What would you have done differently?

[Omega]

After reading the post of Reagan45 about the faliure of communisium and some of the responses I would like to pose a question to the board:

In your opinion, what course of action should the Soviet leadership have taken in the post WWII era to have made communism a success?

What would you have done differently?

[BobKKKindle$]

Most leftists here will put forward the view that the nature of the Soviet Union before WW2 indicated that Communism would not be attained. Many will also suggest that the state apparatus should not have been maintained, but should have been destroyed in favour of a federalist structure of organisation.

[MrDoom]

What happened happened and could not have ultimately resulted in any other outcome.

Attempting to build socialism in a backwards semi-feudal agrarian economy is like trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

[Demogorgon]

Well the Soviet Union was not the ideal place to build a Communist Society, but as you are asking quite specifically what the leadership should have done after the second world war, I will answer you.

1. Free elections
2. Less central planning, more worker management
3. More federalism to cut down on the inefficiency of a state that size
4. Less wastage on military programmes
5. No political repression

Also it might even have been wise to return, temporarilly, to the New Economic Policy in order to advance the country to the stage where Communism was possible.

[Raúl Duke]

Just organized horizontally, place workers in control of their own workplaces, eliminate the party, and imitate the anarchists :P

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:52 am
Well the Soviet Union was not the ideal place to build a Communist Society, but as you are asking quite specifically what the leadership should have done after the second world war, I will answer you.

1. Free elections
2. Less central planning, more worker management
3. More federalism to cut down on the inefficiency of a state that size
4. Less wastage on military programmes
5. No political repression

Also it might even have been wise to return, temporarilly, to the New Economic Policy in order to advance the country to the stage where Communism was possible.
Mr. Demogorgon,

Your suggestion 2, 3 and 4 I feel would be productive. However I am not sure if suggestions 1 and 5 “Free elections” and “No Political repression” would have been conducive to the continuance of the system at the time.

I say this because not all member states were happy to be included in the Soviet Union. Take Ukraine for example (by the way, my family comes from there). In 1917 they had their first brief independence from Russia since 1654. It did not last long though.

When the Gorbachev administration came to power in 1985 and made attempts at reforms through the perestroika program, the reforms probably got a bit bigger than he had originally hoped for. So much so that in 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist. When his administration allowed the people more political freedom and a choice…they voted themselves right out of the Union.

I think if Stalin (is it thinkable?) or Khrushchev tried the same reforms the Soviet Union would have met the same end but in their time.

You mention that the Soviet Union was not an ideal place to build a Communist Society. Where do you feel an Ideal place would be?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Omega+March 19, 2007 07:13 am--> (Omega @ March 19, 2007 07:13 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:52 am
Well the Soviet Union was not the ideal place to build a Communist Society, but as you are asking quite specifically what the leadership should have done after the second world war, I will answer you.

1. Free elections
2. Less central planning, more worker management
3. More federalism to cut down on the inefficiency of a state that size
4. Less wastage on military programmes
5. No political repression

Also it might even have been wise to return, temporarilly, to the New Economic Policy in order to advance the country to the stage where Communism was possible.
Mr. Demogorgon,

Your suggestion 2, 3 and 4 I feel would be productive. However I am not sure if suggestions 1 and 5 “Free elections” and “No Political repression” would have been conducive to the continuance of the system at the time.

I say this because not all member states were happy to be included in the Soviet Union. Take Ukraine for example (by the way, my family comes from there). In 1917 they had their first brief independence from Russia since 1654. It did not last long though.

When the Gorbachev administration came to power in 1985 and made attempts at reforms through the perestroika program, the reforms probably got a bit bigger than he had originally hoped for. So much so that in 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist. When his administration allowed the people more political freedom and a choice…they voted themselves right out of the Union.

I think if Stalin (is it thinkable?) or Khrushchev tried the same reforms the Soviet Union would have met the same end but in their time.

You mention that the Soviet Union was not an ideal place to build a Communist Society. Where do you feel an Ideal place would be? [/b]
In the 2 or 3 decades after World War II the people still remembered how awful life was before the revolution and did not seek a return to capitalism.

The Hungarian Uprising in 56 aimed to achieve the suggestions of Demorgorgon, as did the Ukrainian anarchists who in 1917 controlled most of Ukraine. (anarchism is essentially communism but organised in the way Demorgorgon suggested) There was no popular pro-capitalists rebellions. (the Tiananmen Square protests were communist) This suggests they would not have elected a return to capitalism.

But the party would not have done this, they had material benefits from the hierarchal structure of the party. It could only be achieved by the working class.

An ideal place would be not a particular country, but it would have to lead by an international workers organisation. There isn't really anywhere in the world capable of having a revolution right now, but I think a major capitalist crisis and a lot of work from the socialists in educating the workers would make an international proletarian revolution possible. (oh btw in case you didn't know, it has to be where industry is advanced as supply must exceed demand for it to be more efficient than capitalism)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:54 pm
After reading the post of Reagan45 about the faliure of communisium and some of the responses I would like to pose a question to the board:

In your opinion, what course of action should the Soviet leadership have taken in the post WWII era to have made communism a success?

What would you have done differently?
Introduce capitalism. It is the only logical step forward from feudalism, after all.

[Idola Mentis]

I think something went sour during the revolution. By the end of WWII, the totalitarian dictatorship was already snuggling in. Another revolution, moving toward anarchy, might have jerked them off that track, but not much else. The reforms could do nothing but reintroduce statism and capitalist exploitation.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+March 19, 2007 07:18 am--> (RedStar1916 @ March 19, 2007 07:18 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:54 pm
After reading the post of Reagan45 about the faliure of communisium and some of the responses I would like to pose a question to the board:

In your opinion, what course of action should the Soviet leadership have taken in the post WWII era to have made communism a success?

What would you have done differently?
Introduce capitalism. It is the only logical step forward from feudalism, after all. [/b]
Nail. Head.

Reaganwhatsyourface, in history all countries with revolutions out of feudalism ended up in capitalism: France, American colonies, etc. Russia's capitalism could be predicted from the start.

[Omega]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+March 19, 2007 04:11 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ March 19, 2007 04:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:18 am

[email protected] 18, 2007 09:54 pm
After reading the post of Reagan45 about the faliure of communisium and some of the responses I would like to pose a question to the board:

In your opinion, what course of action should the Soviet leadership have taken in the post WWII era to have made communism a success?

What would you have done differently?
Introduce capitalism. It is the only logical step forward from feudalism, after all.
Nail. Head.

Reaganwhatsyourface, in history all countries with revolutions out of feudalism ended up in capitalism: France, American colonies, etc. Russia's capitalism could be predicted from the start.[/b]
That was a response that I really did not expect.

[The Bitter Hippy]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+March 19, 2007 04:11 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ March 19, 2007 04:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:18 am

[email protected] 18, 2007 09:54 pm
After reading the post of Reagan45 about the faliure of communisium and some of the responses I would like to pose a question to the board:

In your opinion, what course of action should the Soviet leadership have taken in the post WWII era to have made communism a success?

What would you have done differently?
Introduce capitalism. It is the only logical step forward from feudalism, after all.
Nail. Head.

Reaganwhatsyourface, in history all countries with revolutions out of feudalism ended up in capitalism: France, American colonies, etc. Russia's capitalism could be predicted from the start. [/b]
i'm not so sure. While it was unsustainable in the long-term, the soviet mode of production was better at building and maintaining immediate power than the capitalist model. For reference, see how russia, the great crippled bear in 1917, managed to beat the germans back in 1942/3.

To go back to the question, after WWII i'd have focussed all state efforts on massive industrial investment, invested in specialist education and tried to keep on friendly terms with the western powers.

This would go on for as long as the regime could survive, ending up with russia occupying a far more powerful position post-sovietism than it does now. This would put the world in general in a position closer to the actual revolution than we see now.

Trying to achieve communism in a post WWII USSR would have been a futile endeavour. However, by reducing the cold war as much as possible and by refraining from soviet expansion, And by emphasizing long-term a stronger russia could emerge from soviet ruins.

which would in turn allow capitalism to develop closer to revolution

[IcarusAngel]

On Russia being "worse" than capitalism: According to a book by Professor Sen, had China had the capitalist model during its time of shame far more people would have died than under Mao. He doesn't exactly extend that to the Soviet Union, but I think it is true there as well. For example, Russia went from a "third world" country to a country that increased productivity from 100-300% in agriculture, steel, etc., and had a national health care plan, a space program (that was able to successfully land the first probe on venus and orbit man around the earth), improved conditions for women, cracked down on crime, built the moscow metro, and so on.

The free-market simply could not have been able to instigate such a turn around in such a short amount of time. Human history has shown that civilization has been on a quest to a more civilized, centralized government. Virtually no advancements have ever been made in a society without a strong government, because the government is invariably an important factor in incorporating technology and ideas into civilization. This is true in the US as well which has had a hand in nearly every major industry, funds technology, and does other things that other countries are unable to such as regulates trade in its favor. Countries with no strong government are quickly left behind.

Of course with a strong central government, there are problems such as curtailment of civil liberties, persecution of minorities, and so on, but in almost every case a strong government is usually better than a "weak" one. For example, despite Stalin's crimes, he's still one of the most respected men in Russia today, and despite restrictions of personal life etc., most elderly russians claim there lives were better under Stalin than in current russia with its rising crime rates, prostitution, etc.

Now, after about 20 years of capitalist, free-market "reforms" without the help of a government to steer it in the right direction, the country has been driven right back down into the third world.

So I'm not sure "capitalism" is really a "logical progression" for Russia; nor is it really closer to "real communism" under capitalism than it was under communism.

[Tungsten]

Human history has shown that civilization has been on a quest to a more civilized, centralized governmentNazi Germany must have been extremely civilised then- political power there was about as centralized at it gets.

Virtually no advancements have ever been made in a society without a strong government, because the government is invariably an important factor in incorporating technology and ideas into civilization.
What exactly is it you're advocating here?

Anyway, thank heavens our government forces us to use computers otherwise we'd probably still be banging away on typewriters. :rolleyes:

For example, despite Stalin's crimes, he's still one of the most respected men in Russia today, and despite restrictions of personal life etc., most elderly russians claim there lives were better under Stalin than in current russia with its rising crime rates, prostitution, etc.
Ass kisser at twelve o'clock. Stalin was good because he made the trains run on time. Why aren't you restricted?

Now, after about 20 years of capitalist, free-market "reforms"
There haven't been 20 years of free market anything. Communism collapsed and a different gang of authoritarians took over. Anything that became free was free only because either it took place out of sight of the government or it didn't threaten the newcomer's powerbase.

[Jazzratt]

I'd have shot more people.

[wtfm8lol]

Countries with no strong government are quickly left behind.

Ah, like the United States pre-Lincoln was "quickly left behind".

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:55 pm
What happened happened and could not have ultimately resulted in any other outcome.

Attempting to build socialism in a backwards semi-feudal agrarian economy is like trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
Russia was the fastest growing economy on earth in 1914 (even faster than the USa). Those replies which marvelled at USSR progress of the 30s omit it was all coming anyways, whether under the tsars or the reds (and the replies ususally omit that they came under stalin because western capitalists underwrote it).

But on a larger issue: At what point does capitalism become advanced enough for socialism to move in? One of the criticisms of capitalism one sees on these boards is that capitalism does not effectively use technology. Socialism, we are told, will create a society where machines will do all the essential, but totally drab labor.

But this suggests that socialism will advance society even further than what one could expect of capitalism. It implies that socialism will "help things along." If socialism can do that, why CAN'T a socialist revolt occur in a "backwards" economy? The function of the socialists there will be merely to "help things along."

[BobKKKindle$]

I am shocked that many Leftists are holding a narrow and forced viewpoint based on Marx's ideas about the dialectical progression of history in that they advocate the advent of Capitalism following Feudalism even in the event that a socialist revolution has taken place. Under a free market system, industrialisation can only take place if Capital is sufficiently concentrated - that is, if one individual or organisation has sufficient Capital to undertake the construction of Factories, Infrastructure, and all the other forms of economic development that are typical of an industrialised economy. Genereally, concentration occurs through saving over a long period of time. The other alternative is industrialisation through foreign direct investement - which has other problems which I will not specify here.

If, however, all avaliable Capital is concentrated in the hands of the state, then industrialisation can progress immiedietly, and at a constant high, rate, because in a planned economy, the economy does not undergo recessions, because all economic resources are under centralised control.

[wtfm8lol]

from what i've seen, it seems like they hold to this view because marx predicted that communism would never come straight after feudalism and it's pretty obvious that all attempts to go from feudalism to communism have had less than desirable results so they use that fact to excuse the failures of communism. they blame the wrong thing, basically.

[RGacky3]

You asked what the Soviet Government could do.

They could do what they were supposed to do in the revolution, give the power over to the Soviets (workers councils), and promote a genuine Communist Society. What they did was hold on to power, thus pretty much killing any chance of Communism