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

How do you Stop Revisionism?

POST REPLY
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 21 May 2014, 15:32
Yes, the planned economies collapsed because they could not compete with the freer markets found outside of these regimes.
There were hardline Stalinist regimes in Albania and parts of Eastern Europe and they failed too! Romania collapsed too and it was as hardline as they come.
The freedom and openness that Gorbachev introduced were universally welcomed, here and in the East, the only ones that hated them were the hardliners how had no love for the workers of the World. They collapsed as they could not solve the contradictions of capitalism. Under capitalism of whatever variety there is no alternative to the market and that is what Gorbachev found out. But a killer blow for the regime was the cost of Chernobyl, the war in Afghanistan and the costs of keeping their empire in Easter Europe.
If you think that the planned economy is better than a free market one then why is the DPRK so poor? Why is their economy on its knees? Why do they produce nothing anyone wants? Wait, don’t tell me, it’s the fault of the imperialists.

When workers have the choice between the two, they always choose free-market capitalism over the state variety. That and that alone explains why they had to build a wall to keep people IN and not out.

I have explained this again and again, but will it ever sink in?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3799
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 21 May 2014, 19:48
Yeah... except we don't believe in Neoliberalism like you do. It won't sink in.
If you think the people actually wanted to open up their markets and suffer what happened in the 90's, then you have your facts pretty wrong.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 21 May 2014, 21:23
Yami is right in that the planned economies could never compete with the free market ones. However it must also be remembered that the countries with the planned economies were always technologically and economically behind the US and western Europe. Russia was a semi-feudal shithole with hardly any industry in 1917. The US meanwhile was becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world in 1917. The West always had a head start.

I think the planned economies might be different if applied today because computing power could be used to help allocate resources. Also it might be good if they actually let the working class run them, rather than just have the communist party decide how to run an entire economy.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 May 2014, 23:36
Quote:
When workers have the choice between the two, they always choose free-market capitalism over the state variety. That and that alone explains why they had to build a wall to keep people IN and not out.


The Soviet Union was not State-Capitalist. It was a Socialist State, the dictatorship of the Proletariat under the leadership of the the Vanguard of the Working Class (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). The same was true for the German Democratic Republic which was under the leadership of united Front of multiple parties for example the breakdown of the results for the 1986 election was.

121 Seats: Socialist Unity Party of Germany
61 Seats: Free German Trade Union Federation
52 Seats: Christian Democratic Union
52 Seats: Liberal Democratic Party of Germany
52 Seats: Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany
52 Seats: National Democratic Party of Germany
37 Seats: Free German Youth
32 Seats: Democratic Women's League of Germany
21 Seats: Cultural Association of the DDR
14 Seats: Peasants Mutual Aid Association
I don't see why you think these were sham elections, they even have multiple parties. Oh, but when they adopt an economic system that doesn't benifit Capitalist elites then it must be a dictatorship.

East Germany and the USSR both collasped because Neo-liberals, Revisionists and Capitalists were allowed into the Governments of these various countries. Once that happens then of coarse the country will collaspe but it's not because the people don't want Socialism but because Socialism was being dismantled from within the leadership of the Government. You can't allow somebody to get elected who litterally wanted to dissolve your country and the principals on which it stands.
Image

Yes there was a slowdown in economic growth (2.7% between 1970 and 1981). But 2.7% is still faster than what the United States grew during this period. Further this was largely because of what little Market Reforms were introduced begining in 1965 with the "Kosygin Reforms". Military spending was also excessively high under Brezhnev although somewhat justified given the threat the United States posed to Soviet life. Also 2.7% growth is slow compared to 5-6% growth but it's far from a reccession especially considering the USSR didn't have major debt problems and had growing levels of income equality, no unemployment or homelessness, high life expectancy and low child mortality.

Further what this graph doesn't show is that the USSR also sustained somewhat moderate annual growth rate between 1981 and 1986
It wasn't untill the 1987-1991 years (Gorbachev years) that the Soviet Economy actually began to severely stagnate, become mired in debt and collaspe substantially in 1990 and 1991. It was capitalism not socialism that killed the Soviet Economy in the late 80s.

[2]
In 1986
The Soviet GNP growth rate was at a solid 4.1%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 20%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was 2.4%

In 1987 (when the Market Reforms began to kick in)
The Sovet GDP growth rate was a pathetic 1.3%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was 22%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was an incredible 6.2%

In 1988
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a slightly better 2.3%
The Internal Debt as a percent of GDP was a staggering 36%
The Budget Deficit as a percent of GDP was a 8.8%

In 1989
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a reduced 1.5%
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 43%
The Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was now 11%

In 1990
The Soviet GNP growth rate was in a crisis situation of -11% (that's right negative eleven percent)
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP was now 55%
The Budget Deficit as a percentafe of GDP was now 14%

In 1991
The Soviet GNP growth rate was a disaster situation of -13% (that's right, negative thirteen percent)
The Internal Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't availible from the statics
The Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP was at 20% (that was the entire internal debt in just 5 years earlier)

[1]https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/watching-the-bear-essays-on-cias-analysis-of-the-soviet-union/article02.html
[2]Oliver, Michael J.; Aldcroft, Derek Howard (2007). Economic Disasters of the Twentieth Century. Page 294.

As for the German Democratic Republic

It started at a lower level of economic development and was forced to bear the burden of paying War repramands to the Soviet Union for the massive losses and damage inflicted on the USSR in WW2. These conditions were largely responsible for the less attractive aspects of life in the GDR: lower pay, longer hours, and fewer and poorer consumer goods compared to West Germany. The GDR comprised only one-third of German territory and had a population of 17 million. By comparison, the FRG comprised 63 million people and made up two-thirds of German territory. [1] Less industrialized than the West, the new GDR started out poorer than its new capitalist rival. Per capita income was about 27 percent lower than in the West. Given all these facts it's clear that even if East Germany was capitalist it still would be just as poor if not more so and with less benifits than it was under Socialism. It was the historical context any East German state whether capitalist or socialist would face. Even if there as an East German state that was capitalist it would still need to build a wall to prevent brain drain to the richer West German state.

Despite all this however, "East Germany’s national income grew in real terms about two percent faster annually that the West German economy between 1961 and 1989." [3]

It's possible to have high growth with it all going to the top of society however. Fortunately this didn't happen to the German Democratic Republic. The mean Gini coefficient – a measure of income equality which runs from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality) – was 0.24 for socialist countries in 1970 compared to 0.48 for capitalist countries. [2]

[1] John Green, “Looking back at life in the GDR,” The Morning Star (UK), October 7, 2009
[2] Shirley Ceresto, “Socialism, capitalism, and inequality,” The Insurgent Sociologist, Vol. XI, No. 2, Spring, 1982
[3] Austin Murphy, The Triumph of Evil: The Reality of the USA’s Cold War Victory, European Press Academic Publishing, 2000

States do not need to allow floods of people to leave their country with no restrictions if it dangers the very existence and living standards of the country itself.
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 09 Jun 2014, 16:35
Yami wrote:
There were hardline Stalinist regimes in Albania and parts of Eastern Europe and they failed too! Romania collapsed too and it was as hardline as they come.
Romania wasn't "hardline" except when placed right next to Gorbachev's USSR. He was seen as a "good communist" in the West (akin to Tito) up until the last few years of his regime, and imposed austerity measures on the Romanian people in order to pay back IMF loans.

The Albanians denounced Ceaușescu (and his predecessor Dej.)

Compare the following:

"There is no going back either to old theses or the slogans which reflected the conditions of past periods. The concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has ceased to correspond to reality, and I hereby inform you and all those who did not know about it that several years ago, a plenum of our Central Committee adopted an ideological programme from which we excluded the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was deemed inappropriate from many points of view. We must not for a moment identify the dictatorship of the proletariat with the power of workers and peasants, the power of the people; those are things which should not be mixed up. The way towards socialism really does pass, as it should, through democratic reform; however, such reform should have the backing of the majority of the people. Otherwise, the victory of socialism would be impossible."
(Nicolae Ceaușescu, quoted in Meeting of Representatives of the Parties and Movements Participating in the Celebration of the 70th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House. 1988. p. 113.)

"The [Romanian Communist Party] has redefined and extrapolated the Leninist definition of conflicts as being 'antagonistic' or 'nonantagonistic' to the sphere of international relations in general and to the South [i.e. third world] in particular... Thus, conflicts between Communist states (China and the Soviet Union, Kampuchea and Vietnam) or between various developing countries are defined as basically 'nonantagonistic,' to be solved through negotiations and compromise only. While the Soviets admit no compromise (and neither do the Chinese) between 'revisionism' and Marxism-Leninism, or between 'reactionary' and 'progressive' developing countries, the RCP has not used the word 'revisionism' since the 1950s, when it applied it [at the time] to Tito, and rejects the very distinction between 'progressive' and 'reactionary' regimes in the South, a distinction which provides the basis for Soviet involvement in support of various radical regimes and groups there. In the words of a Romanian commentator:

'The emphasis placed on dividing the developing countries into 'progressive' and 'moderate' ones and opposing them to each other in international relations runs counter to the unanimously recognized principle of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social and political systems, feeding instead the theory of the spheres of influence, which is used to weaken the unity of the developing countries in the international arena.'

This position is very similar to that of the Yugoslavs, reflecting once again the similarity of viewpoint between Belgrade and Bucharest concerning the role and character of the Nonaligned Movement...

The very foundation of the RCP ideology, its demand that every Communist party be free to choose its own way of applying Marxism-Leninism, is linked to a rather particular assessment of the international situation as a whole. Although Bucharest does occasionally admit the existence of international conflicts, as Ceausescu puts it, 'Imperialism is much weaker than most people would say, and to overestimate its strength would lead to panic.'"
(Radu, Michael (ed). Eastern Europe and the Third World: East vs. South. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1981. pp. 239-240.)

with:

"... when we saw that with the aid that they provided the Titoites, the Soviet revisionists and those of the countries of Eastern Europe, and Mao Zedong's China had ulterior, hostile, enslaving aims, or intended to turn Albania into an appendage dependent on them, so that it would lose its freedom and independence, we tore the mask from them and told them bluntly and clearly that socialist Albania, the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian people were not for sale for a handful of rags, or for a few rubles, dinars or yuan, just as they had not sold themselves to the Anglo-American imperialists for their handout of rags or for their pounds sterling and dollars....

For 40 years on end, my valiant Albania, you have kept the honoured flag of Marxism-Leninism flying, just as through the centuries you have kept the flag of freedom flying, the red flag with the two-headed eagle, to which you added a five-pointed star, the star of freedom, the star of socialism and communism.

Not for one moment during the 40 years of life in socialism have you, my people, with the Party of Labour at the head, allowed the new perfidious and powerful enemies to conquer you. Once again you drew the sword, which was now keener-edged, tempered in the fires of repeated battles, and forged on the anvil of history. With this sword you, my Party, mercilessly struck down the imperialists and reactionaries, struck down the modern revisionists of all hues, and compelled those secret revisionists, who, for their own hegemonic aims, seemed to be, and from time to time posed as if they were, Marxist-Leninists and our friends, to throw off their disguise. With these stands and your lofty example, you, my Party, performed your internationalist duty and, at the same time, told others that the struggle against the revisionist currents must not cease, that there could be no agreement or compromise with them, because they were renegades and traitors. The word of our Party, its clear thinking, its courage and determination, shone forth and became beacon-lights for the peoples and revolutionaries in the world....

All the talk about taking power by means of reforms is poppycock. The bourgeoisie and capitalism can never agree to allow the working class, the most advanced class in the world to which the future belongs, to take power. On the contrary, every day the enemies of the peoples and the proletariat are preparing sugar-coated poison pills and forging new chains of enslavement, therefore, only by fighting against the old system of the power of capital can the peoples and the proletariat triumph step by step and take power into their own hands....

We have never retreated or made any concessions to enemies. History has taught us this, we have learned it not only from our own sufferings and hardships but also from those of all the peoples of the world, from their countless struggles during the centuries.

Marxism-Leninism has opened our eyes with the conclusions drawn from the analyses which it has made of the development of society through the class struggle. It teaches us that the class struggle is the motor of society, which keeps you alive, gives you strength, gives you victory. If you extinguish this struggle the bourgeoisie and capitalism will strangle and enslave you, and our people have never liked slavery. On the contrary, our people have always fought against the grip of slavery. Therefore, our Party has never ceased the class struggle, either internally or in the international arena, and never will cease it, even for a moment. For 40 years on end our people and Party have resolutely opposed and combated everything old and conservative, opportunist and liberal, all those who have tried openly or secretly to divert us from our correct course, we have fought any force or ideology which has aimed to infect the consciousness of our people, to hinder our march towards better days, towards the present and the more secure future. We have always kept the class struggle ablaze, and it is precisely this great and revolutionizing motive force which has made our small Homeland unshakeable 'either by the cannon, or the bomb', as the folk song says, that is, either by revisionism, capitalism, or reaction."
(Hoxha, Message of Greetings on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Liberation of Albania, November 29, 1984.)
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 10 Jun 2014, 01:38
He's permanently banned, chief.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Jun 2014, 04:05
Kirov wrote:
He's permanently banned, chief.
Yami's stupid comments still need a sound thrashing. Permabanning him doesn't actually do that.

Some readers might theoretically agree with him and they need to be set right.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 16 Jun 2014, 20:49
Supporting a planned economy is synonymous with supporting backwardness. .... Have you ever thought that instead of supporting something that failed communists should try to come up with another economic system? I mean, why would you support something that failed? You don't hear British capitalists bemoan every time that the British Empire is gone, but why do communists always (and I mean always) bemoan the lose of these states? They lost. These former states belong to the ash heap of history .. The only reason why you can't say the Leninist political system is not in the ash heap of history is because of countries like China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, but none of you support these state do you? ... In the minds of 99 percent of the world population, the planned economy failed. No leading communist party in any of the former Eastern Bloc countries support reintroducing central planning, and its a reason for that. Do you guys know why? It failed!

I like the Cuban option (of course we don't know how it will turn out, but still).. They are planning to introduce an economy in which private enterprise exist (but that all medium to large private enterprises have to be workers' cooperatives.. It can still fail, but workers' cooperatives equals no exploitation by capitalist since the capitalists don't head them. And yes, private workers' cooperatives have been proven more effective then the state cooperatives in the former socialist states..
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2014, 06:04
I guess I'm going to need to add more statistics.

1. Population

Although the population growth rate decreased over time, it remained positive throughout the history of the Soviet Union in all republics, and the population grew each year by more than 2 million except during periods of wartime, collectivisation, and famine.[1]
Image

Soviet population 1950-2100 (projected)
The population of Russia peaked at 148,689,000 in 1991, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Low birth rates and abnormally high death rates caused Russia's population to decline at a 0.5% annual rate, or about 750,000 to 800,000 people per year from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. [2]

2. Birth Rate
18 births/1,000 population (1990)[1]
13.3 births/1,000 population (2013)[2]

3. Crude Death Rate
10 deaths/1,000 population (1990)[1]
13.1 deaths/1,000 population (2013)[2]

4. Infant Mortality
24 deaths/1,000 live births (1990)[1]
7.2 deaths/1,000 live births (2013)[2]

*After the October 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 improvement in infant mortality leveled out eventually, and after a while infant mortality began to rise. After 1974 the government stopped publishing statistics on this. This trend can be partly explained by the number of pregnancies went drastically up in the Asian part of the country where infant mortality was highest, while the number of pregnancies was markedly down in the more developed European part of the Soviet Union. For example, the number of births per citizens of Tajikistan went up from 1.92 in 1958-59 to 2.91 in 1979-80, while the number in Latvia was down to 0.91 in 1979-80.[2] This context is important before one simpley compares the infant mortality to modern Russia.
In Russia this is the trend that we see.
Image

Similarly when you look at other regions a similer trend occures. The Infant Mortality Rate increasing was statistically skewed.

The crude birth rate in the Soviet Union throughout its history had been decreasing - from 44.0 per thousand in 1926 to 18.0 in 1974, mostly due to urbanization and rising average age of marriages. The crude death rate had been gradually decreasing as well - from 23.7 per thousand in 1926 to 8.7 in 1974.

5.
Technitions/Scientists per 1000 people
Soviet Union: 128
United States: 55

Science Graduates (as a % of total Graduates)
Soviet Union: 48%
United States: 30%

Mean Years of Schooling (1980)
Soviet Union: 7.6
United States: 12.2%[3]

6.
In 1950 the Soviet GNP was 31% of the American GNP. In 1985 (just 35 years later) it had doubled to 67% of American GNP. Between 1950 and 1985 the national income of the USSR in real terms increased ten-fold and income per head of the population five times.[4] Looks to me like it was catching up to the west.

Keep in mind, despite the constant betrayal of Revisionists within the CPSU and the USSR was still able to perform such enormous economic and social successes. It wasn't untill Gorbachev, Yeltson and others finally began dismantling the Planned Economy and the Soviet political institutions that a serious crisis occured.

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
[3]http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6021.pdf
[4]"Economic Reform in the USSR" by Georgy Skarkov, August 1987
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2014, 11:19
Quote:
In 1950 the Soviet GNP was 31% of the American GNP. In 1985 (just 35 years later) it had doubled to 67% of American GNP. Between 1950 and 1985 the national income of the USSR in real terms increased ten-fold and income per head of the population five times.[4] Looks to me like it was catching up to the west.

Keep in mind, despite the constant betrayal of Revisionists within the CPSU and the USSR was still able to perform such enormous economic and social successes. It wasn't untill Gorbachev, Yeltson and others finally began dismantling the Planned Economy and the Soviet political institutions that a serious crisis occured.

You are misreading the statistics. For instance ,while the national income may have doubled, from 1980 until 1987 it virtually stagnated (with some statistics even showing decline)... THe standard of living per capita was $9,130, that is lower then present-day China (and China was able to reach that figure much much faster, considering that most of this growth occured from the mid-1980s to 2012)... It is generally believed (even admitted by such people as Gennady Zyuganov, Petro Symonenko and even Andrei Gromyko) that the population decline in the present-day post-Soviet states began in the late-1960s and the 1970s.

Most importantly, in every five-year plan the planners invested more and more into the economy (and the growth declined and declined)... Considering the amount of capital investment in the Soviet Union, the country was on par with third world countries like Egypt. Half of the investments didn't contribute to anything, partially because labour productivity declined throoughout the USSr when it introduced the planned economy (the only exception to this rule was after World War II, but then it only lasted for 10 years, and can be partially explained by the fact that the people were united to rebuild the country)... As Stanisław Kania, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, said; the Soviet planned economy had "failed the test" and need to be replaced... Its a reason why communist reformers throughout the Soviet bloc tried to amend (and even replace the planned economy), since the system was extremely inefficient. Why in gods name would communist leaders forsake their own system if it worked? It doesn't make, its a logical loophole.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jun 2014, 03:54
First off, was there an economic slowdown in the 1970s and 1980s absolutely. But (getting back to the main point of this thread which is Revisionism) contrary to what we are traditionally told there was no sign of crisis in the Soviet Union in 1985. There was no unemployment, no inflation, no demonstrations, no starvation and no negative growth.

There certainly was a slowdown of economic growth but this wasn't an "era of stagnation". Stagnation implies there was little to no growth which wasn't true in the USSR in 1985. This can largely be attributed to the Brezhnev administration, whose leadership was passive and an unwillingness to confront problems. Kosygin's Market Reforms hurt the economy if anything and the economy suffered as a result of this.

Also, nobody will deny that there was a growing amount of curruption involved with the "second economy", the black market. No doubt some people became very rich during Brezhnev's time. Further ever since Khrushchev began the revisionist trend the economy did slow from 10% annual growth under Stalin to 6%, 5% and 3% annual GNP growth. This is a significant point to learn from and to improve upon in the future. However even these levels of economic growth were still respectable by the standards of other industrialized nations in Europe and America. An annual growth rate of 3% is a concern that needs to be delt with and were Reforms were needed. But it's no reason to dismantle your country and it's government. In 1985 the standard of living was the highest it had ever been. In terms of nationalities, there were no observable conflicts or contradictions between the peoples of the Soviet Union. There were difficulties and problems, but nothing coming close to a crisis.

What created the crisis in the Soviet Union was Gorbachev's revisionist-social democratic policy of dismantling Socialism and Marxism-Leninism. When Gorbachev promised reform and eliminating curruption many people supported him. However as the years went by people were begining to realize he was transforming the Soviet Economy into a Market-Capitalist economy and allowing overtly anti-communist Parties and individuals into the government. There is no doubt in my mind that Gorbachev and his faction in the CPSU were social democrats.

By 1989 20% of the "Congress of People's Deputies" were anti-communist independants or part of anti-communist parties. That doesn't even include all the revisionists and social democrats in the Communist Party. The country was being betrayed from within it's own government. Boris Yeltson became the President of the Russian SFSR and eventually gained more power than even Gorbachev had.

Gorbachev founded the Social Democratic Party of Russia for crying out loud. Anybody who says he was a Marxist-Leninist, a Communist or Socialist is completely and utterly wrong. He's on record for thinking that the leaders of the October Revolution were wrong about human-nature. It was Gorbachev's market reforms that failed, by 1990 the annual growth rate of the Soviet Economy was -12%. That's right. Negative twelve percent. By 1991 it was negative thirteen percent. Inflation was out of control, the country was saturated in debt and every single Socialist country had collasped because overt Anti-communists had also made their way into these governments.

How do we prevent Revisionism? I'm humble enough to say I don't have the answer to this problem. Within the CPSU there was obviously a right and left wing. Marxist-Leninists (left) and Revisionists (right). The fact that the Soviet Union, China and other Socialist states rose to the hights they did and nearly succeeded in world revolution (with a third of the world united under Socialism in 1979) but were still influtrated by Revisionism is an important historical lesson to look back on and realize.

Oh one other thing. You compared how the Chinese GDP per capita is larger than that of the USSR in 1989. However what you failed to mention is that 71.6% of China lives on less than $5 per day because of the massive wealth inequality. This wasn't present in the USSR. There was a degree of income inequality but it had been falling for many decades and was nowhere near China's level of income inequality.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 15
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jun 2014, 03:12
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 25 Jun 2014, 04:52
I was at a quite wonderful "Scottish Independence" debate in a vegan pub in Glasgow's city centre tonight. 2 Yes Campaigners (RIC aka "trot" and a Green Party MSP) and a solid advocate for No (Marc the Chair of the Communist Party in Scotland).

It was quite humorous in that there were a number of Communists/ Young Communist League (YCL) scattered amongst the audience, although most were just silent in giving Marc moral support.

After the debate we all went and mixed for a pint, which was great. Eddie McGuire, the brilliant flautist & legendary Composer and long term Communist was perhaps the most incisive contributor in the space for questions - in which he challenged the "Radical Independence Campaign" (RIC) who had said that the British working class was a spent force which should be consigned to history, in favour of more modern social forces (anyone who knows the degradation of the old CPGB will recognise this!!!) Eddie called the RIC speaker to further explain himself in class terms, and the inexperienced RIC speaker started back tracking furiously! Only the united power of the organised Working Class across Britain can challenge the strangle hold that British Capital has over the whole of workers across Britain!

The Communist Party in Scotland and Britain http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/ and their Independence analysis http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/scottish-referendum-2014/blog is second to none!

Watch genuine Communist Party videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PartyCommunist/ !!
"When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist." Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian Archbishop

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 01 Jul 2014, 19:16
Are you one big advertisement for CP Britain, or are you actual going to talk about revisionism?
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 01 Jul 2014, 22:10
I think there is a very on-topic moral to kalinin's story.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 15
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jun 2014, 03:12
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 02 Jul 2014, 04:08
Yeah, sorry, I guess that might have just sounded like an advert!

Basically, i was trying to quote a long standing comrade (from a different CP to mine, although he bought me a pint lol) but who is yet just a really genuine sound comrade who, as a complete "anti-revisionist", called for the building up of the maximum unity of the British working class through trade unions being as active as possible and, via the likes of Trade Union Councils, trying to unite Trade Union struggles with local communities and their struggles!

This is the story & legacy of the great UCS campaign in Glasgow which revolutionaised whole communities and rocked the UK government!

One of the Chief Shop stewards Jimmy Reid, Communist Party member, was elected as Rector of Glasgow University. While still a Communist he gave a speech which was considered one of the greatest in the English language - the "Rat Race" speech http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_167194_en.pdf

Sadly, he betrayed his Communist working class roots (everything he ever achieved was as a Communist) & ingratiated himself to the establishment - rejecting Communism and attacking the Soviet Union and the Great Miner's Strike.

Anyway, none of us know where we will end up! But the basic lesson is that those who remain true to their beliefs get no where lol
"When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist." Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian Archbishop

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 02 Jul 2014, 04:18
I see. A personal account about the inner workings of a communist party is something I haven't seen much of, thanks.
Yeah, sorry if I came off as a douche.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.