USSR - Communist? or a form of state capitalism?
- Thread starter Mac Allah
- Start date
Before the commies come here, I'm gonna show off my knowledge of Communism and give you this to read about the "fake communist USSR":
Stalinism
"The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this be ignored?" - Trotsky, "Stalinism and Bolshevism(3)"
As Trotsky pined away in Mexico, Stalin began concocting his own blend of Marxist-Leninism. This new direction for the Russian Communist Party was a major departure from previous paths. Analysis of his reign reveals that his tenure at the head of the country was tyrannical, anti-democratic, and lacking in real strides in Marxist ideology. Stalin’s reign was one of terror and oppression. The ideology he leaves us, Stalinism, is very similar.
Stalin added little real theory to the Marxist tradition, though he did offer some pointers on governing with Communist principles. He differed from Trotsky in that he believed that socialism could exist and thrive in a single country, without a permanent, world revolution. Furthermore he suggested the idea that ‘class struggle intensifies as a government moves from one success to another’. In reality, he used this idea as an excuse to kill and exile his enemies in massive sweeps. His attempts to consolidate power spread internationally as well in his declaring of Russia to be the fatherland of socialism, demanding all communist parties become subservient to the authority of the USSR, labeling independent parties as ‘class enemies’ and even ‘fascist’ (1).
The bottom line on Stalinism is that it was Leninism taken to the next level, the goal of centralized power and a massive bureaucracy increased. Socialism, in the minds of the idealists, is to be the ‘super democracy’ – the ultimate equalizer. Stalin’s government, however, was anything but democratic. It was during his time in power that the USSR began to truly betray the very basic ideals of a socialist state. Stalinism - the un-socialist socialism – had been created.
http://www.the-wood.org/socialism/
GO CAPITALISM WITH SOCIALISTIC TENDENCIES!
Stalinism
"The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this be ignored?" - Trotsky, "Stalinism and Bolshevism(3)"
As Trotsky pined away in Mexico, Stalin began concocting his own blend of Marxist-Leninism. This new direction for the Russian Communist Party was a major departure from previous paths. Analysis of his reign reveals that his tenure at the head of the country was tyrannical, anti-democratic, and lacking in real strides in Marxist ideology. Stalin’s reign was one of terror and oppression. The ideology he leaves us, Stalinism, is very similar.
Stalin added little real theory to the Marxist tradition, though he did offer some pointers on governing with Communist principles. He differed from Trotsky in that he believed that socialism could exist and thrive in a single country, without a permanent, world revolution. Furthermore he suggested the idea that ‘class struggle intensifies as a government moves from one success to another’. In reality, he used this idea as an excuse to kill and exile his enemies in massive sweeps. His attempts to consolidate power spread internationally as well in his declaring of Russia to be the fatherland of socialism, demanding all communist parties become subservient to the authority of the USSR, labeling independent parties as ‘class enemies’ and even ‘fascist’ (1).
The bottom line on Stalinism is that it was Leninism taken to the next level, the goal of centralized power and a massive bureaucracy increased. Socialism, in the minds of the idealists, is to be the ‘super democracy’ – the ultimate equalizer. Stalin’s government, however, was anything but democratic. It was during his time in power that the USSR began to truly betray the very basic ideals of a socialist state. Stalinism - the un-socialist socialism – had been created.
http://www.the-wood.org/socialism/
GO CAPITALISM WITH SOCIALISTIC TENDENCIES!
Yeah, they were right. It was more of a Capitalist state, especially towards the end.
In the beggining, Lenin definately had a vision and I believe, his goal was to make Russia a true communist nation. I tink this is where me and CB disagree a little.
If you understand Marxism, you'll know that he wasn't necessarilly against capitalism. He believed capitalism was necessary in order to build resources and the only next logical step is to evolve into communism. Russia was not a capitalist country before the revolution. That is mainly the arguement against Lenin. Because of this, Lenin faced a lot of obsticles that wouldn't have been there if they were once capitalist, so he had to do a couple of things that weren't really "communistic."
If Lenin would have lived longer or Trotsky would have led after Lenins death, the outcome would have been completely different. Stalin should never of had power and he basically fucked it all up.
In the beggining, Lenin definately had a vision and I believe, his goal was to make Russia a true communist nation. I tink this is where me and CB disagree a little.
If you understand Marxism, you'll know that he wasn't necessarilly against capitalism. He believed capitalism was necessary in order to build resources and the only next logical step is to evolve into communism. Russia was not a capitalist country before the revolution. That is mainly the arguement against Lenin. Because of this, Lenin faced a lot of obsticles that wouldn't have been there if they were once capitalist, so he had to do a couple of things that weren't really "communistic."
If Lenin would have lived longer or Trotsky would have led after Lenins death, the outcome would have been completely different. Stalin should never of had power and he basically fucked it all up.
How often do non-violent revolutions occur? When you are being oppressed, do you starve yourself or do you fight?
I'll tell you this...if a revolution ever happened here in america, again, it will not be won by peace. And if I happen to support one side I will be happy to contribute to a violent revolution.
Yes, peace is the ultimate outcome, but be realistic man. Look throughout history. Ghandi is one of the very few examples of a peaceful movement.
Yes, I am a Lenin fan...that's why his picture is under my name.
I'll tell you this...if a revolution ever happened here in america, again, it will not be won by peace. And if I happen to support one side I will be happy to contribute to a violent revolution.
Yes, peace is the ultimate outcome, but be realistic man. Look throughout history. Ghandi is one of the very few examples of a peaceful movement.
Yes, I am a Lenin fan...that's why his picture is under my name.
I agree with most of what you said. Personally I don't think I could let my self become a martyr but people have done it and people will do it. Violence just doesn't solve anything and when it does it's only for a limited amount of time. Kind of how the Israeli Airfoce didn't want to shot Palestinians anymore. If you keep attacking something that wont or cant fight back chances are your sense of humanity will come back and a heavy conscience is a bitch.
It's a good question that many people love to debate. My opinion:
The USSR was not really communist. Never was. (Communist ambitions? could be debated either way easily).
Then if not Communist What was the USSR? is a whole nother question indeed.
In my opinion it would be what some people call state-capitalism. But shit i consider the U.S. to be state-capitalist so that's not sayin too much. It all depends on the degree of state-capitalism(obviously the state capitalism of the U.S. and of the USSR are not the same) and during the USSR's history there was a large degree of flucuation in how strong the state influence over the "market" really was.
I think Lenin and the majority if not all of the Bolsheviks intended to make the USSR into a true communist union, but Lenin was a theorist, before he came to power his theories centered around vanguardism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the dictatorship of the vanguard party. Once in power he practiced the dictatorship of Lenin and instituted the New Economic Policy (NEP) which was a blend of capitalism and socialism (think modern China) intended to bring Russia "up to speed" since the revolution in Russia was a bit premature.
Stalin = development, industrialization, and militarization by any means. Machiavellian might makes right realpolitk.
Is it fare to blame it all on Stalin or Lenin? No not really, cuz those that followed could have done LOTS more to change things for the better, instead they did LOTS to fuck shit up further. Lenin gets props for gettin the Bolsheviks through the revolution and into power. Stalin gets the props for getting the USSR through WWII. I don't know how much differently either of those could have been done while still succeeding.
As for the talk of Violent Vs. Non-violent revolution. Both work, the key is for people to realize ahead of time or, if need be, by trial and error. Non-Violent revolution only works with a certain type of oppressive regime, try and tell me that some Ghandi shit would have worked for (excuse the cliche example) the Jews to get rid of Hitler. PLEASE! He'd have torched em all even faster. The British colonial power at the time of Ghandi (and their relationship with India too which makes a difference, just compare to other colonies) was WAAAAAAY different than Nazi Germany. Or if you like Colonial Great Britain during the time of the U.S. war for independence was WAAAAAAAY different than the G.B. of Ghandi's time. Some passive shit wouldn't have worked for the Russians that's for damn sure. Plus passive resistance in India was against a colonial occupier. It was to put power in the hands of the Indian people and out of British hands. Things are a lot different, when for example, the people of the united states want to take power away from other people in the united states, those with the power will fight a lot harder to keep it and those getting their heads smashed in will be less willing to get killed/shit kicked out of them when they could easily defend themselves.
If and when it were ever up to me. Fuck passive resistance.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun!
The USSR was not really communist. Never was. (Communist ambitions? could be debated either way easily).
Then if not Communist What was the USSR? is a whole nother question indeed.
In my opinion it would be what some people call state-capitalism. But shit i consider the U.S. to be state-capitalist so that's not sayin too much. It all depends on the degree of state-capitalism(obviously the state capitalism of the U.S. and of the USSR are not the same) and during the USSR's history there was a large degree of flucuation in how strong the state influence over the "market" really was.
I think Lenin and the majority if not all of the Bolsheviks intended to make the USSR into a true communist union, but Lenin was a theorist, before he came to power his theories centered around vanguardism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the dictatorship of the vanguard party. Once in power he practiced the dictatorship of Lenin and instituted the New Economic Policy (NEP) which was a blend of capitalism and socialism (think modern China) intended to bring Russia "up to speed" since the revolution in Russia was a bit premature.
Stalin = development, industrialization, and militarization by any means. Machiavellian might makes right realpolitk.
Is it fare to blame it all on Stalin or Lenin? No not really, cuz those that followed could have done LOTS more to change things for the better, instead they did LOTS to fuck shit up further. Lenin gets props for gettin the Bolsheviks through the revolution and into power. Stalin gets the props for getting the USSR through WWII. I don't know how much differently either of those could have been done while still succeeding.
As for the talk of Violent Vs. Non-violent revolution. Both work, the key is for people to realize ahead of time or, if need be, by trial and error. Non-Violent revolution only works with a certain type of oppressive regime, try and tell me that some Ghandi shit would have worked for (excuse the cliche example) the Jews to get rid of Hitler. PLEASE! He'd have torched em all even faster. The British colonial power at the time of Ghandi (and their relationship with India too which makes a difference, just compare to other colonies) was WAAAAAAY different than Nazi Germany. Or if you like Colonial Great Britain during the time of the U.S. war for independence was WAAAAAAAY different than the G.B. of Ghandi's time. Some passive shit wouldn't have worked for the Russians that's for damn sure. Plus passive resistance in India was against a colonial occupier. It was to put power in the hands of the Indian people and out of British hands. Things are a lot different, when for example, the people of the united states want to take power away from other people in the united states, those with the power will fight a lot harder to keep it and those getting their heads smashed in will be less willing to get killed/shit kicked out of them when they could easily defend themselves.
If and when it were ever up to me. Fuck passive resistance.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun!
Good points and I agree a very high extend. Personally I applaud any one with the nuts to passively revolt as opposed to violently revolt. But those who passively revolt don't have to worry about kill or be killed, they do have to worry about being killed though, which is what makes it such a tough choice. No I don't think Passive Revolution will ALWAYS work, but i do think people should give it a shot before they take up arms.
The bigger picture is that the upside to residing in this "greedy, self-serving, capitalistic" country is the fact that we sit on the largest economic goldmine in the world. The "rags to riches" scenario is very much possible in this country. 70 percent of American Millionaires don't graduate high school.
My family went from living double income and pulling in less than 30k a year to making around 95 to 100 a year, and there was no magical key to it. My pops got offered a stake in a franchise and he borrowed money to buy himself in. My aunt who barely graduated high school owns her own hotel, my grandmother invests in real estate, etc, etc. France and England have subsidized housing, college, etc., but they lack the economic impetus that drives our economy in the rate it moves.
Every country that is lauded by those who decry our government's lack of free social services and handouts is very economically mediocre. Yes, the bottom 5% might be a bit higher, but the trade-off is that the rest of the country is lower. The reality of countries with heavily or moderately socialized economies is less incentive for monetary and capital growth. Opportunity exists in our country that people literally die for...that people die floating on rafts from the "wonderfwul, wonderful land of Cuba" you so often speak of.
America's intrinsic nature is business incentives. America is America because of business incentives, not in spite of them. And if we lopped off the head of the American capitalistic machine, another America would spring up somewhere else in the world. We might as well keep it here.
The formula is simple. I don't give a fuck if you're Black, White, Puerto Rican, Crippled, Gay, and Schizophrenic. You follow a few steps, and you can survive in our society.
1. Graduate high school. If you dropped out, get your equivalency.
2. Go to a junior college for 3 years, or attempt to immediately enter a 4 year. Go to www.fafsa.com , fill out a financial aid request, and get your financial aid.
3. Go to college. Do not drop out. Do not skip classes.
4. Graduate College.
5. Look through job listings and submit a resume. Groom yourself, speak professionally. Don't use your "block nigga" terminology, don't sound like Uncle Jethro, don't say "ummm", "hmm", "I dunno".
6. Get a job.
7. Work, and get paid.
8. Cash your check, with which you buy things, and thus, you are surviving.
My family went from living double income and pulling in less than 30k a year to making around 95 to 100 a year, and there was no magical key to it. My pops got offered a stake in a franchise and he borrowed money to buy himself in. My aunt who barely graduated high school owns her own hotel, my grandmother invests in real estate, etc, etc. France and England have subsidized housing, college, etc., but they lack the economic impetus that drives our economy in the rate it moves.
Every country that is lauded by those who decry our government's lack of free social services and handouts is very economically mediocre. Yes, the bottom 5% might be a bit higher, but the trade-off is that the rest of the country is lower. The reality of countries with heavily or moderately socialized economies is less incentive for monetary and capital growth. Opportunity exists in our country that people literally die for...that people die floating on rafts from the "wonderfwul, wonderful land of Cuba" you so often speak of.
America's intrinsic nature is business incentives. America is America because of business incentives, not in spite of them. And if we lopped off the head of the American capitalistic machine, another America would spring up somewhere else in the world. We might as well keep it here.
The formula is simple. I don't give a fuck if you're Black, White, Puerto Rican, Crippled, Gay, and Schizophrenic. You follow a few steps, and you can survive in our society.
1. Graduate high school. If you dropped out, get your equivalency.
2. Go to a junior college for 3 years, or attempt to immediately enter a 4 year. Go to www.fafsa.com , fill out a financial aid request, and get your financial aid.
3. Go to college. Do not drop out. Do not skip classes.
4. Graduate College.
5. Look through job listings and submit a resume. Groom yourself, speak professionally. Don't use your "block nigga" terminology, don't sound like Uncle Jethro, don't say "ummm", "hmm", "I dunno".
6. Get a job.
7. Work, and get paid.
8. Cash your check, with which you buy things, and thus, you are surviving.
I see what you're saying...I think this should probably be it's own thread.
You and I are similar in many ways, but this is where we clearly differ. You see america as a land of opportunity, and I assume, you also consider it the best system available. Sure, some people are lucky enough to make it big. I think it's around, what, 1% that are rich? Another number is you have a 80-85% chance of making as much as your parents. Sure, there’s room to slide through the cracks. Of course, america is better then most other countries, But, that’s not what I'm a Marxist.
It's about human advancement. Plain and simple. In my mind, a communist system is the best way that we know of that can speed up human advancement. Capitalism is good for the short run. The industrial period is a great example of this. But capitalism can't and wont last forever. This is why I said Marx wasn't necessarily against capitalism; he understood it was good in the short run.
The best way to achieve further advancement is communication and working together. Could you imagine if everyone in america was educated and money wasn’t their top priority? We don’t need social classes anymore. There is no more use for capitalism, look what it does. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system. And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience. But if we look a little harder, we will see that these values benefit only a tiny handful of people, the ultra-rich pigs. The rest of us, in our daily lives, gain nothing from this. What I want above all is peace, stability, a decent job, no worries about healthcare or education, time off for family and loved ones, etc. It is only the capitalist class, which thrives off the individual competition between one company and another. Which by the way doesn’t advance technology. How many big corporations have held knowledge of new technologies because their marketing geniuses didn’t know how to sell it?
We don’t need to be zombies anymore. No more pointless jobs. See, that’s the difference between most people and myself. I don’t really care about money. I’m sitting here right now at my job not giving a damn about anything but replying to you. Soon I will drive my car home, lost in a daze thinking about how gay this whole working 9-5, M-F shit is. I would much rather spend half my day researching new technologies or studying philosophy then anything else…..
Will finish later.
You and I are similar in many ways, but this is where we clearly differ. You see america as a land of opportunity, and I assume, you also consider it the best system available. Sure, some people are lucky enough to make it big. I think it's around, what, 1% that are rich? Another number is you have a 80-85% chance of making as much as your parents. Sure, there’s room to slide through the cracks. Of course, america is better then most other countries, But, that’s not what I'm a Marxist.
It's about human advancement. Plain and simple. In my mind, a communist system is the best way that we know of that can speed up human advancement. Capitalism is good for the short run. The industrial period is a great example of this. But capitalism can't and wont last forever. This is why I said Marx wasn't necessarily against capitalism; he understood it was good in the short run.
The best way to achieve further advancement is communication and working together. Could you imagine if everyone in america was educated and money wasn’t their top priority? We don’t need social classes anymore. There is no more use for capitalism, look what it does. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system. And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience. But if we look a little harder, we will see that these values benefit only a tiny handful of people, the ultra-rich pigs. The rest of us, in our daily lives, gain nothing from this. What I want above all is peace, stability, a decent job, no worries about healthcare or education, time off for family and loved ones, etc. It is only the capitalist class, which thrives off the individual competition between one company and another. Which by the way doesn’t advance technology. How many big corporations have held knowledge of new technologies because their marketing geniuses didn’t know how to sell it?
We don’t need to be zombies anymore. No more pointless jobs. See, that’s the difference between most people and myself. I don’t really care about money. I’m sitting here right now at my job not giving a damn about anything but replying to you. Soon I will drive my car home, lost in a daze thinking about how gay this whole working 9-5, M-F shit is. I would much rather spend half my day researching new technologies or studying philosophy then anything else…..
Will finish later.
Ideally, we would all be communists. The world would be communist. Ideally, the world would also be peaceful, benevolent (sp? :X), communicative, and cooperative. But I don't believe it will ever happen. You do hold noble ideals, and I'm not trying to get you down for believing them (Im sure youve heard "it will never happen" 10,000X before), but I find it very, very difficult to see your ideal coming to fruition.
Also, is it wrong to aspire to succeed? Where is the delineation between ultra-rich pigs and motivated people? My family went from dead broke to able to provide for ourselves, and even then, with my parents making 95ka year, putting our family in what, the top 5%?, they still struggle to make it in the bay area because of the cost of living. Out in mothafuckin Illinois or some shit 95k a year will get you celebrity status. Out here they live check to check. I agree that if wealth was evenly distributed and we didn't have to worry about things like healthcare the world *might* be a better place.
My main problems with Communism:
1. Quota workers/Goes against Human nature
2. Ideology of the proletariat and the "selfish pig"
3. No incentive to surpass the fellow man...Would a janitor make what a scientist makes? etc.
Also, is it wrong to aspire to succeed? Where is the delineation between ultra-rich pigs and motivated people? My family went from dead broke to able to provide for ourselves, and even then, with my parents making 95ka year, putting our family in what, the top 5%?, they still struggle to make it in the bay area because of the cost of living. Out in mothafuckin Illinois or some shit 95k a year will get you celebrity status. Out here they live check to check. I agree that if wealth was evenly distributed and we didn't have to worry about things like healthcare the world *might* be a better place.
My main problems with Communism:
1. Quota workers/Goes against Human nature
2. Ideology of the proletariat and the "selfish pig"
3. No incentive to surpass the fellow man...Would a janitor make what a scientist makes? etc.
And dont forget the fact that in communist regimes, the people who were the speechwriters, the backbones to the whole movement, were usually X'd off just as the communist ideal becomes official. That means the die hard supporters (like you 2-0) would be seen as a threat to power, and would most likely be snatched in broad daylight or go on a trip and never return.