Was The USSR Communism?

[213374U]

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.

I think that's it. Socialist policies are defined by a strong intervention and overseeing of the economy by the state, in a protectionist sense mostly. In this sense, since the USSR was a planified economy, it was socialist. Combine that and a totalitarian regime with an emphasis on propaganda, and you have real world "communism".

[WITHTEETH]

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.

I think that's it. Socialist policies are defined by a strong intervention and overseeing of the economy by the state, in a protectionist sense mostly. In this sense, since the USSR was a planified economy, it was socialist. Combine that and a totalitarian regime with an emphasis on propaganda, and you have real world "communism".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think socialism goes hand in hand with democracy though. not dictotor ship.

[WITHTEETH]

I see that Since the Elites run everything with a IRON FIST giving BARELY anything back but only to survive w/(NOT HARDLY EVEN) that that is nearly slavery and cannot be conssidered socialism. the elites are getting the money to have extravagent apartments and exotic foods. they would trade w/ the rest of their "communist countries" just how the wetern democracies would trade with their own. and still not clear how it can be more socialism, am i being stubborn?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think socialism goes hand in hand with democracy though. not dictotor ship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Historically, and if you look at the world today, democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism.

 

But there is an internal contradiction in this: full democracy requires equality, or at least equality of opportunity, with everyone having equal access to information and rights. But capitalism tends to increase inequality. Social democracy is an attempt to bridge the gap, and it works OK in some European countries, notably Sweden (or at least I think that's still true).

 

Democracy's call for social justice is more in tune with socialism, but its emphasis on personal rights and freedoms is more in tune with capitalism.

[WITHTEETH]

I think that socialism can be the bridge to communism in the Marx and Engalls theory but i think that it is off when it comes to the IronFist Machine of the USSR's version when it started after the bolshevik revoultion. i aee it as capitalism still.

[Jellybelly]

The principles and ideology of free trade is liberalism, not capitalism, although the two are tightly connected.

 

The USSR was in no way real communism. Power hungry leaders like Stalin perverted what originally was a novel, yet perhaps flawed, theory. However, no one can say that the ideals of equality and sharing is detestable. However, there will always be need for an elite of sorts, be it intellectual or economic.

 

Social democracy is a form of government there can be no doubt is fully functionable. The Scandinavian countries have been governed this way in sixty years. Denmark has taken a turn to the right lately, which I find disturbing, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

 

Someone said Capitalism/Liberalism might cause inequality and class conflict because of bad government intervention. That's the interesting points, because these ideologies don't want any government intervention at all. Voila, you have a circular argument on your hands.

 

When ill people desperately tell their fellow citizens not to call the ambulance, for gods sake, call a taxi instead, something is wrong. An ambulance ride would bankrupt them. Maybe it's time to forget that socialism is the big bad wolf, and actually recognise its advantages. Free health care, free education (including colleges and universities) isn't so bad.

[WITHTEETH]

I agree. i like the ambulance analogy, and i do think that they unfortunly bad mouth socialism.

[213374U]

However, there will always be need for an elite of sorts, be it intellectual or economic.

This is interesting. From the moment that nature itself makes us all different, any theory, philosophical or otherwise, that is based on the concept of universal equality is bound to fail when applied on a real world situation. We have had plenty of examples through History that illustrate one point: trying to rearrange reality into what we, in our human conceptions, think it should be is a lost battle and the process usually yields unpleasant results. The fallacies known as "innate rights" and "justice" are proof of that. Sure, it's better than living in a cave, but it's in no way what it was conceptually supposed to be. The same can be applied to communism.

 

Carry on with your on-topic discussion.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I would like the US become more socialistic in nature. Free healthcare, education (up to an Associate's Degree), and basic utilities (heat, electricity, and water) for all. I would gladly pay higher taxes for that.

[WITHTEETH]

However, there will always be need for an elite of sorts, be it intellectual or economic.

This is interesting. From the moment that nature itself makes us all different, any theory, philosophical or otherwise, that is based on the concept of universal equality is bound to fail when applied on a real world situation. We have had plenty of examples through History that illustrate one point: trying to rearrange reality into what we, in our human conceptions, think it should be is a lost battle and the process usually yields unpleasant results. The fallacies known as "innate rights" and "justice" are proof of that. Sure, it's better than living in a cave, but it's in no way what it was conceptually supposed to be. The same can be applied to communism.

 

Carry on with your on-topic discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The more knowledge you have the more valueble you are to a society in making decions. and because everybody has rights in a democracy and that there is room for lack of education, that can be the downfall. that the intellectuals only have so much of a say is the problem. here in the US the intellectual elites are looked upon as trying to tell the working class how to live, but in a sense they are right, they want them to have an easier life with social programs.

 

Anyway, i can't see any socialism in USSR but a good half of it is capitalism. what would that make the USSR then?

[Diamond]

A long post.

 

As a person who lived in Russia and studied history of Russia in depth, I'd like to add some comments.

 

I will not communicate all the history since 1917 in the daily forum time I have, and my thoughts now are quite in chaotic movements collecting all the knowledge I have on the topic, but I will try to extract some points.

 

COMMUNISM

Russia and USSR had never EVER been communistic. In 60s there were a notion of "developed socialism" (which, in fact was stagnation) stated by the official propaganda as "one of the steps towards the communism".

 

CAPITALLISM

In USSR everything was owned by the government and it "planned" all the production, that is "how many units of that and this we NEED to produce this year". USSR had never EVER EVER been capitallistic, before the last years of its exsistence and a sudden change led to (thanks to the first and the last president of USSR M. Gorbachev) disastrous effects on economy due to inconsistencies in economic and political systems and a lack of proper legislation.

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

The most numerous social classes supported the revolution, they were not forced as the original poster claims. People were tired of war and old regime reached the peak of its crisis (*second* revolution in one year!) Also ideological propaganda also had a VERY significant role in forming the main supporting force of the revolution.

They chose. But right after 1917 it wasn't ONLY the the new bolhevik leadership of the country who were to blame for disasters that had taken many lives, but rather them *AND* a number of events, such as WW1, then Civil war with the old government supported by foreign countries and the crisis and/or destruction of old political, economical and social structures.

* Here, I mentioned only revolution, NOT the Stalin epoch and NOT the forming of the government apparatus, which led to a crisis in political system.

 

IRON FIST

There were several historical periods (bolheviks, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev), some were "iron fisted", some are not so. And a note, Stalin did not repressed everyone, as someone mentioned, but those, who he paranoically believed to be potentially dangerous for him and his position. Mainly it was top military officers, 4 of 5 marchals ( ! ), writers, anyone who were reported to joke or say something about him or the regime, etc. His epoch is worth a separate thread, so I'll stop here.

 

DEMOCRACY/DICTATORSHIP AND CAPITALLISM/SOCIALISM

IMO, they are pretty much compatible. Now, for instance, we have capitalistic dictatorship .

 

ELITE

History shows that if the old elite is overthrown, there will be ALWAYS a new one.

 

COMMUNISM AND ITS COEXISTENCE WITH THE WORLD

North Korea IS currently considered to be communistic.

 

Phew. That's it.

I'm tired of typing and out of thoughts for this moment.

[mkreku]

Wow. One of the first truelly informative and educated posts I've read on this forum (I've studied some of the same historic events myself). Great job!

[The Dark Something or other]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Pretty much sums it all up. :shades:

 

 

However, no one can say that the ideals of equality and sharing is detestable.

 

Capitalism does not exclude charitableness. In fact, quite arguably, it encourages it.

[Verenti]

Hardly Sir.

 

By its nature, the promotion of Capitalists, Capitalistism is a system of greed and any system of greed does not support charitable notions. You might reference to Tax cuts for Charitable donations but that is not a Capitialist notion: That is a Socialist system trying to get money for the impoverished people from Capitalists.

 

Capitalists are, by definition, the wealthy elite that own the industry. The notion that anyone can become part of that corperate oligarchy is a popular myth. You can only be raised into the inner circle if you are already from wealthy stock: How is anyone going to become a factory owner when the corperations pay as little as they can get away with: Minimal Wage.

 

How can a system that incourages paying minimal wage, the lowest possible wage, also be a strong propellent of Charities? How can a system based ENTIRELY on greed help the little guy?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Capitalism does not exclude charitableness. In fact, quite arguably, it encourages it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and no. The idea of capitalism is that the best way to help society is to be personally selfish - by working for your own interests, you create wealth and employment which incidentally benefits others as well. It was called 'trickledown' by Thatcher and Reagan, but it's not a new idea.

 

The kind of charity we see in rich countries is not inspired by neo-liberal capitalism, but another source such as religion, tradition or a sense of social justice. Socialists would say that this just another way for the elites to shore up their position - you can't be 'rich' unless there are poor people to look down on as you 'give generously'.

[Diamond]

Wow. One of the first truelly informative and educated posts I've read on this forum (I've studied some of the same historic events myself). Great job!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:"> :D

[WITHTEETH]

Ok, everybody has danced around my question for about 30 posts now. we've said it wasn't communism, its not socialism either, and its not capitalist( Parts were though <_< ). so what ISM is was the USSR when lenin and stalin controlled it? straightforward. i know it could be a mixeture of two. anybody know? i challenge you! .... I dont know the answer

[Lucius]

This post is mostly directed at those who spoke about Scandinavia or have interest therein.

 

Denmark is turning to the right of the political center these years, and for the better, I think. But in no way does pursuing liberal right wing politics make us forget the good and solid Social Democractic foundation upon which our good welfare state was created, it just means that the Social Democracts in the country aren't doing their job very well, so we turn to the right wingers to do what needs to be done, the Prime Minister himself said during the election that he appriciates what Social democracy have done for the country, but that he feels they're stuck in the past. I agree.

 

As for all the red flag weavering, I'm pretty sick of it, I prefer the flag of the nation and not some blood red political banner.

[WITHTEETH]

What are the conservatives doing what the oliberals would not?

[taks]

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??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it would take more than that... it needs an ideal situation, where consumers only demand what they need and all consumers would somehow magically need exactly the same things. the only way communism can succeed is if the law of supply and demand (present in any economic system) were to go away.

 

taks

[taks]

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.

that has nothing to do with the mechanics of a socio-economic system. in capitalism, you have a choice. in socialism, you do not. period.

 

and that it really had no sign of socialism. it was a dictatorship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the form of government is not a requirement in socialism, though some tyranny is helpful. as such, just about any socio-economic system can exist with just about any government. don't confuse the two.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

wasn't confusing the two just stating it was a fact.

[Roger the Sith]

To answer WITHTEETH's question: I believe that you can coax most people into doing anything. In Russia, they also convinced them that this "anything" is the right thing.

 

So what the masses did and what they thought they were doing were entirely different.

[WITHTEETH]

ok im just gonna guess and say the USSR at its beginnings was a totalitariansm, is that wrong to say?

But i have a hard time thinking Lenin can be described as that. i think he was a dictator but i can't describe the typeof dictatorrship he ran (ie: socialism, capitalism) i know its neither though.

[taks]

I would like the US become more socialistic in nature.  Free healthcare, education (up to an Associate's Degree), and basic utilities (heat, electricity, and water) for all.  I would gladly pay higher taxes for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'd also like to see pigs fly, but there's no benefit to it, either.

 

if history has proven anything, it is that socialist systems bankrupt themselves eventually. always. once you take the market out of any system, it begins to fail. every social system in the US is either failing, or has failed. let's look at the list...

 

education: private schools spend half as much as public schools per student, yet manage to provide equal or better education. gov't mandated youth camps just plain don't work.

 

health-care: the more gov't controls we put in place, the higher costs go. as it stands, the US is supporting many of the social democracies in the world with regards to healthcare. why do you think drugs are so much cheaper abroad? (hint: somebody has to pay research costs, and it isn't coming out of euro-pockets).

 

medicare/medicaid: can you say "shambles?"

 

social security: uh, duh.

 

air travel: most of you don't remember, but the gov't used to regulate it heavily. back then, flights were ridiculously expensive. certainly, the industry is in a mess now, but that's mostly because the giants were all used to the gov't dole, and now the weaker companies are falling like mad (the upstarts, frontier, SW, etc. are doing well, btw).

 

telephone service: same as the airlines. it used to cost a couple bucks a minute to call across town.

 

infrastructure in general: the above two examples actually extend to nearly all utilities. water is a mess here (CO) due to a drought. market forces would normally drive prices up in order to curb demand. however, lil' ol' socialist policies that are in place keep the price down, and demand high. as a result, we have restrictions and my grass dies twice a year. summer and winter. the energy mess in CA is indicative of what happens when the gov't messes with electricity.

 

socialism, even the so-called social democracy, looks good on paper. it doesn't work in practice simply because there is no way for a socialist economy to adjust for varying demand. even them there scandinavian countries will fail if they keep the government dole high. unemployment in europe puts the US situation to shame. double digits are the norm in most every socialist country. it's a failure, and those that don't recognize that will fail right along with it...

 

taks