State of the Whole People

[Unicorn]

The Soviet Union progressed from the dictatorship of the proletariat to "a socialist state of the whole people".

Do you think that "the state of the whole people" is a phase in the development of every socialist society between proletarian dictatorship and communism?

This is an explanation of the theory:
(from the Dictionary of Scientific Communism)


State of the Whole People is a socialist type of state that expresses the interests and will of the entire people and serves as a tool for building communism. The state came into existence with the division of society into classes, with the need for the ruling class to keep the mass of the people suppressed. It was a product and manifestation of irreconcilable class contradictions. In capitalist countries the basic function of the state has been suppression. The socialist revolution breaks down the exploiting state’s machinery and creates a state of a proletarian dictatorship. The S.W.P. emerges at the stage of developed socialism (see Developed Socialist Society) and acts as a successor of proletarian dictatorship, once the latter has completed its historic mission and society has entered the stage of building communism (q. v.)

The Soviet state of the whole people has nothing in common with the so-called frei Volksstaat, an idea put forward in the 1870’s by German Social-Democrats. The creation of such a state in a bourgeois society, on the basis of bourgeois democracy, without a socialist revolution, was an opportunist and illusory idea. The S.W.P. in the USSR is no illusion or dream, but a fact made real by the activities of millions of working people, led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The S.W.P. is a stage in the development of the political organisation of society following the overthrow of the power of exploiters. It is not a tool for suppression by some class, it represents the fundamental interests of all the working people, since exploiting classes no longer exist. Certain limiting functions preserved in S.W.P. are not of a class suppressing nature. Coercion is applied to individuals who violate the standards of socialist life, rather than to classes, and will continue until public opinion is sufficient to restrain the individuals.

Unlike the bourgeois state, the social base of which is continually narrowing, the law of evolution of the socialist state is ever increasing expansion of that base. The socio-political and ideological unity (q. v.) formed in the USSR is expressed in the concept "the Soviet people”; so the state is a tool of the popular will. This does not imply, however, that the S.W.P. at the present stage can be viewed as super-class or non-class. The Soviet state is the state of the whole people precisely because the peasantry and the intelligentsia (qq. v.) have become socialist, having moved to the positions of the working class (q. v.); the goal of the revolutionary proletariat—the building of communism—has become that of the entire people. Both inside the country and in the international arena, the socialist state pursues a class policy in the interests of the working class and all the working people, defends the rights of all peoples to national independence, freedom, democracy, and social progress. The class nature of the S.W.P. is seen in the maintenance of the leading role of the working class.

The proletarian dictatorship is state leadership of society by the working class in the context of antagonistic classes and a class struggle. These conditions call for specific forms of leadership and a political regime that provides certain privileges for the ruling class to pursue its policy. With the tremendous changes in the USSR resulting from the complete and final victory of socialism when the stage of mature socialism is achieved, state leadership in the form of a dictatorship is no longer necessary. "The aims of the dictatorship of the proletariat having been fulfilled,” runs the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, "the Soviet state has become the state of the whole people" (Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 10). This is a new stage in pursuance of the ultimate goals of the proletariat (see Historic Mission of the Proletariat) which will culminate in a full communist society being built.

A major feature of the S.W.P. is the sophistication of the forms of popular representation for ensuring participation by all citizens in the management of society. This process includes further democratisation of the electoral system, the development of the democratic principles of election, replacement and accountability in the operation of the organs of power and administration, the strengthening of the voluntary principles in administration, the development of governing bodies that will be run by state officials and the public simultaneously. This implies that an increasing stratum of people will be involved in running society’s affairs, so that this activity will cease to be a profession.

The S.W.P. is a step towards the withering away of the state and a transition to communist social self-government (q. v.). The state will, however, remain in existence until the final victory of communism, which is the ultimate goal of the socialist state of the whole people. "The main aims of the people’s socialist state are: to lay the material and technical foundation of communism, to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into communist relations, to mould the citizen of communist society, to raise the people’s living and cultural standards, to safeguard the country’s security, and to further the consolidation of peace and development of international co-operation" ( Constitution of the USSR, 1977, p. 11).

http://leninist.biz/en/1984/DOSC288/State.of.the.Whole.People

[Rawthentic]

No, it is not a phase from socialism to communism, but from what was socialism to capitalism, as in the Soviet Union.

It ignores the fact the leading party in socialist society represents the interests of the workers, peasants, intellectuals, the oppressed, etc. To say that it is of "the whole people" negates the fact the leading party is partisan to these classes.

Secondly, this revisionist concept also implies that there are no social classes in socialism, which is a horrible mistake to make.

The USSR never progressed from DoP, to 'state of the whole people.'

Also, it is important to study documents as these to see what they mean, but we can't take what they say without a critical investigation into what was actually occurring in the Soviet Union: capitalist restoration , and the revisionist lines of "the state of the whole people", "peaceful coexistence", and saying that there are no social classes in socialism reflects the leading ideology of the emerging capitalist class.

[Hit The North]

How come the "State of the whole people" collapsed without 'the people' trying to defend it?

[Unicorn]

No, it is not a phase from socialism to communism, but from what was socialism to capitalism, as in the Soviet Union.

It ignores the fact the leading party in socialist society represents the interests of the workers, peasants, intellectuals, the oppressed, etc. To say that it is of "the whole people" negates the fact the leading party is partisan to these classes.

Secondly, this revisionist concept also implies that there are no social classes in socialism, which is a horrible mistake to make.

The USSR never progressed from DoP, to 'state of the whole people.'

Also, it is important to study documents as these to see what they mean, but we can't take what they say without a critical investigation into what was actually occurring in the Soviet Union: capitalist restoration , and the revisionist lines of "the state of the whole people", "peaceful coexistence", and saying that there are no social classes in socialism reflects the leading ideology of the emerging capitalist class.
The CPSU could say that the USSR was a state of the whole people bcause the exploiting classes were ousted in the 1920s and 1930s. The 1936 USSR constitution declared that the Soviet society was now comprised of two friendly classes : the working class and the collective-farm peasantry. The intelligentsia was a social group (stratum) closely linked to the working class and the peasantry.

[Hit The North]

The CPSU could say that the USSR was a state of the whole people bcause the exploiting classes were ousted in the 1920s and 1930s. The 1936 USSR constitution declared that the Soviet society was now comprised of two friendly classes : the working class and the collective-farm peasantry. The intelligentsia was a social group (stratum) closely linked to the working class and the peasantry.

How come the "State of the whole people" collapsed without these "two friendly classes" trying to defend it?

[Unicorn]

How come the "State of the whole people" collapsed without these "two friendly classes" trying to defend it?
The capitalist block was militarily more powerful and was able to threaten the USSR with nuclear annihilation. Too many people reasoned that it was better to live under capitalism than die. Capitalist restoration reconciled Washington and the new leadership and the threat was removed.

[Rawthentic]

The CPSU could say that the USSR was a state of the whole people bcause the exploiting classes were ousted in the 1920s and 1930s. The 1936 USSR constitution declared that the Soviet society was now comprised of two friendly classes : the working class and the collective-farm peasantry. The intelligentsia was a social group (stratum) closely linked to the working class and the peasantry. __________________
This is ridiculous.

Socialism is a class society. There are still counterrevolutionaries, and the seeds of capitalism (and communism) exist. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of the old society that make it possible for a return to capitalism.

I mean, there is commodity production (this is under every socialist society), imperialist encirclement, capitalist and revisionist lines that if implemented, reverse the course of socialism (like Khrushchev), etc.

To say that there was a "state of the whole people" ignores objective reality and the reality of socialism's history and in the future as well .

As I said, these wrong lines were the result of a new ruling clique in the imperialist Soviet Union.

[Hit The North]

The capitalist block was militarily more powerful and was able to threaten the USSR with nuclear annihilation. Too many people reasoned that it was better to live under capitalism than die. Capitalist restoration reconciled Washington and the new leadership and the threat was removed.

Then the "socialist state of all the people" was not very secure and the "two friendly classes" of socialist masses were not very resolutely socialist if they would cave in to threats from a foreign power and completely reverse their way of life.

Your explanation is hardly credible.

[Unicorn]

This is ridiculous.

Socialism is a class society. There are still counterrevolutionaries, and the seeds of capitalism (and communism) exist. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of the old society that make it possible for a return to capitalism.
It is true that Lenin said: “The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration." He had in mind the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, in which the issue of “who beats whom" is decided. The Soviet Union achieved full-scale socialism already under Stalin.



I mean, there is commodity production (this is under every socialist society), imperialist encirclement, capitalist and revisionist lines that if implemented, reverse the course of socialism (like Khrushchev), etc.

To say that there was a "state of the whole people" ignores objective reality and the reality of socialism's history and in the future as well .

As I said, these wrong lines were the result of a new ruling clique in the imperialist Soviet Union.
The character of the Soviet state as a state of the whole people was extended and consolidated on the basis of the continuity of its proletarian class nature. The working class remained the leading force in the state of the whole people, while Soviet society’s leading and guiding force, the Communist Party, having become a party of the whole people, did not lose its class character and remained inherently a party of the working class.

[Unicorn]

Then the "socialist state of all the people" was not very secure and the "two friendly classes" of socialist masses were not very resolutely socialist if they would cave in to threats from a foreign power and completely reverse their way of life.

Your explanation is hardly credible.
The capitalist restoration was carried out rom the top by Gorbachev empowered with dictatorial powers and the masses did oppose the capitalist restoration. A civil war was unfortunately not an option in nuclear age.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Unicorn you are an absolute revisionist fool, and it merely proves you don't understand the post-Stalin restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

[trivas7]

I think it was Stalin's Dept. of Linguistics that recommended the change because of the bad press "dictatorship of the proletariat" was getting (IOW --blatant spin).

(Just kidding...)
:D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, I would argue (devil's advocate) that the "state of the whole people" is a possibility. As I have argued before, social proletocracy is already a monoclass society, comprised of the proletariat (no coordinators, "functioning capitalists," petit-bourgeoisie, etc.) - simply because labour credit prevents the formation of capital.

The problem with the Soviet formulation is that it was an excuse for "functioning capitalists" and their money-circulating ways to include themselves fully into society. The precedent for this revisionism is the idiotic notion of "non-antagonistic classes."

[Unicorn]

The precedent for this revisionism is the idiotic notion of "non-antagonistic classes."
What is idiotic with that notion?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Kolkhoz peasants still existed. They were petit-bourgeois. Also, the "functioning capitalist" bureaucracy...

[Comrade Vasilev]

^^^ Kolkhoz peasants still existed. They were petit-bourgeois. Also, the "functioning capitalist" bureaucracy...
You are a fool, the collective peasants were not petite-bourgeois. You sound like your making up your rubbish as you go along.

[Unicorn]

^^^ Kolkhoz peasants still existed. They were petit-bourgeois. Also, the "functioning capitalist" bureaucracy...
Care to explain how they were petit-bourgeois?

Some info on collective peasants for readers:



The theoretical principles behind socialist co-operation were elaborated by Marx and Engels, who treated A. C. as a transitional form from the capitalist to the socialised mode of production. They advised that big capitalist farms be turned over for collective use and that small peasant hpldings be united into co-operatives. Lenin, in turn, pointed out and substantiated concrete ways and means, as well as the conditions, for changing from individual peasant holdings to a large-scale collective production.

According to Lenin’s co-operative plan, major conditions for socialist co-operation are a state of a proletarian dictatorship, public ownership of the means of production, and an alliance between the proletariat and millions of small farmers. The co-operation of the peasant masses requires prolonged and painstaking efforts aimed at gradually attracting the peasants to the collective way of farming. Co-operation must be voluntary, the advantages of collective labour should be thoroughly explained, and the socialist state should provide financial and other assistance. Lenin said that the political significance of A. C. was that it made it possible "to learn to build socialism in practice in such a way that every small peasant could take part in it" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 468).

At the stage of large-scale collectivisation, the most widespread forms of production co-operation were associations for the joint tilling of the land, agricultural artels and communes. The most acceptable form proved to be the agricultural artel, in which the main means of production were socialised, but personal plots, productive cattle and homes remained in individual use. Since 1933, this has become the dominant form of collective-farm production. The CPSU Central Committee resolution "On Further Development of Specialisation and Concentration of Agricultural Production Based on Inter-Economy Cooperation and Agro-Industrial Integration" (1976) ushered in a new stage in agricultural co-operation.

At the stage of large-scale collectivisation, the most widespread forms of production co-operation were associations for the joint tilling of the land, agricultural artels and communes. The most acceptable form proved to be the agricultural artel, in which the main means of production were socialised, but personal plots, productive cattle and homes remained in individual use. Since 1933, this has become the dominant form of collective-farm production. The CPSU Central Committee resolution "On Further Development of Specialisation and Concentration of Agricultural Production Based on Inter-Economy Cooperation and Agro-Industrial Integration" (1976) ushered in a new stage in agricultural co-operation.

In the European People’s Democracies, agricultural co-operation had certain specific features, one of the most important being retention of private ownership of the land. This engendered another peculiarity: a great number of transitional forms of cooperation. There have been three major types of agricultural co-operation in these 9countries. In co-operatives of the first type, peasants only work together: they till the land jointly, but each of them reaps his own harvest from his own plot, or the harvest is distributed according to the size of the plot of land owned by each member of the association. In co-operatives of the second type, the main means of production are socialised, but the land is not, i.e. agricultural machines and implements, draught animals, etc. are common property; the larger part of the income is distributed among the co-operative members according to the quantity and quality of labour expended, and the remaining part, according to the amount of land contributed to the cooperative. In the third type of co– operative, all means of production are socialised, the land included, while the income is distributed according to labour inputs only. The latter type is widespread, for example, in Bulgaria.

As co-operative forms of production organisation develop and become consolidated, more and more co-operatives pass from lower to the higher forms, in which all means of production are socialised. The state creates the conditions necessary for a socialist transformation of the countryside by rendering tremendous financial and technical assistance to co-operatives. Socialist co-operation makes it possible to transfer the peasantry, which comprises a considerable part of the population, onto a socialist road, change their age-old individualistic consciousness, abolish the kulak class and raise the level of agricultural production.
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1984/DOSC288/Agricultural.Co-operation

[The Author]

Do you think that "the state of the whole people" is a phase in the development of every socialist society between proletarian dictatorship and communism?I had an earlier discussion with you in another thread on the 1977 USSR Constitution concerning that question, http://www.revleft.com/vb/1977-soviet-constitution-t75068/index.html?p=1127198#post1127198

Allow me to reiterate what I said, in case you have forgotten.


I have taken the liberty of highlighting the particular parts which smack of revisionism, in this supposed "Marxist-Leninist" constitution.

Let's start with the first point, "state of the whole people."

Based on his review of earlier writings by Marx and Engels, Lenin taught us in State and Revolution that once the bourgeois state was overthrown, the state under the hands of the dictatorship of the proletariat, would gradually wither away as the working class approached communism. Regarding the concept of people's state:


The "free people's state" was a programme demand and a widely current slogan of the German Social-Democrats in the seventies. This slogan is devoid of all political content except for the fact that it describes the concept of democracy in the pompous philistine fashion. In so far as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to "justify" its use "for a time" from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist slogan, for it expressed not only an embellishment of bourgeois democracy, but also failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism; but we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a "special force for the suppression" of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not "free" and not a "people's state." Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the seventies.
Strange that the "Leninists" who wrote this constitution skipped that paragraph in Lenin's State and Revolution. They were too busy constructing the Lenin Personality Cult in order to tear down the superstructure at some later point, just like they did with Stalin. Just about the majority of members of the CPSU from the revisionist period are now too busy trying to become the very anti-thesis of what they preached in words: capitalists.

[Comrade Vasilev]

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a political party which is officially established as "the leading and guiding force" of Soviet society:
"The Communist Party... has.. extended its guiding influence to all spheres of social life...
The period of full-scale communist construction is characterised by a further enhancement of the role and importance of the Communist Party as the leading and guiding force of Soviet society".
(Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Moscow; 1961; p. 122-3).
But, according to Marxism-Leninism, a political party is an organisation which represents the political interests of a social class.
During the period in which a socialist society existed in the Soviet Union, and prior to this period, the Communist Party was defined as an organisation which represented the political interests of the working class:
"The Party is the General Staff of the proletariat...
The Party is the organised detachment of the working class...
The Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat...
The Party is an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat ".
(J.V. Stalin; "The Foundations of Leninism", in: "Works", Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 179, 181, 186, 188-9).
In 1961, however, the leaders of the CPSU declared that the party was no longer a political organisation which represented the interests of the working class, but one which represented the interests of the "entire people":
"Our Marxist-Leninist Party, which arose as a party of the working class, has become the Party of the entire people".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 90).
But in a society which contains classes with antagonistic interests -- and, as has been shown, the contemporary Soviet Union is such a society -- it is impossible for a single political party to represent the interests of the "entire people" and any claim that such a party does so must be dismissed as sheer demagogy.
What class of Soviet society, therefore, has in reality its political interests represented by the CPSU?
It is admitted by the leaders of the CPSU that the party no longer specifically represents the interests of the working class.
Can it, perhaps, represent the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, which in the Soviet Union is composed principally of collective farmers and a relatively small number of self-employed professional, scientific and artistic workers?
But, according to Marxism-Leninism, the petty bourgeoisie, as an intermediate class between the decisive classes in society -- the working class and the capitalist class -- is incapable of pursuing an independent political policy; it is capable only of following one or other of the two decisive classes, of vacillating between them:
"It is a truth long known to every Marxist that in every capitalist society the only decisive forces are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, while all social elements occupying a position midway between these classes and coming within the economic category of the petty bourgeoisie inevitably vacillate between these decisive forces".
(V.I. Lenin: "Valuable Admissions By Pitirim Sorokin", in "Selected Works", Volume 8; London; 1943; p. 145).
Thus, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, to which the present Soviet leaders continue to claim adherence, the CPSU is a political party which in fact represents the interests of the Soviet capitalist class.

37: The Character of the Soviet State
According to Marxism-Leninism, a state is essentially a machinery of force by which one social class rules over the rest of the people:
"The state is an organ of class rule....
A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power ".
(V.I. Lenin: "The State and Revolution", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 9, 11).
The Soviet state established in Russia by means of the revolution of November 1917, was officially described as a machinery of force in the hands of the working class, as "the dictatorship of the proletariat":
"The Soviets are the Russian form of the proletarian dictatorship".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in; "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 145).
In 1961, however the leaders of the CPSU declared that the Soviet state was no longer a machinery of force by which the working class ruled over the rest of the people, was no longer the dictatorship of the proletariat, but had become an organ representing the interests of the "entire people":
"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary ".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).
But, according to Marxism-Leninism, in a society which contains classes which antagonistic interests -- and, as has been demonstrated, the contemporary Soviet Union is such a society -- the state can only be the machinery of rule of the dominant social class, and any claim that, in such circumstances, the state represents the interests of the "entire people", must be dismissed as mere demagogy:
"We cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 129).
"The bourgeoisie finds it advantageous and necessary to conceal the bourgeois character of modern democracy from the people and to depict it as democracy in general, or as 'pure democracy'...
The bourgeoisie is obliged to be hypocritical and to describe the (bourgeois) democratic government as 'popular government', or democracy in general or pure democracy, when as a matter of fact it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the mass of the toilers".
(V.I. Lenin: "Democracy' and Dictatorship", in: ibid.; p. 219, 220).
What class of Soviet society, therefore, has in reality its machinery of rule in the Soviet state?
It is admitted by the leaders of the CPSU that the state is no longer the machinery of rule of the working class, and it has been shown in the previous section that it cannot be the machinery of rule of the petty bourgeoisie.
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap35-end.html
I think that answers the point well enough. And that doesn't even go into the fascist and social-democratic links to the 'state of the whole people' claptrap, which in reality is just a disguise for full-blown capitalism.

[Red_or_Dead]

The capitalist block was militarily more powerful and was able to threaten the USSR with nuclear annihilation. Too many people reasoned that it was better to live under capitalism than die. Capitalist restoration reconciled Washington and the new leadership and the threat was removed.

The Soviet Union was (and its succesor, the Russian Federation is) a nuclear superpower as well. They could just as easily threaten the West with nuclear anihilation.

That, and, why doesnt the west threaten still existing socialist countries today?

[Unicorn]

The Soviet Union was (and its succesor, the Russian Federation is) a nuclear superpower as well. They could just as easily threaten the West with nuclear anihilation.
The USSR did not threaten the West with a first strike. The US strategy was to launch the first strike to destroy all major population centers and nuclear arsenal of the USSR. The leaders of capitalist countries were irresponsible, militaristic fools.



That, and, why doesnt the west threaten still existing socialist countries today?
It does.

[Comrade Vasilev]

The USSR did not threaten the West with a first strike. The US strategy was to launch the first strike to destroy all major population centers and nuclear arsenal of the USSR. The leaders of capitalist countries were irresponsible, militaristic fools.


It does.
Khrushchev was a capitulationist as well as a bloody capitalist. As Molotov rightly said:

"The fact that atomic war may break out, isn't that class struggle? There is no alternative to class struggle. This is a very serious question. The be-all and end-all is not peaceful coexistence. After all, we have been holding on for some time, and under Stalin we held on to the point where the imperialists felt able to demand point-blank: either surrender such and such positions, or it means war. So far the imperialists haven't renounced that".

[Unicorn]

Khrushchev was a capitulationist as well as a bloody capitalist. As Molotov rightly said:
Capitulationist? How?

[Hit The North]

The USSR did not threaten the West with a first strike. The US strategy was to launch the first strike to destroy all major population centers and nuclear arsenal of the USSR. The leaders of capitalist countries were irresponsible, militaristic fools.

I'd like to see your evidence for this. During the cold war both sides played the same game of deniability, casting the other as the aggressor. The idea that the West would overtly state that they had a murderous policy of first strike against civilian populations is just not credible and demonstrates your political naivity. Besides, if the Western powers were set on this course of action what prevented them from launching the first strike?


It does. Do you mean Cuba and North Korea? If so, given their lack of capitulation to these nuclear threats, your argument must be that these "socialist" states are more secure, more robust and more ideologically determined than the "state of all the people" with its massive nuclear and military arsenal and socialist masses. Again, hardly credible.

Obviously the cold war and its arms race had a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the idea that the leadership capitulated to capitalism in order to save its population from nuclear anihilation is a fairy tale.

[Unicorn]

I'd like to see your evidence for this. During the cold war both sides played the same game of deniability, casting the other as the aggressor. The idea that the West would overtly state that they had a murderous policy of first strike against civilian populations is just not credible and demonstrates your political naivity.
What? They did say so. It was a part of the policy of Massive Retaliation.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-massive%20retaliation.htm



Besides, if the Western powers were set on this course of action what prevented them from launching the first strike?
The fear that a sufficient part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would survive the first strike and retaliate.

The US during the whole Cold War planned to use nuclear weapons first if a war started in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Because NATO knew that the Warsaw Pact had a conventional military superiority in Europe it planned to use nuclear weapons against WP forces. If the war would have been fought entirely with conventional weapons the Warsaw Pact would have occupied Western Europe. The US could not accept that.

[Hit The North]

The policy of Massive Retaliation was not a first strike policy designed to be carried out in order to terrify the USSR into regime change as you imply. It was a strategy of deterrence against conventional attack by Warsaw Pact. In fact it wasn't even effective, as the article you link to argues:


The Soviet Union successfully tested American resolve several times. On 17 June 1953 it suppressed an anti-Communist revolt in East Berlin and in late 1956 it suppressed a national uprising in Hungary.

Meanwhile if you check here: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/timeline_decade.php?decade=1980
you'll find that rhetoric on both sides in the cold war was softening in the second half of the 1980s and that the USA and the USSR were engaged in arms reduction talks (as imperfect as they were).

[Red_or_Dead]

The USSR did not threaten the West with a first strike. The US strategy was to launch the first strike to destroy all major population centers and nuclear arsenal of the USSR.

Both sides had that strategy. In fact, by the end of the cold war it didnt really matter who would strike first, because the other side could have responded before the first sides missiles would be halfway to Moscow or Washington.


The leaders of capitalist countries were irresponsible, militaristic fools.


As were the leaders of the Eastern Bloc countries. Czechoslovakia, Cuban crisis, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam... Need I say more?


It does.

With Nuclear anihilation? No it doesnt. And apart from Cuba, all other "socialist" countries are to strong to be taken with conventional means. So... The West may threaten all it wants.


Obviously the cold war and its arms race had a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the idea that the leadership capitulated to capitalism in order to save its population from nuclear anihilation is a fairy tale.

Exactly. Not to mention that in NO former European socialist country did the communist parties just gave up. They were taken down, either democraticaly like in Hungary, or through violence, like Romania.