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

Chinese analyze of capitalism

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2014, 12:37
Do you guys agree with the following analyse of capitalism' contradictions; "that between private ownership of the means of production and socialised production. This contradiction has manifested itself globally as the following contradictions; the contradiction between planned and regulated national economies and the unplanned and unregulated world economy; the contradiction between well-organized and scientifically managed Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and a blindly expanding and chaotic world market; the contradiction between the unlimited increase of productive capacity and the limited world market; and the contradiction between sovereign states and TNCs" ... This is according to China's Communist Party.

I'm fairly new here, and its the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so,....
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 17 Feb 2014, 14:58
No, as state planning is neither socialism, efficient or even organised.
Hence the empty shelves in shops in 'communist' regimes. Or how there can be a surplus or one product and a dearth of another on any given day.
State ownership does not equate to common ownership and China is just another capitalist country.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2014, 23:10
Its a country passing through the capitalist mode of production since everytime a state has tried to "skip" over capitalism it has ended in failure.. Even the Chinese communists admits the country is capitalist, but thats not the point, is it? Marx clearly said stages, Lenin and Stalin said you could skip them (and that proved to be a disaster).. China is a capitalist country ruled by a non-capitalist elite.
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2014, 00:31
leftguy wrote:
Its a country passing through the capitalist mode of production since everytime a state has tried to "skip" over capitalism it has ended in failure.. Even the Chinese communists admits the country is capitalist, but thats not the point, is it? Marx clearly said stages, Lenin and Stalin said you could skip them (and that proved to be a disaster).. China is a capitalist country ruled by a non-capitalist elite.


First off, Marx did not clearly say 'stages'. Marx and Engels, on several occasions, said that countries could bypass the stage of capitalism and go straight to socialism. Marx said this very clearly in 1881 in a letter to Vera Zasulich:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... ulich1.htm

Marx and Engels also said in the preface to the Russian edition of The Communist Manifesto in 1882 that Russia forms the 'vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe' and that 'the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development':

Marx and Engels wrote:
And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning to awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.

The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... eface-1882

Secondly, how do you justify your belief that every time socialism tried to skip over the capitalist mode of production it 'failed'? Failed how?

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. The Chinese leadership does not admit the country is capitalist. They refer to themselves as a socialist state:

Constitution of China wrote:
Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.


http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2014, 09:25
Because none of the countries which skipped over socialism still exist (if you don't count NK).. Secondly, China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they say is similar to the capitalist mode of production, the main difference being that its ruled by a communist elite and not a bourgeoise one.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2014, 09:33
and, at last, Marx/Engels said a revolution could only succeed in Russia if the revolutions occurred in advanced countries in or around the same time - the revolutions happened in third world countries..
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 19 Feb 2014, 04:16
leftguy wrote:
Because none of the countries which skipped over socialism still exist (if you don't count NK)..


Skipped over socialism? I believe you mean skipped over capitalism. Either way, the fact that the former Soviet bloc no longer exists and that China has made the transition to capitalism through market reforms doesn't actually mean that these countries 'failed'. What about all the achievements these countries made while they were socialist? Do those not matter, are they suddenly rendered redundant because they are no longer socialist? That seems like very poor reasoning.

leftguy wrote:
Secondly, China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they say is similar to the capitalist mode of production, the main difference being that its ruled by a communist elite and not a bourgeoise one.


China, as previously mentioned, refers to themselves as a socialist state under the dictatorship of the working class. When have they ever said their economic system was 'similar' to the capitalist mode of production? Moreover, what is this capitalist state that is ruled by a 'communist elite' and not the bourgeoisie? The capitalist system is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - run by the bourgeois in his own interests by upholding private property and maintaining a stratified society. Do you realise how little sense it makes to claim that you can have capitalism without the bourgeoisie?

leftguy wrote:
and, at last, Marx/Engels said a revolution could only succeed in Russia if the revolutions occurred in advanced countries in or around the same time - the revolutions happened in third world countries..


And yet, a wave of proletarian revolutions did happen throughout Europe in the wake of the Russian Revolution. These revolutions were not successful, however they were ignited by revolution in Russia and ultimately came to prepare victory for the Russian working class.

Karl Marx stated in an 1881 letter that the 'historical inevitability' of capitalism applied only to Western Europe.
Marx wrote:
I thus expressly limited the “historical inevitability” of this process to the countries of Western Europe.


In the same letter, he stated:
Marx wrote:
To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is needed. For that matter, the government and the “new pillars of society” are doing their best to prepare the masses for just such a disaster. If revolution comes at the opportune moment, if it concentrates all its forces so as to allow the rural commune full scope, the latter will soon develop as an element of regeneration in Russian society and an element of superiority over the countries enslaved by the capitalist system.


He also said:
Marx wrote:
On the other hand, the contemporaneity of western production, which dominates the world market, allows Russia to incorporate in the commune all the positive acquisitions devised by the capitalist system without passing through its Caudine Forks [i.e., undergo humiliation in defeat].


Marx and Engels had made it very clear that a communist revolution could be successful in a technologically backwards country like Russia, as well as other backwards countries such as India (which they had also been studying at the time).
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 20 Feb 2014, 19:21
They said it could be successful if it was followed up by a revolution in a more advanced country, not alone. The former communist regimes had more cones than pros, how do I know that? They collapsed, and no one seems to want them back. I've noticed that some people claim that the people long for communist rule; but strangely, this longing never leads to vote for actual communist parties.

China part, read China–Japan Relations in the Twenty-first Century: Creating a Future Past? (p. 54-75), or for a shorter version, How China's Leaders Think: The Inside Story of China's Past, Current and Future Leaders (p. 526-528).. China says they are in the primary stage of socialism - they want to say that they are in the New Democracy phase, but since Mao said China had achieved socialism, they had to opt for a new concept (so as to not criticize Mao to much) .. COmmunist politics. Point being, read the text in "China–Japan Relations in the Twenty-first Century: Creating a Future Past?" its a good start (its available on Google Books), and the other book you could probably find on net and download.
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 20 Feb 2014, 19:51
leftguy wrote:
They said it could be successful if it was followed up by a revolution in a more advanced country, not alone.


Did you even read my post? It was followed up by a revolution in a more advanced country. Marx had theorised that such a revolutionary outbreak in Russia could serve as a spark for a wider revolution against capital, which is what happened. The wave of proletarian revolutions in the West was not successful, but ultimately came to prepare victory for the Russian working class, as previously mentioned. Besides, even if such revolutions did not occur, what difference does it make? Marx and Engels still believed socialism could be achieved in backwards nations, including, but not limited to, Russia, by skipping over the capitalist mode of production. Therefore, your original claim that Marx and Engels believed socialism could only be achieved in an industrialised capitalist nation has been proven false. In fact, Marx sharply criticised such a unilinear theory of historical development.

leftguy wrote:
The former communist regimes had more cones than pros, how do I know that? They collapsed, and no one seems to want them back. I've noticed that some people claim that the people long for communist rule; but strangely, this longing never leads to vote for actual communist parties.


More cons than pros? Really now? You clearly need to do more studying of those 'communist regimes' as you put it. And, as previously mentioned, the fact that a country or a group of countries collapsed has nothing to do with how successful they were. Moreover, your claim that 'no one seems to want them back' is preposterous and false. Just because those countries' current communist parties do not have the majority in their government does not mean no one wants them back. The majority of the citizens in both Russia and Germany, as well as many other countries, claim to regret the fall of their respective 'communist regimes' and generally prefer things as they were in the twentieth century than as they are now.

leftguy wrote:
China part, read China–Japan Relations in the Twenty-first Century: Creating a Future Past? (p. 54-75), or for a shorter version, How China's Leaders Think: The Inside Story of China's Past, Current and Future Leaders (p. 526-528).. China says they are in the primary stage of socialism - they want to say that they are in the New Democracy phase, but since Mao said China had achieved socialism, they had to opt for a new concept (so as to not criticize Mao to much) .. COmmunist politics. Point being, read the text in "China–Japan Relations in the Twenty-first Century: Creating a Future Past?" its a good start (its available on Google Books), and the other book you could probably find on net and download.


China does claim to be in the 'primary stage of socialism', but this was not the claim you originally made. You originally asserted that China claims to be a capitalist country, which they most certainly do not. China advocates what they call 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', and argues that socialism is compatible with their economic system. As far as I know, no nation, including China, has ever claimed to have reached fully-developed socialism.
Last edited by Workers Revolution on 20 Feb 2014, 20:22, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 20 Feb 2014, 20:21
1. I'll be honest, I'm tired.. China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they claim is very similar to the capitalist mode of production, but they still call the stage socialist (because Mao said China had reached socialism, and the CPC could not totally negate Mao)...
2. I've seen polls that people in Russia and Germany that people miss parts of the former system, but they don't miss the system. For instance, in Russia, people are fond of the idea of communism but believe that the Soviet authorities did not govern according to their own principles - a quick google search will suffice.
3. Its a reason why Lenin introduced NEP, and said that Russia "had to employ capitalism" (to construct capitalism) so as to be able to build socialism. In the Russian translation of The Communist Manifesto Marx wrote that revolutions in the periphery could only succeed with "proletarian revolutions in the West" (Marxism, China & Development: Reflections on Theory and Reality, p 26) ... Here, a quote from Marx;
Quote:
development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history


From The German Ideology
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 20 Feb 2014, 20:32
4. A well-functioning states don't collapse, they don't get millions of people demonstrating against them because they criticize their rule. If the communist regimes had popular support, they would have survived. Honestly, the whole system unravelled when Gorbachev introduced freedom of speech and lightened state censorship. And at last, there is not one indicator in which the socialist systems were better than the West, with, maybe, the exception of mass enrollment in education.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 20 Feb 2014, 21:01
@Workers Revolution:

How do you explain that all the so-called "socialist" states (I personally never think they ever were socialist) either collapsed or became like China (i.e. socialist in name only)? Yes a lot of them made some great achievements but this on its own does not signify the "success" of socialism. The Chinese state in the 3rd century BC made some great achievements but it was hardly a great model for a long-term successful state.

I think the problem with so many 20th century socialist states is that they saw socialism as an alternative to capitalism as a form of being modern and modernisation, rather than as the logical development of society and production following capitalism. All these (poor, backward ex/semi-colonial) countries looked to Europe, Japan and America with envy at the riches and power they possessed. Some countries opted for capitalism as a direct form of emulation while others felt that communism was a better alternative. Either way, both sides were trying to be modern rather than engineer a logical step forward in human progress.
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 21 Feb 2014, 02:50
leftguy wrote:
1. I'll be honest, I'm tired.. China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they claim is very similar to the capitalist mode of production, but they still call the stage socialist (because Mao said China had reached socialism, and the CPC could not totally negate Mao)...


You keep changing your arguments. You originally asserted, incorrectly, that China claimed to be capitalist.

You wrote:
Even the Chinese communists admits the country is capitalist


And now you have admitted that they instead claim to be in the 'primary stage of socialism', and they can therefore call themselves socialist. Therefore, if they are a self-described socialist state (as clearly exemplified by their constitution, ruling ideology, and so forth), they have not at all admitted they are capitalist, which is what you were originally claiming.

leftguy wrote:
2. I've seen polls that people in Russia and Germany that people miss parts of the former system, but they don't miss the system. For instance, in Russia, people are fond of the idea of communism but believe that the Soviet authorities did not govern according to their own principles - a quick google search will suffice.


A closer investigation on the actual situation will reveal a different story. Several polls that have been released show that in Germany and Russia, as well as other countries as well, the majority of the people actually want their socialist system back and prefer what they had then to what they have now and regret the fall of socialism. They don't just miss 'parts of the former system'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 34122.html

leftguy wrote:
3. Its a reason why Lenin introduced NEP, and said that Russia "had to employ capitalism" (to construct capitalism) so as to be able to build socialism.


Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, a model of 'state capitalism' as he called it, not in order to build industrial capitalism because he realised you must first go through 'stages', as you're implying. The NEP was introduced as a method to replace war communism, which had already fulfilled its service as the Russian Civil War was now coming to a close. The NEP was designed to revive the economy after the disastrous Civil War and the overall decline in agricultural and industrial production. The NEP was only adopted as a temporary measure which allowed a limited revival of free trade inside the RSFSR and foreign concessions alongside the nationalised and state-controlled sectors of the economy.

The amount of capitalist development was only merely limited, however, the proletarian government still controlled several key industries, state banking, nationalisation of land, and the state controlled the foreign trade. Moreover, once the NEP had served its purpose, a centrally planned command economy was installed. You're out of your mind if you think that Lenin actually advocated the transfer of power to the bourgeoisie in order to make the Soviet Union a capitalist country. He was not a Menshevik.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/e.htm

leftguy wrote:
In the Russian translation of The Communist Manifesto Marx wrote that revolutions in the periphery could only succeed with "proletarian revolutions in the West"


I mean seriously, have you even read my posts? You haven't even attempted to refute my argument, you just keep needlessly saying the same thing over and over. I am well aware of what Marx said. I have analysed it and explained it properly.

leftguy wrote:
4. A well-functioning states don't collapse, they don't get millions of people demonstrating against them because they criticize their rule. If the communist regimes had popular support, they would have survived. Honestly, the whole system unravelled when Gorbachev introduced freedom of speech and lightened state censorship.


The Soviet Union, as an example, collapsed because it wasn't functioning well under Gorbachev who had ruined the country. Prior to perestroika, generally, the USSR functioned very well. And what 'millions of people demonstrating against them'? When did this happen? The people of the late USSR in a 1991 referendum overwhelmingly voted to preserve the Union: http://en.ria.ru/infographics/20110313/162959645.html That doesn't sound like a country where 'millions of people criticised their rule'. The 'communist regimes' as you like to say did have popular support!

Gorbachev did not merely just instigate freedom of speech and lightened state censorship. He completely liberalised the economy to the point of nearly converting Russia back to capitalism, and utterly destroying the economy in the process. He also weakened the political system which led to unnecessary chaos. His reforms and actions led to a drastic decrease in the standard of living, rising ethnic nationalism, and indirectly, deaths.

leftguy wrote:
And at last, there is not one indicator in which the socialist systems were better than the West, with, maybe, the exception of mass enrollment in education.


And the better life expectancies, overall better health care, better education, higher employment, better working conditions, rising and successful economies, more economic and social equality, more effective political structure, more technological achievements, less crime, less poverty and hunger, et. al. They weren't better than the West? Need I mention all of the countless wars, genocides, famines, deaths, poverty, malnutrition, disease, colonialism, exploitation, etc. which have come about as a result of Western capitalism? Please. And you call yourself a socialist.

gRed Britain wrote:
How do you explain that all the so-called "socialist" states (I personally never think they ever were socialist) either collapsed or became like China (i.e. socialist in name only)? Yes a lot of them made some great achievements but this on its own does not signify the "success" of socialism. The Chinese state in the 3rd century BC made some great achievements but it was hardly a great model for a long-term successful state.


First of all, there are socialist states espousing communism that still exist, an admirable example being the Republic of Cuba, so it's not as though every socialist state either collapsed or took the Chinese path. Moreover, I do believe that achievements of socialism signify the success of these states. Obviously, socialism has not been completely successful as the majority of the nations of the world are still under the yoke of capital. However, the former socialist states made great strides in constructing socialism, and worked extremely well for what they had to work with.

gRed Britain wrote:
I think the problem with so many 20th century socialist states is that they saw socialism as an alternative to capitalism as a form of being modern and modernisation, rather than as the logical development of society and production following capitalism. All these (poor, backward ex/semi-colonial) countries looked to Europe, Japan and America with envy at the riches and power they possessed. Some countries opted for capitalism as a direct form of emulation while others felt that communism was a better alternative. Either way, both sides were trying to be modern rather than engineer a logical step forward in human progress.


I definitely think that, at least initially, they saw socialism as a logical development of society and production and human progress following capitalism (or in some cases, feudalism). Now, of course, there were instances of this fact being forgotten in the twentieth century socialist states, and any country trying to emulate a bourgeois state couldn't really be called socialist could it?
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 21 Feb 2014, 09:29
Quote:
Because none of the countries which skipped over socialism still exist (if you don't count NK).. Secondly, China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they say is similar to the capitalist mode of production, the main difference being that its ruled by a communist elite and not a bourgeoise one.

I said at the beginning that "China says its in the primary stage of socialism, a stage they say is similar to the capitalist mode of production" ... So I havn't changed anything, I just explained that the reason they called themselves socialist is that they can't negate Mao, who said that China had reached socialism. The present CPC leadership would have been very happy if the New Democracy phase of development had not ended - a phase in which China had a mixed economy - it ended in 1956 when Mao ordered so. I havn't changed my opinion, and I've even given you sources to back it up. .. They can still be communists and using capitalism, forgotten about Lenin's NEP?

Quote:
A closer investigation on the actual situation will reveal a different story. Several polls that have been released show that in Germany and Russia, as well as other countries as well, the majority of the people actually want their socialist system back and prefer what they had then to what they have now and regret the fall of socialism. They don't just miss 'parts of the former system'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/forme ... eakup.aspx
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 34122.html


The Spiegel source says that people view the GDR well, not that they want it back. If you pooled people on how the Stasi would, you'd get 90 percent bad, 10 percent good. The article does not say that people want the GDR back, It only says people don't have a negative view of the GDR, which is totally different. Secondly, the Gallup poll only indicate what people views are; there were mere harms than good which resulted in the Soviet Union's breakup, this is a view supported by most (even right-wingers).. Remember what Putin said; "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains." Its a totally different story of having a positive view of the state or not, but what is extremely clear, is that none of these states wants to lose their national independence again. And again, you would have thought that if people wanted the system back, they'd vote for parties who sought their reestablishment. No one does, instead they say it was a good society to live in (which is true).. This is not a black-and-white subject.

Quote:
Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, a model of 'state capitalism' as he called it, not in order to build industrial capitalism because he realised you must first go through 'stages', as you're implying. The NEP was introduced as a method to replace war communism, which had already fulfilled its service as the Russian Civil War was now coming to a close. The NEP was designed to revive the economy after the disastrous Civil War and the overall decline in agricultural and industrial production. The NEP was only adopted as a temporary measure which allowed a limited revival of free trade inside the RSFSR and foreign concessions alongside the nationalised and state-controlled sectors of the economy.

The amount of capitalist development was only merely limited, however, the proletarian government still controlled several key industries, state banking, nationalisation of land, and the state controlled the foreign trade. Moreover, once the NEP had served its purpose, a centrally planned command economy was installed. You're out of your mind if you think that Lenin actually advocated the transfer of power to the bourgeoisie in order to make the Soviet Union a capitalist country. He was not a Menshevik.


It was introduced as such, but when the world revolutions failed, its object change. Preobrazhensinsky and Stalin then created a new economic system, the planned economy, which was a non-capitalist system which would exploit the peasants to build the new proletariat.. Yes, they used the word "exploit" regarding the peasants. Its was called primitive socialist accumulation - this system led to the Holodomor... And at last, this system was meant to catch up to the West and then reach socialism (since socialism had to be better than the capitalist west, or else it was not socialism - of course, Stalin misfired, as he always did...)

Quote:
The Soviet Union, as an example, collapsed because it wasn't functioning well under Gorbachev who had ruined the country. Prior to perestroika, generally, the USSR functioned very well. And what 'millions of people demonstrating against them'? When did this happen? The people of the late USSR in a 1991 referendum overwhelmingly voted to preserve the Union: http://en.ria.ru/infographics/20110313/162959645.html That doesn't sound like a country where 'millions of people criticised their rule'. The 'communist regimes' as you like to say did have popular support!

Gorbachev did not merely just instigate freedom of speech and lightened state censorship. He completely liberalised the economy to the point of nearly converting Russia back to capitalism, and utterly destroying the economy in the process. He also weakened the political system which led to unnecessary chaos. His reforms and actions led to a drastic decrease in the standard of living, rising ethnic nationalism, and indirectly, deaths.


Again, what? Even Soviet statistics clearly say the USSR economy was in trouble. Khrushchev and Kosygin began introducing economic reforms in the 1950s and 1960s to try to "fix" the economy, none of the reforms were radical enough... Andropov even sent KGB units to factories and cinemas to improve workers discipline. Every sign, even signs from official sources, claim there was a slowdown, and that the economy stagnated... Yes, people voted to preserve the Soviet Union, but as a "Union of Sovereign States" (that is a noncommunist union) which featured less central control, and a country which was both liberal democratic and had a marked economy... He did not liberalize the economy, I think he privatized at most 5 percent - WOW.. Again, wrong. The standard of living had stopped growing in 1982 (the last year the standard of living actually increased). Ethnic nationalism was not his mistake - this was a problem in which had been kept under seal, but never solved - this was a legacy of Stalin and oppression... What do you think Ukrainian's felt like when they were more often than not ruled by Russians, not Ukrainians? ... You're reading into sources, the referendum in 1991 only showed that people wanted in place a central union, by this point the discussion of having a socialist state or not had completely died out. Remember, this state would have been created if it had not been for the August coup of 1991, a group of conservative light communists (I say light since they supported Chinese economic reforms), who had no popular backing. If they had, they could have shot Yeltsin - instead they were afraid that hurting him would lead to anti-communist uprising... You clearly lack historical knowledge, the USSR began to stagnate in the early 1970s, since the system was never able to achieve "intensive growth".. Throughout the years the USSR achieved extensive growth through capital investment (and really, on account on how much they invested, they should have gotten more from it).. at the end of the day, by 1979, signs were showing that things were not working; labour discipline had been decreasing since the early 1950s coupled with the fact that most factories used technologies dating from the 1960s, 1950s, 1940s and even the 1930s. Technological innovation did not exist.. And at last, leading Soviet officials began criticizing the planned economy as early as the 1930s - because it was clear to many that it was inefficient... That's why the debate on introducing a law of value (the theory which explains how markets function) was so important, it ended in 1952 (or 1953), just before he died, with Stalin saying that the law of value should be introduced into the planned economy. This also explains why every leading Soviet planner tried to make a "fake market"; that is, trying to make the planned economy react as if a private market existed (it never succeeded)..

Quote:
And the better life expectancies, overall better health care, better education, higher employment, better working conditions, rising and successful economies, more economic and social equality, more effective political structure, more technological achievements, less crime, less poverty and hunger, et. al. They weren't better than the West? Need I mention all of the countless wars, genocides, famines, deaths, poverty, malnutrition, disease, colonialism, exploitation, etc. which have come about as a result of Western capitalism? Please. And you call yourself a socialist.

Wrong, life expectancies were lower in the Soviet Union than the United States, at the end a man had the average life expectancy of 73 years of age, a women 80ish something. Overall better health care? Every hospital, with the exception of those from the elite, faced constant shortages, lacked medicines, and could not administer treatments. Thats why, when it came to advanced operations, the USSR was a long step behind. "Better working conditions"? Nope, actually worse, and a lot less pay for it too (that happens when the party leadership controls the only union - the union was turned into a welfare state and spy operation)... Economic equality yes, social equality no. That doesn't help to explain why the Soviet leadership had access to private stores in which common people did not have access too, does it? Or the private hospitals, private cars and so on. "MOre technological achievements"? What? They had the space race, nothing else, by 1995 the USSR was producing 21,000 computers (the same level the US was producing in 197something) The had no technological innovations, thats the reason why the USSR threw away so much money in the 1970s to buy foreign technology, one of the main reasons for maintaining detente.. Technological innovation was one of the main problems facing the USSR, and one of the main factors which caused the slowdown.. Even the Soviet leadership admits this as far back as Stalin.... They bought things, but they very seldom achieved any technological breakthroughs. "Less crime", true, there was less crime in the Soviet Union, how to explain this? If you threw garbage on the street you'd get a message from the KGB, I'm not saying you got arrested, but they told you it was wrong. That thing does not happen in the capitalist west. "Poverty and hunger" Are you kidding me, the Soviet people were poor, all of them (with the exception of those with social status).. Hunger? Holodomor? The only reason why never hunger was an issue is that the Soviet Union imported most of its grain from the United States, they couldn't produce enough (but they do now for some strange, inconceivable reason) ... http://books.google.no/books?id=3xm9Fd3QgEcC&pg=PA142&dq=east+germany+standard+of+living&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yAwHU82YEOT8ywOYiYL4Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=east%20germany%20standard%20of%20living&f=false You do understand that East Germany, the country with the highest standard of living in the Eastern Bloc, was far poorer than West Germany, why is that? "Need I mention all of the countless wars, genocides, famines, deaths, poverty, malnutrition, disease, colonialism, exploitation, etc. which have come about as a result of Western capitalism? " ... Should I mention the genocide committed by socialist regimes, the exploitation, the poverty, famines, malnutrions and so on? I mean, seriously, people in East Germany are 5cm shorter because they didn't receive the same malnutrition as the West Germans did.. Before the World War II they were the same height, not any longer. I mean, I only need to mention Stalin, Pol Pot and North Korea (these three combine all of them and the above). Occupation, colonization? What about the Baltics, every Baltic person I meet hates the USSR - its a reason why they still campaign that the Baltics never were part of the USSR - its was an illegal occuption according to them.

I'm a socialist, but trying to find good things in systems that clearly did not work, is not socialism its reactionary. Socialism is for change, and its critiqual of capitalism, but not even Marx hated capitalists. For instance, he said that exploiting workers (by capitalists) were "by no means an injustice". And at last, 98% of Marxism is an analysis of class and capitalism, not a way to forsee the future. Marx did not write much about the future socialist or communist stages of production - which is the part the current communist movement focuses on, the 2percent on nothing. But at last, Marx said the future regime would be better than what it succeeded, the states in the Eastern Bloc were not. That's not a discussion. I'm a Marxist because I want change, I seek change, and I oppose capitalism.. A Marxist is supposed to support democracy, not oppression, dictatorship, poverty, economic inefficiencies, racist policies or social conservatism. If Marx, Engels or Lenin had seen the state that the USSR was in in the early 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or for tha tmatter, in the 1930s, they would have been disgusted.

Quote:
I mean seriously, have you even read my posts? You haven't even attempted to refute my argument, you just keep needlessly saying the same thing over and over. I am well aware of what Marx said. I have analysed it and explained it properly.

You actually failed to both analyze and explain it properly. Marx, throughout his life, but an extreme emphasize on the mode of production. Engels didn't, believing that socialism could be achieved in elections (in advanced states) by the end of his life. Do you know why he believed that? When Marx lived, workers couldn't vote, by the end of Engels life, workers could vote. It strange that people don't take this basic change into the system into account.
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 22 Feb 2014, 02:07
leftguy wrote:
I havn't changed my opinion, and I've even given you sources to back it up.


No you didn't. Go back and read your first post. You explicitly said that the Chinese communists claimed their system was capitalist, which is untrue, as they claim to be a socialist state run by the workers.

Quote:
The Spiegel source says that people view the GDR well, not that they want it back. If you pooled people on how the Stasi would, you'd get 90 percent bad, 10 percent good. The article does not say that people want the GDR back, It only says people don't have a negative view of the GDR, which is totally different.


Did you even read the article? The Spiegel source doesn’t just say they 'viewed the GDR well', it says the majority of them prefer life back then to life back now.

Here are some excerpts from the source:

The Spiegel article wrote:
"Most East German citizens had a nice life," he says. "I certainly don't think that it's better here."

...

"The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

...

From today's perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down," one person writes, and a 38-year-old man "thanks God" that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn't until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people.

...

Today's Germany is described as a "slave state" and a "dictatorship of capital," and some letter writers reject Germany for being, in their opinion, too capitalist or dictatorial, and certainly not democratic. Schroeder finds such statements alarming. "I am afraid that a majority of eastern Germans do not identify with the current sociopolitical system."

...

Many of the letter writers are either people who did not benefit from German reunification or those who prefer to live in the past.

...

"As far as I'm concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today."

...

"If reunification hadn't happened, I would also have had a good life."


And on your claim that no one would view the Stasi positively...

The Spiegel article wrote:
"Not even half of young people in eastern Germany describe the GDR as a dictatorship, and a majority believe the Stasi was a normal intelligence service," Schroeder concluded in a 2008 study of school students.


Clearly you did not fully read or understand the article properly.

Quote:
Secondly, the Gallup poll only indicate what people views are; there were mere harms than good which resulted in the Soviet Union's breakup, this is a view supported by most (even right-wingers).. Remember what Putin said; "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains." Its a totally different story of having a positive view of the state or not, but what is extremely clear, is that none of these states wants to lose their national independence again.


This is false, in addition to most Russians and other former Soviet citizens believing the fall of the USSR was negative, they also desire a return to the days of the past. Here is another source to prove my claim that the majority of Russians preferred life in the USSR:

http://www.systemiccapital.com/60-perce ... nism-back/

Quote:
And again, you would have thought that if people wanted the system back, they'd vote for parties who sought their reestablishment. No one does, instead they say it was a good society to live in (which is true).. This is not a black-and-white subject.


Do you legitimately believe that people living in the former Soviet bloc will just 'vote in' socialism through communist parties and the reason they haven't done that is because they don't want socialism? That is an incredibly ignorant statement. The people aren't just to just 'vote in' communist parties and expect everything will return to normal. Moreover, in several countries, communist parties are some of the larges parties in the country. In Russia, the CPRF is the second-largest party in the entire nation.

"This is not a black-and-white subject." That's funny, considering you treat your entire criticisms of former socialist bloc like black-and-white subjects.

Quote:
It was introduced as such, but when the world revolutions failed, its object change. Preobrazhensinsky and Stalin then created a new economic system, the planned economy, which was a non-capitalist system which would exploit the peasants to build the new proletariat.. Yes, they used the word "exploit" regarding the peasants. Its was called primitive socialist accumulation - this system led to the Holodomor... And at last, this system was meant to catch up to the West and then reach socialism (since socialism had to be better than the capitalist west, or else it was not socialism - of course, Stalin misfired, as he always did...)


I love how you actually failed to refute my argument and spend your time going on about Stalin about how he 'exploited the peasants' which led to the 'Holodomor' and other slanderous claims from you. What does any of this have to do with the NEP?

Quote:
Again, what? Even Soviet statistics clearly say the USSR economy was in trouble. Khrushchev and Kosygin began introducing economic reforms in the 1950s and 1960s to try to "fix" the economy, none of the reforms were radical enough... Andropov even sent KGB units to factories and cinemas to improve workers discipline. Every sign, even signs from official sources, claim there was a slowdown, and that the economy stagnated...


Obviously the USSR economy from the mid-to-late seventies onward began to stagnate but when Gorbachev came in the economy decreased significantly. Just because there were economic stagnation problems during the late Brezhnev era does not automatically mean the economy doesn't function well, and it certainly doesn't mean the entire regime didn't function well or it 'failed'.

Quote:
Yes, people voted to preserve the Soviet Union, but as a "Union of Sovereign States" (that is a noncommunist union) which featured less central control, and a country which was both liberal democratic and had a marked economy...


And what? Where is your source for that claim? Where does it say anywhere that the renewed federation would have a market economy and liberal democracy? The question that was asked was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedoms of an individual of any nationality will be fully granted?" I have no idea what you're talking about here. Why would you think Russians prefer a market economy? On the contrary, in fact, in a recent poll, the majority of Russians overall prefer the Soviet system's state planning, that is, socialism. Asked in a recent poll what socio-economic system they favour, Russians answered:

• State planning and distribution, 58%
• Private property and distribution, 28%
• Hard to say, 14%
• Total, 100%

Pipes cites a poll in which 72 percent of Russians "said they wanted to restrict private economic initiative".

Quote:
He did not liberalize the economy


What an incredibly ignorant and foolish statement. Please, go read about and perestroika and Gorbachev and come back when you know what you're talking about. Saying Gorbachev didn't liberalise the economy is absolutely incorrect.

Quote:
The standard of living had stopped growing in 1982 (the last year the standard of living actually increased).


Source? Moreover, the fact that it continued to grow until for the majority of its history and only stopped right about the time Gorbachev came into office sure does say something, doesn't it? Wow, look at the Soviet Union – the country that 'failed' despite the fact that the standard of living continued to grow until pretty much the end of its lifespan.

Quote:
Ethnic nationalism was not his mistake - this was a problem in which had been kept under seal, but never solved - this was a legacy of Stalin and oppression... What do you think Ukrainian's felt like when they were more often than not ruled by Russians, not Ukrainians?


More slanderous baseless assertions.

Quote:
Remember, this state would have been created if it had not been for the August coup of 1991, a group of conservative light communists (I say light since they supported Chinese economic reforms), who had no popular backing.


Where do you get off claiming that they supported Chinese capitalism? They were hardliners, i.e. against Gorbachev and pro-state planning.

Quote:
You clearly lack historical knowledge


Ad hominem.

Quote:
Technological innovation did not exist..


If you forget the fact that the Soviets sent the first people in first and were the first to send satellites into space to study our planets, stars and cosmos. Also if you forget about the fact that Russia went from a backwards agrarian peasant nation to an industrial superpower.

Quote:
And at last, leading Soviet officials began criticizing the planned economy as early as the 1930s - because it was clear to many that it was inefficient... That's why the debate on introducing a law of value (the theory which explains how markets function) was so important, it ended in 1952 (or 1953), just before he died, with Stalin saying that the law of value should be introduced into the planned economy. This also explains why every leading Soviet planner tried to make a "fake market"; that is, trying to make the planned economy react as if a private market existed (it never succeeded)..


Please give me sources for all your claims.

Quote:
Wrong, life expectancies were lower in the Soviet Union than the United States, at the end a man had the average life expectancy of 73 years of age, a women 80ish something.


Nope, you're wrong, they were actually higher at one point. After the socialist revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. The trend continued into the 1960s, when the life expectancy in the Soviet Union went beyond the life expectancy in the United States. The life expectancy in Soviet Union were fairly stable during most years, although in the 1970s went slightly down probably because of alcohol abuse.

Quote:
Overall better health care? Every hospital, with the exception of those from the elite, faced constant shortages, lacked medicines, and could not administer treatments. Thats why, when it came to advanced operations, the USSR was a long step behind.


Source?

Quote:
"Better working conditions"? Nope, actually worse, and a lot less pay for it too (that happens when the party leadership controls the only union - the union was turned into a welfare state and spy operation)...


Soviet workers actually had an eight-hour day under Stalin and the conditions weren't bad and continued to get better, unlike the rule of the bourgeoisie which brought us the sixteen-hour-day, horrible working conditions, incredibly low wages, child labour, and large profits for the capitalist class, of which still continue to happen in many countries. None of that happened in the USSR.

Quote:
"MOre technological achievements"? What? They had the space race, nothing else, by 1995 the USSR was producing 21,000 computers (the same level the US was producing in 197something) The had no technological innovations, thats the reason why the USSR threw away so much money in the 1970s to buy foreign technology, one of the main reasons for maintaining detente..


If you believe the 'Space Race' was the only technological achievement, you need to do a lot more studying. And the USSR didn't even exist in 1995.

Quote:
"Less crime", true, there was less crime in the Soviet Union, how to explain this? If you threw garbage on the street you'd get a message from the KGB, I'm not saying you got arrested, but they told you it was wrong. That thing does not happen in the capitalist west.


Having an effective police force is actually kind of a necessity. Moreover, the superstructure, whose arose from the economic base, was different than the capitalist mode of production and thus there was less crime. And the police not telling people in the West that littering is wrong when they did it is not something to be proud of.

Quote:
"Poverty and hunger" Are you kidding me, the Soviet people were poor, all of them (with the exception of those with social status)..


Bullshit claim and baseless assertion.

Quote:
Hunger? Holodomor?


There was no 'Holodomor'. There was a famine, yes, but this could hardly be blamed on the government, and was a huge step from the droughts and famines that plagued Tsarist Russia every 5-10 years. And they have been far more famines that have happened, and do continue to happen, on a much wider scale as a result of capitalism.

Quote:
You do understand that East Germany, the country with the highest standard of living in the Eastern Bloc, was far poorer than West Germany, why is that?


It wasn't 'far poorer', they were actually pretty close economically speaking.

Quote:
Should I mention the genocide committed by socialist regimes


Name one 'genocide' committed by a socialist state. And no, the Khmer Rouge doesn't count.

Quote:
the exploitation, the poverty, famines, malnutrions and so on?


What exploitation? What 'poverty, famines and malnutrition'? The only times when this really occurred was when it was caused by an inefficient leader or government or when a state was struggling. But to blame the entire socialist system for these problems that individual countries had to sometimes face for various reasons is ridiculous. And are you really going to get up there and claim the 'exploitation, poverty, famine and malnutrition' somehow caused by socialism was worse than all of this that happens on a massive scale every day under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and imperialism?

Quote:
I mean, seriously, people in East Germany are 5cm shorter because they didn't receive the same malnutrition as the West Germans did.. Before the World War II they were the same height, not any longer.


That must be why people want it back so much right?... What are you talking about? People received plenty of food in E. Germany and there was far more equality (no people went hungry), all for extremely lower cost than in the West, or for free. One of the things people miss so much about the GDR is the guarantee of food and to not go hungry.

Quote:
I mean, I only need to mention Stalin, Pol Pot and North Korea (these three combine all of them and the above).


Stalin, Pol Pot, and North Korea have practically nothing in common with each other.

Quote:
Occupation, colonization? What about the Baltics, every Baltic person I meet hates the USSR - its a reason why they still campaign that the Baltics never were part of the USSR - its was an illegal occuption according to them.


Yes, according to them, but they are also a Western-aligned anti-communist state, so what's your point? And how exactly did the USSR 'colonise' the Baltics? Occupying a state does not automatically mean colonising it. Moreover, the Baltics weren't being exploited, unlike the capitalist mode of production, where the First World exploits and extracts super-profits from developing nations and impoverishing the workers there.

Quote:
And at last, 98% of Marxism is an analysis of class and capitalism, not a way to forsee the future.


I'm well aware of what Marxism is. What does this have to do with anything? Also, Marxism is a way of foreseeing the future, in addition to being mostly an analysis of class and capitalism. Like Marx said, "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

Quote:
Marx did not write much about the future socialist or communist stages of production - which is the part the current communist movement focuses on, the 2percent on nothing.


Of course that is what we focus on, communists are for change, to progress human society from a class-based society to one that is free of class antagonisms and the contradictions of capital. What do you expect, for us all just to sit around and analyse capital and class?

Quote:
But at last, Marx said the future regime would be better than what it succeeded, the states in the Eastern Bloc were not. That's not a discussion. I'm a Marxist because I want change, I seek change, and I oppose capitalism.. A Marxist is supposed to support democracy, not oppression, dictatorship, poverty, economic inefficiencies, racist policies or social conservatism. If Marx, Engels or Lenin had seen the state that the USSR was in in the early 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or for tha tmatter, in the 1930s, they would have been disgusted.


This is all just your opinion and speculation and that alone. Do you seriously believe that the Eastern Bloc states were better than what came before it? You would prefer Tsarist Russian autocracy over the Soviet Union? We Marxists do support democracy for the proletariat, of course, but we also stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie. And 'racist policies'? What 'racist policies' were there?

Quote:
You actually failed to both analyze and explain it properly. Marx, throughout his life, but an extreme emphasize on the mode of production. Engels didn't, believing that socialism could be achieved in elections (in advanced states) by the end of his life. Do you know why he believed that? When Marx lived, workers couldn't vote, by the end of Engels life, workers could vote. It strange that people don't take this basic change into the system into account.


Putting an emphasis on the means of production doesn't mean anything. Marx sharply criticised a unilinear theory of historical development as clearly exemplified by the number of works and quotes of Marx and Engels which I have shown you. And yet, you still fail to accept that you're wrong.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 22 Feb 2014, 10:41
Quote:
No you didn't. Go back and read your first post. You explicitly said that the Chinese communists claimed their system was capitalist, which is untrue, as they claim to be a socialist state run by the workers.

Nope I havn't, I've explained to you why they use the term socialism, its not a term they want to use. They are in the "Primary stage of socialism", a stage lot like capitalisms, they have not reached socialism, they've reached the "primary stage of socialism".. In 1956 or 1957, when New Democracy, the majority of the party leadership were against ending it, but Mao wasn't. The policies now could be seen as a continuation of the ND ones. And no, I Havn't changed my opinion, I've clearly said why the Chinese use the term, by not using the term they would be criticizing Mao, and say everything he did in the period from 1956 to 1976 was wrong, a view which would have made over half of the CPC's ruling history wrong in 1981.
Quote:
The Spiegel article wrote:

Its an interview with ONE man, ONE man, the ONE man does not represent the East German people. You would have thought you understood this.
Quote:
This is false, in addition to most Russians and other former Soviet citizens believing the fall of the USSR was negative, they also desire a return to the days of the past. Here is another source to prove my claim that the majority of Russians preferred life in the USSR:

http://www.systemiccapital.com/60-perce ... nism-back/

And you think that is a reliable source? Russian's don't vote communism back, they have a higher standard of living now then ever in their history.
Quote:
Do you legitimately believe that people living in the former Soviet bloc will just 'vote in' socialism through communist parties and the reason they haven't done that is because they don't want socialism? That is an incredibly ignorant statement. The people aren't just to just 'vote in' communist parties and expect everything will return to normal. Moreover, in several countries, communist parties are some of the larges parties in the country. In Russia, the CPRF is the second-largest party in the entire nation.

"This is not a black-and-white subject." That's funny, considering you treat your entire criticisms of former socialist bloc like black-and-white subjects.

And in Russia, the CPRF supports Chinese-style economic reforms, in Ukraine the CPU supports Chinese-style economic reform, in the Czech Republic the KSCM supports Chinese-style economic reform - no one wants a return to the planned economy.
Quote:
Obviously the USSR economy from the mid-to-late seventies onward began to stagnate but when Gorbachev came in the economy decreased significantly. Just because there were economic stagnation problems during the late Brezhnev era does not automatically mean the economy doesn't function well, and it certainly doesn't mean the entire regime didn't function well or it 'failed'.

Economic stagnation means that the economy is not functioning well, its mean something bad is happening, its means the economy is lagging, its means the economy is not growing fast enough, and is staying behind - stagnation means bad things.

Quote:
And what? Where is your source for that claim? Where does it say anywhere that the renewed federation would have a market economy and liberal democracy? The question that was asked was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedoms of an individual of any nationality will be fully granted?" I have no idea what you're talking about here. Why would you think Russians prefer a market economy? On the contrary, in fact, in a recent poll, the majority of Russians overall prefer the Soviet system's state planning, that is, socialism. Asked in a recent poll what socio-economic system they favour, Russians answered:

• State planning and distribution, 58%
• Private property and distribution, 28%
• Hard to say, 14%
• Total, 100%

Pipes cites a poll in which 72 percent of Russians "said they wanted to restrict private economic initiative".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rb ... stems.html - explains that this goes up and down
http://www.russian-survey.com/rs-poll/1 ... vatisation - 60 percent of Russians support privatization
http://www.wciom.com/ - also remember that 58 percent of Russians are satisfied with life, 48 percent like Putin, over 50 percent support and respect the offices of the President, Prime Minister and government of RF (that is, no Soviet), not the economy so much. Honestly, no. The Soviet Union became a liberal democracy in 1990, because the democratically elected Deputies to the Congress of People's Deputies called for the establishment of a democratic state.
What an incredibly ignorant and foolish statement. Please, go read about and perestroika and Gorbachev and come back when you know what you're talking about. Saying Gorbachev didn't liberalise the economy is absolutely incorrect.

If you call liberalization 5 percent, than yes, but that was merely felt. The reason for the collapse of the USSR economy lays in the fact that by 1989 it was neither a planned nor market economy, it was something in between. Its a mouthful to explain, but the central planners lost their control, and the factories earned more control - a continuation of Kosygin's reforms, but then the whole operation was bugged down by infighting on were the reforms were to be taken, everywhere from free markets economics to only small changes to the system

Quote:
Source? Moreover, the fact that it continued to grow until for the majority of its history and only stopped right about the time Gorbachev came into office sure does say something, doesn't it? Wow, look at the Soviet Union – the country that 'failed' despite the fact that the standard of living continued to grow until pretty much the end of its lifespan.

Grew by 2 percent in 1981, 1 percent in 1982 ....
The Soviet Colossus: History and Aftermath 296-297
In 1981, per capita spending on healthcare actually decreased, to -0.1 percent.
The Soviet Social Contract and why it Failed: Welfare Policy and Workers' Politics from Brezhnev to Yeltsin 50-51
I could go on forever, but this is a basic fact, and something you should know, USSRdefender
Quote:
Ethnic nationalism was not his mistake - this was a problem in which had been kept under seal, but never solved - this was a legacy of Stalin and oppression... What do you think Ukrainian's felt like when they were more often than not ruled by Russians, not Ukrainians?

No its not, since it explain the small ethnic riots which "just" suddenly blossomed up throughout the USSR's existence, under Gorbachev people did it because they knew the Soviets wouldn't hurt them.
Quote:
Where do you get off claiming that they supported Chinese capitalism? They were hardliners, i.e. against Gorbachev and pro-state planning.

Written in this "The Chinese Communist Party and the Collapse of Soviet Communism", published by Cambridge University Press.. Soviet participants in the coup even told the CPC beforehand of the coup.. One of the reasons the conservatives were so strong within the CPSU was because of Chinese influence. The Chinese helped the conservative, and they sought for the reestablishment of communism in the USSR, believing Gorbachev to be a traitor, or idiot of some sort (the article doesn't make that very clear)... Secondly, if you read some of the decrees by the August junta its very clear that they don't oppose private property, because also they understood that the old system wasn't working. What they were defending was Communist Party rule, not a failed system of state planning.
Quote:
If you forget the fact that the Soviets sent the first people in first and were the first to send satellites into space to study our planets, stars and cosmos. Also if you forget about the fact that Russia went from a backwards agrarian peasant nation to an industrial superpower.

The first one is the only thing they did, the second one was about importing technology of from abroad. When they industrialized they didn't create new technologies, but used the same, advanced technologies from the West. Industrialization was modernization, but not technological innovation, because the technology had already been created by others. The Soviets were able to create rockets (which is very hard indeed) and military software, they were still only able to produce 21,000 computers in 1990 though.... Its a reason why the CPRF, and now the CPC admits also, that the Soviets began lagging because the communist world (not just them) missed the digital- and information age - the single most important event since the Industrial Revolution. Honestly
Quote:
Please give me sources for all your claims.

Read Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (this is when the law of value was reeintroduced), and then begin reading about Khrushchev's decentralization reforms, the Liberman reforms and Kosygin's heroic failure in trying to get Soviet managers to innovate their factories (a battle he lost indeed). From 1952 until 1988, the question was how much market principles could we push into the planned economy so as to make as efficient as capitalism
Stalin had originally said their would be no law of value in a planned economy, not even in the primitive socialist accumulation phase (only forced exploitation of the peasants, but no market thinking).
Nope, you're wrong, they were actually higher at one point. After the socialist revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. The trend continued into the 1960s, when the life expectancy in the Soviet Union went beyond the life expectancy in the United States. The life expectancy in Soviet Union were fairly stable during most years, although in the 1970s went slightly down probably because of alcohol abuse.

Wrong, by the late-1950s the life expectancy was at the same level of the Western capitalist world (because they did an extremely good job at catching up). But as so much else with the USSR, after reaching its peak, it suddenly declined, and the system was not able to solve the crisis... ANother problem; as usual in the USSR, when the Soviets were talking about healthcare improvements they talked about creating new hospitals. This sounds good enough, however, the problem was that the more hospital they had, the harder it became for the Soviet authorities to actual send the needed materials to get the health facilities running - shortages. The Soviet system had chronic shortages, because of the planned economy.
Soviet workers actually had an eight-hour day under Stalin and the conditions weren't bad and continued to get better, unlike the rule of the bourgeoisie which brought us the sixteen-hour-day, horrible working conditions, incredibly low wages, child labour, and large profits for the capitalist class, of which still continue to happen in many countries. None of that happened in the USSR.

The problem is that, a common worker in the capitalist west was payed more than in the USSR, and in certain countries, such as Norway, Sweden etc, people actually get good pensions also. In the USSR you got working class families living in small apartment, waiting in line to buy bread for hours (it doesn't happen where I live), not having cars so they to walk continousyl and so on. But at last, people don't care if someone takes their surplus if they get paid more, and get access to more; a common worker where I come from, Norway, has more access then a normal worker in the Soviet Union ever did.
Quote:
If you believe the 'Space Race' was the only technological achievement, you need to do a lot more studying. And the USSR didn't even exist in 1995.

Other then the space race and miilitary technology, what did they create. Industrialization is not technological innovation, its modernization - thats not the same thing.
Having an effective police force is actually kind of a necessity. Moreover, the superstructure, whose arose from the economic base, was different than the capitalist mode of production and thus there was less crime. And the police not telling people in the West that littering is wrong when they did it is not something to be proud of.

Quote:
Having an effective police force is actually kind of a necessity. Moreover, the superstructure, whose arose from the economic base, was different than the capitalist mode of production and thus there was less crime. And the police not telling people in the West that littering is wrong when they did it is not something to be proud of.

The KGB was not the police force, it was an intelligence agency, akeen to FBI-CIA-NSA in one. Secondly, less crime in Norway than in the USSR (If I remember correctly, I'll try to find that source)
Quote:
"Poverty and hunger" Are you kidding me, the Soviet people were poor, all of them (with the exception of those with social status)..

You do know at the 19th Party Conference, and in the next party congress, lower-level delegates criticized the Soviet leaderhsip of having access to private stores, private cars, private dachas and so on. This was a serious problem. If you ask members of the former Soviet Ice Hockey team, they all lived like saints (according to Soviet standards...) .... This is not "Bullshit claim and baseless assertion", because everyone knew it to be true in the former USSR, and its a reason why Cuba and Che Guevara were highly critical of it, and never introduced it (the only communist system to not introduce that, to the same degree that is).
Quote:
There was no 'Holodomor'. There was a famine, yes, but this could hardly be blamed on the government, and was a huge step from the droughts and famines that plagued Tsarist Russia every 5-10 years. And they have been far more famines that have happened, and do continue to happen, on a much wider scale as a result of capitalism.

It can, the whole basis of the planned economy and primitive socialist accumulation was the exploitation of the peasants to build a new proletariat. They didn't want to go the natural way, so they went the unnatural and extremely hard way... Read, or read about, Yevgeny Preobrazhensky's The New Economics and The Fundamental Law of Socialist Accumulation.. The Soviet's regime plan was to exploit the peasant, take their surplus, and build an industrialized Russia. This caused the famine, not only in Ukraine, but in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.. Skipping things lead to bloodshed. This was active CPSU policy when Stalin introduced the planned economy, based on Preobrazhensky's (who was later killed by Stalin..) writings.
Quote:
It wasn't 'far poorer', they were actually pretty close economically speaking.

Quote:
Name one 'genocide' committed by a socialist state. And no, the Khmer Rouge doesn't count.

The Khmer Rouge doesn't count?.. Great Purge, Stalin's deportation of ethnic people, the Katyn Massacre, etc etc. The Fact that the Soviet Union lost thousands soldiers in "civilizing" Central Asia.. But let's say Ethiopia, over half a million people were killed by the communists
Quote:
What exploitation? What 'poverty, famines and malnutrition'? The only times when this really occurred was when it was caused by an inefficient leader or government or when a state was struggling. But to blame the entire socialist system for these problems that individual countries had to sometimes face for various reasons is ridiculous. And are you really going to get up there and claim the 'exploitation, poverty, famine and malnutrition' somehow caused by socialism was worse than all of this that happens on a massive scale every day under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and imperialism?

When it comes to poverty, famine and malnutrition I'll say yes, because every socialist state in this regard failed (even if you compare them to capitalist state at the same level of development and not with the richest states).. Yes capitalism sucks, but at least I don't need to stand inline for hours straight to get bread, and I don't eat meat only on sundays because I have to have connections to eat it on weekdays... Exploitaiton no, but people don't care about exploitaiton it they get paid better and can use the money more freely, they couldn't do that in the Eastern Bloc, they can however do it in Vietnam, China and Laos now.
Quote:
That must be why people want it back so much right?... What are you talking about? People received plenty of food in E. Germany and there was far more equality (no people went hungry), all for extremely lower cost than in the West, or for free. One of the things people miss so much about the GDR is the guarantee of food and to not go hungry.

Food was subsidized yes, but they did not have access to the same quality of goods. Its a reason why Western goods were sold in highend stores in which no one could afford to buy them. Western goods were of better quality. And at last, certain food was subsidized, the majority was not - and it was enough, not a little extra. I always eat a little extra, and I'm a normal dude.
Quote:
Stalin, Pol Pot, and North Korea have practically nothing in common with each other.

Mass murders come to mind, nutjobs comes to mind, powernuts comes to mind.. In North Korea there is no independent ruling party, and Stalin, well he killed the senior leadership and created a new one. They have many things in common, many.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.