• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

To Anyone who thinks the Soviet Union was Socialist....


james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
A myth which is commonly promulgated by many posters on this site is that the Soviet Union was Socialist. It is usually used as a boogy-man kind of argument to try and criticise the idea that a Socialist alternative is possible.
I have continuously refuted this line of thinking by many posters and thought that to create a thread on it to discuss the idea would attempt to settle this argument.

One of the clearest pieces of evidence is from a quote from Lenin himself, ''While the revolution in Germany is slow in "coming forth," our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it.''-my bold.
Lenin put forward the view that for Socialism to be achieved, the Soviet Union, a largely agrarian society at the time, had to go through the process of industrialisation to then achieve Socialism. But it never worked out that way, because the Totalitarian system they put in place, with a ''labor army'' and ''maximal leader'', meant that it could not, with the country staying in the State Capitalist phase.

Prior to 1917, Socialist groups were organising Factory committees, which are organs of worker control of production, which is one of the core principles of Socialism. But the Bolshevists turned against this process in the final weeks of 1917, destroying these Factory committees and ''restoring "law and order" in industry -- a law and order that
reconsolidated the authoritarian relations in production, which for a brief period had been seriously shaken''-Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, 1917 to 1921: the State and Counter-Revolution. This is clear evidence that worker control of production, and as a result Socialism, never occurred, with the Bolsheviks beginning the ''restoration of capitalist management of industry.''

Brinton goes on to say that "Nowhere in Lenin's writings is workers' control ever equated with fundamental decision-taking (i.e. with the initiation of decisions) relating to production.'' This shows that Lenin was interested in centralised control, not workers having their own say. Centralization of the Economy actually grew rapidly during the Civil War period.

Socialist policies, by definition, are policies which are democratic. To say that Stalin was socialist is ridiculous.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
Whatever.

Marxism is b*llsh*t.

Human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years and never will change until there is some dramatic evolutionary leap in the far distant future that results in more co-operative or more selfish individuals.

There is no inevitability we can ever know bout and no reason to believe the future must result in communism.

There's no way of knowing anything about future events or trends with any accuracy or reliability whatsoever.

Marx was an infantile idiot:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
Karl Marx, (1845). The German Ideology
 
Last edited:
B

birthday

A myth which is commonly promulgated by many posters on this site is that the Soviet Union was Socialist. It is usually used as a boogy-man kind of argument to try and criticise the idea that a Socialist alternative is possible.
I have continuously refuted this line of thinking by many posters and thought that to create a thread on it to discuss the idea would attempt to settle this argument.

One of the clearest pieces of evidence is from a quote from Lenin himself, ''While the revolution in Germany is slow in "coming forth," our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it.''-my bold.
Lenin put forward the view that for Socialism to be achieved, the Soviet Union, a largely agrarian society at the time, had to go through the process of industrialisation to then achieve Socialism. But it never worked out that way, because the Totalitarian system they put in place, with a ''labor army'' and ''maximal leader'', meant that it could not, with the country staying in the State Capitalist phase.

Prior to 1917, Socialist groups were organising Factory committees, which are organs of worker control of production, which is one of the core principles of Socialism. But the Bolshevists turned against this process in the final weeks of 1917, destroying these Factory committees and ''restoring "law and order" in industry -- a law and order that
reconsolidated the authoritarian relations in production, which for a brief period had been seriously shaken''-Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, 1917 to 1921: the State and Counter-Revolution. This is clear evidence that worker control of production, and as a result Socialism, never occurred, with the Bolsheviks beginning the ''restoration of capitalist management of industry.''

Brinton goes on to say that "Nowhere in Lenin's writings is workers' control ever equated with fundamental decision-taking (i.e. with the initiation of decisions) relating to production.'' This shows that Lenin was interested in centralised control, not workers having their own say. Centralization of the Economy actually grew rapidly during the Civil War period.

Socialist policies, by definition, are policies which are democratic. To say that Stalin was socialist is ridiculous.
OK, fair enough.
Please give an example of a successful socialist country. Just one will suffice.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
OK, fair enough.
Please give an example of a successful socialist country. Just one will suffice.
There's your problem. A country can be composed of many co-operatives and socialist groups but I think it's be false to describe any country as ''socialist''.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
Whatever.

Marxism is b*llsh*t.

Human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years and never will change until there is some dramatic evolutionary leap in the far distant future that results in more co-operative or more selfish individuals.

There is no inevitability we can ever know bout and no reason to believe the future must result in communism.

There's no way of knowing anything about future events or trends with any accuracy or reliability whatsoever.
So you agree with what I am saying?
No-one knows what human nature is composed of or what its foundation is composed of, if it has any foundation. It is too complex.
I was making the point that Lenin thought that the progression would result in Communism, I didn't say that I believed in it.
And regarding your last point- One can determine the probable course of certain events using evidence.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

But, the results damage the brand.

And damage to the brand damage those have this as their career/solution/family business.

Therefore, let's do a rebranding exercise.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503

Druidess

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
2,593
Sweden is not a socialist country, it merely has some policies borrowed from socialism such as a state provided, subsidised childcare scheme.

The free market is very much alive in Sweden.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

But, the results damage the brand.

And damage to the brand damage those have this as their career/solution/family business.

Therefore, let's do a rebranding exercise.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
See what i did there?
Sometimes people tell fibs.
 
B

birthday

There's your problem. A country can be composed of many co-operatives and socialist groups but I think it's be false to describe any country as ''socialist''.
In fact it is your problem.
I am not a bit surprised that you have failed to provide an answer!
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
So you agree with what I am saying?
No-one knows what human nature is composed of or what its foundation is composed of, if it has any foundation. It is too complex.
I was making the point that Lenin thought that the progression would result in Communism, I didn't say that I believed in it.
And regarding your last point- One can determine the probable course of certain events using evidence.
Only the probable course but not the actual course.
We have only a fragmentary window on the world and our brains are the brains of hunter gatherers.
We are not omniscient.
As Fulke Greville said "We are created sick and commanded to be well."
How do you eliminate wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?
Look at any Marxist group and it is riven by vicious infighting among individuals jockeying for position.
 
B

birthday

How is it my problem?
You started an idiotic thread about socialism and the USSR.
I asked you to name a single successful socialist country-you responded that it was my problem.

I ask you again-name a single successful socialist country.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
Only the probable course but not the actual course.
We have only a fragmentary window on the world and our brains are the brains of hunter gatherers.
We are not omniscient.
As Fulke Greville said "We are created sick and commanded to be well."
How do you eliminate wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?
Yes, but we have different thoughts compared to hunter gatherers.
You wouldn't have to eliminate them at all.
 

Fides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,442
The Swedish social democrats have about one third of the seats in the Swedish parliament.
The 'left' party have about 7%. The Greens about 9%.
Does that make Sweden 'socialist'?
I think someone needs to define what is meant by a socialist state. Sweden also has very successful private enterprise, CT around 25% and a private banking system. I'd quite like to live in a country run on Swedish lines - it is more socialist in nature than others but can you call it a socialist country.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
You started an idiotic thread about socialism and the USSR.
I asked you to name a single successful socialist country-you responded that it was my problem.

I ask you again-name a single successful socialist country.
1st bold point- How was anything in the thread idiotic? Most of what I say is backed up.
2nd bold point- I also gave you an answer.
3rd bold point- If I believed that country's can be described as socialist, just because they do not exist doesn't mean that they are impossible. Ridiculous attempt at logic.
 
Top