Soviet Imperialism

So what are you saying now then, that from 1945 to the day before the Hungarian invasion there was no Soviet imperalism, but after there was?

Yami wrote:

So what are you saying now then, that from 1945 to the day before the Hungarian invasion there was no Soviet imperalism, but after there was?

No, in 1956 the revisionists were still in the process of capitalist restoration. What was clear in Hungary was that they were getting rid of proletarian elements and bringing reactionaries to the fore. Khrushchev welcomed the rise of Imre Nagy, who was a supposed "victim of Stalinism" and friendly to Tito. When Nagy began to move away from the Soviet revisionists and into the arms of US imperialism, the revisionists boosted Kádár, originally a Nagy associate and fellow "victim of Stalinism," to replace him. All the while both the Soviet and Hungarian revisionists were denouncing Rákosi and liquidating the Hungarian Workers' Party. Under the leadership of Kádár, loyal to the Soviet revisionists, capitalism was restored in Hungary. The Soviet revisionists blamed Rákosi for the counter-revolutionary revolt of 1956.

By 1968 capitalism had been restored in the USSR, it had become a social-imperialist superpower. There was no counter-revolution against socialism going on in Czechoslovakia, since by that time capitalism had been restored in Eastern Europe (sans Albania.) Brezhnev had welcomed Dubček's rise to power until Dubček, as with Nagy, moved away from the sphere of the Soviet revisionists. The Soviet social-imperialist aggression against Czechoslovakia was a demonstration that the USSR was a social-imperialist superpower, they had literally no pretext or justification to invade except that Dubček's foreign and domestic policy was not to their liking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_o ... st_Germany

Sorry comrade not by 1956...but by 1953 you mean! It keeps going back and back.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that between 1917 – 1956 there was socialism in the USSR?

Production was for use and not for profit? The state was withering away?
If that was the case why did they need the rouble?

Oh comrade please!

Yami wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany

Sorry comrade not by 1956...but by 1953 you mean! It keeps going back and back.

There's another SE poster who would know more about this, but Stalin had warned the East German leadership in regards to economic policy. Instead this leadership ignored Stalin. This same leadership went along with the Soviet revisionists in slandering Stalin, and Ulbricht personally denounced Hoxha in 1960-61.

Quote:

Are you seriously trying to suggest that between 1917 – 1956 there was socialism in the USSR?

Not from 1917 to 1934, but afterwards yes. The Soviet leadership under Stalin, following Lenin's instructions, built socialism in the main.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/world ... evolt.html

Seriously, the uprising happened because the barons in E. Germany were obeying Stalins’ orders.
Between 1935 – early 1960 the state and the rouble ceased to exist in the Soviet Union and production was for use and not for profit? Evidence please!

Yami wrote:

Between 1935 – early 1960 the state and the rouble ceased to exist in the Soviet Union and production was for use and not for profit? Evidence please!

There are three works which compare the Soviet economy under Stalin, and that economy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

* http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html
* http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html
* http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/RP/RP7/RU-RP7.pdf

Knock yourself out.

And no, the East German leadership was not following Stalin's orders. Again, there is another poster (DSCHBACH) who would know more. You should contact him.

Unfortunately capitalism does not care who is in power, it follows its own logic regardless of who sits in the Kremlin/White House/10 Downing Street etc. But then if you’d read the works of Marx you’d know that.
Politicians cannot control capitalism; it controls them.

It is true, that under Stalin, the Soviet economy did have impressive growth figures. But and it’s a big but, they were industrialising from a very low base and the growth rates were achieved at a cost of millions of lives.

Yami wrote:

Unfortunately capitalism does not care who is in power, it follows its own logic regardless of who sits in the Kremlin/White House/10 Downing Street etc. But then if you’d read the works of Marx you’d know that.
Politicians cannot control capitalism; it controls them.

No one claimed that capitalism was restored the second Stalin's heart ceased to beat. In Albania for instance Alia pursued a course to the right of Hoxha, but actual capitalist restoration weren't until 1990.

Quote:

It is true, that under Stalin, the Soviet economy did have impressive growth figures. But and it’s a big but, they were industrialising from a very low base and the growth rates were achieved at a cost of millions of lives.

No one is mentioning growth rates either.

Ismail wrote:

In Albania for instance Alia pursued a course to the right of Hoxha, but actual capitalist restoration weren't until 1990.

The great leader of Albania, comrade hoxha kicked the bucket sometime in 1985 - lo and behold, only 4,5 years later "capitalism" is restored. What does that tell you about the truly magnificent nature of the great leader of albania, herr hoxha? How strong and permeated was socialism in albanians that it couldn't withstand more than 4,5 years?

EdvardK wrote:

The great leader of Albania, comrade hoxha kicked the bucket sometime in 1985 - lo and behold, only 4,5 years later "capitalism" is restored. What does that tell you about the truly magnificent nature of the great leader of albania, herr hoxha? How strong and permeated was socialism in albanians that it couldn't withstand more than 4,5 years?

Apparently Yugoslav "socialism" was much stronger, managing to survive 10 years after Tito died?

Ismail wrote:

Apparently Yugoslav "socialism" was much stronger, managing to survive 10 years after Tito died?

According to your (flawless, of course) historical analysis from other threads, SFRY did not have socialism at all even during the marshall Tito era. So your argument is flawed either now or in other threads. How can SFRY go to capitalism if - according to you - it already was there while marshall Tito was alive and kicking?
Second (which should be first, actually), you are retorting to pointing a finger towards others (such as Yugoslavia) to get away from the fact that hoxhaist albania perished back in 1985 when he kicked the bucket. You actually did not respond to that fact at all.

You see, this is what happens when you live in a fairy-tale world of make believe. I truly wonder how you'll get out of this one now

EdvardK wrote:

According to your (flawless, of course) historical analysis from other threads, SFRY did not have socialism at all even during the marshall Tito era. So your argument is flawed either now or in other threads.

I put the word "socialism" in quotation marks for a reason, you illiterate.

Quote:

Second (which should be first, actually), you are retorting to pointing a finger towards others (such as Yugoslavia) to get away from the fact that hoxhaist albania perished back in 1985 when he kicked the bucket. You actually did not respond to that fact at all.

No I'm not, it's a stupid argument to claim that just because socialism was overthrown on a certain date, this proves that socialism didn't exist in the country. After all, you hold that the USSR under Stalin went against Lenin's policies, does this mean that, in your view, there was no dictatorship of the proletariat under Lenin because it would mean that such a DOTP was overthrown less than 10 years after his death?

Ismail wrote:

I put the word "socialism" in quotation marks for a reason, you illiterate.

Please, explain - it was *not* socialism but "socialism"? That is very revisionist of you because Marx never talked about "socialism". Are you inventing some kind of a different term for socialism which is not socialism at all, but "socialism"? Can you quote your source on that, please?
I also have to disappoint you about my alleged illiteracy - while 20x larger SFRY (in which I'm proud to say I lived) had a high degree of literacy, tiny Albania was still struggling with litraci..litecari...littercay... literacy.

Ismail wrote:

No I'm not, it's a stupid argument to claim that just because socialism was overthrown on a certain date, this proves that socialism didn't exist in the country.

You have serious issues with logic, pedro.

Ismail wrote:

After all, you hold that the USSR under Stalin went against Lenin's policies,

It is a well known fact, pedro. Which part of the sentence "Lenin was for NEP whereas Stalin effectively abolished it" you don't understand?

Ismail wrote:

does this mean that, in your view, there was no dictatorship of the proletariat under Lenin because it would mean that such a DOTP was overthrown less than 10 years after his death?

Your questions show how little you understand the beginning of the Soviet Union, thinking that Lenin was alpha and omega of everything and that no one else (Trotsky etc.) had anything to say. It just shows your black&white understanding of the world which - in your head - is especially focused around the bastardized abuse of the word SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, as direct consequence of your stalin idolatry. I know, I know, this is hard for you to read about yourself, but someone had to tell it to you.

EdvardK wrote:

Please, explain - it was *not* socialism but "socialism"? That is very revisionist of you because Marx never talked about "socialism". Are you inventing some kind of a different term for socialism which is not socialism at all, but "socialism"? Can you quote your source on that, please?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes

Quote:

I also have to disappoint you about my alleged illiteracy - while 20x larger SFRY (in which I'm proud to say I lived) had a high degree of literacy, tiny Albania was still struggling with litraci..litecari...littercay... literacy.

Illiteracy among those below the age of 40 was done away with by 1955 in Albania, whereas into the 70s Albanian youths in Kosovo still struggled with illiteracy, according to Yugoslav sources.

And what's with your usage of "pedro"? Are you chauvinist against Spanish-speaking countries as well?

Quote:

Which part of the sentence "Lenin was for NEP whereas Stalin effectively abolished it" you don't understand?

Stalin was for NEP as well (which the Trotskyists opportunistically attacked him for in the mid-20s.) Then the NEP fulfilled its goals and it was done away with. Lenin was also for "War Communism" as well, until its goals (win the Civil War) were fulfilled.

Quote:

Your questions show how little you understand the beginning of the Soviet Union, thinking that Lenin was alpha and omega of everything and that no one else (Trotsky etc.) had anything to say. It just shows your black&white understanding of the world which - in your head - is especially focused around the bastardized abuse of the word SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, as direct consequence of your stalin idolatry. I know, I know, this is hard for you to read about yourself, but someone had to tell it to you.

And yet the Trotskyist position is that the so-called "Stalinist bureaucracy" took power after Lenin's death.

It's pretty much not worth talking to you because you post as if you were mentally incompetent. You either cannot or will not respond to my posts in any normal manner. Yami may be an imbecile, but he can at least recognize what he's replying to.

Ismail wrote:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes

that is no source. is that the source you base your stalinist hoxhaist ramblings on?
here's one for you then http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrowminded

Ismail wrote:

Illiteracy among those below the age of 40 was done away with by 1955 in Albania, whereas into the 70s Albanian youths in Kosovo still struggled with illiteracy, according to Yugoslav sources.

you must be a rabid fairy-tale reader. In 1955, albania's literacy was 34% among the adult female population, and slightly better for males (47%).

Ismail wrote:

Stalin was for NEP as well (which the Trotskyists opportunistically attacked him for in the mid-20s.) Then the NEP fulfilled its goals and it was done away with. Lenin was also for "War Communism" as well, until its goals (win the Civil War) were fulfilled.

Do you know what the goals of NEP were and how they could be fulfilled under your glorious stalin who abolished all private incentive and initiative? Please, google, read, think, and THEN come back to me.

Ismail wrote:

It's pretty much not worth talking to you because you post as if you were mentally incompetent. You either cannot or will not respond to my posts in any normal manner. Yami may be an imbecile, but he can at least recognize what he's replying to.

Is there a pattern that you cannot comprehend here? You seem to label anyone and everyone who's view is not the same as yours as an incompetent or an imbecile. Childhood must've been really tough on you to have such an attitude. It's been over a year now - can you already name five accomplishments?:)

EdvardK wrote:

you must be a rabid fairy-tale reader.

Actually I got that statistic from multiple bourgeois sources, such as James S. O'Donnell and Peter R. Prifti, so no.

Quote:

In 1955, albania's literacy was 34% among the adult female population, and slightly better for males (47%).

Do you have a source?

Quote:

Do you know what the goals of NEP were and how they could be fulfilled under your glorious stalin who abolished all private incentive and initiative? Please, google, read, think, and THEN come back to me.

Your logic only makes sense if you believe NEP was never implemented. The goals of NEP were met by 1929, after having been in effect for 8 years.

Ismail wrote:

Do you have a source?

I am ready to disclose it as soon as you provide an UNBIASED and internationally valid source for your outrageous claims of 100% literacy amond population below 40 in 1955. Mind you, Albanian politburo is not a credible source in this respect.

Ismail wrote:

Your logic only makes sense if you believe NEP was never implemented. The goals of NEP were met by 1929, after having been in effect for 8 years.

Mark Harrison, Why Did NEP Fail, p57-67. eat it, pedro!

EdvardK wrote:

I am ready to disclose it as soon as you provide an UNBIASED and internationally valid source for your outrageous claims of 100% literacy amond population below 40 in 1955. Mind you, Albanian politburo is not a credible source in this respect.

The claim put forward is made in various books. A more definite statement on the overall literacy rate during the socialist period can be found in the entry by Nicholas C. Pano in The Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, published in 1992: "By the end of the Hoxha era illiteracy in the country had been eradicated." (p. 48.)

Quote:

Mark Harrison, Why Did NEP Fail, p57-67. eat it, pedro!

In those 10 pages you can't give me a single example of how Stalin supposedly prevented the NEP from operating?

Ismail wrote:

socialist period can be found in the entry by Nicholas C. Pano in The Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, published in 1992: "By the end of the Hoxha era illiteracy in the country had been eradicated." (p. 48.)

Sorry, pedro, this time i'm not letting you off the hook - you claimed eradication of illiteracy of population under 40 in 1955. Provide a solid proof for that. Here you provided a "proof" about the end of hoxha era. 1955 is NOT THE END OF HOXHA ERA. It's like claiming that Albanians landed on the Moon and then providing a source on Albania taking part in an international satellite launch.

Quote:

Mark Harrison, Why Did NEP Fail, p57-67. eat it, pedro!

In those 10 pages you can't give me a single example of how Stalin supposedly prevented the NEP from operating?[/quote]
Yes, I can - read the damn book! I just gave you the exact pages. and start reading. i'm done with you

EdvardK wrote:

Sorry, pedro, this time i'm not letting you off the hook - you claimed eradication of illiteracy of population under 40 in 1955. Provide a solid proof for that. Here you provided a "proof" about the end of hoxha era. 1955 is NOT THE END OF HOXHA ERA. It's like claiming that Albanians landed on the Moon and then providing a source on Albania taking part in an international satellite launch.

Actually you claimed that illiteracy was high in Albania even by the end of the Hoxha era, hence why I brought it up.

I already mentioned that James S. O'Donnell, Peter R. Prifti, and various other authors cite the elimination of illiteracy among those aged 40 and under by 1955. Even Yugoslav sources considered it accurate.

Quote:

I just gave you the exact pages. and start reading. i'm done with you

Keep in mind that there are anti-communists that falsely claim NEP was inaugurated by Lenin because he supposedly "realized communism doesn't work." Then there is the fact that Gorbachev, Deng, and other pseudo-communists cited the NEP in trying to carry out their own polices. Then you have the apologists for the Bukharinists.

Maurice Dobb's Soviet Economic Development since 1917 points out that the NEP was a temporary policy that had achieved its goal of stabilizing relations between town and countryside by 1928.