Eastern Europe?

[Matty_UK]

Have you BEEN, have you LIVED, have you SEEN the effects of communism? Reading about them is one thing and living them is another. I have lived in Poland at least half my life and although I was born a year after Lech Walesa and the rest of the Solidarity movement took over and got rid of the commies, its effects were astounding. They are still astounding today. The economy is unstable, the government is corrupt because the Communists are still feeding its politicians full of bullshit and money, politicians are retarded old Commies who only support the system because it brought them money. I'll admit, communism brought education, food, and birth control into Russia, but hell, an effective government and the feminist movement did the same in other countries.
Okay, one can say that constant bloodshed over Polish soil (and of course being ruled by the RUssians, Prussians and Austrians for 125 years didn't help our economy) but before World War II, Poland was a capitalist dictatorship and we prospered..while RUSSIA was baked in famine, bloodshed, and poverty. Everyone got bread, but little bread. Getting rid of the survival of the fittest failed because COmmunist party leaders got rich while everyone else was starving. It just changed who was fittest.
There was no food in Eastern Europe. People were starving, roads were horrible, most people paid and cheated their way through school and work. You tell me it didn't fuck up their economies? Tell me, did you LIVE in Eastern Europe? Did you HEAR the stories, did you SEE poverty, did you feel the saddness in the fucking air? No. You read a few books, looked at some stats, and you're telling me it's not the cause of communism that Poland and other Eastern European countries are poor. Well, what else? Communism was the system that overtook their economies, and after our fields were pillaged for Russian citizens, we were left with nothing.
"African standards of living" come from pure Soviet communism and nothing else. Industrialization also failed in a country such as Russia because people knew that if they bullshited their quotas, they'd still get paid, because hell, we're all equal, ain't we?
I'll just say one thing. Look at countries that didn't experiment with communism and look at those that did. Granted, other factors were involved, but look at their economies. You say it's not fair to compare, but it is. They're both economic systems, so they can be compared.
I'll tell you one thing. Being bitter is one thing but seeing, hearing, feeling, and living the truth of what communist systems have done to Eastern Europe is another. And that's what makes me a fan of no fanatical economic system, such as pure capitalism, pure Socialism, pure anything.
Once again, an effective government is different than some failed economic theory.


So I was having a debate with someone, saying that the Chinese and Russian revolutions, though not socialism, were definitately progressive and achieved a lot.

So she starts talking about Eastern Europe, of which I know nothing.
Can you guys help me out a little here?

[Iron]

Though some of the fellow leftist will disagree. tell her that these are the failures of Stalinist communist which is nowhere close to how an ideal communist society would be set up. What happened to Eastern Europe were examples of Stalinist imperialism, and failures of a forced utopia.

[Random Precision]

You can't get a workers' state without having a workers' revolution first. The Stalinist experiment in Eastern Europe proved that central tenet of Marxism correct once and for all.

[black magick hustla]

Poland and the whole lot of eastern europe have always been more backward than its western counterparts in respect to the economy.

While Western Europe was industralizing and becoming capitalist, feudalism was still rampant in many of the eastern european countries.

The "socialists" were handed the shittiest part of europe, while the capitalists ended up with the most advanced part.

The guy who wrote that shit needs to take a World History course.

[Tower of Bebel]

The workers of Eastern Europe wanted change. They wanted both politcal and economic freedom, yet they received only economic freedom but far from the abundance socialism or communism would have given them.

[SpikeyRed]

Your opponent said something about 'Look at the countries that didn't experiment with Socialism', and I assume they are thinking of 'Western' nation-states and such, but, to use such an argument to say that Capitalism is better than Socialism is completely selective, misleading and infact all out wrong. Like Marmot said, take a fucking history lesson! It's as if your opponent takes the view that historical factors play no part and that all states started on an equal footing at an equal time and choose their system.
It didn't work like that. Look at states in Africa that haven't experimented with Socialism. They're are plenty of states, such as Burkina Faso, that have had capitalism, and, they're fucked. For example, "While Burkinabé cotton farmers sold their raw cotton for 42 cents a kilogramme two years ago, they earned 35 cents per kilo in 2005. This year, the price has fallen still further, to 33 cents." (Source (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/2006/0815cottonafrica.htm)) Cotton is one of Birkina Faso's main exports, and alot of the population lives off it, but, instead of getting ahead by working harder, they still going backwards!!

Point is your opponent has taken no historical factors into account. It's well known that there was huge economic growth in the USSR up until about the seventies (Sorry I don't have a source but I'm sure the figures arn't hard to find) and that it only really stagnated into the 70's and 80's.
Lots of people like to focus on the BAD things about socialist and former socialist states, but, objectivly, Socialism has provided a rising living standard and a growing economy in many states, that perhaps Capitalism would have been worse for. It's easy to envisage imperialism from much more establish and powerful capitalist states in Western Europe doing horrible things to economically backward Eastern States transitioning out of Feudalism to Capitalism in the early 20th Century.

Your opponent is a blinkered fool.

[Tower of Bebel]

The uprisings during the sixties in several countries against the power of the almighty bureaucraty were healthy reactions of the people. Look at Tienamen.
The only good thing that the people of Eastern Europe received was some sort of economic security.
Capitalists are inable or do not want to see the truth about these popular uprisings against the bureaucracy. They think political freedom = capitalism. Yet they forget the simple fact that the peoples of Eastern Europa, Russia and China did not want to lose their economic freedom (which they lost when the Berlin wall fell, when Russia imploded and the CCP started major reforms during the seventies).
Nowadays Ukranian farmers for example still doubt whether they should vote for or support communists (like the communists of the soviet era) in exhange for their political freedom or vote for bourgeois parties in exchange for their economic freedom.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:55 pm
So I was having a debate with someone, saying that the Chinese and Russian revolutions, though not socialism, were definitately progressive and achieved a lot.

So she starts talking about Eastern Europe, of which I know nothing.
Can you guys help me out a little here?
You're right and she's wrong. Leaving aside the ideological hand baggage, Eastern Europe is today one of the most highly industrialised regions in the world and, with the exception of the Czech Republic, this is entirely the result of Soviet domination. Anyone who contends that this is representative of Africa is simply mistaken - industrialisation has provided Eastern Europe with a solid manufacturing base, relatively stable government/state structures, good medical and transportation infrastructure and an excellent education system. In many, or all, of these categories the region lags behind Western Europe but even the worst cases (I'm thinking Moldova) is in another league to even the wealthier African nations.

As I said, all of this is the result of industrialisation. Whether or not Communist rule was beneficial has to be evaluated with one simple question - did they industrialise? The answer is emphatically yes. Industrialisation on the Soviet model may not have been pretty but it was extremely effective in creating an industrial base out of nothing. This is something that would not have occurred without the Communists.

With the exception of Czechoslovakia, each and every Eastern Bloc nation possessed virtually no industrial base prior to 1939. On the whole these nations were net exporters of agricultural produce which they exchanged for manufactured goods from Western nations. Its the classic trade dependency loop - they sell cheap grain and receive cheap goods. This simultaneously benefits the farmers while undermining domestic industry, who simply can't compete with cheap competition from overseas. As such the nation gets pulled into a sort of neo-colonial arrangement.

Eastern Europe, along with S America, was characterised by this underdevelopment-by-trade well into the 20th C. It required direct government interference to break the cycle and create, literally in the case of the Soviet model, the conditions in which an industrial base could be established free of foreign competition. S America did not have this "clean break" and continues, to this day, to be stuck in a dependency loop with the richer capitalist nations. If it weren't for the Communists then Eastern Europe would be akin to S America or the richer parts of Africa.

[catch]

Let's see, the Ukraine 1918-1922, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary 1953-1956, Czechoslavakia 1968. Do you guys even know about these events?

[EwokUtopia]

It did better in some countries than it did in others, and this directly corresponds to the level of occupation by the USSR these countries faced. For instance, it did poorly in Hungary and Romania due to a high amount of Soviet Occupation and shitty corrupt beurocracies and dictators.

It did much better in Bulgaria, as Bulgaria was more independant from the Soviet Union, but remained close to it. Indeed Bulgaria tried to join the USSR in the 70's, but was turned down.

In Eastern Europe, it worked best in Tito's Yugoslavia. This is because Communism came about in Yugoslavia as a result of the anti-Nazi partisans rising against the Nazi's, not as the result of the red army sweeping by and giving power to the communist parties, but not so much power that they can easily break away from their sphere of influence (whats this practise called again? oh yeah...imperialism). Communism came to power in Yugoslavia of the Yugoslavians hands, it wasnt occupational, and it wasnt controlled by a foriegn power. Under Tito, the ethnic divisions of Yugoslavia became temporarily blurred, which suckes that Titoism had to fall if you consider all of the ethnic tension there nowadays.


Communism can not be brought about by occupation, thats why it failed in the eastern bloc.

[Comrade Rage]

Communism fared well in the Socialist Republic of Albania as well.

[Prairie Fire]

Man, threads like this are probably the reason I haven't posted in a while. It is such moral-defeating attrition to hav eto deal with these non-stop threads going over the same topics into infinity, shitting on every single entity that has ever tried to build socialism, but offering no solutions.


I give credit that the author of this thread was genuinely asking for information; too bad that the answers were so ridiculous.

Iron and Catbert836, shut the fuck up. Quit using bullshit buzzwords like "Stalinist" in place of actual arguments.

Marmot:

While Western Europe was industralizing and becoming capitalist, feudalism was still rampant in many of the eastern european countries.

I see. So we are using a non-standard definition of "Feudalism", are we? I was taught that Feudalism is a socio-economic system with it's own specific government and mode of production. Even the most social-imperialist Eastern european states were industrialized, with social productive forces, and therefore shared no resemblence with feudal modes of production. Whatever you may think about the governments of these states, they were still not Aristocratic in any sense, wether they were democratic or not. So when you say "feudalism was rampant" in this countries, you mean "I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, but I enjoy typing."

Ewok Utopia:


In Eastern Europe, it worked best in Tito's Yugoslavia. This is because Communism came about in Yugoslavia as a result of the anti-Nazi partisans rising against the Nazi's, not as the result of the red army sweeping by and giving power to the communist parties, but not so much power that they can easily break away from their sphere of influence (whats this practise called again? oh yeah...imperialism). Communism came to power in Yugoslavia of the Yugoslavians hands, it wasnt occupational, and it wasnt controlled by a foriegn power. Under Tito, the ethnic divisions of Yugoslavia became temporarily blurred, which suckes that Titoism had to fall if you consider all of the ethnic tension there nowadays.

Albania also freed themselves by their own hand, with partisan forces. In fact, most eastern european nations also had partisan forces. Socialism didn't "work best" in Titoite yugoslavia; Yugosavia was supplemented with massive amounts of western capital from the United states to maintain it's economy. And no, the ethnic differences were not "blurred". If anything, they were amplified. Minority groups in croatia and Kosovo were still oppressed just as surely under Titoism as under capitalism.

Spikey Red:

Look at states in Africa that haven't experimented with Socialism. They're are plenty of states, such as Burkina Faso, that have had capitalism, and, they're fucked.

Actually, Burkina Faso was briefly socialist also.

There was some decent comments by Spikeyred and ComradeOm, but a lot of this was pretty useless, to capitalists and communists.

Seriously, it's these repetitive ass threads with titles like "how did Stalin betray socialism" and "why did communism fuck up in (insert name of country)" that make a comrade burn out. The topics on this "communist" message board are slanderous, almost to the point of downright disinformation.

[hajduk]

yeah raven is right Yugoslavia was the best communist state not perfect but god

[Random Precision]

Iron and Catbert836, shut the fuck up. Quit using bullshit buzzwords like "Stalinist" in place of actual arguments.

What besides the word "Stalinist" do you disagree with in my post, Raven?

I merely stated that a socialist state must be established by a proletarian revolution, not, as the overwhelming majority of so-called socialist states in Eastern Europe were, by an occupying army. Is it this that you disagree with?

[Prairie Fire]

Hajduk:
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I said.

Catbert836:

Your comment drips with Trot social anaylisis, or lack thereof. It presupposes that the developement of social Imperialism in eastern europe was an initiative of Stalin and/or the logical extent of his policies. In reality, even the Spartacus league knows that the soviet interventions in eastern european foreign policy of Hungary and Czechoslovakia happened after the death of Stalin, and quite contrary to the policies of the CPSU circa 1930-1953.

To equate everything bad that happened in eastern europe, the soviet union, and elsewhere with "stalinism", ignores that Nicky's policies, and all of the apparatchiks after him, are quite contrary to the line and policies of the CPSU during the Stalin era, but yet they still classify it as "Stalinism".

The word "Stalinist" is a slur, devoid of analysis given that Nicky Kruschev and co were not his "legacy" in practice, and used liberally against political opponents. It is an inherently useless word. Even "Stalinists", for th emost part, don't use that word. "Stalinism" is not an ideology, it isn't a socio-economic system, nor is it an era in soviet development; it's a political slur, straight up.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Like it has been pointed out above, official Communism did what it could with Eastern Europe, dealing with formerly dynastic, pre-capitalist and lowly-industrialised states and converting them into fully-industrialised states. This happened despite the downsides of bureaucratic collectivism, hostile imperialist-capitalist forces from the west and south, and some Eastern European flirtations with nationalist-communism.

To an extent I feel a much fairer comparison with the capitalist west can be done with the German Democratic Republic. Despite the devastation of World War Two, the GDR was situated in a very developed, industrialised area. Again despite the downsides and inadequate economic policies of the later years, the citizens of the GDR enjoyed a standard of living beyond that of many working class people in North America and Western Europe. Women as a group in particular had much more social freedoms than their sisters in the non-communist world. When the GDR was abolished in 1990, the introduction of market forces caused mass unemployment for the working class, with women especially being extremely hit by unemployment which continues to this day. Not only was western capitalism introduced, it was capitalist-patriarchy and women no longer could have access to free extensive childcare and pro-feminist economic and social policies that don't just benefit a bourgeois élite.

[Random Precision]

Raven:


The word "Stalinist" is a slur, devoid of analysis given that Nicky Kruschev and co were not his "legacy" in practice, and used liberally against political opponents. It is an inherently useless word. Even "Stalinists", for th emost part, don't use that word. "Stalinism" is not an ideology, it isn't a socio-economic system, nor is it an era in soviet development; it's a political slur, straight up.

Interestingly enough, the term "Stalinism" was coined by "Iron Lazar" Kaganovich, one of Stalin's higher-ranked sycophants during his time, while most of your types will claim that it goes back to Trotsky. But aside from that I don't really care to have a semantical debate with you, and it's clear my efforts to make you see why Stalinism WAS all of the things you mention would be wasted. So I just won't bother if it's all the same to you.

And this crap

Your comment drips with Trot social anaylisis, or lack thereof. It presupposes that the developement of social Imperialism in eastern europe was an initiative of Stalin and/or the logical extent of his policies. In reality, even the Spartacus league knows that the soviet interventions in eastern european foreign policy of Hungary and Czechoslovakia happened after the death of Stalin, and quite contrary to the policies of the CPSU circa 1930-1953.

To equate everything bad that happened in eastern europe, the soviet union, and elsewhere with "stalinism", ignores that Nicky's policies, and all of the apparatchiks after him, are quite contrary to the line and policies of the CPSU during the Stalin era, but yet they still classify it as "Stalinism".
is completely beside the point. The question I asked was "do you believe socialism is possible without a proletarian revolution?" You have yet to answer it.

BTW, I'm ready to not refer to you as a Stalinist (in fact, have I ever in this thread?) if you don't refer to me as a "Trot", "Trotskyite", or any permutation thereof. Thanks.

[Prairie Fire]

is completely beside the point. The question I asked was "do you believe socialism is possible without a proletarian revolution?" You have yet to answer it.

No, socialism is not possible without revolution, and yes the USSR did hinder the development of socialism in these countries. My issue is where you are placing the blame, and denying that socialism did occur in these countries. Wether you choose to recognize it or not, there were modes of socialized property and some semblence of workers control in the states of eastern europe.


Interestingly enough, the term "Stalinism" was coined by "Iron Lazar" Kaganovich, one of Stalin's higher-ranked sycophants during his time, while most of your types will claim that it goes back to Trotsky.

I seem to remember that Trotsky coined the term in his writings. Even if it was Kaganovich who coined the term, which would make sense, so what? A follower of Stalin (which is questionable at best) called himself a "stalinist", therefore it is canonical to do so?

While there are a few tankies who call themselves "Stalinists", this only shows their profound lack of understanding of Stalin, as he found the whole thing distasteful. Those of us who have actually read his works know enough to see him as a continuation of Leninism, rather than a seperate school of thought, henceforth the title is innapropriate.


BTW, I'm ready to not refer to you as a Stalinist (in fact, have I ever in this thread?) if you don't refer to me as a "Trot", "Trotskyite", or any permutation thereof. Thanks.

I didn't call you a Trotskyite (I go to great lengths not to,) and none of my Trotskyist comrades have ever objected to "Trot" before. If you insist, I'll stop.

[Random Precision]

While there are a few tankies who call themselves "Stalinists", this only shows their profound lack of understanding of Stalin, as he found the whole thing distasteful. Those of us who have actually read his works know enough to see him as a continuation of Leninism, rather than a seperate school of thought, henceforth the title is innapropriate.

I didn't call you a Trotskyite (I go to great lengths not to,) and none of my Trotskyist comrades have ever objected to "Trot" before. If you insist, I'll stop.

Let me change a few words, to explain why I dislike the term "Trotskyist":

"this only shows their profound lack of understanding of Trotsky, as he found the whole thing distasteful. Those of us who have actually read his works know enough to see him as a continuation of Leninism, rather than a seperate school of thought, henceforth the title is innapropriate."

While I know that others are quite comfortable calling themselves Trotskyists, I'm not so content to have my political viewpoint placed into such a neat little box, even though about 90% of the time I agree with Trotsky's views.

I dislike the term "Trot" for a totally different reason. While it is highly pejorative, it also originated from the slang word for a certain type of rather vicious diarrhea, hence the strong dislike.

I have to run, so I'll post a fuller reply later.

[Prairie Fire]

My Trotskyist comrades have actually made it very clear to me that they do consider Trotsky to be a seperate school of thought from Lenin, rather than just a continuation of Leninism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As an Eastern European myself, I have some insight into this kind of mindset. But first:


Have you BEEN, have you LIVED, have you SEEN the effects of communism? Reading about them is one thing and living them is another. I have lived in Poland at least half my life and although I was born a year after Lech Walesa and the rest of the Solidarity movement took over and got rid of the commies...
Clearly, she has NOT BEEN, she has NOT LIVED, she has NOT SEEN "communism" - by her own admission, she wasn't even born when communists were still in power in Poland. She gets all her information second-hand - just like you.

Besides, never EVER allow someone to pull the "personal experience" card on you. It's a complete fallacy, because personal experience can, at most, provide you with some anecdotal evidence. "I was poor under X economic system" proves absolutely NOTHING about the effects of that economic system on the population as a whole.


...its effects were astounding. They are still astounding today. The economy is unstable, the government is corrupt because the Communists are still feeding its politicians full of bullshit and money, politicians are retarded old Commies who only support the system because it brought them money.
You must pay special attention to statements like these. This is something that no comrade here has addressed so far, yet it is the centerpiece of capitalist propaganda in Eastern Europe. Essentially, the idea goes as follows:

"All the economic problems we've had in the years since 1989 are the fault of communism, not capitalism. The only reason we're not as rich as the West is because we still have Evil Commies in government."

This is pure bullshit, of course, but you'd be surprised how many people believe it. First, you must strongly attack and debunk the idea that communism or communists can be blamed for anything that happened after 1989. Point out that 18 years have passed already, and it's about damn time to stop blaming all the problems of the current system on the previous one. Point out that if all the problems of the years 1989-2007 can be blamed on communists, then, by the same logic, we could blame capitalism and the "evil capitalists in government" for anything bad that happened in the years 1945-1963.

Second, you must attack the vague use of the word "communist" to refer to anyone who held any position of power before 1989. Point out that a communist is by definition someone who supports communism, and any politician who gave up communism and started advocating capitalism has become a capitalist politician.

Then, bring in some historical materialism to counter the fundamentally idealist assumption that economic problems are caused by having "bad people" in power. Ask her if politicians or businessmen in the West are after something other than money. If they are not - if, in fact, the ruling class in all capitalist countries is self-interested - then why is she at all surprised that the ruling class in Poland is equally self-interested? Yes, of course the ruling class supports the system because it brings them money - is there ever any other reason?

It is a common belief in Eastern Europe that poverty and destitution are caused by having bad leaders, and that everything would be better if only we had better people in charge. Point out how utopian and idealistic this is. Point out that the behaviour of the ruling class is similar everywhere, and argue that people's character is shaped by material conditions.

* * *

Going back to the original quoted post, some of the statements about Eastern Europe or Russia are just factually wrong. Take this for example:


Industrialization also failed in a country such as Russia...
Right, the Soviet Union became the world's second greatest industrial producer by failing to industrialize.


before World War II, Poland was a capitalist dictatorship and we prospered
Nonsense. Poland was a backwards agricultural country between the wars.


There was no food in Eastern Europe. People were starving, roads were horrible, most people paid and cheated their way through school and work.
The first statement is just plain wrong; the second is a gross exaggeration (food shortages did exist, but only in the 1980s); the third I can't comment on (since I don't know the state of Polish roads), and the fourth is the only one somewhat close to the truth - yes, corruption was rampant. And still is. Clearly capitalism can do nothing to eliminate it.


I'll just say one thing. Look at countries that didn't experiment with communism and look at those that did.
Yes, let's look at some countries that never experimented with communism: Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Iran, Bhutan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador... Shall I go on?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:42 am
My Trotskyist comrades have actually made it very clear to me that they do consider Trotsky to be a seperate school of thought from Lenin, rather than just a continuation of Leninism.
Then, as I said, they don't understand Trotsky's works and life very well.

[Prairie Fire]

Brilliant post by Edric-O (are you a Dune fan by any chance)?

Which country do you hail from,exactly?

Catbert:


Then, as I said, they don't understand Trotsky's works and life very well.

I'm starting to understand why we have a double digit number of Trotskist groups in my country.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:06 am
I'm starting to understand why we have a double digit number of Trotskist groups in my country.
Any self-labelled Trotskyist who does not understand that that also makes them a Leninist should read up more on Trotsky, or start using a different adjective to describe their politics. Although we do have an unnecessary amount of splits, I don't know of any that have occurred because one group didn't see itself as Leninist. If that were the case, they could just become Left Communists or Anarchists.

It's "Trotsky 101", if you'd like.

(Apologies for getting the thread offtrack).

[Cheung Mo]

For all they did wrong, they beat the Hell out of the capitalist, the Islamist, and the feudalist nations of the 3rd world in virtually every quality of life metric (Cambodia and North Korea excluded...Agro-Primitivism and Juche Theocracy do not constitute correct lines of thoughts, let alone any pattern of thought that is vaguely logical or socialistic in nature.).

How many Cubans can read? How many Cuban women are liberated?

Likewise how many Saudis can read? How many Saudi women are permitted an existence of dignity, respect, and equality?

[Prairie Fire]

wow; cheung mo is in favour of something :D .

I may be inclined to agree with you on Kampuchea (Although, in some ways, they made advancements), Whatever you may think of Juche, the socio economic model in DPRK is still centrally planned, women have still been largely emancipated (at least, to the same degree as N.korean men), heavy industrialization was built under socialism... The DPRK, regardless of erroneous aspects of their ideology, also embodies all of the same positive successes of Eastern Europe.

Catbert:

My Trotskyist comrades do not reject Lenin, nor do the neglest his works in their study; they simply consider Lenin and Trostsky to be seperate schools of thought, not unlike Marx and Lenin.

[Random Precision]

Well, I've always understood Trotsky's thought as a continuation and development of Lenin's. But if they do in fact accept Lenin and can call themselves Leninists, then I'm okay with that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:06 am
Brilliant post by Edric-O (are you a Dune fan by any chance)?

Which country do you hail from,exactly?
Thank you - and yes, I am a Dune fan. :)

I am from Romania.