is in typical capitalism. The state was the bourgeoisie.

Check out this thread for more discussion on state-capitalism.

No they didn&#39;t

I mainly support the USSR from Lenin to Stalin, but i will defend post Stalin from reactionary lies.

The thing that makes the USSR socialist during Stalin&#39;s era, is that production was not based on the market. Money still existed, but production was not bound to it. Everything was centralised to the state, and production and growth was done so to accommodate the large population in the USSR.

Your taking a simplistic approach, that the state controled the means of the production so they must be the capitalist, so capitalism must exist. Ignoring the fact that productions, products and prices were not dependant on a market. The factories under the guidance of a national board (the state) had strict control over prices.

In the late half of the USSR they being to develop market socialism. Factories were more free to ajust prices and production, which relied on the market now the state didnt have that role.


What&#39;s the difference? That they add "Socialist" or "Communist" or "People&#39;s" or "Worker&#39;s" in front of it?


It&#39;s called economics.


It most certainly does. Semi-colonial nations don&#39;t remain that way for ever. Their native bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie place holders, eventually rebel and become on an equal playing level with the previous imperialist nations. Examples are Venezuela, Iran, China and India.

Well your very confused here.

When the national bourgioes rebel against imperialism, they either go into socialism which happens under proleteriat control of the national liberation, or they become comprador bourgeois.

In India and China, there is a comprador bourgioes, imperialist do their work through this national bourgeoisie. This does not equalise capital, it just creates a larger middle class and keeps the national proleteriat in the most expliotated jobs.

But in either cases teh national bourgioes do not become equal to the imperialist bourgeoisie.


Sounds fine and dandy, but it&#39;s impossible. It doens&#39;t work that way. Proletarians cannot do the whole process of capitalism. We&#39;ve seen how such a "progressive way" is truely decietful and "guarded by batallions of lies."

It&#39;s not impossible and has worked. It greatly improved the lives of the proletariat in China, Vietnam, Russia. Your imperialism is the worst scenerio that the semi-colonies can find themselves in. It&#39;s just that you don&#39;t care about the qualitive changes in these peoples lives, so you choose to ignore them.

[EusebioScrib]

I mainly support the USSR from Lenin to Stalin, but i will defend post Stalin from reactionary lies.

The USSR was never "reactionary", although some methods it used against workers were certainly "reactionary" as far as we&#39;re concerned.

The USSR was being very progressive. It was developing it&#39;s means of production for a modern imperialist nation like we see today.


The thing that makes the USSR socialist during Stalin&#39;s era, is that production was not based on the market. Money still existed, but production was not bound to it. Everything was centralised to the state, and production and growth was done so to accommodate the large population in the USSR.

Commodity production and market economics usually go hand in hand. It doesn&#39;t matter wether the market is free to flow or if it&#39;s controlled by the state, it&#39;s still a market. Commoditiy production, production of exchange-values, was the dominant way of producing. Simply because someone controls it and call&#39;s it socialism, doesn&#39;t make it so. You have to look at the real nature of it, not be blinded by flashy names like "Great Grad Glorious and Surpeme People&#39;s Worker&#39;s Soldier&#39;s and Proletariat Centralized Communal Commitiy for the Socializied Nationalization of the Glorious Means of Production I love Uncle Joe"


Your taking a simplistic approach, that the state controled the means of the production so they must be the capitalist, so capitalism must exist. Ignoring the fact that productions, products and prices were not dependant on a market.

Well, generally we judge modes of production by looking at who owns the means of production and who doesn&#39;t. Howeve, I provided another key example which you haven&#39;t mentioned: commodity production. Production of value for value is the distinguishing feature of capitalism from any other mode of production known today. Markets existed in the USSR. Just because a Market is controlled doesn&#39;t mean anything. It&#39;s still a Market, just not "Free"



In the late half of the USSR they being to develop market socialism. Factories were more free to ajust prices and production, which relied on the market now the state didnt have that role.


Well, the state had to start loosening it&#39;s grip. Class tentions started to emerge in this time between the beaucracy and the managers, so the state had to give a little bit.

[Taiga]

But the school was very oppressive.

http://www.photoline.ru/critic/pic/1039679553.jpg

[Comrade-Z]

The thing that makes the USSR socialist during Stalin&#39;s era, is that production was not based on the market. Money still existed, but production was not bound to it. Everything was centralised to the state, and production and growth was done so to accommodate the large population in the USSR.

Your taking a simplistic approach, that the state controled the means of the production so they must be the capitalist, so capitalism must exist. Ignoring the fact that productions, products and prices were not dependant on a market. The factories under the guidance of a national board (the state) had strict control over prices.

I fail to see how this would be different than if, say, Wal-Mart monopolized and centralized all production (and military/police forces) under its control. It would, likewise, make a lot of claims about being "good for the workers" and maybe even being a "workers organization." It would even have its own cadre of thousands of loyal middle managers and its own politburo/board of directors. It would not be producing for the market, either, because there would be no external competition in society. Nor would it be producing for the good of society, but instead for the benefit of its owners. And there would still be commodity production and extraction of the proletariat&#39;s surplus value.

That said, I think the Soviet ruling class was particularly progressive for a capitalist society--because it had to be, for social and historical reasons. It needed women working in the workplace and more gender equality in order to build up the country&#39;s economy so quickly. It needed to introduce pro-working class reforms to secure the working class&#39;s loyalty (because communist slogans and red flags just don&#39;t cut it when people are experiencing material deprivation). It needed to suppress religion to a remarkable extent because it needed to a) demolish the ideological remants of the former ruling class so that the ancien regime would not return (even in 1991 there were still godsuckers around who broke out of their societal marginalization during the fall of the USSR, still praising "St. Nicholas the Martyr"), b) foster cohesiveness between its varying religious groups and guard against foreign ideological subversion (both Christian and Muslim), and c) create a scientifically-advanced populace as quickly as possible--which they achieved quite marvellously.

[Raj Radical]

Socialism in the USSR was betrayed and slowed mainly by Stalin&#39;s purges and the corruption and paranoia that go hand in hand with vanguardism.

There is no doubt that the CCCP was a brutal police state for a good chunk of its history that slaughtered millions of their comrades and innocent ciitizens.


The west and its mass media , however, made it out to look like the manifestations of the evils and failures of socialism, which is simply not the case, they focused exclusivly on the human rights atrocities to divert attention away from the economic achievements of the soviet union.

[EusebioScrib]

Socialism in the USSR was betrayed and slowed mainly by Stalin&#39;s purges and the corruption and paranoia that go hand in hand with vanguardism.

Socialism wasn&#39;t exactly betrayed. It never really existed. There were many instances of workers power within Russia from 1917-1921, however they were doomed to failure. Even if they succeded in repelling Bolshevik repression, the had no real means of sustaining themselves. The material conditions simply weren&#39;t there.


There is no doubt that the CCCP was a brutal police state for a good chunk of its history that slaughtered millions of their comrades and innocent ciitizens.

A good chunk? I&#39;d say the whole damn pie.



The west and its mass media , however, made it out to look like the manifestations of the evils and failures of socialism, which is simply not the case, they focused exclusivly on the human rights atrocities to divert attention away from the economic achievements of the soviet union.

The west didn&#39;t do it because it was socialism. They did it simply because the Bolsheviks were a threat to foreign Capital. The historic role of the Bolsheviks was to bring about the material conditions for capitalism, and they most certainly did that. The whole history of the USSR vs the West is simply Imperialist struggles. Not worker vs capitalist.

Economic achievements? For whom? Not us. Well, relatively they were, but not absolutely. They were developing the means of production for capitalism, so that is good for a feudal nation like 1917 Russia, however it has negeative side effects for us.