You're viewing a single thread.
So, let me clarify, you could've wished for a proper communism without state and such bullshit, but wished for an autocracy with ambitions of world domination to be undissolved? Great job here, mate!
Idk, I think it would be a net positive for the world. As the dissolution brought a few bad things with it, like child prostitution, alcoholism on an international scale, drug abuse, corruption on a never seen before scale, and just in general things became a tiny bit worse for an average person. If anything, we do have an autocracy with ambitions of world domination brewing (ie Russia) as a direct result of the illegal dissolution. In all honesty, would be better to wish that the liberal economics reforms were never adopted, that ideally would keep things at bay.
Fair enough; although, I meant more of a communism on a world scale, with rewiring the brains of those selfish bastards that actively oppose it for their benefit, and all that jazz. So, pretty much the thing a genie's help (or something equally unbelievable) is necessary atm.
Hey they have three more wishes, give them a second
The Soviet Union was working towards Communism, if it wasn't dissolved then Humanity as a whole would be a lot farther along in the transition to Communism globally. The Soviet Union was not an "autocracy," nor did it have "ambitions of world domination." Such claims come from Red Scare nonsense.
I recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds.
Sure it wasn't. And, say, attempts to limit citizens' freedoms of [speeh, movement, religion (although I personally think it's cancer)] or even music they listen to are just a coincidence. Look, I'm not saying USSR was all bad, but, frankly speaking, trying to depict it as some kind of heaven on earth is just as flawed as the red scare you've mentioned.
Don't know what you're trying to say with "it wasn't," it was absolutely a Socialist state working towards Communism. I never said it was heaven on Earth either, in fact I linked a critique of the USSR from a Marxist perspective that doesn't dogmatically reject or uphold it. The USSR was real Socialism, that doesn't mean it was heaven or hell.
I've asked a couple of history nerds, and I stand corrected: my impression that totalitarianism was a form of autocracy was wrong (rather both are a form of dictatorship). They've mentioned that under Stalin it could've been considered one, tho, but given he was the 2nd gensec, it's not exactly relevant to undissolving.
I don't really know what you're trying to get at with totalitarianism or autocracy, neither is a particularly useful descriptor for the USSR. The perhaps mundane fact is that the USSR was neither heaven nor hell, it was merely real, and history's first Socialist state. Trying to analyze it from a moralistic point of view with baked-in desires for it to either have been a success or a failure just obscure the historical reality of it.
Youre totally right. west germany built a wall to keep people from running away to the communism utopia next door. Wait a minute...
Socialism doesn't mean "utopia," it's a Mode of Production. Either way, there were a number of factors working in West Germany's favor over East Germany that don't have to deal with the Mode of Production:
-
East Germany was made to pay reparations for the immense damage the Nazis dealt to the USSR (80% of combat with the Nazis was on the Eastern Front). West Germany was kept largely unaccountable.
-
West Germany had almost all of Germany's industry, the East Germans had to industrialize and pay reparations.
-
East Germany provided free, high quality education, whereas West Germany did not, but paid higher wages. An effective tactic was to lure educated workers from East Germany over to the West, essentially subsidizing education in the West.
All of these factors contributed to serious economic problems more caused by circumstance than Socialism.
I used germany as an example since it was the most extreme example of the USSR restricting emigration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bloc in general, the USSR prevented all emigration except under special circumstances.
Sure, don't see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.
The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator... i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communism, since the state is forcing a person's means of production to remain in the state's power.
There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.
- The USSR was democratic. The ability to choose between parties is less important than the ability to influence policy. The Soviets practiced Soviet Democracy, as elaborated on in the infographic below and the book Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
-
As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, "dictatorship" doesn't really apply.
-
In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn't invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism's trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The "stateless" aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.
The Soviet Union wasn't Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.
Sure...sure... theres democracy... so as long you align with the party's ideology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
I don't know if you've picked up on this or not, but I'm a Marxist, I've seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you've linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia's page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).
Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn't a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?
-