Please Explain This

[Richard Nixon]

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

[Pogue]

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

Because the buerecratic state capitalism of the USSR et al did not fulfill their needs, so they rose up in opposition to a regime which denied them freedom and prosperity in their lives. The lack of a solid libertarian socialist revolutionary movement, also mixed with the general confusion created when the regime which is oppressing you call itself socialist led to a situation where the people simply wanted what they believed to be the goal for human society - liberal democracy, which was essentially more appealing than authoritarian rule. Of course, alot of them are now realising all forms of capitalism are rubbish and thus revolutionary potential builds up.

I wouldn't say these were coutner-revolutions at all, I'd say they were popular movements for major liberal reform, as they were not coutnering any revolution, that had already been done by the beurecracies.

[Demogorgon]

Well they weren't socialist in the first place, merely dictatorships, and people wanted rid of them.

Mind you, not a single one implemented American style constitutions. Each and every one of them rejected an American style system and looked to Western Europe instead, which says something about how desirable the American political system is seen to be.

[Anarkiwi]

Same as the above,
the ussr was an imperialist power in eastern europe and within its own borders.

Dont we just get sick of dim wits who read or watch yankee propaganda and think that thats communisim
i for one am a communist because i belive in the ideals of marx and engels
not the ideals of the ussr.

Dude who started the thread read some marx instead of watching fox specials on north korea.

[JimmyJazz]

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

Please Explain This:

Why have there been various anti-capitalist revolutions and near-revolutions in the last century?. If capitalism is all good and all, why did workers in various countries and tons of major cities revolt against it and establish, or try to establish, Paris Commune-like social democracies? And why do workers everywhere join unions, which is a slightly more subdued but equally necessary revolt against free market capitalism? So why?

[Richard Nixon]

Please Explain This:

Why have there been various anti-capitalist revolutions and near-revolutions in the last century?. If capitalism is all good and all, why did workers in various countries and tons of major cities revolt against it and establish, or try to establish, Paris Commune-like social democracies? And why do workers everywhere join unions, which is a slightly more subdued but equally necessary revolt against free market capitalism? So why?

Unionism and social democracy is very different from total capitalism or total communism. I for one am a strong supporter of labour unions. Union members and social democrats believe in moderation of both capitalism and socialism. You on the other hand seem to believe that social democracy are merely "concessions".

[Chapter 24]

Unionism and social democracy is very different from total capitalism or total communism. I for one am a strong supporter of labour unions. Union members and social democrats believe in moderation of both capitalism and socialism. You on the other hand seem to believe that social democracy are merely "concessions".

That's basically what social democracy gives, concessions. They are not a product of full workers control, which is what seperates it from socialism - which is, in fact, worker's control of the means of production. Modern-day social democratic parties that eventually detatched from their socialist traditions participate in bourgeois elections on the basis of parliamentary power, whereas socialist organizations do not. Social democrats do not speak for the total emancipation of the working class, rather give it scraps off the table.

[RGacky3]

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

I don't believe there has ever been an internal counter revolution inside a libertarian socialist community.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't believe there has ever been an internal counter revolution inside a libertarian socialist community.

They do tend to fall apart though if they aren't conquored.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

What revolutions? Popular uprisings or movements in favour of capitalism existed only in a minority of the former East Bloc countries: Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, and Georgia. That's it. All the other countries either had no uprising at all (and the government simply decided to change things of its own accord), or had uprisings directed against a specific leader and not against the system itself.

Furthermore, even in the places that had pro-capitalist uprisings and movements, public opinion was usually still hostile to capitalism and the old economic system would have been preserved had the people been able to vote on that question in a referendum. The only countries where the majority was probably pro-capitalist were Poland and the Baltic states.

[Demogorgon]

What revolutions? Popular uprisings or movements in favour of capitalism existed only in a minority of the former East Bloc countries: Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, and Georgia. That's it. All the other countries either had no uprising at all (and the government simply decided to change things of its own accord), or had uprisings directed against a specific leader and not against the system itself.

Furthermore, even in the places that had pro-capitalist uprisings and movements, public opinion was usually still hostile to capitalism and the old economic system would have been preserved had the people been able to vote on that question in a referendum. The only countries where the majority was probably pro-capitalist were Poland and the Baltic states.

That is a very good point. It would be silly to say that people in the Eastern block countries were happy with what they had. I am sure if you were to ask, do you want a more democratic government, more freedom to travel, more flexible organisation, more serious attempts to deal with corruption and so on you would have gotten yes to all of those. If on the other hand you were to ask if they wanted a political system based on a twisted version of West Germany with plenty more corruption, an economic policy based on Pinochet's Chile, Western carpet baggers making off with as much of the national wealth as possible, dramatically falling wages, food shortages, and so on, I am less sure you would have gotten an affirmative answer.

[Richard Nixon]

If that's true why is it in say the Czech Republic or Hungary people say "I'm better off now then in 1985." and the standards of living have risen dramatically (outside of Russia and other former Soviet republics)?

[Anarkiwi]

yeah some people there also say they be better off under socialisim
wich is not soviet imperialisim

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If that's true why is it in say the Czech Republic or Hungary people say "I'm better off now then in 1985." and the standards of living have risen dramatically (outside of Russia and other former Soviet republics)?

Most people in the Czech Republic and Hungary are indeed better off today than they were in 1985. That, however, is hardly a surprise. 24 years have passed since 1985. If you take any random 24 year period in any country after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is almost certain that people were better off at the end of the 24 years than at their beginning. For example, people in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were better off in 1989 than in 1965, they were better off in 1979 than in 1955, and so on.

The question is, are they better off today in the real 2009 than they might have been in an alternate 2009 where the Soviet system was still in place?

Obviously, there is no way to know for sure, but there is good reason to believe the answer is no.

First of all, all Eastern European countries experienced a catastrophic collapse of living standards - and of all economic indicators - in the early 1990s.
In 1988, Czech GDP per capita was $16,645 (inflation-adjusted in present day dollars). In 1994 it was $14,617.
In 1988, Hungarian GDP per capita was $13,399. In 1994 it was $10,821.

Today, both countries have recovered, but the total economic growth of the Czech Republic between 1988 and 2008 was 37% (remember, this is over 20 years, that's why the percent is so high), while over the previous 20 years (1968-1988), Czech economic growth was 43%. In Hungary, growth from 1988 to 2008 was 34%, while growth from 1968 to 1988 was 42%.

Both of these countries have grown quickly over the second decade of capitalism, true, but this is offset by the economic collapse of the first decade of capitalism, and the net result is slower growth than they had under the Soviet system. And today they are hit hard by the global recession, so the future is uncertain.

And these are two of the best performing countries of the former Eastern Bloc...

While all of that happened, the Gini index for both countries skyrocketed, meaning that the gap between rich and poor grew dramatically. As a result, while the Czechs and Hungarians are, on average, a little bit poorer than they might have been today under the Soviet system, the lowest earners among them are far poorer. They are probably actually worse off than they were in 1985, let alone compared to where they might be today had the Soviet system continued.

The introduction of capitalism had social costs and no economic benefits. And that was in the Czech Republic and Hungary, two countries that came reasonably close to breaking even in the economic field. In most other countries, capitalism was not only a social disaster, but an economic one as well.

[Dust Bunnies]

Have you ever done something stupid you regretted majorly later (like get that tattoo when you were drunk)? That's what happened to the USSR/Eastern Europe. Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" is a best seller in Eastern Germany these days. I've talked to a couple Russians, all of them hate Yeltsin. I've talked to nuns from Poland, they talk about how economically Poland was better under Soviet control. Many elderly people are fond of Stalin. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (despite being revisionist) is the second biggest. A TV station (in 2008 I think) was having a contest of the best Russian, Stalin was on it despite being Georgian. Stalin almost won if it wasn't for the station begging people to not vote for Stalin.

[Richard Nixon]

Have you ever done something stupid you regretted majorly later (like get that tattoo when you were drunk)? That's what happened to the USSR/Eastern Europe. Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" is a best seller in Eastern Germany these days. I've talked to a couple Russians, all of them hate Yeltsin. I've talked to nuns from Poland, they talk about how economically Poland was better under Soviet control. Many elderly people are fond of Stalin. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (despite being revisionist) is the second biggest. A TV station (in 2008 I think) was having a contest of the best Russian, Stalin was on it despite being Georgian. Stalin almost won if it wasn't for the station begging people to not vote for Stalin.

Well Stalin was a sadistic fuck who killed more people then Hitler. Also you said old people, who were raised on communist propaganda and obedience and love of Stalin.

[danyboy27]

is it necessary to continue this neverending stalin vs capitalism thread?

i am not a fan of stalin , i hate the fucker but damn nixon, dont put more gasoline into the fire.

no matter how much time this discussion will last opinions on both side will remain the same.

please stop it, all of you

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well Stalin was a sadistic fuck who killed more people then Hitler.

That depends. The highest credible death toll than can be pinned on Stalin is 20 million. The lowest is around one million. Part of the difference comes from different ways of counting (some of the higher estimates use a complex scientific method known as "making stuff up"), and part of it comes from different standards on what kind of acts you wish to count as "getting killed by the government." Basically, the higher estimates count everyone who died of unnatural causes in the USSR as a victim of the government (under the logic that all these deaths could have been prevented but weren't - I wonder how many people capitalism killed by those standards), and the lower estimates only count people who were actively executed (as opposed to, for example, being allowed to die when they could have been helped).

With Hitler, the absolute lowest death toll that he can be held responsible for is 12 million (victims of the Holocaust alone, including Jews, Roma people, communists, homosexuals, and others). The highest is 50 million - the total number of people who died in World War 2. This time, the difference comes from the question of whether you want to count war dead as victims of the person who started the war. All sorts of intermediate positions are possible: For example, you may wish to count civilian dead but not military dead, or you may wish to count Allied dead but not Axis dead.

With Stalin at 1-20 million and Hitler at 12-50 million, there is some overlap, so, if you pick the right estimates, you could get a higher number for Stalin than for Hitler. But the only way to do that is if you let Hitler get away without taking blame for the vast majority of war dead in WW2. That's dishonest. And in any case, look at those margins of error: They are insanely huge in both cases.

Also you said old people, who were raised on communist propaganda and obedience and love of Stalin.

As opposed to young people, who were raised on capitalist propaganda and obedience and love of the free market?

The "people are brainwashed" argument goes both ways.

[cappiej]

is it necessary to continue this neverending stalin vs capitalism thread?

i am not a fan of stalin , i hate the fucker but damn nixon, dont put more gasoline into the fire.

no matter how much time this discussion will last opinions on both side will remain the same.

please stop it, all of you

I think everyone's missing the point, the point is people on both sides, Communist and neo-nazi, are supporting somebody they acknowledge took millions, or at least a million, lives.

Whose more evil is besides the point really.

[Richard Nixon]

[QUOTE]

That depends. The highest credible death toll than can be pinned on Stalin is 20 million. The lowest is around one million. Part of the difference comes from different ways of counting (some of the higher estimates use a complex scientific method known as "making stuff up"), and part of it comes from different standards on what kind of acts you wish to count as "getting killed by the government." Basically, the higher estimates count everyone who died of unnatural causes in the USSR as a victim of the government (under the logic that all these deaths could have been prevented but weren't - I wonder how many people capitalism killed by those standards), and the lower estimates only count people who were actively executed (as opposed to, for example, being allowed to die when they could have been helped).

With Hitler, the absolute lowest death toll that he can be held responsible for is 12 million (victims of the Holocaust alone, including Jews, Roma people, communists, homosexuals, and others). The highest is 50 million - the total number of people who died in World War 2. This time, the difference comes from the question of whether you want to count war dead as victims of the person who started the war. All sorts of intermediate positions are possible: For example, you may wish to count civilian dead but not military dead, or you may wish to count Allied dead but not Axis dead.

With Stalin at 1-20 million and Hitler at 12-50 million, there is some overlap, so, if you pick the right estimates, you could get a higher number for Stalin than for Hitler. But the only way to do that is if you let Hitler get away without taking blame for the vast majority of war dead in WW2. That's dishonest. And in any case, look at those margins of error: They are insanely huge in both cases.

At any rate you must admit he was a sadistic fuck and an evil man.