The Soviet Union was AGAINST Socialism

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>1. You have yet to refute ANY of the points I have made
2. I'm studying a major in history and politics for my arts degree at uni and my last subject was on this topic, so I'm quite sure I have an 'adequate knowledge of history'
3. I'm not left wing, I'm actually right wing.
4. Attacking me just shows how poor or are at proving ANYTHING I have said is wrong.
5. I accept your white flag.

 

Oh wait - what?

 

kilgram,

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>It is also very incorrect.

Pol Pot was the ruler of Cambodia, not Laos.

Check this out.

This is typical of how devout communists, like Joseph Stalin, treat their citizens!

 

What the hell is a devout communist, and in what way do they resemble the capitalist dictator Djugashvili?

 

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>
kilgram never once said that Pol Pot was involved in Laos. He said, and I quote, "And he mentioned Laos not Cambodia, but well, you failed again"

I suggest you find an atlas, online or otherwise and have a real close look. You'll find that Laos and Cambodia, although sharing a common border are two different countries.

Maybe you are confusing the Khmer Rouge with the Pathet Lao. Two different groups in two different countries.The "leader" of the Khmer Rouge was Pol Pot,, the "leaders" of the Pathet Lao was Prince Souphanouvong and Kaysone Phomvihane who became the Prime Minister of Laos from 1975 until 1991 and then President from 1991 to 1992.

Mate,, it's a good idea to do some research before making wild blanket statements.

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

Actually its quite good. Either way you wouldn't know because your historical knowledge is appalling.

Explain how Stalin was a devout communist. Describe it in the ideological sense. Oh wait, you cant because you dont have any idea about the ideology of socialism.

 

So, by that logic, as you seem to imply, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is democratic? haha

 

This video supplements the article I posted. In this, Chomsky refutes the ignorant sentiments of some pro-Bolshevik audience member.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI"]Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism &amp; the Soviet Union - YouTube[/ame]

 

Chomsky is wrong. There was a political counter revolution between Bolshevism and Stalinism. Lenin and Trotsky wanted Russia to be democratic socialism, and in fact it was democratic at the start. It is difficult when opposition parties are supporting armies fighting you, and trying to sabotage a peace deal to end the war with Germany (WW1, which Lenin was trying to end).

I will come back to this thread.



Not how most of the Bolshevik leaders were killed by Stalin. Kollantai survived because she was in Norway I think, and was needed, and probably to some degree unaware what was happening (political genocide).

 

Does socialism/communism have to be DEMOCRATIC?

 

Lets take a look at the original:

"That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class &#8212; in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy&#8212;and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.

Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be &#8220;introduced&#8221;, etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the &#8220;revolutionary-democratic&#8221; aspirations of the workers and peasants.

There is no middle course. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Italics- original, red = my emphasis

As you can see, Lenin repeatedly mentions democracy and explains that state capitalism is just a stepping stone. No mention of priests, perversion, lots of mention of democracy. He is taking what exists, state capitalism, and wanting it democratically controlled by the workers in the interests of the people. A step towards socialism which is a step towards communism, in which there is no state. In the meantime, obviously (to anyone except anarchists) the workers need to defend themselves against attack by the capitalists. Remember, General Kornilov was wanting a dictatorship before October. In fact the Bolsheviks were too soft on him and he escaped house arrest (he had been arrested by the Provisional Government before October) to start a war against the revolution.

Chomsky is a chump. A liar in fact, I would say.

 

And yet when they lost at the National Assembly they dispersed it with arms. Similarly they barred the vote from certain social groups and of political parties - that isnt socialism.

But the Bolsheviks started this practice before - the Cheka, concentration camps, look at the fate of the Menshaviks, the Kronstadt sailors etc. They started the civil war for crying out load.

 

Since I dont have the time currently, I'll address this in depth tomorrow.

 

The Constituent Assembly was held just after the October revolution, but it didnt reflect the fact that the biggest party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, had split into left and right, and the biggest section, the left, supported the Bolsheviks, but the right leaders didnt. Also there was a problem with peasants voting SR thinking they were electing left candidates but in fact not.

So when the right SR leaders wouldnt go with the basic plan, it was clear they were getting in the way of the democratic wishes of the population. The Bolsheviks had the support of the cities and soldiers on the western front, the Left SRs had the support of the peasants.

look it up in wiki or something.

Who did they bar?
Support

What parties? The fascist Black Hundreds? So?

Support that the Bolsheviks started the ciivil war, this is ludicrous.

What about the Mensheviks?

Tell me about Kronstadt.

The Cheka - 22 people were executed in the first half of 1918. In a massive backward country in the middle of WW1 and a revolution. WW1 had killed 3 million Russians, Lenin was trying to end it. Many people were trying to sabotage this peace deal. When the Left SRs assassinated the German ambassador, the Germans demanded 100 executions, the Bolsheviks executed a handful as a token gesture to salvage a peace deal. Millions of lives at stake.

I'll be waiting

 

People who wish to rewrite history should wait till those who lived it have passed. I don't quibble with communists who whine that the USSR was a "really" communist country but that's like various sects of Christianity bickering about sprinkling vs. total immersion. Doesn't interest me.

But when some fool says that the USSR wasn't even socialists, it's so unbelievable it's ludicrous.

What's next? President Obama isn't a liberal?

 

You know, I saw the title to this post and I like you decided it was so ridiculous for someone to try to squeeze their obvious re-writing of history into the mix to somehow justify their own socialist/leftist views, that I decided to go on to bigger and more intelligent postings. But you know, there are many here that don't believe obama is a liberal, in fact, one or two call him a conservative. LMFAO! I pray to God these people don't vote.

 

At least USSR never nuked cities or used large scale toxic products on countries on the other side of the world.

 

At least USSR never nuked cities or used large scale toxic products on countries on the other side of the world.

 

Actually I'm not left wing, let alone a socialist so this idea is flawed to say the least. Furthermore, I would like you to point out what 're-writing' of history has taken place here.

LOL You came back though.

How is that relevant?

 

1. What of history have I rewritten?
2. Why should I wait - those that are alive would agree with me here.

It might interest you knowing I'm not a communist and oppose most movements to communism.

How so? Care to refute the OP's points?

How is that relevant?

 

How to stop being ignorant:
Step 1: read Marx
Step 2: Acknoweldge what socialism is
Step 3: Compare to USSR
Step 4: Take conclusions

 

No, it just took away people's rights and put those that disagreed into concentration camps or had them executed.

 

Guantanamo much?
Abu ghraib anything?

 

LMAO!!!!!

YOU PEOPLE NUKED KAZAKHSTAN into the dirt testing dirty nukes and not only that entire sections of the former Soviet Caucauses and other enivronmental gems like Lake Baikal and the Caspian Sea are completely and totally poisoned! Do I have to show googgle satellite photos of the scorched earth left behind by these tests including the massive, nuclear radiated crater left behind by that monstrosity Tsar Bomba that was half the power of Krakatoa and sent radioactive clouds all over the planet?

There are huge wide swaths of Kazakhstan and other former Soviet 'stans that are as uninhabitable as the Chernobyl zone from industrial chemical poisoing! Don't you try to pull that (*)(*)(*)(*)!

YOU were the people who had to let off nukes in the ocean to block holes from oil leaks so massive they make the one in the Gulf Coast look like a drop in a bucket!

The Soviets were the nastiest, dirtiest, most pollution prone industrial power on the planet the only thing is now it's not your problem, it's Kazakhstan's and Georgia's and Tajikistan's. I'd say that's as "on the other side of the world" from you as it can get!

(*)(*)(*)(*)in Russian Commie hypocrite. I'm disappointed you people never had the balls to go to war. I would've loved to see the West Germans and NATO chew you a new ******** in 1988.

 

CCCP stands for Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics in Russian. Lenin was right. Socialism was impossible in Russia - just as it is everywhere else.