Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

My question to all communists

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Jan 2008, 17:01
Quote:
That was the basic thinking of the governments; therefore, the result was to forcefully keep the people within the country.


That does not make sense, and the people who wanted to cross the Iron Curtain were not only highly educated, but also simple people who were unhappy living in their country for various reasons. Trampling peoples liberties does not make the people want to live there anymore than they already want to.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10826
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Jan 2008, 18:55
Here is what the DDR actually said, RevLeft.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
J.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 605
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2003, 22:15
Komsomol
Post 23 Jan 2008, 19:08
I don't think socialism has the tendency described by Carius in the original post. As for the lack of proper answer, Carius and others should keep in mind that a lot of the people here (I assume the majority) are not organisationally involved in any main currents of the communist and labour movement world (I'm not exactly a professional revolutionary either). I don't mean this to be held against them, but just taken into account to help understand the plurality of answers received to such a general question.

My opinion is that while each socialist country that has existed (first being the USSR and the last being PSR of Albania) is no longer socialist, they didn't cease to be socialist because of socialism. Even if some "self-destruction" was inherent in socialism (which I don't believe) the correlation of past socialist countries becoming revisionist and capitalist doesn't by itself prove causation.

As to the complex of "errors" committed under socialism and the failure to root them and other "flaws" (both new and old inherited from the old system), they have to be addressed concretely on a case-to-case basis as they vary. What the overthrow of socialism by revisionism/capitalism eventually boils down to is class struggle, another complex that can't be addressed much in an abstract way.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Dec 2007, 05:25
Pioneer
Post 23 Jan 2008, 20:55
The Socialist system itself is not fatally flawed. The collapse began with Stalin's rise to power, and led to terrible repression in most other Soviet satellites. After the death of Lenin. Stalin abolished the NEP, which was allowing the Soviet Union to recover from the First world war and the following Civil war. Stalin and his Thugs believed this to be in violation of Marxist doctrine, he did not put the fate of the people before his own impatience and instituted forced labor to industrialize his nation. Mao Zedong was loyal to Stalin and followed his actions. Kim Il Sung was a puppet of Stalin and Mao and eventually became a monarchy rather than a Communist state. All of the East-Bloc Soviet sattellites had been invaded and occupied by Stalin's armies, which made them political puppets. The East Bloc states were financially dependent on the USSR which is why they simultaneously collapsed. Most things said about Cuba are lies, Castro allied with the Soviet Union to recieve protection from the hostile United States. Cuba also had its own revolution, which could indicate why they still exist, and live in relative prosperity compared to some of her neighbors in the Carribean.
"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity"
Comrade Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 24 Jan 2008, 02:52
Quote:
I did.


I was hoping for a more expanded answer.
Tim
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2005, 11:16
Party Member
Post 24 Jan 2008, 03:47
Quote:
Also, Hong Kong and Singapore are relatively small areas (size and population when compared to the rest of Asia.


China, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia all have significant population size. Now all of them are better than they were 30-40 years ago.

Commies keep citing that standard of living in China keeps deteriorating even since capitalism took hold, but under what measurements? GDP per capita has been steadily increasing, life expectancy has been increasing.

Image

Changes in GDP per Capita

Image

Changes in Life Expectancy

Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore 30 years ago were sweatshop heavens, now they are cities that moved the world economy, being significant financial centers.

Quote:
That was the basic thinking of the governments; therefore, the result was to forcefully keep the people within the country.


And this confirms that western countries gives better incentives than their socialists counterparts. Why forbid people who strives for better living? The central issue for people to migrate is not money or wage, but rather future expectations regarding their lives. This includes the level of infrastructure, social and economic development. Corruption and racism, when applicable, are also reasons.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10826
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 Jan 2008, 05:01
Tim wrote:
GDP per capita has been steadily increasing


Wiki even has a sections on why GDP is not a measurement for standard of living. Life expectancy (as you mentioned) is one way.

Tim wrote:
Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore 30 years ago were sweatshop heavens, now they are cities that moved the world economy, being significant financial centers.


As was the "Western World" prior to that, as to SE Asia and Central America is today. Until one day there will be no other place for industrial capitalism to export itself. Then the fun begins.

Tim wrote:
And this confirms that western countries gives better incentives than their socialists counterparts.


Material incentives. IIRC the capitalists governments have always been over generous in helping out people leaving socialist ones. Immigrations has always been one of the mains weapons of the US against Cuba, for example.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Tim
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2005, 11:16
Party Member
Post 24 Jan 2008, 10:37
Quote:
Wiki even has a sections on why GDP is not a measurement for standard of living.


True, but

GDP is still the best proxy to compare economic well being across countries. Plus, it has a strong correlation with other standard such as infant mortality, life expectancy, health and education.

GDP was never meant to used as measure of welfare, it is used because of the lack of more appropriate standards

Quote:
Material incentives. IIRC the capitalists governments have always been over generous in helping out people leaving socialist ones. Immigrations has always been one of the mains weapons of the US against Cuba, for example.


Of course, and it works well. I'd rather live in a developed world that recognizes my abilities than to live in a third world country.
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 Jul 2008, 21:51
A certain person (not quoted directly, more from memory) said that communism needs democracy where as human being needs oxygen. This was very well said; alas, it has not been conducted very well. Where is the freedom in limiting peoples rights in very authoritarian manner; building an iron curtain to stop people from deciding what they, the masses want themselves and brutally crushing popular uprisings.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8230
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2008, 22:29
I believe that's an unsourced quote of Leon Trotsky.

Quote:
Where is the freedom in limiting peoples rights in very authoritarian manner; building an iron curtain to stop people from deciding what they, the masses want themselves and brutally crushing popular uprisings.


I think we have different concepts of democracy.(not that I'm acknowledging the validity what you've said)
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 31 Jul 2008, 00:05
Carius please, which popular uprising are you refering to?
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 Jul 2008, 01:13
The Hungarian Revolution. The Prague Spring was also an popular event of change that was crushed.

Czechoslovaks fighting East Block tank with molotov cocktails.

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4528
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 31 Jul 2008, 01:35
You know Carius, Stalin never had the intention to impose socialism on Eastern Europe -it just turned out that way because of the events leading up to the Cold War (growing animosities, and with them actions and statements on the part of the two sides which influenced Stalin to adopt a hardline attitude). Initially, Stalin wanted from Eastern Europe only one thing: the guarantee of a foreign policy neutral to the Soviet Union. Austria and Finland are two examples of countries fortunate enough to experience this -they remained officially neutral, part of the USSR's 'buffer zone' against attack from the West, but politically and economically largely independent. Germany and the other countries of Eastern Europe could have gone that way too. In most of these countries from 1945 to around 1947-48, communists, socialists and other progressives were often doing well in elections without any Soviet pressure (due in large part to their heroic resistance during the Second World War) and often participated in coalition governments.


PS: Is it just me, or has that picture been photoshopped? Every time I see it I think that, because the lighting on the tank doesn't match that of the rest of the photo.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 31 Jul 2008, 02:33
Quote:
PS: Is it just me, or has that picture been photoshopped? Every time I see it I think that, because the lighting on the tank doesn't match that of the rest of the photo.


It does look a little odd when compared to the rest of the picture, but it's hard to make a good judgment because it's quality is so poor.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 31 Jul 2008, 07:43
Did they have color photography back then? How widespread was it? And what are the chances of a shot like that being taken? Anyways the Hungarian uprising rivaled Nazi concentration camps. Murders of Soviet sympathizers by violent mobs, gang-rape of the wives of Soviet officers who lived in the city, ultra-nationalist tendencies, and extremism came out of every pore of that uprising. I'm very happy it was crushed on the treads of Soviet armored divisions. If you consider that an example of freedom fighters I don't even know what to say. [Questionable content removed. TRL, no matter how strongly you feel about a subject, please don't threated violence on other members]

-- Misuzu
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 19 Apr 2009, 22:34
Code: Select all
"Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R."
- quoting Article 72 of the Soviet Constitution.

So it was written, but around the "republics" in response to growing desire of the masses the Soviet leadership acted in peculiar fashion near the end of the Soviet Union.

Soviet military crushes peaceful Lithuanian protest, an act that occurred around the "republics".

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 20 Apr 2009, 00:58
You just love to use pictures to back up your arguments. Besides the fact that we have no idea where or when that picture was taken (aside from your word), how do we know that this one hasn't been photoshoped as well?
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Apr 2009, 02:06
Oh, dear. I was hoping for sensible comments. You question the authenticity of the picture even though the point is not the picture, it is part of the context (but If you want to question the authenticity then go ahead)

Quote:
"Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R."

- quoting Article 72 of the Soviet Constitution.

I certainly hope you are not denying this or how the Soviet leadership attempted to suppress the masses calls for independence.
Last edited by Carius on 20 Apr 2009, 02:11, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 20 Apr 2009, 02:09
The fact that you used the picture seems more sensationalist and provocative than anything else. You would probably get more serious responses if you didn't reek of troll.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 20 Apr 2009, 02:10
Quote:
Oh, dear. I was hoping for sensible comments.


So was I, but I shouldn't have.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.