USSR

[Xiao Banfa]

I reckon it was negative overall (the collapse)

[Aurora]

No,but it was stalin who fucked it over.Before that it was alright.after it was nothing

[kidicarus20]

Its existence helped prevent the United States from interfering with and overthrowing the leaders of other countries.

[kidicarus20]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:02 PM
No,but it was stalin who fucked it over.Before that it was alright.after it was nothing
I wouldn't go that far. It was never true to the revolution. The Leninists actually put down the Soviets and the idea of worker run factories etc.

[Trent Steele]

While it existed, while far from being a communist utopia, it at least provided an opposition to the US and capitalism. With it gone, imperialism can roam over the world unchecked and unfettered. That alone is a good reason why it's collapse was a bad thing.

[Aurora]

I wouldn't go that far. It was never true to the revolution. The Leninists actually put down the Soviets and the idea of worker run factories etc.
I agree,but at that time it did help improve people's lives,when stalin was in power they were sent to gulags.
I dont think the ideology failed but the material conditions wernt there in the first place.

[Connolly]

I do regret it.

Thats not a rational decision - but based on pure emotion :wub: :(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do regret the USSR's collapse, but not as a step towards classless society - things are worse now in post-Soviet Russia, since rampant corruption under a more capitalist system has caused more damage than it would have done under the Soviet system.

At least then they couldn't sell off entire industries and screw over the Russian working class.

[nickdlc]

At least then they couldn't sell off entire industries and screw over the Russian working class. Exactly why russia needed to change (in the eyes of the ruling class)

Who cares though, one form of capitalism was replaced with another.

[elmo sez]

I dont really get why it collpased, i mean why through out the baby with the bath water , why didnt they move on in socialism and give the workers control of the factorys etc ?

[nickdlc]

I dont really get why it collpased, i mean why through out the baby with the bath water , why didnt they move on in socialism and give the workers control of the factorys etc ? 1. they were never moving towards socialism in any meaningful way. 2. you can&#39;t just give workers control, the workers have to do it themselves because no great leader will do it for them, not even lenin <_<

[Tekun]

^They never were true socialists...rather than putting into practice the DoP, they manifested control within the party, and this in addition to other obstacles is what brought about their collapse


I as well regret the fall of the USSR
Although I disagree with many of the domestic and foreign policies they adopted, they were the only other country that could protect and help developing socialist nations from American imperialism (Cuba and N Korea in the 50&#39;s)
And in time, if it would of survived, I have no doubt that they would have improved their country with internal reforms based on socialist principles (and I don&#39;t mean glasnost or perestroika) such as the one&#39;s Trotsky advocated
Therefore, the fall of the Soviets is something regrettable IMO

[LSD]

I would answer yes to this question, but only tenatively so.

As the Soviet Union, Russia (and her provinces) had the potential to turn into something progressive, a potential which is no longer present now that she is just another bourgeois republic.

I don&#39;t actually think that there ever was a chance of any other outcome, mind you. The binary nature of the cold war was such that if the Soviet government ever fell, a restoration of market capitalism was inevitable.

If this historical momentum could have somehow been stopped and the Soviet Union could have been turned into a genuinely socialist country or even just a heavily controlled social-democracy, I think it would have been in a lot of people&#39;s interests. That outcome, however, was very unlikely to begin with.

And remember, the "socialism" of Brezhnev and Gorbachev bares no real similarity to the socialism of Marx. It was capitalism, a little hampered, a little bureaucratic, but capitalism at its core.

In the end, a full restoration was kind of a foregone conclusion. Once Stalin turned turned Lenin&#39;s dictatorial socialism into imperialist social mercantilism an eventual reckoning was inevitable.

I suppose it&#39;s possible that intelligent and progressive post-Stalinist leadership could have turned things around, but intelligent democratic minded people don&#39;t rise to the top of a bureaucratic slave state and so the "revolutionary leaders" of the USSR ended up driving it right into the hands of western capitalists.

How predictably tragic. :(

[Demogorgon]

Yes, it was by no means perfect and needed reform greatly, but it ws better than what the Russian people have to put up with now.

Also it was a force for good internationally (although it could do wrong as well there of course). It heavily supported the ANC against apartheid, and was one of the main defenders of the Palestinian people.

If it still existed today they may be better off for a start.

[Rollo]

Was watching some propoganda video in class telling us all how the USSR was evil and how opressed the russian people were. It had a clip of a supposedly Russian man talking about the &#39;ordeal&#39; after he lined up for 12 hours to get some bread. The man was obviously not Russian as he spoke very poor Russian and had a swedish accent. It even showed a picture of chernobyl and claimed it was the USSRs fault.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:44 AM
Was watching some propoganda video in class telling us all how the USSR was evil and how opressed the russian people were. It had a clip of a supposedly Russian man talking about the &#39;ordeal&#39; after he lined up for 12 hours to get some bread. The man was obviously not Russian as he spoke very poor Russian and had a swedish accent. It even showed a picture of chernobyl and claimed it was the USSRs fault.
THere is a lot of people (even people on here, I fear) that would actually buy that.

[Rollo]

Yeah, some people tend to be kind of stupid when faced with the media. For a while I believed what the bible told me :o.

[working_class_warrior]

it was simple a step in the further degeneration of the soviet workers state even today full capitalism has not be restored.

[dusk]

There are many east-Germans who are unemployed right now. 8 million.
Al the jobs go to cheaper workers from like Poland or Chech.
And I know that there are people there who really miss the sureness that communism gave them.

[kaaos_af]

You commies always talk about unemployment figures in post-Soviet countries, but seriously- employed or not, life is a misery in all capitalist countries.

I regret the break-up in the sense that it has cost millions of deaths and removed barriers to US imperialism. For instance- Gulf War I could never have happened if the USSR had still existed.

There is no denying the fact that the USSR was a dictatorship. However, in the post-Soviet world, things aren&#39;t much better: for example, the dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Belarus, Tajikistan and the emerging one in Russia. I have heard reports of neo Bolsheviks being boiled to death in Uzbekistan (which is what makes Bush&#39;s war on the &#39;axis of evil&#39; so laughable- he used Uzbekistan, a brutal dictatorship, to launch an oil war on a moderate dictatorship). Fascism is sharply on the rise in Latvia and Russia, corruption is tearing Ukraine to bits and civil wars rage in Russia and Georgia, with a postential war breaking out in Moldova over Transdienestria. Living standards have gone down right across the old Eastern bloc and Yugoslavia is still a fucking bloodbath. The Russian population goes down one million every year.

None of this would be going on if the USSR still existed. In the 80&#39;s at least, they had a distorted form of socialism, but there was some rethinking going on as to how to get it back on the right track. Now the place is fucked beyond repair.

[Comrada J]

AIDS is well on the rise in Russia these days, among other bad things like unemployment and racism. Because of this, I voted "Yes".

[EwokUtopia]

The only thing scarier than two superpowers with nuclear weapons is one nuclear superpowers hegemony over the world. I voted yes.

[Taiga]

The USSR wasn&#39;t an ideal state but at least people weren&#39;t selling their internal organs (kidneys, etc) to earn their living as they do now here, in post-Soviet states.

[Enragé]

no

the USSR cast a shadow over every single revolutionary enterprise in the 20th century, either destroying it (spanish anarchosyndicalism, france 68, makhno, kronstadt) or infecting it with stalinism (vietnam, cuba, countless communist parties, yugoslavia, the entire eastern block, the spanish communists)

now that it is finally gone
we can once again focus on the true revolution, without intereference by the perversion of it.

[Phalanx]

Yes, nothing in the world is black or white. Although I am certainly not a Stalinist, leftists worldwide had at least a semblance of a workers state to compete with the capitalist West. Regrettably, the Soviet Union did suppress the Spanish Anarchists and basically any other non-totalitarian leftist regimes, but now there really is no leftist major power left in the world to check imperialism.

[YKTMX]

No.

It was a autocratic capitalist state that was on its way to being an...autocratic capitalist state.

Good riddance.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:00 PM
No.

It was a autocratic capitalist state that was on its way to being an...autocratic capitalist state.

Good riddance.
Pro-imperialist. :P

Miles

[Delta]

I suppose I do, at least in some respects. The fall of the USSR is often hailed as the triumph of capitalism and defeat of communism/socialism/collectivism and this propaganda has made educating others very annoying and difficult.

[Ol' Dirty]

I found the Soviet Union to be little better than Fascist Germany or Italy, as soon as Stalin took power, possibly even before. It had great potential, but it failed drasticly. I don&#39;t regret its falling. Hell, at least we&#39;ve learned something.

[apathy maybe]

I do not regret the collapse of the USSR, nor the destruction of the dictatorship in Iraq, nor the destruction or collapse of any state or dictatorship.

The regret comes from how, why and what happened after.

The USSR collapsed because it was shit from the beginning, the rule of the party meant and inevitable dictatorship and no movement towards a non-state.
The cold war was bad for everybody except a few rich bastards and the state structures of the west.

The ability for the USA to do what it likes was not affected by the USSR existing or not, they are still constrained, but only as much as what they were.

The poverty and corruption in Russia and former USSR states is also regrettable.

The only good thing that I can think of about the USSR, it is a lesson on how not to do things. Don&#39;t make a party that controls centrally, don&#39;t setup or take over the institutions of oppression used by the state. We don&#39;t want another state, we want anarchy.



Originally posted by kidicarus20+--> (kidicarus20) Its existence helped prevent the United States from interfering with and overthrowing the leaders of other countries.[/b]Hey kid, your kidding me. Chile? Vietnam? Laos, Cambodia? Colombia? Other Central and Southern American countries?


Trent Steele
While it existed, while far from being a communist utopia, it at least provided an opposition to the US and capitalism. With it gone, imperialism can roam over the world unchecked and unfettered. That alone is a good reason why it&#39;s collapse was a bad thing.
It proved and opposition to the USA, but it was just as imperialistic as the USA. And capitalism was not really checked by its existence.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:03 PM
Its existence helped prevent the United States from interfering with and overthrowing the leaders of other countries.
The Soviets did the same thing as the fucking Ameicans.

They supported petty dictators and thugs in the name of "socialism" in much the sam way that the Great Satan supported them in the name of "freedom", "capitalism", and "Jeffersonian democracy": To give themselves more money and power while at the same time providing them with puppets to fight their pitiful wars for them.

[Si Pinto]

I regret that the revolution wasn&#39;t successful, and I regret what the USSR became in order to try and survive, it&#39;s eventual passing was imho inevitable.

As has been said earlier, you only have to look at how badly the average Russian is doing now to see what effect the market economy has on things.

Ostentatious Oligarchs on one side and severe poverty on the other, welcome to another capitalist utopia <_< .

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It&#39;s not what I have studied most, and still a bit confused with Russian history...

I think the February Revolution was good. But seeing as how Lenin seized power and abolished democracy.... I think it would have been better if there was a union between soviets that was not authoritarian, more decentralized and more democratic. Somewhat like the revolution in Spain.

[Vladislav]

Yes. It was way better then than it is now. Had good education, now there&#39;s hardly any. It&#39;s a shithole and not going anywhere.

[emma_goldman]

Pretty glad for it actually. It makes communism/socialism look undesirable.

[Janus]

No. The path that the USSR set out on was pretty much inevitablely doomed.

[YSR]

No. With it out of the way, Leninism is finally being pushed out of the limelight as the dominant revolutionary ideology.

[anomaly]

No, because it was just another capitalist state. Don&#39;t let the barrage of red flags fool you.

All that has happened is a change of ruling class.

[Rollo]

When did the discrimination between the ideologies start on this forum? Seems like anarchism is trying to force the others away... Why the hell do my fingers smell like raw meat?

[Janus]

When did the discrimination between the ideologies start on this forum?
Discrimination? :blink:

The conflict between the different ideologies is much older than this forum and have been occuring here since the beginning.

[Leo]

No. The path that the USSR set out on was pretty much inevitablely doomed.

A very good analysis Janus...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YKTMX:


No.

It was a autocratic capitalist state that was on its way to being an...autocratic capitalist state.

Good riddance.

My thoughts entirely.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:41 AM
For instance- Gulf War I could never have happened if the USSR had still existed.

They did exist during gulf war one.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

All that has happened is a change of ruling class.

How did the ruling class benefit from its rule?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A &#39;disciplined&#39;/cowed working class.

[Janus]

How did the ruling class benefit from its rule?
How did they not? Everything from private stores to huge villas to grand parties...

[Gold Against The Soul]

It was not perfect but there were positives. Great Social advances and more than anyone, the Soviets saved Europe from Nazism. I don&#39;t know if it could ever be considered Socialist at any point, I&#39;d like to do more reading on the history of it but I think the advances made for the people far surpassed anything achieved by capitalism.

Like anything, I feel we should take the positives from it and build on it. Not join the ruling class cheerleaders who will continue to rewrite the history of it and make out it was all bad.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, but the real collapse of the Soviet Union was in 1977 not 1991. In 1977 ‘official’ capitalism was restored. However traces of the collapse of the union were present in the 1920s with reduction of the role of workers’ councils and organizations and the decline of proletarian culture.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How did they not? Everything from private stores to huge villas to grand parties...


Interesting. I did not know this.

Is there any thread or site where I can learn more about the benefits and luxury of the ruling class in the Soviet Union, including their private stores and the huge villas?

[Janus]

Is there any thread or site where I can learn more about the benefits and luxury of the ruling class in the Soviet Union, including their private stores and the huge villas?

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/05.../7325-kremlin-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/05-11-2004/7325-kremlin-0)


Their horribly affluent lifestyle was exemplified by Brezhnev&#39;s huge collection of luxury cars. You couldn&#39;t get buried without a bribe. Society&#39;s wealth was creamed off - bureaucratic incompetence wasted up to 30% of industrial and agricultural production.
http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2fr...m?downfall.html (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?downfall.html)

There&#39;s a lot of stuff out there detailing the party elite&#39;s wealthy lifestyles including the fine food, cars, homes, etc. that they enjoyed on the party&#39;s payroll.

Even Che commented on this when he visited the USSR.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I see.


Even Che commented on this when he visited the USSR.

The "is this how the proletariat live in the Soviet Union" comment?

[Janus]

The "is this how the proletariat live in the Soviet Union" comment?
Yeah.

There are also plenty of pics of the dachas that the old Soviet leaders use to live in as well.

[FREEDOMisMoreThanAnIDEA]

stalin commited more crimes against his people than any other ruler in the 20th century. anyone who regrets the collapse of the USSR is not a true leftist. The people of the USSR wanted a non-communist state because the communist state they had was a corrupt one undeserving of the name communist. a totalitarian regime of any kind is completly contraditory to marxism, just the idea of a communist state is a contradition of in itself. i voted no because although the nations of the former USSR are for the most part in turmoil it was mostly turmoil created by the so-called communist regime and they are much better off without it. yes there are many problems but they can better be solved in a land where people can speak out to some degree than in any kind of authoritarian state no matter how communist and for the people they may claim to be.

[MrDoom]

The people of the USSR wanted a non-communist state because the communist state they had was a corrupt one undeserving of the name communist. a totalitarian regime of any kind is completly contraditory to marxism, just the idea of a communist state is a contradition of in itself.

:blink:

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:28 AM
stalin commited more crimes against his people than any other ruler in the 20th century. anyone who regrets the collapse of the USSR is not a true leftist. The people of the USSR wanted a non-communist state because the communist state they had was a corrupt one undeserving of the name communist. a totalitarian regime of any kind is completly contraditory to marxism, just the idea of a communist state is a contradition of in itself. i voted no because although the nations of the former USSR are for the most part in turmoil it was mostly turmoil created by the so-called communist regime and they are much better off without it. yes there are many problems but they can better be solved in a land where people can speak out to some degree than in any kind of authoritarian state no matter how communist and for the people they may claim to be.
That is total bull.

There are leftists that do and don&#39;t support the USSR.

And Hitler killed more... ;)

[Xiao Banfa]

stalin commited more crimes against his people than any other ruler in the 20th century

That is bullshit, and I dare you to substantiate it. While Stalin did a lot of damage to the party during that era soviet society accomplished great leaps in the fields of technology, production, health and others.

Life expectancy doubled during Stalins&#39; era.

Having said that, he was decidedly authoritarian.


anyone who regrets the collapse of the USSR is not a true leftist

I&#39;m sorry but regretting the catastrophe of the collapse of a union that facillitated progressive change on a massive scale is a sound leftist position.

-The USSR lost 27 million in defeating fascism- they were the main reason for the defeat of the axis powers.

-The USSR helped bring the colonial era to an end- financing national liberation movements around the globe.

-The USSR helped numerous countries repell imperialism (Korea, Vietnam).

-They, through the vietnamese invasion, brought the destruction of the US-backed Pol Pot regime.

-Genuine popular revolutionary movements around the globe (FMLN, Sandinistas)
were financed by the USSR.

-The citizens of the USSR experienced decent living standards, low unemployment and social security.

-The balance of nuclear power ensured that a nuclear war would be highly unlikely.

Today what was the USSR is now a hellhole of inequality, poverty, racism, ethnic tension and corruption.

I&#39;d say these are good reasons for a rational leftist to regret the collapse of such a
progressive entity.

[Revolution67]

Originally posted by Tino Rangatiratanga
Having said that, he was decidedly authoritarian.
He was an authoritatrian because the geo-political circumstances and the internal affairs prevailing during those times, demanded that he be.

[FREEDOMisMoreThanAnIDEA]

what is all this making of excuses for stalin?&#33;

i would hope that you would put some more consideration into it. would you want to live under stalins rule? I dont want a million replys saying that you would if thats what you think but rather to put some more thought on the subject.

was the USSR really the ideal communist state?

stalin killed his political opponents. as leftists it is our duty, as open minded citizens it is our duty, to question authority. we are so far from the mainstream, so far from what is by most considered normal, were the political opponents of todays politicians and todays capitalists. we are their greatest enemy because we are among the few people who have open eyes and open minds and see the problems in this society we live in today. that is why we are leftists, or at least that is why i am a leftist. we must question all authority or else we can never truely be free. im sorry for going off on sort of a rant but all i want to really say is that we cant ever begin to say its okay what stalin did, its okay to be totalitarian and strictly authoritarian because if we ever begin to let that idea creep into our mind we are letting go some of our freedom. and i desire my freedom and i deserve to have it so i will infinitly oppose totalitarian, authoritarian, or dictatorship regimes wherever and whenever they may exist.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

-The USSR lost 27 million in defeating fascism- they were the main reason for the defeat of the axis powers.


A lot of them through plain stupid attacks where Soviet soldiers got massacred. The officers could of decided that they should wait for air support or artillery. But no, instead 100 Soviet soldiers had to be killed just because a single entrenched German machine gunner needed to be shot.


I really dont get how so called leftists can defend rulers like Stalin.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:03 PM

-The USSR lost 27 million in defeating fascism- they were the main reason for the defeat of the axis powers.


A lot of them through plain stupid attacks where Soviet soldiers got massacred. The officers could of decided that they should wait for air support or artillery. But no, instead 100 Soviet soldiers had to be killed just because a single entrenched German machine gunner needed to be shot.
Did you get this from watching Enemy At The Gates?

Read up on the history of World War 2, it might cause you to stop talking about the red army as some kind of second-rate amateur militia.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I have spent quite a lot of them reading the history of the Soviet Union.

This happened in the first years of the war.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:03 PM
A lot of them through plain stupid attacks where Soviet soldiers got massacred. The officers could of decided that they should wait for air support or artillery. But no, instead 100 Soviet soldiers had to be killed just because a single entrenched German machine gunner needed to be shot.
LOL, riiiight. Even if that really happened, who is to blame for that? The soldiers? The officers? Noooo, it&#39;s all part of the inherent faults of the evil Stalin regime&#33; :lol: :lol:


I really dont get how so called leftists can defend rulers like Stalin.
Even in the face of blatant liars like you? I know that a lot of "leftists" like to employ such intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty when it comes to this subject, but still, at least try? I guess that mistrusting the bourgeoisie on Stalin is just a bit too much to ask for these "leftists". Why? Because when they start discussing Stalin, they do so with the intent of blackening his name, no matter how many unverified "facts", lies, and fallacies they have to use.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

LOL, riiiight. Even if that really happened, who is to blame for that? The soldiers? The officers?

The officers, I would assume.

Perhaps along with the great purge?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I completely supported the USSR&#39;s collapse - its historical purpose was to industrialize Russia and the other nations it conquered and aided to similar revolution (China, etc.), yet after its historic purpose was over, it served no purpose, and just sat as a useless idol.

While the USSR existed, people in non-soviet industrial nations would be forever be bombarded by &#39;they are our enemy&#39; and endless lines of propaganda, and the bourgoeis leaders would always say how the labor movement was &#39;infected by outside agiators&#39;.

While it stood against US imperialism, it didn&#39;t really aid to change the World Situation - it just aimed to keep it the same, which was really quite negative.

[Big Bill Haywood]

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a deformed workers state, but still worthy of support.

It&#39;s collapse was a massive setback for the international working class.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:46 AM
And Hitler killed more... ;)
He killed more in a smaller period, but Stalin has killed the most.

[MrDoom]

was the USSR really the ideal communist state?
No, because "Communist state" is a self-contradicting term.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a deformed workers state, but still worthy of support.


Why support something that has given the proletariat in the West the chills?

[Janus]

It&#39;s collapse was a massive setback for the international working class.
As was its existence.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by Raccoon+Aug 7 2006, 07:26 PM--> (Raccoon @ Aug 7 2006, 07:26 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 02:46 AM
And Hitler killed more... ;)
He killed more in a smaller period, but Stalin has killed the most. [/b]
&#39;noone has killed as many communists as Stalin&#39; - Old Italian Newspaper

[fstick]

Yes, I do regret the collapse of the USSR to some degree because I would rather have two superpowers competing than to have one obtain the spoils of victory which are the rest of the world.

[Xiao Banfa]

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a deformed workers state, but still worthy of support
It was a degenerated workers state.

[SPK]

The Stalinist system murdered millions of people in the name of the so-called “inevitable” victory of socialism over capitalism. That kind of determinism views history as, in the final analysis, a progressive, linear, teleological movement towards the decay and overthrow of capitalism and then onwards to a socialist society. And that kind of determinism was ultimately used to justify those many deaths as a necessary, if unfortunate, price which had to be paid for keeping history moving in the right direction. Stalin and his successors have been rightly condemned for these atrocities, which is at least one of the reasons that many on the Left have viewed the collapse of the USSR as a good thing.

However, the collapse of the Soviet Union initiated a humanitarian catastrophe and mass slaughter throughout Eastern Europe and the former USSR. Wars erupted in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and – most notoriously -- the former Yugoslavia, which blew apart into at least half-a-dozen statelets. The loss of the USSR as a military and strategic counterweight to the US ultimately precipitated the current US imperialist rampage in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. That absence of Soviet economic and military aid also weakened, in the long-term, its former allies, making them vulnerable to attack from lackeys of the US: Syria and, by extension, Lebanon come immediately to mind.

We should not blindly praise the disintegration of the USSR because we believe that it embodied a false version of socialism, or that it prevented a more truly-revolutionary upsurge, or that it demoralized the proletariat, or whatever. Viewing all of the horrors of the past 15+ years as a simple historical necessity, as part of the path towards a real global revolutionary movement, or as a step towards a true socialism, is to buy into a bloody-minded historical determinism that led to the Stalinist crimes in the first place.

[Big Bill Haywood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:15 PM

It&#39;s collapse was a massive setback for the international working class.
As was its existence.
Janus, surely you dont really believe that?

The early days of the Soviet Union were a beacon of hope to the global working people......can you not see that comrade??

I called the USSR a deformed workers state, another comrade said that it was degenerated which may be a more apt desciption.
It was not perfect, yet neither is Capitalism.

Soviet firsts included abortion rights, equality for minorities, women, jews and more.
It was a beacon to the toiling and oppressed masses, no matter what came after the glory of the Red Oktober uprising.

While it existed, there was a chance of real proletarian reform, now that is it gone we may be worse off than before. :(

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Raccoon+Aug 7 2006, 07:26 PM--> (Raccoon @ Aug 7 2006, 07:26 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 02:46 AM
And Hitler killed more... ;)
He killed more in a smaller period, but Stalin has killed the most. [/b]
No, Stalin didn&#39;t "kill the most".

Which nation started WW2 which resulted in the death of over 50 million people?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by Big Bill Haywood+Aug 8 2006, 06:57 AM--> (Big Bill Haywood @ Aug 8 2006, 06:57 AM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 09:15 PM

It&#39;s collapse was a massive setback for the international working class.
As was its existence.
Janus, surely you dont really believe that?

The early days of the Soviet Union were a beacon of hope to the global working people......can you not see that comrade??

I called the USSR a deformed workers state, another comrade said that it was degenerated which may be a more apt desciption.
It was not perfect, yet neither is Capitalism.

Soviet firsts included abortion rights, equality for minorities, women, jews and more.
It was a beacon to the toiling and oppressed masses, no matter what came after the glory of the Red Oktober uprising.

While it existed, there was a chance of real proletarian reform, now that is it gone we may be worse off than before. :( [/b]
Well looking at history the CPSU Always directly controlled many proletarian movements in other nations, effectively purging and destroying any anti-stalinists in their own ranks, (Anarchists, Trotskyists, Orthodox Marxists...etc.) and then making sure no other organization could dominate the workers movement other than them -

They didn&#39;t really care about making Socialism or workers rights, after all they supported mad dictatorships like Said Barre&#39;s in Somalia, and such. In the French General Strike of 1968 they made a direct concession with DeGaulle when more rights for the workers could have been achieved - they were afraid that France could actually erupt into a true revolution without control by the CPSU.

And physically, It did quite a bit to slow down or destroy workers movements abroad - purges of independent leaders, workers, and etc. Of course it may have been a &#39;beacon of hope&#39; to workers, but movements could have been just as strong without it lying there - and likely more successful too.

Of course, it was historically neccesary though - I personally don&#39;t believe that many workers (At least in the US) really believe Socialism can&#39;t work because of the USSR - it is a seldom discussed topic in actual society, and only mantains its academic books in the halls of the academic universities and their professers.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:44 PM
And physically, It did quite a bit to slow down or destroy workers movements abroad - purges of independent leaders, workers, and etc. Of course it may have been a &#39;beacon of hope&#39; to workers, but movements could have been just as strong without it lying there - and likely more successful too.

Tons of worker movements could never have been even attempted without aid from the USSR. China, Vietnam, N. Korea, Cuba and not to mention tons of guerilla organizations such as FARC-EP or the Sandinistas. I can&#39;t see any attempts to have been even remotely successful without some sort of aid from the communist party. They would have probably never even been attempted if the USSR had not been born.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Possibly - but most of them didn&#39;t turn out that well, did they?

[La Comédie Noire]

I would have to say "yes" because The USSR, while not being 100% true socialism or communism, did upset the capitalists. It kept many Imperialist acts in check. When the U.S invaded vietnam the russians were there fueling a proxy war with supplies and training, which eventually led to the U.S pulling out. I look at the USSR as more of a pit fall for Imperialist powers than a progressive State for the left.

I am not sure how bad Russia is now but I have heard many Russian people say they liked it pre collapse and wish for it to come back.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:11 PM
Possibly - but most of them didn&#39;t turn out that well, did they?
Rather attempt something than try nothing.

[Comrade_Scott]

I regret the collapse of the USSR not because of the loss of a socialist state but because withe the ussr gone it left the americans with a free range of countries to pick influence amd destroy and no one to stand in there way

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Don&#39;t get me wrong - I supported its original existence, but I believe currently It would be quite useless if it still existed - the time for its collapse was exactly at the right time.

Now workers movements can actually be independant and not afraid of some stalinist assasin on your back - and think, if the USSR never collapsed, how could the world move towards socialism? Its collapse had to come one time or another for such a state couldn&#39;t abruptly transfer under the official banner of socialism, for &#39;technically&#39; it &#39;already was communist utopia&#39;.

After its purpose was done it served but as a hinder for the transfer to Socialism. The transfer back into capitalism has showed people once again how much capitalism sucks for them, with all those civil wars and current terrible living conditions in all of Eastern Europe and Russia.

Life Expectancy was way higher under the Soviets than under the present regime and Yeltsin&#39;s

[Nikkolas]

I have mixed feelings.

Point 1: It created plenty of problems for the West
Counter-Point: It killed millions

Point 2: It encouraged Marxist uprisings in other places.
Counter-Point: It was, itself, imperialist because of the crushing of actual workers&#39; and peoples&#39; protests in places like Hungary.

Point 3: It started out as all we could have hoped for.
Counter-Point: Stalin killed that dream.

So..it&#39;s yeah. Mixed feelings.

[The Grey Blur]

The many cases for and against the Soviet Union have been made a multitude of times, even over the last few pages of debate. Yet without the USSR&#39;s endurance against US aggression Marxism as an ideology, valid or not, would have been but a footnote in the historybooks.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I know this is an old thread but I’ve only just seen it.

If I’d been old enough to understand what was going on during the Cold War and if that understanding was at the level I’m at now, I undoubtedly would been more in favour of the USSR than the US but I would have taken a critical stance. The problem with the Neocons who were once Trotskyists is that they assumed that to be critical of the USSR was to wholeheartedly support the United States.

With the advantage of hindsight, I think I can say that the USSR had serious defects but it was and interesting that possibly shouldn’t have been attempted on such a large scale – although I applaud Lenin et al for trying. It seems that by the 1980s ordinary people in the USSR and Eastern Europe were suffering under the weight of subordinating everything else to the arms race and I believe that situation had to end.

The end of the USSR was sad but – had I cared at the time – I wouldn’t have been crying over it. The communist system is greater than any one state. What I do regret is the political and cultural hegemony of the US that we live under now. This isn&#39;t anti-Americanism - I&#39;d feel the same if any other country had a hegmony.

[Resistencia]

I regret the collapse of the USSR, as it was the only thing that Cappies could have nightmares about.

[Andy Bowden]

In the sense that the collapse of the USSR allowed the introduction of capitalism in to the Eastern Bloc, Russia etc then yes, it was a total disaster for the working class of those countries - something the majority of people in ex-Soviet bloc countries now realise.

[quirk]

I dont regret it&#39;s collapse at all. The USSR was at this time a revisionist country. The problem was that alot of people throughout the world looked at it, and equated what was going on there as socialism and communism. This is still a big problem even today, and on many occassions when I have raised the issue of communism with people their first reaction would be "look at the Soviet Union. I would have hated to live there"

[A.J.]

The break up of the Soviet Union(despite long being revisionist) was an unmitigated disaster for the proletariat and oppressed peoples of the world for a whole host of reasons I couldn&#39;t even begin to start with.

[Axel1917]

The collapse of the USSR was a terrible thing indeed. Although it was a deformed workers&#39; state, proletarian property forms still remained, and Russia went from a highly backward nation with 70% illiteracy to a world superpower in a very short period of time.

Today&#39;s Russia has all of the old garbage back now: unemployment, Black Hundred Fascism a popular thing with the youth, poverty, epidemics of all kinds, etc.

[Coggeh]

The split of the USSR was not only a terrible thing for the proletarian in Russia but also for movements around the world . Their is no longer any real superpower left to challenge America&#39;s will when they start walking all over smaller nations.

[Stone]

The dissolution of the USSR was a criminal act against the desires of Soviet workers. It has been an enormous catastrophe economically, socially, and even geopolitically. It has increased the influence of the church and fuelled right-wing fascist movements. Russian workers are no longer entitled to the rights they enjoyed in the Soviet period.


after all they supported mad dictatorships like Said Barre&#39;s in Somalia, and such.

Actually, Siad Barre was at one point a socialist and an anti-imperialist. He abandoned the USSR in 1977 when it refused to support his expansionist designs on People&#39;s Ethiopia. Somalia practiced scientific socialism in the 1970-75 period with the help of Soviet advisers. It later abandoned Russia in favor of the IMF.


In the French General Strike of 1968 they made a direct concession with DeGaulle when more rights for the workers could have been achieved - they were afraid that France could actually erupt into a true revolution without control by the CPSU.

Wrong again. The French CP opposed the upper bourgeois students but supported the general strike.


It was, itself, imperialist because of the crushing of actual workers&#39; and peoples&#39; protests in places like Hungary.

Just compare France 1968 to Hungary. In the former there was a genuine people&#39;s movement involving more than 10 million people. In the latter there was a disruptive imperialist-backed provocation against the people&#39;s socialist system and internationalist solidarity with chants like "Russians Go Home". In 1956 not more than a few thousand actually participated in the counerrevolutionary. They clearly did not enjoy the support of the workers who would have made victory impossible for People&#39;s Hungary.

[redcannon]

it put a negative connotation on communism. it probably helped cappie countries like the US because now it could say that communism would always fail and capitalism was the way to go. Whenever people think of communism, now they always think of the USSR, which was not even close.

[-Helix-]

I don&#39;t regret the collapse. I regret it ever existed.

A horrible black mark on the left and true communists/socialists. It will forever be used as propaganda by the fascist right to show how inept and destructive a leftist "communist" society is.

Not to mention, when it did exist, it was just as bad, if not worse, than the imperialist capitalists opposing it. One side conquered in name of "freedom" the other in name of "the people".

Communism and Socialism will forever be related to the evils of the Soviet Union in the areas it impacted. Therefore those people will never be able to be enlightened.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by &#045;Helix&#045;@March 13, 2007 06:09 pm
I don&#39;t regret the collapse. I regret it ever existed.

A horrible black mark on the left and true communists/socialists. It will forever be used as propaganda by the fascist right to show how inept and destructive a leftist "communist" society is.

Not to mention, when it did exist, it was just as bad, if not worse, than the imperialist capitalists opposing it. One side conquered in name of "freedom" the other in name of "the people".

Communism and Socialism will forever be related to the evils of the Soviet Union in the areas it impacted. Therefore those people will never be able to be enlightened.
But isn&#39;t that just a conclusion after the fact? Are you honestly saying that if this were 1917 you wouldn&#39;t be even a little bit excited?

The Bolivarian Revolution, if it outlives Chavez and even possibly during his lifetime, could end up the same way the USSR but at this minute I for one am at the very least cautiously optimistic.

[RNK]

Yes... at first I was very pessimistic about Chavez, because he seems to be doing what most of us thought couldn&#39;t be done -- a peaceful "revolution". I still, however, have my reservations. I don&#39;t hold high hopes and I know that at any moment it could all come down. If he doesn&#39;t act quickly and firmly to disarm the capitalists and reactionaries he will find himself in a very sticky situation.

[Pilar]

I dont really get why it collpased...

When you build a society where you have to use force to keep people from leaving it, you have failed.

A socialist system should make people wish to rush to it in droves.

[Rawthentic]

The only thing that I regret is the fall of the worker&#39;s state around 1921-22. I&#39;m glad Stalin fell and the USSR as it was fell. This gives the workers a new sense of direction and attempt at creating their own society.

[RNK]

I would have much rather seen the USSR go through another worker&#39;s revolution to create a true socialist society. I think it&#39;s collapse was more harmful for the international worker&#39;s movement than its existence, if only because of the negative connotations its collapse brought. Regardless of everyone&#39;s personal feelings of the USSR itself, its collapse nevertheless has put a LOT of people off from socialism.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:47 pm
I think it&#39;s collapse was more harmful for the international worker&#39;s movement than its existence, if only because of the negative connotations its collapse brought.
Got a good point there.

[Vladislav]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:56 pm

I dont really get why it collpased...

When you build a society where you have to use force to keep people from leaving it, you have failed.

A socialist system should make people wish to rush to it in droves.
That&#39;s not why it collapsed.

And life in the USSR was much better than it is now. People were looked after in the Soviet Union. Now, it&#39;s just a flaming shithole where nobody gives a fuck about the little guy.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:47 pm
I would have much rather seen the USSR go through another worker&#39;s revolution to create a true socialist society. I think it&#39;s collapse was more harmful for the international worker&#39;s movement than its existence, if only because of the negative connotations its collapse brought. Regardless of everyone&#39;s personal feelings of the USSR itself, its collapse nevertheless has put a LOT of people off from socialism.
I think for the USSR to have gone through a true worker&#39;s revolution it would have had to have happened elsewhere. For example if Paris May 1968 happened closer to the collapse of the USSR, the workers of the USSR probably would have taken that as their model and moved towards self-managing their workplaces.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Psy+March 18, 2007 05:03 pm--> (Psy @ March 18, 2007 05:03 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 10:47 pm
I would have much rather seen the USSR go through another worker&#39;s revolution to create a true socialist society. I think it&#39;s collapse was more harmful for the international worker&#39;s movement than its existence, if only because of the negative connotations its collapse brought. Regardless of everyone&#39;s personal feelings of the USSR itself, its collapse nevertheless has put a LOT of people off from socialism.
I think for the USSR to have gone through a true worker&#39;s revolution it would have had to have happened elsewhere. For example if Paris May 1968 happened closer to the collapse of the USSR, the workers of the USSR probably would have taken that as their model and moved towards self-managing their workplaces. [/b]
The workers WERE self-managing workplaces during the revolution in Russia. They adopted the Soviet "model" because that was the body that the workers formed, it wasn&#39;t really planned at all. Revolutions take the form that the workers create, and the Russian revolution is no exception.

[Psy]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 18, 2007 05:15 pm--> (manic expression @ March 18, 2007 05:15 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:03 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 10:47 pm
I would have much rather seen the USSR go through another worker&#39;s revolution to create a true socialist society. I think it&#39;s collapse was more harmful for the international worker&#39;s movement than its existence, if only because of the negative connotations its collapse brought. Regardless of everyone&#39;s personal feelings of the USSR itself, its collapse nevertheless has put a LOT of people off from socialism.
I think for the USSR to have gone through a true worker&#39;s revolution it would have had to have happened elsewhere. For example if Paris May 1968 happened closer to the collapse of the USSR, the workers of the USSR probably would have taken that as their model and moved towards self-managing their workplaces.
The workers WERE self-managing workplaces during the revolution in Russia. They adopted the Soviet "model" because that was the body that the workers formed, it wasn&#39;t really planned at all. Revolutions take the form that the workers create, and the Russian revolution is no exception. [/b]
I&#39;m talking about the collapse of the USSR, the labor movement during the collapse had less class consciousness then the French workers during May 1968. If the USSR went out with workers across the USSR occupying workplaces it have put the USSR back to where Russia was in 1917 except industrialized and a world power.

[Lenin II]

The Russian people long for the days of the Soviet Union now. Under capitalism, they are miserable. The only reason the USSR went wrong is because Stalin became a greedy cappie imperialist. Had the Union not been misled by him, it could have been a shining beacon for the far-left. Instead, nowadays it&#39;s an excuse for capitalists to ignore the flaws in their own system and use as an example of how communism "doesn&#39;t work."

Luckily, from what I hear, Russia is heading back to Communism. We&#39;ll see what the future holds.

[Trystan]

With the USSR gone the capitalists have nothing directly stopping them instituting neo-liberal policies over the world.

But aside from that reason, I don&#39;t find any reason to regret it&#39;s collapse. I agree with Noam Chomsky that it was "small victory for socialism and democracy". 9Yeah, the USSR was officially socialist, but it was forced and far from being a classless society).

[sexyguy]

By the way the USSR did not “collapse”. It was savaged from within.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:37 pm
With the USSR gone the capitalists have nothing directly stopping them instituting neo-liberal policies over the world.

But aside from that reason, I don&#39;t find any reason to regret it&#39;s collapse. I agree with Noam Chomsky that it was "small victory for socialism and democracy". 9Yeah, the USSR was officially socialist, but it was forced and far from being a classless society).
The workers in the former USSR traded USSR imperialism for US imperialism.

The USSR fell in the worst possible way, the best way would be if the fall of the USSR looked on TV like May 1968 in Paris with a quarter of the work force on general strike and a large chunk of that occupying their workplaces, large red and black flags hung on factory gates and workers singing the Internationale.

If the workers kept the stock the USSR handed out to its citizens (instead of selling them for food) then used their stocks to occupied and operate factories legally it would cause the fall of the USSR to backfire into the capitalist face since they would have replaced the USSR with a true workers state.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Psy+April 03, 2007 02:19 pm--> (Psy @ April 03, 2007 02:19 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:37 pm
With the USSR gone the capitalists have nothing directly stopping them instituting neo-liberal policies over the world.

But aside from that reason, I don&#39;t find any reason to regret it&#39;s collapse. I agree with Noam Chomsky that it was "small victory for socialism and democracy". 9Yeah, the USSR was officially socialist, but it was forced and far from being a classless society).
The workers in the former USSR traded USSR imperialism for US imperialism.

The USSR fell in the worst possible way, the best way would be if the fall of the USSR looked on TV like May 1968 in Paris with a quarter of the work force on general strike and a large chunk of that occupying their workplaces, large red and black flags hung on factory gates and workers singing the Internationale.

If the workers kept the stock the USSR handed out to its citizens (instead of selling them for food) then used their stocks to occupied and operate factories legally it would cause the fall of the USSR to backfire into the capitalist face since they would have replaced the USSR with a true workers state. [/b]
The USSR wasn&#39;t imperialist. It used other countries to create buffer zones, but it wasn&#39;t imperialist. Imperialism is inherently capitalist, and the USSR was far from that.

Yes, if the workers retook control of the state and brought it back to what the soviet system was supposed to be, it would have been great. The only problem is that it didn&#39;t work out that way, which sucks.

That being said, the USSR, even with all of its problems and shortcomings, was FAR better than what was always going to replace it (for many reasons). Due to this, it should&#39;ve been defended from capitalism at all costs IMO.

[Genosse Kotze]

Weather you&#39;re pro USSR or not, I think we can all agree that the reversion back to capitalism (even if you think it was "state capitalist before hand") wasn&#39;t the thing to do. It&#39;s history going backwards--when the USSR collapsed but had a better, more revolutionary, socialist entity come out of it, that would have been ideal--instead, they&#39;ve gone right back to capitalism (and the 3rd world) where they started out, a hand full of gangsters got rich, while the rest of the people had their lives ruined.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:14 pm
By the way the USSR did not “collapse”. It was savaged from within.
very good point

[Psy]

Originally posted by keine Kaufhalle mehr&#33;@April 08, 2007 02:45 am
Weather you&#39;re pro USSR or not, I think we can all agree that the reversion back to capitalism (even if you think it was "state capitalist before hand") wasn&#39;t the thing to do. It&#39;s history going backwards--when the USSR collapsed but had a better, more revolutionary, socialist entity come out of it, that would have been ideal--instead, they&#39;ve gone right back to capitalism (and the 3rd world) where they started out, a hand full of gangsters got rich, while the rest of the people had their lives ruined.
The big problem is it reverted without a strong fight, workers lost in Paris (May 1968) but no one could say workers then were indifferent. Nothing says the workers are not happy with the status quo like burning police cars. If shortly after the USSR went back to laissez-faire capitalism there was large violent riots in the former USSR, even if they were crushed they would have spread the idea of revolution.

[Captain Communism]

Major problems were just the handling of Governments, individuals gained more power like the mafia and gangs and industries were going else where. Apparently there was an increased suicide rate when the USSR collapsed meaning people were fine with it its the individuals with the power who make the wrong decisions.

[RNK]

I voted no.

The USSR from 1921-1956 was bad enough. After kruschev, all notions of socialism and people&#39;s control faded; by 1989 it was no more socialist than Canada.

That said, I regret that it&#39;s collapse wasn&#39;t brought about in a more socialist manner -- I wish the people had risen up for a second socialist revolution, not some bourgeois takeover.