Was The USSR Communism?

[WITHTEETH]

I dont think it was because it was suppose to be voluntary. they were forced. it seems like it was a jail. they didn't get their peice ofthe pie they earned, it was given to the elites that ruled from a "classless society", meaning it wasn't classless. it didn't start with the working class taking over politacally, it started with the elites taking over the workers. and i don't see how that can work, no matter how sincere they are. it seems as though if you did practice communism you would be put to jail because the people didn't even have say in the factories they worked. i know communism is a kind of utopia. but it seems communism has to be paired with democracy, because it take everyone to make it work. just my thouhgs. im interested in peoples opinions, if any. also were their ANY goodsides to the bolshevik revolution? besides them losing finland and it gaining its independance.

 

Don't be rude please.

[The Dark Something or other]

Probably not, no. But then communism is a pretty bad idea anyway.

[Rosbjerg]

well any country, regarding of religious belief or any idealistic conviction, has to adhere to the economics rules that guide the rest of the world .. wether they like it or not. If Russia had been a 100% pure communist society it would have collapsed within it's first year!

 

the only way communism would work is if everyone acceptet it .. no-one tries to take power and all that .. and how likely is that??

[WITHTEETH]

Does anybody think that the USSR could be considered Capitalist because it had an elite class that got all the extra money just like in a capitalist society. and that it really had no sign of socialism. it was a dictatorship. also it seemed to be ANTI western capitalist maybe because there is no room for 2 different capitalist systems, thats why we have free trade, but USSR was a closed system choking Western capitalist growth and since its a virus it has to grow to survive. so questions reamans, capitalism or not?

[Rosbjerg]

you are looking at it in a very black n' white way ..

 

Russia wasn't true communism .. it was, as you say, a dictatorship! a dictator ship that simply supressed everyone because they chose to believe they were all equals ..

 

we haven't seen true communism yet .. and we probably never will! so it's unfair, towards the ideal, to put a = between Russia's system and the ideals of socialism

[WITHTEETH]

you are looking at it in a very black n' white way ..

 

Russia wasn't true communism .. it was, as you say, a dictatorship! a dictator ship that simply supressed everyone because they chose to believe they were all equals ..

 

we haven't seen true communism yet .. and we probably never will! so it's unfair, towards the ideal, to put a = between Russia's system and the ideals of socialism

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont quite undersatnd. are you saying that i was making a paralel between socialism and Russias communism because i do not think that there is, i was asking if it was capitalist. can you claify if i was still off what you were stating.

[Rosbjerg]

lol .. maybe I shouldn't post while under the influence of good danish beer! ..

 

I didn't read the headline .. I thought you were askin' if communism, in general was the same as capitalism.. silly me!

[WITHTEETH]

ok gotcha do you think that given what i've said that it could be capitalist?

[Darth Flatus]

No, because that is not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and free trade.

Capitalism isnt about elite classes and poor classes although those situations may occur possibly due to crappy govt intervention. In any case in a capitalist democracy any person has the capacity to improve their lot in life.

[WITHTEETH]

No, because that is not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and free trade.

Capitalism isnt about elite classes and poor classes although those situations may occur possibly due to crappy govt intervention. In any case in a capitalist democracy any person has the capacity to improve their lot in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Capitalism and democracy dont have to go together though, remember. im thinking this was a dictotor capitalist.

[Rosbjerg]

as I said in my first post .. Russia had to oblige to the general rules of capitalism to run their country .. so in a sense they were a capitalistic nation!

 

but we have a broader definition of it today .. because in a sense all nations have some parallels, and need too, with a true capitalistic system!

 

Denmark for instance is labeled as a Social Democracy .. since we are more towards the leftwing than right .. but we still apply the same governing dynamics to our economy as any other nation, we just focus on other things!

 

but old Russia was simply a dictatorship .. but again, as I said, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else to survive, they just focus on different things! and thus get a different label ..

 

am I making any sense .. or should I wait until tomorrow when I sober up?

[Darth Flatus]

Ok, but the point is that capitalsim means free market economy where everything is privately owned i.e. anyone can set up a business. In the USSR everything was state owned - owned and run by the govt. Hence USSR was not capitalist

[WITHTEETH]

CAPITALISM:

free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit

Microsoft

[WITHTEETH]

Good point about the free trade. im going to try to work around it and say that ussr could trade with itself and everything else behind its iron curtain, and the Western Democracy could only free trade with the coulntries they were with too.

[Darth Flatus]

Well if the Elites (by which i take you to mean the USSR govt) then it is not capitalism because it is not privately owned. The govt gets the money. WHereas in a capitalist economy th eowners and shareholders get the money which can be and most of the time are everyday people

 

 

---------------------

EDIT: I have a feeling i am being punk'd

[WITHTEETH]

Could it beconsisdered an alien capitlism. a new kind, becasue its not socialist thats for sure! whats do you think it resembles closest?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think some Marxists called the USSR a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' rather than proper communism, as communism suggests that the state will wither away. But the Soviet leaders created their own definition to suit their interests.

 

Some elements of a capitalist economy remained, such as money and some private property. I think they abandoned attempts at complete collective ownership after collectivising the farms in the 30s led to a famine. But the state was all-powerful, so it was a socialist dictatorship. You can argue about whether that's the same as communism, though.

 

No, because that is not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and free trade.

Capitalism isnt about elite classes and poor classes although those situations may occur possibly due to crappy govt intervention. In any case in a capitalist democracy any person has the capacity to improve their lot in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, capitalism widens existing differences between rich and poor, unless there's government intervention. Marx had an equation which I can't remember offhand, but the gist is that in a capitalist economy, the more you invest, the more you get back, so those with more to start off with will get back more and more, and the poor, with little to invest, stay poor. The only way to moderate this is through government intervention and welfare.

 

Capitalism and democracy dont have to go together though, remember. im thinking this was a dictotor capitalist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true, but some people say there's a tendency for them to go together, as both emphasise personal rights and freedoms. Capitalism stress the property rights aspect of that, and democracy the human rights aspect. Nobody will invest if they're afraid the state/dictator will appropriate the money they get back.

[213374U]

Star Trek is a good example of a truly communist society. A society like that is as likely to happen in the real world as photon torpedoes. That is, very unlikely for all of you Star Trek analphabets out there.

 

In the USSR something that begun as the people's revolution turned into a totalitarian regime even worse than the one they had rebelled against. Was it communism? Well, it depends on who you ask. Probably if you asked a low rank soldier or a peasant they would tell you to shove it... even though they had to suck down the hardest part of "communism" (rationing charts, collective restrooms, etc).

While if you asked someone in the higher echelons of the military or the Party, they would gladly give you a speech about the wonders of communism and then drive home in their Rolls. It sure as hell worked for them.

 

The USSR was the perfect example of why utopian societies can't exist. Russia had everything to make it work: plenty of natural resources, a large population, and most importantly, the willingness of the majority. It only took the greed and powerthirst of a handful to bring it all down. But let's not forget that it wasn't only these people that brought down the USSR. The western world had a hand in the downfall of the soviet block, and it was our late Pope's personal obsession to bring it down.

 

Bottom line is, the USSR was as communist as it can be in the real world. That's what happens when you try and put a philosopher's ideas to the test. "

[WITHTEETH]

Some elements of a capitalist economy remained, such as money and some private property.  I think they abandoned attempts at complete collective ownership after collectivising the farms in the 30s led to a famine.  But the state was all-powerful, so it was a socialist dictatorship. You can argue about whether that's the same as communism, though.

[

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't see how it was more socialist then capitalist. the people could not use anything for their own purpose, they did not get their own share. it was like a jail. the government used them to make a profit. am i right?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The USSR where never anywhere close to achieving Communism according to the Marxist doctrine. There were never any plans to abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat(which was really the dictatorship of the leadres of the communist party) for the creation of the independant free communes.

 

 

 

There have been several successful implementations of Marxist principles in the world(Guatemala for instance) that were mercilessly snuffed out by western countries in order to protect their economic interests.

 

 

It seems ironic thah the countries who had the least humane and totalitarian goverment survived the longest; Soviet, Cuba, Rumania and others.

[Darth Flatus]

China is supposed to be communist but its recent rapid growth is down to emerging free markets.

 

Even Cuba is beginning to have privately owned businesses.

 

Dunno what is happening in N. Korea but they are communist too.

[WITHTEETH]

China is supposed to be communist but its recent rapid growth is down to emerging free markets.

 

Even Cuba is beginning to have privately owned businesses.

 

Dunno what is happening in N. Korea but they are communist too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The USSR commuisn that spread was a wrestched thing, people think "communism, what a great idea. lets grab our guns and start it!" and tahts not right for the start! N. Korieans are into the black market so they can get tvs and VCRs and they think its not right. their gov. is supressing them alot like USSR was

[SteveThaiBinh]

I can't see how it was more socialist then capitalist. the people could not use anything for their own purpose, they did not get their own share. it was like a jail. the government used them to make a profit. am i right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say it was more socialist than capitalist because the state was the defining aspect of peoples' lives. Elements which resembled capitalism were allowed because they were necessary for the country to function, that's all.

 

Strongly capitalist countries have some programmes which resemble socialism, such as welfare payments for low-income families. It doesn't change the fact that these are extras grafted onto a basically capitalist system.

 

It is true that in Soviet-style socialism, the individual existed to serve the state - so yes, the government uses its people for its own purposes.

[Darth Flatus]

To answer the title of this thread i would say no, because of reasons outlined by other posters.

 

However it cannot be considered as capitalist just because the govt was corrupt and didnt redistribute wealth accordingly.

[WITHTEETH]

so