The CCCP is it a good example to live by or not?

[Brother No. 1]

Comrades as we know the CCCP has fallen it is sad but is the CCCP leagacy a good example for us or is it not a example for socialist and Communist your Answers comrades

[Pogue]

It became power mad and undemocratic and should never be repeated.

[F9]

yes its a very good example.we dont want another!!:D
It have been an anti-communist state, anti-worker, it suppress every different opinion, mostly by killing and sending to gulags!So yes, great example of how things shouldnt come!

Fuserg9:star:

[Pogue]

yes its a very good example.we dont want another!!:D
It have been an anti-communist state, anti-worker, it suppress every different opinion, mostly by killing and sending to gulags!So yes, great example of how things shouldnt come!

Fuserg9:star:

This, basically.

[spartan]

I think it had both good elements and bad elements, whichever of the two you think was the more prominent depends on what kind of a socialist you are I guess.

What I will say is it's lack of any kind of meaningful democracy makes it an example I would not like to see repeated.

I would rather the workers kind of did things for themselves (that is the whole point of communism is it not?) rather then having unelected parasites deciding everything and believing this role somehow entitles them to a higher standard of living then everyone else.

[prishnikov]

Edit: I apologize for lack of formatting. I must not understand this yet. Forgive me. I hope it is understandable in current form below.I signed up here at RevLeft specifically to voice my opinion on this matter. If I may, I will limit myself to discuss the Russian Federation and its people. It is clear in local elections that there is a certain percentage of people who long for a return to socialism and one that identifies itself, as closely as is possible, with the CPSU. That being the 17-20% of those who have voted for candidates of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Please keep in mind that percentage range is looked on with great skepticism by those within the CPRF. There is massive fraud perpetuated by the current government and many feel the percentage is closer to 40%. The party has widespread support outside of Moscow is the second largest political party in the Russian Federation.Let's be clear, there were problems within the CPSU that prevented reforms that would have moved the country forward with new methods for new times, without abandoning socialism and Marxism-Leninism in particular. Mikhail Sergeyevich was a man of great political skill in the style of the west, but was not committed to moving the Soviet Union forward as a united Communist nation, but moved quickly after consolidation of power to the social democratic position. His perestrokia and glasnost was not anything that could not have transpired under the leadership of a strong and committed Politburo dedicated to the preservation of the USSR. Ultimately, he grew closer to those who, I believe, were placed in position of power by those who wished the Soviet Union and the CPSU harm. These people were those who had great influence with Mikhail Sergeyevich on matters of economic reform. The rest was theater.There were those who were with GenSec Gorbachev for modern reform, without the abandonment of socialism. The answer from the CC became not one of reform, but revisionism and abandoning important principles of Marxist-Leninist science and construction. There were critical moments when the USSR could have been saved. There were comrades, such as Yegor Kuzmich Ligachev, who were supportive of moving communism forward with much needed reforms without the wholesale retreat from Marxism-Leninism. The critical 28th Congress of the CPSU wrongly turned its back on Yegor Kuzmich and left the USSR in the hands of revisionists and worse (traitors) with whom were handed the power to continue down the path to the ultimate destruction of all that had been built before beginning in October of 1917.There is much to be said, in reflection. However, there is even more a need to stand up and speak out to fight for a return to socialism under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Gennady Andreyevich is a man of the people who deeply believes in Marxist-Leninist principles and is more conservative than many give him credit. It has been a difficult and challenging, and dangerous time, for the Communist Party in the atmosphere since 1993. Comrade Zyuganov has stood steadfast and looked the monster of creeping fascism in the eye without a blink. Even western polls show him to be one of the three most popular political figures in Russia. With wise counsel from Comrade Ligachev and others who knew not to "throw the baby out with the bath water", and were sold out to the interests of international capital, the foundation is there to rebuild. There is much work to be done. It is done with great risk to all who dare challenge the current criminals. But life and limb is secondary to those who know there is a window of opportunity to reclaim the Russian Federation for socialism and a return to power of Communist visionaries who can bring about policies that reflect the goals and intentions of the great October revolution.Respectfully submitted with comradely greetings.

[Wanted Man]

Yes and no. Yes, because it shows that even under the most difficult conditions (beginning in isolation, disastrous wars, still having to industrialise a lot, etc.), socialism is still superior in providing some of the most important things. No, in the sense that it should not be just repeated. Ideally, the revolution should succeed in several developed countries. The best aspects of the USSR can be taken, but combined with the economic and political power to completely surpass the USSR's great achievements in all aspects.

Edit: interesting post above. I should clarify. I don't think the USSR was "doomed from the start", despite its difficult conditions. But maybe these conditions did give rise to the revisionist rot that eventually destroyed it from the inside. Of course, the role of the imperialist countries in this shouldn't be forgotten, they are extremely important. But they would not have succeeded if there wasn't anything to work with in the first place, i.e. revisionism. But then, I'm also not sure if it was possible to reform the USSR at that time, and put it back on the right path. The only indication of this possibility seemed to be around Andropov's stint, but it was over soon after.

[Black Sheep]

Socialized means of production.Very good health,education etc system.
The rest about democratic control of the workers is dusputed.

I do not know,and i would like to.

[Woland]

[...]

This.

Just as I said in an another thread about the Russian Communist party, they are still strong and getting stronger, they are the only real party in Russia, and a ''return to the USSR'' is quite likely in my opinion. With some analysis of current Russian economy and comparing it to the superior central planned one of the Soviet Union; Russian economy is deterioating very quickly and has been deterioating for quite some time now, just as almost all others of the former communist block. In a country in which a revolution already once occured, a new one is much more likely to come.There were many mistakes made in the past, thats true, but people are way too harsh on the Soviet Union.

[Brother No. 1]

yes for now the Ex-soviet republics have weakened during seperation it is like the whole United States broke apart into 50 republics all 50 would be weaker why because now they must support themself,the people, and created a goverment that fits the poeple

[PRC-UTE]

it can't be repeated- the same conditions that gave rise to it no longer exist, except arguably in a few places like Nepal.

I think WantedMan's post summed it up well. a lot of us take the incredible achievement of industrialising backwards semi fuedel nations for granted.

[Asoka89]

H-L-V-S, why are you a syndaclist with a POUM flag? Shouldnt you get a CNT-FAI avatar? I admire both groups of course.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Comrades as we know the CCCP has fallen it is sad but is the CCCP leagacy a good example for us or is it not a example for socialist and Communist your Answers comrades

No. It's a bad example of Socialism/Communism. As soon as Stalin because leader it gradually swayed away from Communism. It became basically a one person dictatorship, the politburo gained power, and millions of people died. I'm not sure if this is Capitalist propaganda or not, but apperently all party members had special privilages that the average citizen did not have access to. Looks like an Oligarchy to me.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin ended what dream lenin had it seems

[Hiero]

No. It's a bad example of Socialism/Communism. As soon as Stalin because leader it gradually swayed away from Communism. It became basically a one person dictatorship, the politburo gained power, and millions of people died. I'm not sure if this is Capitalist propaganda or not, but apperently all party members had special privilages that the average citizen did not have access to. Looks like an Oligarchy to me.


Well that's not a one man dictatorship.

[spartan]

The USSR wasn't even socialist after Lenin, it was an Isolationist Autarky ruled by an Oligarchy during and after Stalin's time at the helm and until it's eventual dissolution (socialism in one country being a perfect example of Stalin's desire to make the USSR an Autarky).

It only ever paid heed to socialism to deceive it's people and the world into accepting it's system (the latter as part of Soviet Imperialism).

[SocialRealist]

I dont think the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was good at all. It was an idea of empowering a certain group of people to control a society, turning it into a dictatorship, with one party controlling everything. Instead of focusing on the worker, they focused on their own greed and corruption, centralizing their own party and attempting to kill all opposition.

[Hiero]

The USSR wasn't even socialist after Lenin, it was an Isolationist Autarky ruled by an Oligarchy during and after Stalin's time at the helm and until it's eventual dissolution (socialism in one country being a perfect example of Stalin's desire to make the USSR an Autarky).

It only ever paid heed to socialism to deceive it's people and the world into accepting it's system (the latter as part of Soviet Imperialism).

Damn, I lost my post.

Basically I said you are shit stupid for believing that a small group of people in Moscow would nationalise industry, collectivise argiculture, create universal healthcare, create universal education and centralise control over production for the needs of people over profit under Stalin's leadership for the purpose of tricking millions over the world including decades later in Latin America, Asia and Africa so this small oligachy in Moscow could have vacation in dachas during the summer.

[hugsandmarxism]

I'm no expert on the Soviet Union (so forgive me if this sounds trite or juvenile), though I have studied it to an extent in my university life, and for all it's many ills, I think the USSR can be seen as a necessary step towards real socialism. There is much to be learned from the legacy of the USSR and her mistakes. For instance, they managed to solve (for the most part) the problems of capitalism, yet they were unable to address the problems of authoritarianism and entitlement. They were unable to safeguard themselves from totalitarian rule. So it thus became the case that, in the aftermath of bloody revolution and civil war, in times that were very harsh, Joseph Stalin took power. Stalin did great things, and horrible things, to be sure, but he was merely a product of his environment. He was able to fill the vacuum left by the Tsar, climbing over the corpses of his former comrades to reach that next higher post of authority. I'm not going to shovel shit over a legacy as reaking as Stalin's, that isn't the point I would like to make. (hell, there were some moments when such a man as Stalin was necessary to the well being of the people of the USSR, as much as that pains me to say) The point is that the revolution in Russia allowed tyranny and authoritarianism to reign, and it was this failing of the Soviet system that doomed it (in large part) to collapse. If a new revolutionary state is to be created, the revolutionaries therein must learn from this example, and avoid the pitfalls that doomed the USSR.

So, in short, it isn't an example to live by, but an example to learn from.

[Robespierre2.0]

Yes it was, but only during the Lenin & Stalin years. Stalin was a true Marxist-Leninist. Those who say otherwise have been tricked by the bourgeoisie and led up a blind alley- Since they unquestioningly swallow the bourgeois conception of the USSR, they turn to ineffectual alternatives like Anarchism and Trotskyism.

Notice, the media really doesn't bother demonizing Trotsky or the Anarchists- Neither Trotskyism or Anarchism have succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Anyways, socialists should never mechanically copy an experiment like the USSR to the detail, in today's conditions- We just need to remember the important stuff- total state ownership, an economy geared towards heavy industry, and strict control by the proletarian dictatorship.

[Dimentio]

Yes it was, but only during the Lenin & Stalin years. Stalin was a true Marxist-Leninist. Those who say otherwise have been tricked by the bourgeoisie and led up a blind alley- Since they unquestioningly swallow the bourgeois conception of the USSR, they turn to ineffectual alternatives like Anarchism and Trotskyism.

Notice, the media really doesn't bother demonizing Trotsky or the Anarchists- Neither Trotskyism or Anarchism have succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Anyways, socialists should never mechanically copy an experiment like the USSR to the detail, in today's conditions- We just need to remember the important stuff- total state ownership, an economy geared towards heavy industry, and strict control by the proletarian dictatorship.

I'll buy it if I could become leader and force everyone to hear me recite my poetry. :P

[ComRev]

I believe it was, Marxism left no economic model for which communist states to live by, and therefore the early years of the USSR, mainly the Lenin years saw many alteration in the economic policy, but towards the stalin years, a strong economic and social policy was defiened, helping the working classes to liberate themselves in a bourgeoisie world.
The fundamental principles by which the USSR lived and strived to perfect were never perfected, and after many failed attempts, the USSR finally faded into the poages of histroy, however I believe that it was a brilliant example to live by, and shoudl be repeated.

[Brother No. 1]

well as they say sometimes comrade "history repeats"

[spartan]

Damn, I lost my post.

Basically I said you are shit stupid for believing that a small group of people in Moscow would nationalise industry, collectivise argiculture, create universal healthcare, create universal education and centralise control over production for the needs of people over profit under Stalin's leadership for the purpose of tricking millions over the world including decades later in Latin America, Asia and Africa so this small oligachy in Moscow could have vacation in dachas during the summer.

I lost my reply to your post as well.:lol:

Anyway what I basically said was that it is in the best intrests of a ruling class/caste to keep it's people happy.

The oligarchy which took control of the USSR during Stalin's time knew that the Tsar hadn't done this and that this led to the people starting a revolution to overthrow him, the oligarchy wasn't prepared to make the same mistake.

The post-war western capitalist states also had huge scale nationalisation of industry, universal health care and free education, they simply had to compromise because they knew it was what the majority of people wanted seeing as they overwhelmingly elected socil democratic parties to do just that (and these people had been trained to fight in the world war which had just finished so the ruling class didn't want to piss them off).

Simply noting good aspects of the USSR's system (and I believe it was better than what we had minus the lack of democracy) doesn't make it any less of an Isolationist Autarky ruled by an unaccountable and unelected oligarchy.

Hell I never even implied that such a system was bad! Just that it wasn't socialist in my opinion.

[Pogue]

Yes it was, but only during the Lenin & Stalin years. Stalin was a true Marxist-Leninist. Those who say otherwise have been tricked by the bourgeoisie and led up a blind alley- Since they unquestioningly swallow the bourgeois conception of the USSR, they turn to ineffectual alternatives like Anarchism and Trotskyism.

Notice, the media really doesn't bother demonizing Trotsky or the Anarchists- Neither Trotskyism or Anarchism have succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Anyways, socialists should never mechanically copy an experiment like the USSR to the detail, in today's conditions- We just need to remember the important stuff- total state ownership, an economy geared towards heavy industry, and strict control by the proletarian dictatorship.

Tricked by the bourgeoisie? Whatever. The USSR did not practice socialism. I'd rather be defeated in an Anarchist revolution than lead a revolution that led to state capitalism udner one tyrant like the USSR under Stalin. You've been tricked by the powerful into blindly admiring a leader because he called himself socialist.

[Woland]

Tricked by the bourgeoisie? Whatever. The USSR did not practice socialism. I'd rather be defeated in an Anarchist revolution than lead a revolution that led to state capitalism udner one tyrant like the USSR under Stalin. You've been tricked by the powerful into blindly admiring a leader because he called himself socialist.

The USSR won't become socialist or not socialist based on your own, personal, non-Marxist and non-scientific, definition and understanding of socialism and the Soviet Union.

I definitely agree with Cmde. Mantis; before Stalin's death, the Soviet economy was a socialist one, trying to nullify commodity circulation and money transfers, and had a Marxist planned economy (which makes your anti-central planning position to be completely against Marxist theory). With the economic reforms of 1956, these things were limited and subsequently destroyed later on with the complete restoration of capitalism. And nice with the ''Anarchist revolution'', very anti-worker and anti-Marxist. Really, all you should have said was that the USSR never practised anarchy, which would have been true.

[Robespierre2.0]

Tricked by the bourgeoisie? Whatever. The USSR did not practice socialism. I'd rather be defeated in an Anarchist revolution than lead a revolution that led to state capitalism udner one tyrant like the USSR under Stalin. You've been tricked by the powerful into blindly admiring a leader because he called himself socialist.

Tricked by the powerful? Who do you mean by 'the powerful'? These days, the only ideological forces that can be considered powerful are neoliberalism (which is slowly giving way to social-democracy) and chinese revisionism. Marxism-Leninism has practically no power these days, and with the bourgeois still having hegemony, practically all media condemns Stalin and the Soviet Union. Who the hell would want to trick workers into upholding the only ideological strand that ever posed a real threat to capitalism?

On the contrary- Accepting Marxism-Leninism, and upholding the early USSR means that most of the world will be against you- There is no bandwagon appeal to it, nor does it appear to be a 'safe alternative' to capitalism like Trotskyism or Anarchism.
I say 'safe alternative', because it seems Trots and Anarchists do indeed want to see the end of capitalism, yet they don't want to have to defend their posititions from anti-communist propaganda, so they pick an ideology that has 'never been tried', has no propaganda directed towards it, and therefore has no blood, real or imagined, attached to it.

Good for you- Whenever someone argues about the 'horrors' of communism to you, you can wave it off and say, 'Nah, that's just STALINISM'. Then you can subsequently wave off every other achievement the communist movement has made over the course of the 20th century as 'STALINISM'. And at that point, you become pretty much the same thing as capitalist libertarians who argue that 'real capitalism has never been tried'.

Now, if that seems kinda harsh, I apologize. Trots, you guys aren't so bad. The whole 'bureaucracy' thing is really vague, and makes me facepalm every time I hear it, but I appreciate that some of you are above simply writing off the early USSR as 'state-capitalist'.

[Dimentio]

Of course it was'nt state capitalist. It was a palace economy of the good ol' Assyrian and Egyptian style.

For being a slave society, it was'nt really too bad.

[Tower of Bebel]

On the contrary- Accepting Marxism-Leninism, and upholding the early USSR means that most of the world will be against you- There is no bandwagon appeal to it, nor does it appear to be a 'safe alternative' to capitalism like Trotskyism or Anarchism.
I say 'safe alternative', because it seems Trots and Anarchists do indeed want to see the end of capitalism, yet they don't want to have to defend their posititions from anti-communist propaganda, so they pick an ideology that has 'never been tried', has no propaganda directed towards it, and therefore has no blood, real or imagined, attached to it.

Good for you- Whenever someone argues about the 'horrors' of communism to you, you can wave it off and say, 'Nah, that's just STALINISM'. Then you can subsequently wave off every other achievement the communist movement has made over the course of the 20th century as 'STALINISM'. And at that point, you become pretty much the same thing as capitalist libertarians who argue that 'real capitalism has never been tried'.

Now, if that seems kinda harsh, I apologize. Trots, you guys aren't so bad. The whole 'bureaucracy' thing is really vague, and makes me facepalm every time I hear it, but I appreciate that some of you are above simply writing off the early USSR as 'state-capitalist'.
I think that's a strange view you uphold. Trotskyism and many other alternative ideologies on the left are not simply reactions of a few cowards to "horrors of communism". These ideologies are products of capitalist contradictions. Communism or marxism is not a comprehensive, limited theory. It has many shades and forms.

When someone says "Nah, that's just Stalinism" it is his or her lack of time, experience or patience to fully explain the reason behind the bloody history of communism. Also the lack of any knowledge among the working class of what happened almost a century ago makes it difficult to go into detail. It is important to explain how it was possible for communism to become the most striking example of Marx' hypothesis that history always repeats itself as a farce. But we're mostly unable to do it in such a way that we're able to rebuild the workers' movement.

There is no such thing as Stalinism fully independent from Leninism or even Trotskyism. There are common roots, but with different directions. Yet today's objective and subjective situation make it almost impossible for marxism to overcome the mistakes of the past. The communist movement is not strong enough to develop some serious political economy as a tool for the class struggle of the future. There are almost no parties able to shape and form new 'Lenins' or a new Marx. Which means the left almost forced to become occupied with theoretical battles from the past, not with the battles of the future. The working class is again a victim of something which Marx had already written about:

"The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."

[...]

"The social revolution of the nineteenth [and twentieth] century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase." (The 18th Burmaire of Louis Bonaparte).

[Robespierre2.0]

I should have been more specific- I'm referring moreso to idealistic first-world kids who have their heart in the right place, but choose a 'safe' ideology like Trotskyism or Anarchism because of societal pressure- People living in the west who have heard the traditional 'Trotsky, good. Stalin, bad.' interpretation of Soviet history are a lot less hostile to these strands of communism- I know these ideologies didn't start out this way, but that seems to be the role they're playing in the west these days- A revolutionary dead end. As for the 'palace society' shit- What's the deal with that? Yeah they built lots of statues, and big buildings. Where are the opulent palace dwellers? Do you have proof that the Soviet bureaucracy lived a life of luxury? As far as I know, Stalin lived quite modestly, and it was the KGB's job to root out bureaucrats that tried to use their position to give themselves privileges. If the upper leadership were really that cynical and wrote all those essays, risked their lives robbing tsarist banks, et cetera just because they wanted to live in a palace, why even bother industrializing?

[SocialDemocracy19]

Basically it was good until stalin took over and created mass terror, tyranny and oppression. If you look at the way the actual workers took control of the government with the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky than yes your looking at an excellent example to live by, however once a Proleterian Revolution is successful such as in 1918 Russia the Workers must avoid by any means neccessary trusting totlitarian rulers to take over and misguide the people the way stalin did.

[Tower of Bebel]

Basically it was good until stalin took over and created mass terror, tyranny and oppression. If you look at the way the actual workers took control of the government with the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky than yes your looking at an excellent example to live by, however once a Proleterian Revolution is successful such as in 1918 Russia the Workers must avoid by any means neccessary trusting totlitarian rulers to take over and misguide the people the way stalin did.
There was already mass terror, tyranny and oppression before Stalin took over. In my opinion the coming to power of Stalin and the trials of the mid-30's were not the 9th Thermidor but the 18th Brumaire of the Russian Revolution.

[hugsandmarxism]

Yes it was, but only during the Lenin & Stalin years. Stalin was a true Marxist-Leninist. Those who say otherwise have been tricked by the bourgeoisie and led up a blind alley- Since they unquestioningly swallow the bourgeois conception of the USSR, they turn to ineffectual alternatives like Anarchism and Trotskyism.

Notice, the media really doesn't bother demonizing Trotsky or the Anarchists- Neither Trotskyism or Anarchism have succeeded in overthrowing capitalism.

Anyways, socialists should never mechanically copy an experiment like the USSR to the detail, in today's conditions- We just need to remember the important stuff- total state ownership, an economy geared towards heavy industry, and strict control by the proletarian dictatorship.

To your first point, I don't disagree that Stalin was at least convinced that he was a Marxist-Leninist, and that he had an important role in the advancement of the CCCP. He took a country that was broken by world war, revolution, and civil war, and made it a world power capable of competing with the highest bastion of capitalist dominance there ever was (of course, I mean the US). The Soviet Union, under his stewardship, gave Hitler the swift kick to the groin (Stalingrad) and violent beat-down (Kursk, etc.) that delivered europe from the Nazi menace. I think these are things Stalin deserves alot of credit for.

However, the grim anti-worker example set by gulags and purges speak for themselves. In protecting the revolutionary state from counterrevolution, the security blanket became a noose for the proletariat. I'm sure even Stalin would agree mistakes were made in these times. Our task as revolutionaries is to dispassionately assess where Stalin and other Soviet officials failed, and figure out ways to succeed where our predecessors did not.

I agree on your second and third points, btw.

[Brother No. 1]

you are right comrade

[hugsandmarxism]

you are right comrade

yay! do i get a cookie? :lol:;)

[Brother No. 1]

well you are right with that answer comrade but i dont have a cookie

[hugsandmarxism]

well you are right with that answer comrade but i dont have a cookie

no cookie? :crying: oh well... rep then? :D

[Brother No. 1]

ok comrade

[samsara15]

Many things went wrong in Russia that certainly should not ever be repeated.

The fierce Right Wing resistance that Communism has incurred in so many places, such as Chile under Allende, for example, has made it difficult to implement a truly benign form of Communism anywhere.

I often wonder if any humankind can implement ANY form of idealized political system without corrupting it totally, but I tend to be very much of a pessimist. Hoever, we have to try to produce a better political system, even if our efforts are doomed to failure.

[Brother No. 1]

humanity is corrupting systems for they have mankinds weakness power

[Hiero]

I lost my reply to your post as well.:lol:

Anyway what I basically said was that it is in the best intrests of a ruling class/caste to keep it's people happy.

The oligarchy which took control of the USSR during Stalin's time knew that the Tsar hadn't done this and that this led to the people starting a revolution to overthrow him, the oligarchy wasn't prepared to make the same mistake.

The post-war western capitalist states also had huge scale nationalisation of industry, universal health care and free education, they simply had to compromise because they knew it was what the majority of people wanted seeing as they overwhelmingly elected socil democratic parties to do just that (and these people had been trained to fight in the world war which had just finished so the ruling class didn't want to piss them off).

Simply noting good aspects of the USSR's system (and I believe it was better than what we had minus the lack of democracy) doesn't make it any less of an Isolationist Autarky ruled by an unaccountable and unelected oligarchy.

Hell I never even implied that such a system was bad! Just that it wasn't socialist in my opinion.
Well my reply is that you do not understand the qualitative difference between the western economic systems which is imperialist and the Soviet economic system that was socialist.

The rising standards of living in the west were linked into expliotation of old colonies and that system was driven for profit. The Soviet system had no form of expliotation, production was not driven by profit rather what the people needed. Like I said you do not understand the qualitive differences and what the implications of each system are. You need to really read the later Marxist stuff even stuff by Stalin and Mao or the textbook stuff from the PRC and the USSR about economics.

Your error is looking at the outer shell rather then the inner kernel. The fact that the central planners got extra kickbacks does not change the economic character at the centre of the system. The only qualatitive changes that occured was after the small quantitative changes that were initiated by Krushchev, which were to move planning away from a central national position to the local position were head managers could plan uncoordinated and for profit motivation.

That qualitative differences only occurs through social revolution. It can't just exist because a small group of men conspire to maintain it for the sake of peace. Post Stalin-era I imagine alot of the social system was maintianed for this reason. But this is different because as I mentioned that central economic component began breaking down through political means and continued untill it was possible to completly counter the revolution. This is the difference between the idealist conception of history and the materialist conception of history. And really this is what the Marxist-Leninist defence of Stalin is all about. We don't really care about all the glamour and military parades of the Stalin era, as many western bourgeiosie acadamics try to portray. Rather is the fact that Stalin defended that basic essence of socialism, to maintain a system that planned for the need's of the people.

[Onecom]

A much as i love the soviet union, i don't really consider it a good example of communism.As a result of stalin deviating from the socialist path fear and hatred of socialism spread all over the world.Becoming opressive and dictorial is not that way of communism/socialism its the way of capitalism.

[Brother No. 1]

I love the CCCP as well but Stalin ruined it all comrade

[spartan]

I love the CCCP as well but Stalin ruined it all comrade

I wouldn't put it as simple as that.

Good and bad things happened and developed during Stalin's time as top dog.

The good things were rapid industrialisation and a rise in living standards, the bad things were a concentration of power amongst a small, unaccountable and unelected elite and not allowing any opposition to the system.

Personally I believe the good outweighs the bad, but not to the extent that I would consider this system to be a good one which we should consequently adopt as the blueprint for every socialist state we wish to create in the future.

[hugsandmarxism]

I wouldn't put it as simple as that.

Good and bad things happened and developed during Stalin's time as top dog.

The good things were rapid industrialisation and a rise in living standards, the bad things were a concentration of power amongst a small, unaccountable and unelected elite and not allowing any opposition to the system.

Personally I believe the good outweighs the bad, but not to the extent that I would consider this system to be a good one which we should consequently adopt as the blueprint for every socialist state we wish to create.

Well put. My thoughts exactly.