Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism in theory vs in practice
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah.
The CIA is why the Soviets fell. Not corruption or incompetence.
It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev's reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn't properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.
What is complicated about it?
The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker's paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn't change anything.
The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.
The reforms didn't just allow for "political dissent," they worked against the Socialist system, that was based on central planning. Rather than running in a more efficient manner, it ran against itself.
Further, nobody says the Soviet Union was a "worker's paradise." It had tremendous strides for workers, but it wasn't perfect by any means.
The Soviet Union wasn't a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.
Do you really believe that we could have retained power and have had the backing of the vast masses for 14 years by methods of intimidation and terrorization? No, that is impossible. The tsarist government excelled all others in knowing how to intimidate. It had long and vast experience in that sphere. The European bourgeoisie, particularly the French, gave tsarism every assistance in this matter and taught it to terrorize the people. Yet, in spite of that experience and in spite of the help of the European bourgeoisie, the policy of intimidation led to the downfall of Tsarism.
The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.
Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR's implementation of communism was so bad, it's become cliche.
Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people.
People like you should be forced to live under conditions like Tsarist Russia.
Allow me to repeat myself:
The Soviet Union wasn't a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.
That's what dissent is.
Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your "pros" matter. And that's before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.
None of your “pros” matter
Healthcare? Doesn't matter.
Education? Literacy? Reading is how the communist get you, remain illiterate.
Full employment? You don't need to feed your family.
Life expectancy? Why prolong the suffering?We weren't debating the quality of the Soviet Union. We were debating whether or not it was a dictatorship.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, now that US & Soviet archives have been released, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, like Domenico Losurdo and Grover Furr.
No, that isn't what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.
Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.
Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights "don't matter?" That strong, sustained economic growth doesn't matter? You must be trolling.
As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.
So, you're denying that glasnost allowed for political dissent?
Second, no they didn't.
Finally, it does not matter because we were debating whether or not the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, which the literacy rate has nothing to do with.
Well-respected by Tankies, not by actual historians.
Glasnost allowed for liberalism to expand as an ideology, sure, alongside other reforms that weakened the economy and erased its foundations. You can't cherry-pick the reforms to make it seem like the system worked poorly and only was dissolved because the "people had a choice." In fact, most post-Soviet citizens regret the fall of Socialism and prefer it over Capitalism.
Read Soviet Democracy.
We were debating a great many things, one of which being the economy and the well-being of the people, because that helps explain why it was democratic.
Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is quite literally used as a reference on the Wikipedia article for Soviet Democracy. You are incapable of being honest or looking at facts that disprove you because you care more about appearing morally righteous than being correct.
"Expand as an ideology" is a strange way to say, "they weren't shot for disagreeing with the Party."
The reforms didn't weaken the economy. The economy was weak, therefore there were reforms. And it's not cherrypicking, the Soviet system worked poorly, objectively.
Nostalgia doesn't prove anything. What they feel now has nothing to do with what the people felt at the time.
Read Robert Conquest.
No, you denied that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. The GDP does not effect that.
And books describing the Soviet Union as a totalitarian dictatorship are used as reference. Wikipedia is providing a variety of opinions of the Soviet government. It's not declaring Pat Sloan the sole source of truth on the question of human rights in the Soviet Union.
You clearly don't care about being righteous or correct.
Liberals usually weren't shot even pre-Glasnost unless they were terrorist cells, like the White Army or Nazi sympathizers.
The reforms did weaken the economy. This is factual. The Soviet Union was one of the fastest growing and most impressive economies of the 20th century, this slowed with reforms.
Read Robert Conquest? Seriously? The crank that made wild estimates before the opening of the Soviet Archives disproved him, whose coworkers denounced their own work with him on the Black Book of Communism, which included Nazis killed by the Soviets in the "death toll of Communism?* That's your trump card, a long-debunked anticommunist myth from the Red Scare no historian, even anticommunist historians, supports these days? The Black Book has long been debunked as false.
It didn't declare Pat Sloan the only source of truth, but included it as a respected resource. It isn't only Communists that reference Pat Sloans works, but liberals as well.
Considering you unironically recommend propagandist Robert Conquest as a source that even liberals disagree with, you're only proving me right.
Right. Beria was well known for his trigger discipline.
It wasn't that impressive for the people living there. Otherwise they wouldn't have rejected it.
Debunked, according to a genocide denying Russian propaganda asset.
To portray the opinion of Stalinists. Which they contrast with actual data and the opinions of actual historians.
How about you cite some of those liberals, instead of a tankie rag?
