Marxism/communism/socialism

[noname12]

Erm....this is so obviously crap, that there is no need to comment.

Considering how long ago the Stalin regime was, when the USSR "Fell" 90% of the population werent even alive when he was around...

Corruption always comes from a single point, once that point is crossed and not fixed it will continue.
Corruption filled the ranks, turn it inside out and tossed it back out into another Ruling class / Worker class.

I personally Believe where the wishes of Lenin held it would not have been so bad and if Trotski was kept things would be alot better.

Look at Mother Russia now, it is just as bad if not worse then it was in the beginning, that cannot all be blamed on the cold war, the corruption in russia is still as harsh as ever poverty is still the major problem of the country and crime... HA! crime is done by the law enforcement officers them selves.

You can get alot of problems from looking at stalin.

I will need to consult my friend on this one too, not for the stalin comment, but on the state of before and after.

[Rat Faced]

I suggest you look up the meaning of "State Capitalism" too....then decide for yourself whether USSR was communist or State Capitalist.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 November 2003 - 01:37
I suggest you look up the meaning of "State Capitalism" too....then decide for yourself whether USSR was communist or State Capitalist.

I never argued the USSR was communist, I did say that it was corrupted, changed, ideals forgotten.

I have mensioned on numerous occasions that I believe that where they to have implimented Communism to its true form and by following the Suggestions of the wise rather then the psycotic, it would have worked.... for some time at least.

Stalin turned Russia back towards the tzar times but claimed it under the banner of communism.

Almost like how america gets its support from the public, declare war and place that war under the banner of Patriotism.

[noname12]

Was Stalin a disaster for Russia?

•  the country did become a major industrial nation by 1939 and her progress was unmatched in the era of the Depression in America and western Europe where millions were unemployed.

•  those workers who did not offend the state were better off than under the  reign of the tsar.

•  Russia’s military forces were benefiting from her industrial growth.

•  there was a stable government under Stalin.

•  people had access to much better medical care some 10 years before the National Health Service was introduced in GB.

BUT:

• millions had died in famine after the failed experiment of collectivisation.

• Russia’s agriculture was at the same level in 1939 as in 1928 with a 40 million increased population.

• Russia had become a ‘telling’ society. The secret police actively encouraged people to inform on neighbours, work mates etc. and many suffered simply as a result of jealous neighbours/workers.

Also many of Russia's most talented people had been murdered during the Purges of the 1930's. Anyone with talent was seen as a threat by the increasingly paranoid behaviour associated with Stalin and were killed or imprisoned (which usually lead to death anyway). The vast Soviet army was a body without a brain as most of her senior officers had been arrested and murdered during the Purges.

Interesting...

[noname12]

Reading about Lenin doesn't do much....

Russia by 1918 appeared to be in the hands of the communists (the Bolshevik Party) lead by Lenin. The Provisional Government had been overthrown and the Bolsheviks had appeared to have gained power in Russia and that the country’s problems seemed to be over. In fact, those problems had only just begun.

Lenin controlled just a strip of land that ran form Petrograd to Moscow. He did not control any other area in this vast country. There were also many people who hated the thought of communists having control over them. There were also many who wanted the tsar back in power. All the groups that opposed Lenin were called the Whites. A civil war broke out in Russia with the Whites fighting to get rid of the Reds - the Communists. Russia was also still in World War One.

Lenin’s problems =

limited control of Russian territory
many groups against his rule
still in World War One
By 1921, Lenin had come through all of these problems and was the head of a communist government in Russia. How did this come about ?

1. He pulled Russia out of the war with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed in March 1918. This was a cruel treaty which the Russians had to sign. Trotsky was given the task of negotiating with the Germans. Russia was to loose a great deal of land which included 60 million people to the Germans. The land also included 25% of her farming land and 75% of her iron ore and coal deposits. But the treaty got Russia out of the war and allowed Lenin the time to concentrate on home issues. (Note : remember this treaty when looking at Versailles and how harsh Versailles appeared to be. Many thought that if the Germans were willing to hand it out, they should be willing to take similar punishment.)

2. The forces that were against Lenin in the civil war were never a united group. Each had its own reason for fighting the communists and the groups that fought the Reds never united into one large army. As such, the Red Army lead by Trotsky, could pick them off one by one. Also the communists held the 2 most important cities in Russia (Moscow and Petrograd) with all the main communication centres in them including rail lines etc. Trotsky also used ex-tsarist officers who had experience in leading men and fighting battles. Their skill was to prove invaluable and there were 50,000 of them. Trotsky was also a brilliant leader who instilled into his men a belief in what they were fighting for. Discipline was harsh. If a unit performed badly in battle, its leader was shot and the men sent to prison. The Reds also treated the people very well - they were ordered to do this - while the Whites frequently abused those who lived in areas that they were in. The Reds were usually seen as liberators when they advanced to an area where the Whites had been. The peasants were also promised land by the Reds while the Whites promised to restore land back to its original owner.

Using these tactics of picking off one White army and winning the support of the people, the Reds claimed victory in 1921. With the Whites out of Russia or dead, Lenin now had Russia under his control

[noname12]

Lenin knew that he had to change the economy if he was to survive. In 1921, War Communism was scrapped and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. The NEP had 4 main features :

The taking of grain by the Cheka was stopped. The peasant farmers would have to give to the government a set amount of grain each year in tax but if they produced any extra they could sell it in the open market and make money.
Traders could buy and sell. This had been illegal under War Communism.
Small factories producing things which the people could buy but were not essential to life, were returned to their original owner. They could sell goods and make a profit.
Larger factories producing essential items remained under the control of the government.

There we have it.... the defining moment... Trotsky was right after all, Socialism first then communism and Lenin learnt the hard way.

[noname12]

Any problems were dealt with by the Cheka - the feared communist secret police. They had used what was known as the Red Terror during the civil war to keep people in order. To survive during the civil war, Lenin introduced War Communism.

Secret Police, the killer of any country.

In the factories, the government took complete control. The workers who had been given to right to run factories, had that right taken away. Managers ran them and discipline was strict. Food was rationed. Workers and soldiers received the most while civil servants received little. The workers had to do what the government said they had to - just as in the days of the tsar !!

In the countryside, the Cheka was sent out to take food from the peasant farmers. Anybody found keeping food from others was shot. The peasants responded by producing food only for themselves and so the cities were more short of food than before. Life under Lenin appeared to be worse than under Nicholas II !!

The civil war had devastated Russia’s economy. People survived by doing whatever they could - there was a great increase in robberies and law and order was on the verge of breaking down. Agriculture had been ruined by the war and in 1921, after a drought, there was a terrible famine. Five million people died as a result of this. Cannibalism was common amongst those who survived. Every part of industry was at a worse level than it had been in 1913 :



1913 1921
Grain
80 mill tons
37.6 mill tons

Coal
29 mill tons
9 mill tons

Oil
9.2 mill tons
3.8 mill tons

Iron
4.2 mill tons
0.1 mill tons

Steel
4.3 mill tons
0.2 mill tons

Sugar
1.3 mill tons
0.05 mill tons

Electricity
2039 mill kW
520 mill kW




By 1921, opposition to Lenin had grown. The country was in a disastrous stare when compared to the state it had been in under the tsar. Workers formed themselves into Workers’ Opposition demanding a) higher wages b-) more food and c) the return of workers control of industry. These were the same workers who had supported Lenin in 1917 !!

Again this seems to show me that if he followed trotsky's way of socialism first then communism it would have worked. Civil war, WWI and Opposition seemed to be the enemy not lenin...

Very interesting reading this is.

Sratch that last comment

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 November 2003 - 21:27
I think this is another "Symantics" argument.

Yes, I believe you're right, Rat.

I also feel your reductive treatment of Socialism to be more-or-less correct; also:

I would say Socialism (as you have seen it practiced in the U.K.) doesn't jibe with my understanding of what it actually is; the U.S.S.R. was, after all, a Socialist regime, and represented/reflected Stalin's consolidation of the various strains of Marxism-Leninism, et.al.

"Communism" ended up as a semi-correct short-hand reference for what we saw in the U.S.S.R.-I think the Manifesto and much of the latent sentiment for the origins of the movement are responsible for this.

As re: the U.S.S.R., then, I will defer to your more reasoned conclusion. B)

[Billy_Dean]

I'd like to make two points here;

Communism, (or whatever name you give it) may have worked for a time, if properly implemented. However, in this day and age, it would break down, as it is (slowly) in China. Global communications, TV, the internet et al, leads to a freedom of speech the government cannot control. It also shows the everyone-is-equal world what can be gained from individual effort and reward. Capitalism not only rewards the hard working, but also the greedy and the corrupt, making it irresistable to people with ambition.

The second point I want to make is socialism, as implemented in Australia. Although we have two sides to our politics here, Liberal and Labour, they are not "right" and "left" as in Thatcher and Wilson, but are both centrist, and often overlap. We have universal free health care in Australia, and free education. We were the first to have trades unions, and the first to give woman the vote. So, whilst not being left wing socialist, we are, indeed, a "socialist" country, and one of, if not the, best countries in the world to live.

[echidna]

I had no idea that the term spruik was so arcane, [i miss-spelled it as spruke]
I hadn't intended it to confuse or confound, so here for the record is how the macquarie dictionary defines spruik[ing]
______________________________________
Spruik /spruk/ verb (i) Colloquial 1. to harangue or address a meeting: *This time, the candidates will be forced to return to basics - door-knocking, baby-kissing, glad-handing during street-walks, visits to shopping malls and pubs, perhaps street-corner spruiking - WEST AUSTRALIAN, 1992. 2. to harangue prospective customers to entice them into a show, strip joint, shop, etc.: *ln Chinatown they are now subtly spruiking for custom. -HERALD, 1990. [origin uncert.; ? from D spreken speak] -spruiker, n.
______________________________________

nice research though hobbes, also, i realise i forgot to mention that noname12s joseph shaped house was made of glass and the rocks were accusations of human rights abuses

all very sloppy of me

i didn't specifically have issue with the image of stalin, rather i was concerned that noname12 be fully aware of the connotations that his sig carried, because nn12 seemed unaware.

now nn12 is assembling the first edition of the Klite-board-soviet-history-crib-notes, and has a great new sig.

i also tend to agree that the USSR would have likely had a very different character if trotsky had succeeded lenin rather than stalin.
they were very different men
but the attitudes of the uk, usa and other capitolist states would still have been difficult to deal with

the poster art under stalin was tremendous, it and the figurative sculpture from the period is fantastic although somewhat kitch in hindsight