The point is that just because you don't repress dissent violently doesn't mean that you relinquish authority on the political arena. Your authority should be so solid that dissent only fortifies it.
banistansig1
More or less agree, TRL. This authority should be a moral one based on trust between people and the party.
Quote: Indeed, so why should the state legislate around dissent? Once we acknowledge that the state in and of itself is not the expression of the will of the people? Quote: An incomparably smaller scale. We are not talking about remodelling society, but the suppression of a fragmentation of bourgeois reaction. Quote: Undoubtedly, but this is combined with the influence of many of my communist friends, who argue that shutting down fascists should be the job of ordinary people, rather than the state apparatus, and these guys are anything but Maoist. Sholokhov wrote: Basically as a communist and revolutionary I think Lenin was better than Stalin, but I feel that Stalin did a better job leading the Soviet Union. Mainly because he was leading it for a lot longer. Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper Quote: I agree with Fellow Comrade, and this I feel is the defining point in the argument. The idea of random citizens groups coming out to put down protests assumes that people don't have other interests besides 'defending the revolution'. Ordinary people in socialist countries worked, looked for goods, liked to relax and enjoy themselves just like people everywhere, whereas intelligence services and police, in those countries which had the correct ideological line and genuine revolutionary spirit, tended to be the most committed, efficient, and uncorruptable group in the state apparatus, and probably in the country (this was especially true in the case of the Soviet Union). Being that historical and future states fought/will be fighting a battle against capitalists, nationalists and other incredibly powerful forces capable of manipulating the public will, optimistic talk of workers who have magically woken up to how much better life under socialism is (which btw it won't be in the first post-revolutionary years) is a bit of a stretch to me. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Quote: The only claim I am making is that if a fascist protest is going on, it would be better if local citizens protested against it, rather than the security services simply rounding up everybody involved. Quote: Considering the workers will most likely have fought a civil war to create their new order, I would imagine a load of fascists on the street would be offensive and worth a counter demonstration. Furthermore, could you explain why the masses were so enthusiastic in the Cultural Revolution? Despite the poor economy etc of the time? And lets be clear about the Cultural Revolution, it was clearly not unleashed by one section of leadership against the other, this WAS a mass upsurge in political consciousness, no matter if you oppose or support it. To state my position, I am on the fence about the GPCR. On the one hand it was a unique attempt to fight bureaucratisation, on the other it clearly got out of hand, nevertheless it was an interesting way to challenge stagnation. Also, it is better in my opinion to allow and support the masses as a conscious actor themselves rather than always relying on the state to deal with any small expression of dissent.
Very few people outside the Red Guards had an active role in the Cultural Revolution.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
NEP did make sense, the 5 year plans killed the USSR. You cant plan an economy for 5 years in the future, and force people who think in old ways to work in a group. NEP kept the people productive, and brought back production levels to Pre-WWI levels in a very short time.
In NEP, a family could open a small store or company, with a limit on size and the Gov would run anything slightly bigger. By controlling large ones, prevented huge corporate conglomerates, the bane of the society, to be nonexistant, and would allow an easier slide into Communism. Over time the small enteprises would fade. State Socailism would had started the right way, without a forced jump. The Government would not have to worry about potato production for example. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
-Vladamir Lenin Quote: Okay. Compare living standards in the mid-20s to living standards in the mid-60s. Are you really sure you know what you're talking about?
Robotnik you do realize that the 5-year plans were a tremendous success right?
banistansig1
They were... until Brezhnev's time. I really don't see why such a vast country as the USSR would have to import grain.
They turned the USSR from an agricultural country to a world superpower in less than 30 years.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper Quote: No need for the hatin' on Brezhnev, comrade. His leadership during the 1970s gave the USSR at its most peaceful and prosperous period in the 20th century. If he resigned in 1977, after the signing of the new constitution and the celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the Revolution he probably would have gone down as one of the greatest leaders in Russian history. As for the importation of grain: Remember, it was mostly low quality feed grain for animals. The imports showed not that the Soviets were getting desperate, but that consumers were beginning to eat more meat than ever before - a sign of growing prosperity. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
What about the Brezhnev Stagnation then? And isn't it true that Brezhnev failed to keep the planning system updated so that it eventually collapsed?
The Brezhnev Stagnation was real, and applied not only to economic planning, but to politics and social life as well (i.e. stability at the expense of progress). I'm just urging caution against oversimplifying the whole period of Brezhnev's leadership based on whatever flaws existed and were exacerbated during the last few years of his leadership. Remember that while there were some people in the Brezhnev generation of leaders that were political apparatchiks and had no position being where they were -like Chernenko and Tikhonov, there were many others, including Aliev, Andropov, Gromyko, and Ustinov (off the top of my head) who were competent, excellent administrators and devoted communists. Brezhnev chose these men, and did preside over what many Russians judge to be the best period in 20th century Russian history.
Some achievements of the Brezhnev era: * The partial rehabilitation of Stalin, including recognition of his achievements in industrializing the country and his key role as leader during the Second World War, and the appearance of neutral/positive portrayals in films and television programs * A growing harmonization of relations between the Soviet state and non-state groups, like religious organizations * The continuing expansion in the Soviet space program, which included the first space stations in the form of the Salyut program, and the famous and internationally popular Intercosmos program. * The 1977 Soviet Constitution, which clarified roles, rights, and responsibilities, and which was adapted to the new conditions facing the country * The 1977 revised anthem, which put an end to the strange situation of an anthem without lyrics * The 1980 Moscow Olympics, which despite the politically motivated boycott of many countries were successful and grandiose * The aiding of Vietnam in its war against US imperialism, and of Ghana, Congo, Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia in Africa. While the Soviets suffered setbacks in Egypt and Iraq, relations were solidified with Syria, South Yemen, Libya, and India. * The quick squashing of the Prague Spring with a minimum of loss of life * A successful detente with the Nixon and Ford administrations, and growing positive relations with West Germany, Italy and France. * A recognition of Soviet parity in nuclear and conventional armaments, which became formalized during the SALT talks * The 1975 Helsinki Final Treaty, which solidified post-war borders and finally gave formal recognition as to the legitimacy of Eastern European socialist states "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2009, 00:58 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Lenin easily. I think Andropov had potential but died too early. Don't care much for any of the others. Brezhnev is my least favorite, on account of allowing corruption to fester in the state's institutions to the extent that it did on his watch.
You prefer the right-wing communists? Why?
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2009, 00:58 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!) Fitzy wrote: The answer to that is kind of hard to give without being verbose. But basically, it has to do with my perspective of history and what the role of the state should be in forcing it along. From my point of view, most of the self-inflicted injuries of 20th century socialism could have been prevented if major policies had first been introduced on a limited scale and experimented with, and expanded slowly where their successes justified it. The Great Leap Forward is the most obvious example that comes to mind here of a halfbaked leftwing initiative; I'm to trying to write the GLF off as a total failure here, but its negative consequences were preventable. I think evolutionary changes need time to take root in society and that new modes of production have to evolve in a society organically. That said, I think a vanguard is an indispensable part of the process, but that the vanguard and masses have to be engaged in a dialogue and that Socialism will evolve out of that exchange. So in a nutshell, I prefer the incrementalism of the right-wing Communists, but I only endorse incrementalism in a relative sense (relative to others on the far left.) Obviously I wouldn't into M-L if I didn't appreciate revolution as a sudden, dramatic transformation in a society and think it was something to be desired.
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
I think Stalin was most definetly the most effective leader in the Soviet Union, he knew what to do.
![]() Quote: Mabool,using these analogies i can say:compare the living standards in Germany in 1933 and '39.Or compare living standards in USA in '30 and '53. Improvement of the living standards wasn't a priority of GOSPLAN,as USSR still had to bolster it's "A group" industry. Quote: Just the opposite! Clumsy collectivization,often undiscriminating and counterproductive "purges",even of the best cadre,"beheading" of the Red army,his pact with Hitler and subsequent early losses of the Red army in GPW...all of them(partially) his faults.
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo Loz wrote: The Failure of collectivization in the USSR was the result not of leadership, but of ecological conditions and inability to retain a surplus. Collectivization was a huge step forward for socialism, a step utilized by other countries later on Quote:Alright, before lenin's death, he was planning on enabling purges of the old bolsheviks because of growing detachment and corruption within the party, and the Soviet Union seemed to do fine during the war and afterwards. You know becoming a superpower and all even without these "valuable" talking heads. Quote:The Non-aggression pact with Hitler was not an alliance, Stalin's policy was, "we don't want to be a part of this war, and we want to time to be able to prepare ourselves for invasion." You would sign a non-aggression pact in order to protect your country from invasion long enough to bolster production and industry(which Stalin did) to defend your country. Stalin knew that Hitler would attack, but the Non-aggression Pact bought time. I would like to see your connection to Red Army deaths as a result of Stalin's leadership, I didn't know that one man could dictate the deaths of a war. ![]()
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||||