Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » Union of Soviet Socialist Republics » Best Soviet Leader? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ]
10 Mar 2010, 14:52
Furthermore, how does trade necessarily entail capitalism and exploitation?
10 Mar 2010, 17:57
Quote:How is self-sufficiency anything to do with socialism?
Because Workers can only control the means of production in a self-sufficent society. But you woulden't know that because you haven't actually thought about it.
10 Mar 2010, 18:11
You're an idiot. Whether a country trades or not has nothing to do with ownership of the means of production. With this logic the bourgeoisie doesn't own the means of production.
But you wouldn't know since you haven't thought about it.
But you wouldn't know since you haven't thought about it.
10 Mar 2010, 23:41
Radical wrote:
How can Cuba be a Self-Sufficient Society when it's turned to Tourism and Private Business? - You have no idea.
"Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy. "
The embargo has forced Cuba to turn to these measures. It is also what contributes to Cuban self-sufficiency
Radical wrote:Fidel never refused aid from USA. He never stopped the trade between USA. It was USA that stopped the trade between Cuba.
How was Cuba free from exploitation when they were Sugar Farming for the Soviet Union, instead of USA.
No, but he refused exploitation by any country, and this is why the U.S. ordered an embargo. Cuba was trading sugar with the Soviet Union. Not being exploited.
Radical wrote:Very good, you sound exactly like an ignorant Capitalist that paraphrases what other people say, when they actually have no idea of what they're talking about. "Communism works on theory but not in practise".
You point the finger alot. Cut that shit out. Every article of the Revolution ends in some rant about making Avakian Supreme Ruler of the American SSR. So I've stopped reading it.
Whitten wrote:Again, Fidel has NEVER sook to create a genuine Socialist Society. - That is a fact, not an argument or an opinion.
Nationalisation of industry, healthcare, and education. Agrarian redistribution. This looks like a move towards socialism to me... I could link the May Day speech of Fidel Castro if you insist
Quote:First...quit being rude. Second, you don't understand the difference between a perfect socialist society and a socialist work in progress.Your pathetic and you have no idea of what Socialism actually is Socialism. Socialism is a self-sufficiant society that has completely abolished ALL FORMS OF CAPITALISM. - Something which Cuba has not achieved. Therefore it is FACTUALLY not a Socialist Society.
Quote:You can't just put fact after something and expect it to be so. Where is all the revisionism in Cuba?Cuba has remained the way it has because of the peoples support for Fidel, the government and its political system. Not because of "Socialism" because Cuba isent a Socialist society - FACT.
Quote:You're full of shit. I didn't start as a Castroist. I turned to Castroism because I believe it will be effective in establishing Socialism. To say that I am not a socialist is BULLSHIT and you can cut that crap right now. You have a right to voice your opinion, but you should try to make sure you don't say anything that makes you too retarded.Again, you have a Fetish for the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro. Your ideas are not Socialist.
11 Mar 2010, 09:54
Quote:The embargo has forced Cuba to turn to these measures. It is also what contributes to Cuban self-sufficiency
Yes, I agree that the Embargo is suffocating Cuba. However Fidel Castro NEVER sook to create a genuine Socialist Society, embargo or not.
Quote:Nationalisation of industry, healthcare, and education. Agrarian redistribution. This looks like a move towards socialism to me... I could link the May Day speech of Fidel Castro if you insist
These are all Socialist aspects. But that does not make Cuba Socialist.
Read;
Quote:Fidel Castro mouths Marxist phrases. But he is not a communist. And the revolution Castro led did not break Cuba out of the bounds of bourgeois economic, political, and social relations.
Castro sought to substitute one form of imperialist dependency for another. Prior to 1959, Cuba had been a “monoculture”: an economy based on sugar production for a world market dominated by U.S. imperialism. Castro did not lead and mobilize the Cuban people to fundamentally restructure this economic legacy. That would have required a radical and mass-based land reform to lay the foundations for a collective and self-sustaining agriculture that could feed the population. It would have required the step-by-step development of an industrial capability that would contribute to the development of a diversified agriculture and strengthen economic self-reliance.
Instead of making this kind of radical break with imperialism, Castro sought a “quick fix.” Sugar would remain king of the Cuban economy and Cuba would remain hostage to the world market. But in place of the United States, the social-imperialist Soviet Union became the linchpin of neocolonial arrangements (the Soviet Union ceased being socialist in the mid-1950s). The Soviet Union guaranteed Cuba a reliable market for sugar and provided Cuba with credits and oil, part of which it re-sold on the world market for food.
By the mid-1960s, Cuba became tightly enmeshed in the Soviet bloc. Castro supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and of Afghanistan in 1979. He launched ideological attacks on Mao and the Cultural Revolution. Castro also provided foot-soldiers for Soviet operations to expand imperial influence in Africa.
Cuba called itself socialist. But the entire Cuban economy was subordinated to a capitalist economic logic—produce, produce, and produce what you produce best: sugar. The masses of Cubans became wage slaves to this commodity logic. Their labor and energies were not serving the all-round transformation of society but rather the reproduction of relations of dependency and imperial exploitation.
Based on these economic arrangements, Castro was able to pump revenues from sugar sales into social programs, like health care and education. These measures produced certain benefits for Cuba’s poor. Politically, this helped solidify a base of popular support for Castro. Did this make Cuba socialist? No.
11 Mar 2010, 16:03
Quote:However Fidel Castro NEVER sook to create a genuine Socialist Society, embargo or not.
Cuba is a Socialist Nation The presence of bourgeousie elements have been eradicated from Cuban Society. Saying that Fidel isn't a socialist is bullshit.
Quote:Yes he is, he just doesn't submit to bullshit dogma like the RCP. Fidel completed the revolution, then he decided that socialism was the best thing for his people, and he pursued it.Fidel Castro mouths Marxist phrases. But he is not a communist. And the revolution Castro led did not break Cuba out of the bounds of bourgeois economic, political, and social relations.
Quote:Castro supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and of Afghanistan in 1979.
How does that make Castro revisionist? Besides, there were Marxist movements in both these countries.
Quote:Cuba has moved towards industrialisation. If Cuba could properly support their growing socialist program through exportation of sugar to a fellow socialist country, there isn't a problem with that. Its either trade sugar until you can build a self sufficient model, or die as a country...Cuba called itself socialist. But the entire Cuban economy was subordinated to a capitalist economic logic—produce, produce, and produce what you produce best: sugar.
Quote:What the RCP fails to mention is that it also went into other factors like industrialisation and nationalisation of labor, so that Cuba could produce goods for themselvesCastro was able to pump revenues from sugar sales into social programs, like health care and education.
Like I said: I don't read the Revolution because its a load of rants and dogma
11 Mar 2010, 16:41
Your quote does not explain how trade is a bourgeois concept (its not) and how it makes a socialist country revisionist (starting to lose its meaning) or how self sufficiency (impossible in a country like cuba) is absolutely needed to achieve socialism. No socialist country in history has been self sufficient, even the USSR traded resources during its whole existence, especially during industrialization.
11 Mar 2010, 22:13
Quote:Your quote does not explain how trade is a bourgeois concept (its not) and how it makes a socialist country revisionist (starting to lose its meaning) or how self sufficiency (impossible in a country like cuba) is absolutely needed to achieve socialism. No socialist country in history has been self sufficient, even the USSR traded resources during its whole existence, especially during industrialization.
Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; - Trade isen't included in a Self-Sufficient Society, aslong as the means which the State uses to trade were produced in the State in question.
It's not impossable for any single country to be self-sufficient, it just requites Radical and mass-based land reform like which occured in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao and Albania under Hoxha. All of which were extremily close to total self-sufficiency. They were the only three countries that sook to establish a fundementally Socialistic economy.
Quote:For Cuba to become self-sufficiant it would have required a radical and mass-based land reform to lay the foundations for a collective and self-sustaining agriculture that could feed the population. It would have required the step-by-step development of an industrial capability that would contribute to the development of a diversified agriculture and strengthen economic self-reliance.
11 Mar 2010, 22:25
Quote:Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; - Trade isen't included in a Self-Sufficient Society, aslong as the means which the State uses to trade were produced in the State in question.
That wasn't my point. I asked you how self sufficiency is needed for socialism and how trade makes a socialist country revisionist.
Quote:It's not impossable for any single country to be self-sufficient, it just requites Radical and mass-based land reform like which occured in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao and Albania under Hoxha.
The USSR under lenin and stalin wasn't self-sufficient, and they openly traded with the west.
China's attempt at self-sufficiency weakened it, especially since it had a small proletariat. Their goods were cheap and unreliable. Metals made by peasants smelting their tools in their backyard doesn't work too well. And this is all assuming China was attempting to be self-sufficient, as you've said. Also Albania's isolationism left it incredibly poor...
Quote:All of which were extremily close to total self-sufficiency.
so then they weren't self-sufficient?
Quote:They were the only three countries that sook to establish a fundementally Socialistic economy.
What about the GDR? Or are they revisionist too because they traded with other socialist countries?
11 Mar 2010, 22:29
Quote:Albania under Hoxha
Haha.You're bullshitting en large! Albania received enormous amounts of Yugo/Soviet/Chinese aid and it was a far cry from being self-sufficient.It doesn't have resources,it wasn't(isn't) industrialized,had(has) mostly uneducated workforce,poor infrastructure,backwards mean of production etc... Hoxha's Albania was the least successful country in "socialist block".Ultimately,it failed both in agricultural and industrial production advancement.
And why "Workers can only control the means of production in a self-sufficient society"?
11 Mar 2010, 22:49
Quote:That wasn't my point. I asked you how self sufficiency is needed for socialism and how trade makes a socialist country revisionist.
What are you talking about? I never said trade had anything to do with being revisionist.
Quote:The USSR under lenin and stalin wasn't self-sufficient, and they openly traded with the west.
Again, I never said the USSR was entirely self-sufficent.
Quote:China's attempt at self-sufficiency weakened it, especially since it had a small proletariat. Their goods were cheap and unreliable. Metals made by peasants smelting their tools in their backyard doesn't work too well. And this is all assuming China was attempting to be self-sufficient, as you've said. Also Albania's isolationism left it incredibly poor...
No, thats ridiculous and shows how little you know about the great leap forward. China is a country with a population of more than 1.4 Billion People. It's not as easy as you think - As I said, in order to create a self-sufficiant society it requires extremily radical reforms WHERE PEOPLE WILL SUFFER IN THE PROCESS.
Hoxha never isolated Albania. He simply openely crititzed Revisionists movements. - Something people don't do enough. Revisionism is the very fact the Soviet Bloc fell, and your defending it like an idiot.
I'm not a big fan of Hoxha, I'm a Maoist. However I recognize that there were amazing accomplishments in Albania under Hoxha.
"His economic revolution was even more advanced than Stalin’s, with even more working class control over production centers. Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.
Illiteracy before Hoxha was 90-95% in 1939, which by 1950 went down to 30% and by 1985 was equal to that of the United States."
- Oh, and to add to that. In 1950 the doctor to population ratio was 1-1350. The Number of doctors quadrupled under Hoxha reaching 1-290, which is of one of the lowest in the world!
Quote:It doesn't have resources,it wasn't(isn't) industrialized,had(has) mostly uneducated workforce,poor infrastructure,backwards mean of production etc... Hoxha's Albania was the least successful country in "socialist block".Ultimately,it failed both in agricultural and industrial production advancement.
For too long have I been seing you claim Albania had an uneducated population.(Which it diden't) Why don't you take into account that Albania was colonised until 1950? ad-hom removed
Last edited by Babeuf on 19 Mar 2010, 08:55, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
11 Mar 2010, 22:54
ad-hom removed.
Self-sufficiency is anti-socialist because socialism must be international.
Self-sufficiency was never given by either Marx or any other sane communist as a criterion for socialism, because they supported free trade between nations.
You, as well as everyone else who has a self-sufficiency fetish, are pulling this out of their hats since there is no single logical reason as to why any country should strive to be self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency lowers people's living standards and this fact alone makes it a Bad Thing.
Socialist countries strive to achieve global communism, where there are no states nor borders, which is directly at odds with self-sufficiency.
What you're doing is arbitrarily claiming that self-sufficiency is necessary for socialism, and then accusing all non-self-sufficient socialist countries (i.e. prosperous countries with happy, well-fed people) of being non-socialist because they don't fit with that stupid arbitrary criterion. By this logic, I could say that only elephants are proper communists, and accuse all human communists of being traitors, or - surely this is the term you prefer - "revisionists".
But why am I even writing this? You haven't responded to anything I've said since Tuesday, because you know that I'm right and you're not. But why are you still having this debate then?
Self-sufficiency is anti-socialist because socialism must be international.
Self-sufficiency was never given by either Marx or any other sane communist as a criterion for socialism, because they supported free trade between nations.
You, as well as everyone else who has a self-sufficiency fetish, are pulling this out of their hats since there is no single logical reason as to why any country should strive to be self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency lowers people's living standards and this fact alone makes it a Bad Thing.
Socialist countries strive to achieve global communism, where there are no states nor borders, which is directly at odds with self-sufficiency.
What you're doing is arbitrarily claiming that self-sufficiency is necessary for socialism, and then accusing all non-self-sufficient socialist countries (i.e. prosperous countries with happy, well-fed people) of being non-socialist because they don't fit with that stupid arbitrary criterion. By this logic, I could say that only elephants are proper communists, and accuse all human communists of being traitors, or - surely this is the term you prefer - "revisionists".
But why am I even writing this? You haven't responded to anything I've said since Tuesday, because you know that I'm right and you're not. But why are you still having this debate then?
Last edited by Babeuf on 12 Mar 2010, 03:12, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
11 Mar 2010, 23:00
Quote:Self-sufficiency is anti-socialist because socialism must be international.
SELF-SUFFICIENCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BETRAYING INTERNATIONALISM. IN YOUR TERMS LENIN WAS ANTI-SOCIALIST FOR WANTING TO DEVELOP SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY.
Quote:Self-sufficiency was never given by either Marx or any other sane communist as a criterion for socialism, because they supported free trade between nations.
You, as well as everyone else who has a self-sufficiency fetish, are pulling this out of their hats since there is no single logical reason as to why any country should strive to be self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency lowers people's living standards and this fact alone makes it a Bad Thing.
Socialist countries strive to achieve global communism, where there are no states nor borders, which is directly at odds with self-sufficiency.
What you're doing is arbitrarily claiming that self-sufficiency is necessary for socialism, and then accusing all non-self-sufficient socialist countries
HOW THE frag CAN WORKERS CHOOSE THE MEANS OF THEIR OWN LABOUR IF FOREIGN DEBTS NEED TO BE PAID OFF THROUGH PRODUCTION TO OTHER COUNTRIES ?????????????????????????
11 Mar 2010, 23:09
Quote:What are you talking about? I never said trade had anything to do with being revisionist.
You complained about Cuba trade sugar to the USSR, and claimed it was revisionist because. Also, if you're not self sufficient, you trade.
Quote:Again, I never said the USSR was entirely self-sufficent.
So then you have no evidence to back up your claim that absolute self-sufficiency is impossible (at least on a national scale)?
Quote:No, thats ridiculous and shows how little you know about the great leap forward. China is a country with a population of more than 1.4 Billion People. It's not as easy as you think - As I said, in order to create a self-sufficiant society it requires extremily radical reforms WHERE PEOPLE WILL SUFFER IN THE PROCESS.
Except that really did happen, and that was the reality of Chinese production at the time.
You didn't say anything about suffering, by the way.
Quote:Hoxha never isolated Albania. He simply openely crititzed Revisionists movements. - Something people don't do enough. Revisionism is the very fact the Soviet Bloc fell, and your defending it like an idiot.
Yes by cutting relations and declaring itself to be the only socialist nation. Regardless its attempts at self-sufficiency because of its isolationism left it incredibly poor.
Quote:"His economic revolution was even more advanced than Stalin’s, with even more working class control over production centers.
There's plenty of working class control over production in Cuba..
Quote:Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.
That happens when you modernize, regardless of who led the revolution.
[quote]Illiteracy before Hoxha was 90-95% in 1939, which by 1950 went down to 30% and by 1985 was equal to that of the United States."/quote]
Literacy rates became nearly perfect in almost all socialist countries, even your 'revisionist' ones.
Also Lenin didn't want to build socialism in one country, he was forced to
12 Mar 2010, 00:35
I love shouting at people. If the mods complain, he started.
SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY DOES NOT EQUAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY. THE USSR UNDER LENIN AND STALIN WAS ONE SOCIALIST COUNTRY THAT NEVERTHELESS TRADED WITH THE WEST.
ad-hom removed
And since I'm tired of acting like a four year old, let me spell it out for you. The workers of one socialist country can freely decide to produce goods in order to trade them for other goods in other countries, or to sell them to other countries, while still retaining full control over their means of production. If I am a carpenter, and freely make a contract with you in which I promise to give you ten chairs, and then produce ten chairs and give them to you in exchange for adequate payment, it does NOT MEAN that I don't control my own means of production.
Also, what the frag do you mean by "choosing the means of their own labour"? That everybody can choose doing whatever they want? That's communism, not socialism.
I mean, you're right in a way. A market and trade are bad things, and if a socialist state conducts trade, it essentially acts like one giant corporation that produces goods to sell them on a market. But the solution to this problem is NOT to create dozens of self-sufficient socialist hellholes, but to create a socialist community of states that share one common socialist economy instead of trading with each other, like they did in the Comecon, which was a massive failure. Also, while trade with the imperialists is a bad thing, sometimes the benefits outwigh the problems.
Quote:SELF-SUFFICIENCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BETRAYING INTERNATIONALISM. IN YOUR TERMS LENIN WAS ANTI-SOCIALIST FOR WANTING TO DEVELOP SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY.
SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY DOES NOT EQUAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY. THE USSR UNDER LENIN AND STALIN WAS ONE SOCIALIST COUNTRY THAT NEVERTHELESS TRADED WITH THE WEST.
Quote:HOW THE frag CAN WORKERS CHOOSE THE MEANS OF THEIR OWN LABOUR IF FOREIGN DEBTS NEED TO BE PAID OFF THROUGH PRODUCTION TO OTHER COUNTRIES ?????????
ad-hom removed
And since I'm tired of acting like a four year old, let me spell it out for you. The workers of one socialist country can freely decide to produce goods in order to trade them for other goods in other countries, or to sell them to other countries, while still retaining full control over their means of production. If I am a carpenter, and freely make a contract with you in which I promise to give you ten chairs, and then produce ten chairs and give them to you in exchange for adequate payment, it does NOT MEAN that I don't control my own means of production.
Also, what the frag do you mean by "choosing the means of their own labour"? That everybody can choose doing whatever they want? That's communism, not socialism.
I mean, you're right in a way. A market and trade are bad things, and if a socialist state conducts trade, it essentially acts like one giant corporation that produces goods to sell them on a market. But the solution to this problem is NOT to create dozens of self-sufficient socialist hellholes, but to create a socialist community of states that share one common socialist economy instead of trading with each other, like they did in the Comecon, which was a massive failure. Also, while trade with the imperialists is a bad thing, sometimes the benefits outwigh the problems.
Last edited by Babeuf on 12 Mar 2010, 03:12, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
Reason: Name calling is against the forum rules.
12 Mar 2010, 11:17
Quote:For too long have I been seing you claim Albania had an uneducated population.(Which it diden't) Why don't you take into account that Albania was colonised until 1950 dickhead?
Bugger off with youre moronical statements.
Albania was a "colony" - a faschist occupied quisling state from '38 to '45.
It was colonised by whom after '45?.
And,just to mention,Italians have built schools(just like they did in Somalia) and improved the literacy ratio.
Albanians were grossly undeducated during his rule (since he isolated the country and prevented the exchange of knowledge and technologies with other socialist counties),and still are compared to their neighbours.
19 Mar 2010, 09:00
This is just a friendly reminder that this isn't third grade recess. If you've got something asinine to say, that's what PM's are for. Any more rude remarks, etc., will result in the closure of this discussion. I think I've been more than fair.
Forum Index » 'Communist' States » Union of Soviet Socialist Republics » Best Soviet Leader? [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
