What is your opinion on the former USSR?

[raynai]

do you think it was a good country?

[Holden Caulfield]

time scale is very important in this question,

for example under Lenin i wouldnt say it was a good country (war etc) but it was well goverened,

where as under Stalin it was probably a better place to live (not torn apart by war and considering you werent one of the millions of people neglected to starve or killed) but was poorly goverened, and betrayed the principals of Marxism,

even so, under Stalin, (although only paying lip-service to Marxism) it was a relatively good country socially, and under Lenin (although ravaged by war) there were good human rights such as the availability of divorces and abortions etc

[raynai]

but during Lenin there was a huge famine! that was not good! And it was certainly not a good place during Stalin. He destroyed opposition, and the NKVD arressted people simply to fufill quotas! It was not good to live in consant fear!!!!! human right issues dont include abortion and divorce, btw. Even if it did, it wouldnt surpass all the horror that was evident during Stalin\'s rule! I only like it under Gorbachev, because he wanted to refom it and give the people freedom.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It was a not so fun place, especially during Stalin. Started out real well, but these dudes following this guy Lenin screwed it all up.

[raynai]

Yes i agree! It was horrible place, but even during Lenin. It was certainly horrible during Stalin\'s great purges. I would rather live in the US or another country, even even devasted by the effects of the great depression. At least I would not live in fear that I might be sent to the gulags when I did nothing wrong!!!!

[Holden Caulfield]

but during Lenin there was a huge famine! that was not good! And it was certainly not a good place during Stalin. He destroyed opposition, and the NKVD arressted people simply to fufill quotas! It was not good to live in consant fear!!!!! human right issues dont include abortion and divorce, btw. Even if it did, it wouldnt surpass all the horror that was evident during Stalin\'s rule! I only like it under Gorbachev, because he wanted to refom it and give the people freedom.

yeah i hate Stalin too, i'm a Trotskyist, what i was trying to say was people were more even in the USSR than the USA, i know he was a tyrant/purge monger/paranoid individual,

he did destroy opposition im not defending him, he had an ice-pick put thru the head of a man i greatly admire,

the issues under Lenin were down to very real crisis', such as the war with the Germans, the Whites & interventionists etc, as well as the turmoil that comes with any regeime change in such a vast country,

even during the food shortages Lenin (unlike Stalin) had a fair food distribution system to both keep the people alive and secure the revolution

[Holden Caulfield]

Yes i agree! It was horrible place, but even during Lenin. It was certainly horrible during Stalin\'s great purges. I would rather live in the US or another country, even even devasted by the effects of the great depression. At least I would not live in fear that I might be sent to the gulags when I did nothing wrong!!!!

that is Stalinism though, Lenin did not kill off people for the glee of it and to secure his own power in the way that Stalin did, and Lenin was governing in a time of a terrible civil war

[raynai]

but how does revolution happen? certainly opposition must be destroyed! Lenin must have killed some people who were against him, because not everone wanted revolution. I think Russia could have been reformed better, just not radical change like what happened. because altho he did not kill as much as stalin (and for no reason!) he allowed it to happen, because the system in tact ultimately led to inevitable dictatorship. I mean lenin was a dictator too.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course violence was necessary for the revolution, and we do not deny this. It's not very nice, but it's the truth. The continuation of capitalism means wars and suffering, especially for the people of the third world, who live under dictatorships sponsored by the advanced capitalist, i.e. imperialist countries. In this way, violence against counter-revolutionists may be considered desirable or not, but revolutionaries do not shy away from it.

[raynai]

but not all supporters of capitalism are bad! you should not kill someone simply for different views. capitalism is an economic system- it does not encourage wars and suffering. it is the people that make it that way. why is communism any different?

[Dicktator]

but how does revolution happen? certainly opposition must be destroyed! Lenin must have killed some people who were against him, because not everone wanted revolution. I think Russia could have been reformed better, just not radical change like what happened. because altho he did not kill as much as stalin (and for no reason!) he allowed it to happen, because the system in tact ultimately led to inevitable dictatorship. I mean lenin was a dictator too.

I'm a dicktator, too, yet I've killed no one. This refutes you whole theory!

But seriously, Lenin represented the interests of the workers in his capacity as head of the Soviet state. The ultimate aim of the communists is to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat---see, there's that nasty word! But, communists use that word in a very specific way to express something. Lenin, as head of state, was moving the communist agenda forward toward a dictatorship of the proletariat. This was a good thing.

[raynai]

no he was a dictator in the sense that he had absolute power, it was not proletariat that held the power, it was only lenin!!!!!

[F9]

but not all supporters of capitalism are bad! you should not kill someone simply for different views. capitalism is an economic system- it does not encourage wars and suffering. it is the people that make it that way. why is communism any different?

who even said of communists that capitalists should get killed?stalin?fuck him,he wasnt one!No one supports killing another person because has differents views,but if he comes to fight us and stop us as a self defense he might get killed,by attacking us he gets our enemy not by think differently you see the difference?
No as an economic system it doesnt encourage wars and sufferings but those things happened DUE TO capitalism,who will want to go and fight some people in another place far away if he hadnt to benefit something of it.Capitalism and Communis are VERY different!

Fuserg9:star:

[Dicktator]

no he was a dictator in the sense that he had absolute power, it was not proletariat that held the power, it was only lenin!!!!!

No, Lenin was head of the Soviet state, and as such represented the workers who were not ready and able to run the state at that time. He was not a dictator for his own interests as, say, Sadam Hussein was.

Have you read any books about the Russian Revolution of 1917? What is your favorite book on this subject?

[mykittyhasaboner]

but not all supporters of capitalism are bad! hahahaha show me one capitalist who is "good".


you should not kill someone simply for different views.
and capitalism doesnt kill people with other views? than why have capitalists waged war with Islamic fundamentalists, communists, fascists, or people of different nationality for that matter!?


capitalism is an economic system- it does not encourage wars and suffering.
yes it does because capitalism is runned by greed, power, authority, and money. the main ingredients for war.


it is the people that make it that way. why is communism any different?communism relys on collective effort and mutual gain. stop asking the same questions over and over. your going to be banned soon for trolling if you dont.

[raynai]

they only kill people for views that advocate murder itself. like islamic fundamentalists want to all infidels and are a threat to international security. during the cold war, the soviet dominance was a threat to american interests, plus to save people from oppression. fascists want to destroy our freedoms, so it is just. and different nationality? please give an example.well the soviets have gone invade afghanistan! anyways this is just my opinion, i do not mean to be offensive (if i am, then i really apoligize). if this forum is against the rules, i will not post anymore.

[mykittyhasaboner]

they only kill people for views that advocate murder itself. like islamic fundamentalists want to all infidels and are a threat to international security.
those infadels are invading their country. Western imperialism is more of a threat to them, then the fundamentalists are to the US or EU. are you just an outlet of ruling class media bullshit?


during the cold war, the soviet dominance was a threat to american interests, plus to save people from oppression.
fascists want to destroy our freedoms, so it is just. and different nationality? please give an example.
you really are incompetent arent you?


well the soviets have gone invade afghanistan! anyways this is just my opinion, i do not mean to be offensive (if i am, then i really apoligize). if this forum is against the rules, i will not post anymore.
right so if the soviet union can do it, the US can do it. the more invaders the merrier! its not against the rules, but dont post here anymore anyways.

[Dicktator]

t...i do not mean to be offensive (if i am, then i really apoligize). ...

I am not offended.

Have you read any books on the Russian Revolution? Which ones?

[raynai]

ok if you are refering to iraq we go invade because there was a threat and we respond to aggression. dicktator- i have not read any books on the russian revolution

[raynai]

also i fail to see how killing an evil dictator and freeing the people from injustices there is a bad thing, but okay. also i can post here if it not against the rules. do you silence dissent, yes?

[Lost In Translation]

hahahaha show me one capitalist who is "good".

The closest i've come up with are philanthropists. But then they had to exploit their society first to be able to donate to charity :laugh:

[Dicktator]

...i have not read any books on the russian revolution

If you read some books about this subject it would be easier for us all to have a discussion, no? This is true for any subject.

There is a very fine book text for free at www marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ This is Leon Trotsky's famous History of the Russian Revolution. It reads like a novel because he was a very good writer but most importantly, it is historically accurate. Check it out. This forum has many other suggestions for reading material, too.

[raynai]

bill gates is a decent person i reckon.

[raynai]

yea i have read stuff on it, just not books or anything like that. but we can have discussion and you can teach me. i dont think i can read anything by trotsky, to me he seems very arrogant and i do not agree with him. he could very much turn to be like stalin.

[Lost In Translation]

bill gates is a decent person i reckon.

Bill Gates built his company, and dominated the PC industry. He had all his rivals in a chokehold. Was he a good at his job, yes. Is he a good person in my books? no. He masterminded all of this monopolizing. He did contribute to society, but at the same time, he is a ruthless businessman.

[Dicktator]

yea i have read stuff on it, just not books or anything like that. but we can have discussion and you can teach me. i dont think i can read anything by trotsky, to me he seems very arrogant and i do not agree with him. he could very much turn to be like stalin.

I am teaching you, gave you a reading assignment, even gave you access to the text free of charge. Yet, you know that Trotsky is "arrogant" but have not read the book I suggested or anything else he has written. How can you know this?

Sorry, but I cannot teach you anything if you are not willing to read, and insist on making baseless assumptions.

Kindly remit payment for my counseling services within seven (7) days to:

Box 1906
Bikini Atoll West
109873-AB

[raynai]

i know much about him like he has too much idealism and not practical. but i will read it anyways. well...if it is short....

[RedAnarchist]

i know much about him like he has too much idealism and not practical. but i will read it anyways. well...if it is short....

Yeah, we wouldn't want you to put too much effort into reading...

[Lost In Translation]

Wow, so rayani is restricted now? That must be a record, being restricted on his first day...Maybe we could still bring this thread back on track.

[OI OI OI]

Degenerated workers state which i would criticaly support if it existed.
For reasoning read my posts on the learning sub-forum that has the same kind of thread

[Dust Bunnies]

Back on topic here:

I find it half decent but could of used a lot of improvement. The Soviet state increased the living conditions of the Russians. But they didn't achieve a utopia and got outdone by the U.S. But I'd say it was a good attempt which helped the Russians.

[PigmerikanMao]

After comrade Stalin's death and the ascension of Khrushchev into power, the CCCP became a capitalist roader state and, in time, turned into an imperialist capitalist state. The CCCP was founded on the best of intentions, but bourgeois factions within the CPSU became the death of communism in Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe. Plain and simple.

[Dust Bunnies]

If Lenin lived a bit longer things could of been better.

[Sir Comradical]

I think the demise of the Soviet Union has left the United States somewhat unrestrained in their quest for global dominance. The Soviets funded numerous national liberation struggles including the PLO and the ANC the positive result being that the world was not a unipolar hegemony as it is today. When the Soviet Union was asset stripped, sold off, privatized, liberalized and structurally adjusted the result was devastating to the poor and a godsend to the corporate criminals who bought soviet assets for pennies...the result was of course mass unemployment, inflation which wiped out employee pensions and a dramatic increase in inequality. Too bad the USSR doesn't exist anymore is all i can say now.

[Cheung Mo]

For all that was imperfect, they could have done a much better job running Afghanistan than those religious wackos with American guns ever did.

[Sir Comradical]

For all that was imperfect, they could have done a much better job running Afghanistan than those religious wackos with American guns ever did.

They were invited by the PDPA (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan) to help build the country's infrastructure. A few of my Afghan mates have told me that the mujahedin consisted mostly of fundamentalist, anti-communist arabs from all over the middle east, not afghans...he also said that soviet backed afghanistan was definately a positive thing.