People Demand Socialism!

  1. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    + YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
  2. NickHs
    NickHs
    Of course, why wouldn't they? There many immigrants from the USSR here in Greece and I've talked with a lot of them. They are all nostalgic. They are indignant because of the situation in their countries after the "collapse" of the Soviet Union.
    They acknowledge the mistakes of Gorbachev, but most of them adore Andropov. You see, even after 1956 and despite the reformist stance of Khruschev, the USSR still had a socialist character. People that lived there can reassure us.
    Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that the Soviet Union deserves support and recognition, even after 1956. This, in my opinion, is one of the big mistakes of the maoist movement.
  3. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    Of course, why wouldn't they? There many immigrants from the USSR here in Greece and I've talked with a lot of them. They are all nostalgic. They are indignant because of the situation in their countries after the "collapse" of the Soviet Union.
    They acknowledge the mistakes of Gorbachev, but most of them adore Andropov. You see, even after 1956 and despite the reformist stance of Khruschev, the USSR still had a socialist character. People that lived there can reassure us.
    Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that the Soviet Union deserves support and recognition, even after 1956. This, in my opinion, is one of the big mistakes of the maoist movement.
    Yeah, I knew it was self-evident, but I just wanted to show a glimpse of the extent of that nostalgia.
    I'm not too familiar with Andropov, but Gorbachev was a hack who destroyed the Soviet Union.
    I would disagree that Maoists ought to "support" the Soviet Union from the "Secret Speech" on, however. From that moment forward, socialism was being worn down by liberalization and "reforms" that slowly dismantled the Soviet Union. I would certainly consider it preferable to capitalist America up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't say much.
  4. NickHs
    NickHs
    I see your point. But, let me ask you something: Suppose your house was having problems with the ceiling, or with the plumbing. Would you abandon it?
    And another thing: What was the difference between the reforms of Khruschev and the ones of Xiao Ping?
    Real socialism had problems at the time. It was being destroyed by reformists and opportunists. The way I see it, communists should have tried to change the situation in the USSR, while supporting its socialist nature (which still existed, even though pretty serious mistakes were made)
    Take Cuba for example. It was and still is a truly socialist state in nature. However, they collaborated with the Soviet Union, and both peoples were benefited. (Missile Crisis aside)
  5. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    I see your point. But, let me ask you something: Suppose your house was having problems with the ceiling, or with the plumbing. Would you abandon it?
    And another thing: What was the difference between the reforms of Khruschev and the ones of Xiao Ping?
    Real socialism had problems at the time. It was being destroyed by reformists and opportunists. The way I see it, communists should have tried to change the situation in the USSR, while supporting its socialist nature (which still existed, even though pretty serious mistakes were made)
    Take Cuba for example. It was and still is a truly socialist state in nature. However, they collaborated with the Soviet Union, and both peoples were benefited. (Missile Crisis aside)
    What sort of problems? I would consider abandoning it if prevented from making repairs.
    Both Xiaoping and Khrushchev's reforms had the same aim and the same end, the liberalization of Socialism, which would pave the way for it's ultimate collapse.
    There was an attempt to stop Gorbachev, and saying what should have been done is one thing, but what's history is history.
    Actually, the last I checked, Cuba could possibly fall in time as well. Raul Castro is an interesting character...he has shown signs of a will to 'repair' Cuban-U.S. relations, and as far as I know he has restored cash incentives.
    Revisionism puts socialism in a downward spiral, and to support it regardless is to fail to recognize inherent problems and changes in so-called "socialist character".
  6. NickHs
    NickHs
    You don't have to "fail to recognize" problems. But socialism will be more benefited if you try to help it, no matter what, WITHOUT supporting every little thing a semi-revisionist government does. It still is real socialism, and let us not forget that its biggest advantage was the "real" part. Abandoning real socialism, even if it is after 1956, would mean giving up a huge load of arguments that can be directed towards anti-communists. Take Gagarin for example. Sure, he was the first man in space during Khruschev. Now, would that mean that it wasn't a HUGE accomplishment of the soviet people and that Stalin was right when he told that socialism can beat capitalism? I am not saying you should support revisionism. I don't. I wouldn't be here, anyway. But, isn't it a little dangerous to give up hope? If you truly believe in your views and democratic centralism, you know you can change things inside a party by making its members see your point.
  7. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    Sorry, I've been busy with exams. I can elaborate later. For now, I'll just say that I would not consider it Socialism.
    It's too bad I haven't seen dros around here anymore, but as he put it, by the time Khrushchev shows up, we don't defend the USSR. That's just how it is.
    I'm not giving up hope at all by simply pointing out the difference between genuine Socialism and revisionism.
    As I said, "I would certainly consider it preferable to capitalist America up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't say much."
    Try defending Khrushchev at any meeting of genuine Anti-Revisionists. You'd be laughed out the door. You say you don't support revisionism, well then do not call it Socialism. That just feeds misconceptions about Communism and makes for a tougher time of convincing anybody.

    I did a seminar for school on the so-called "invasion" of Afghanistan (a conflict which Afghan revolutionaries dragged the Soviet Union into under the terms of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty). I pointed out the mess that Western backing of the Taleban created, but that did not mean defending the Soviet Union at the time., especially not in the era of Gorbachev, as "Socialist".
    If it did retain Socialist character, its worrisome how easily that can be destroyed.
  8. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    Although, after watching the video again, you may be right that the Soviet people retained a Socialist spirit.
  9. Charles Xavier
    As communists, we have to accept socialism its bad and its good, socialism has its own contradictions, we must embrace and seek to fix them. We cannot simply go out and say, revisionism, now there is no socialism! Khruschev wasn't a god, a wizard or some brilliant opportunist, he was put in place out of real contradictions that exist within the socialist system. He wasn't an army he was part of a deep seated resentment of the soviet people in some regards. His rise to power was not out of whoops we did bad, but out of how the internal and external contradictions played out within the socialist society. So yes, the soviet Union was socialist right up until the end its policies however we don't have to say were always right or even progressive, however we must recognize the soviet union never managed to solved the contradictions which allowed its easy overthrow and division.

    We cannot be Puritans and declare its either 100% like this or its 100% bad. We must take both the good and the bad and learn from it. Not just ignore the bad and say well thats not TRUE socialism. Thats ultra-left dogmatism. As Leninists we look at what is what was, not what could be. We examine the fact as we see them and from there draw conclusions and march forward.
  10. The Intransigent Faction
    The Intransigent Faction
    As communists, we have to accept socialism its bad and its good, socialism has its own contradictions, we must embrace and seek to fix them. We cannot simply go out and say, revisionism, now there is no socialism! Khruschev wasn't a god, a wizard or some brilliant opportunist, he was put in place out of real contradictions that exist within the socialist system. He wasn't an army he was part of a deep seated resentment of the soviet people in some regards. His rise to power was not out of whoops we did bad, but out of how the internal and external contradictions played out within the socialist society. So yes, the soviet Union was socialist right up until the end its policies however we don't have to say were always right or even progressive, however we must recognize the soviet union never managed to solved the contradictions which allowed its easy overthrow and division.

    We cannot be Puritans and declare its either 100% like this or its 100% bad. We must take both the good and the bad and learn from it. Not just ignore the bad and say well thats not TRUE socialism. Thats ultra-left dogmatism. As Leninists we look at what is what was, not what could be. We examine the fact as we see them and from there draw conclusions and march forward.
    Certainly, I wasn't trying to advocate not learning from the mistakes that led to revisionism and the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.
    In any case, yeah, you have some good points there.