I was wondering why Marxism was still a thing and this placed seemed to be filled with Marxists. So, why? Didn’t the fall of USSR teach us anything? Do today’s Marxists think that USSR did something wrong? In other words, will they do anything different than the dictators of the soviet union? Also, some here seem to admire Stalin. I would really have to try hard to find a community that would admire Hitler but apparently admiring Stalin, another mass murder seems to be perfectly fine!
Honest question…did USSR fail because communism is bad…or did a very influential, wealthy and powerful country go out of it’s way to make sure the USSR failed and then say…“look, it didn’t work for them!”
Or did it fail because the USSR lost its way, or, just maybe if failed due to a combination of both.
or did a very influential, wealthy and powerful country go out of it’s way to make sure the USSR failed and then say…“look, it didn’t work for them!”
I get what you’re saying, but the US was mostly a geopolitically irrelevant country before WW2 (which was the event that really put them on the world stage), and by then the USSR had already existed for more than two decades, with little positive results to show. That was also the era of Holodomor and other such atrocities perpetrated by Stalin. You may argue that Stalin was not a true communist and more of a thinly veiled imperialist (and psychopath), and I agree, but many modern communists won’t agree with that sentiment and will still defend Stalin’s actions.
I believe so, am I wrong? Do note that I’m talking about results for the people themselves, I understand that the country industrialized fairly efficiently in the 20’s, but at the expense of a lot of suffering for minority groups mostly (Russians were the ones really favored, making it sort of an elitist/pseudo-fascist regime in a sense) and with little to show in terms of wealth distribution for the proletariat, which is, in essence, the goal of communism, is it not? An elite class centered around Stalin still prevailed and retained a lot of wealth, they merely traded the imperial elite for a new class of elites…
Yes, you are very deeply wrong. You can read about some of the immediate improvements in quality of life and life expectancy as a result of the revolution here. Claiming that Russia traded an imperial elite for another class of elites shows your lack of knowledge of the subject. One of the direct results of the revolution was that means of production were put towards the needs of the majority, and this is what resulted in the improvements I list in the link above.
You do raise some interesting points. I’ll admit I do have some bias (same as most westerners, probably) towards conflating Russia/Eastern Europe’s current situation with being the result of communism directly when it’s more likely that it’s a result of a communist country not being able to directly adopt a capitalist system without turmoil.
I am still skeptical of USSR’s regime in the matter of individual freedoms (which Karl Marx did not want to infringe on, distinguishing between private property and personal property AFAIK) and human rights, which I greatly value, but I’ll admit I was wrong regarding scientific/industrial/societal progress, even under Stalin.
The thing to keep in mind is that communist states have never been allowed to develop peacefully. Every communist and socialist experiment has been under threat from the global capitalist system that has far greater resources available to it. This creates a selection bias where only militant regimes survive because other ones are simply destroyed as was seen in Chile. Parenti has a great article discussing this that I recommend reading.
Note that I do respect Lenin’s ideals somewhat, even though he never lived long enough to put them into practice and I do respect some policies enacted by later communist leaders, such as Khrushchev’s housing plans, it’s Stalin that I take offense to, mostly. And while you might argue that later leaders had their wings “cut” by the Cold War and US interference, I don’t think you can really make that argument for pre-WW2/Stalin-era USSR.
I don’t see how you wouldn’t be able to make that argument for pre-WW2 period. This was the most turbulent time when the revolution just happened, and western capitalist nations invaded Russia in 1918 to try and run a counter revolution. Russia was a backwards agrarian society that was far behind the west technologically. Stalin transformed it into an industrial powerhouse making an equivalent of a century of progress under capitalism in the west. This progress and industrialization is what allowed USSR to stand up to the nazi invasion.
Honest question…did USSR fail because communism is bad…or did a very influential, wealthy and powerful country go out of it’s way to make sure the USSR failed and then say…“look, it didn’t work for them!” Or did it fail because the USSR lost its way, or, just maybe if failed due to a combination of both.
Food for thought.
either way I am pretty grateful that it did fail and the world got to know that dictatorship doens’t really work.
I get what you’re saying, but the US was mostly a geopolitically irrelevant country before WW2 (which was the event that really put them on the world stage), and by then the USSR had already existed for more than two decades, with little positive results to show. That was also the era of Holodomor and other such atrocities perpetrated by Stalin. You may argue that Stalin was not a true communist and more of a thinly veiled imperialist (and psychopath), and I agree, but many modern communists won’t agree with that sentiment and will still defend Stalin’s actions.
Did you just say USSR had little positive results to show in its first two decades?
I believe so, am I wrong? Do note that I’m talking about results for the people themselves, I understand that the country industrialized fairly efficiently in the 20’s, but at the expense of a lot of suffering for minority groups mostly (Russians were the ones really favored, making it sort of an elitist/pseudo-fascist regime in a sense) and with little to show in terms of wealth distribution for the proletariat, which is, in essence, the goal of communism, is it not? An elite class centered around Stalin still prevailed and retained a lot of wealth, they merely traded the imperial elite for a new class of elites…
Yes, you are very deeply wrong. You can read about some of the immediate improvements in quality of life and life expectancy as a result of the revolution here. Claiming that Russia traded an imperial elite for another class of elites shows your lack of knowledge of the subject. One of the direct results of the revolution was that means of production were put towards the needs of the majority, and this is what resulted in the improvements I list in the link above.
You do raise some interesting points. I’ll admit I do have some bias (same as most westerners, probably) towards conflating Russia/Eastern Europe’s current situation with being the result of communism directly when it’s more likely that it’s a result of a communist country not being able to directly adopt a capitalist system without turmoil.
I am still skeptical of USSR’s regime in the matter of individual freedoms (which Karl Marx did not want to infringe on, distinguishing between private property and personal property AFAIK) and human rights, which I greatly value, but I’ll admit I was wrong regarding scientific/industrial/societal progress, even under Stalin.
The thing to keep in mind is that communist states have never been allowed to develop peacefully. Every communist and socialist experiment has been under threat from the global capitalist system that has far greater resources available to it. This creates a selection bias where only militant regimes survive because other ones are simply destroyed as was seen in Chile. Parenti has a great article discussing this that I recommend reading.
Ah yes, totally, the Chilean socialist regime falling due to US interference was a tragedy and a butchery, we can both agree on that.
Note that I do respect Lenin’s ideals somewhat, even though he never lived long enough to put them into practice and I do respect some policies enacted by later communist leaders, such as Khrushchev’s housing plans, it’s Stalin that I take offense to, mostly. And while you might argue that later leaders had their wings “cut” by the Cold War and US interference, I don’t think you can really make that argument for pre-WW2/Stalin-era USSR.
I don’t see how you wouldn’t be able to make that argument for pre-WW2 period. This was the most turbulent time when the revolution just happened, and western capitalist nations invaded Russia in 1918 to try and run a counter revolution. Russia was a backwards agrarian society that was far behind the west technologically. Stalin transformed it into an industrial powerhouse making an equivalent of a century of progress under capitalism in the west. This progress and industrialization is what allowed USSR to stand up to the nazi invasion.
I think it’s more than just “a […] country”, it was most of Europe as well as the USA!
And it might be a good time to mention things like United States involvement in regime change (Wikpedia). It’s not an isolated issue, it’s a strategy.