USSR and the Communist ideology - a debate

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#81

Perfectly true Dani!
But:

  1. Not everyone was subjected to terror of Securitate or SB. Let’s be objective.
  2. Some dumb idiots liked this TV program… and to be honest, I don’t watch now much television because it is totally stupid.
  3. Unemployed may like the idea of forced labour…
  4. In Australia 6 working days is almost a norm for factory workers - 6-th day being paid double as overtime.
  5. Most of young people simply abandon traditional beliefs.

But toilet paper… who’s not using it???
Please rise your hand!

C

#82

And not a single word about martial law in Poland 1981-1983.
Thanks to commies again…

#83

Kovalsky, martial law it was our own struggle. Our own choice. Dani is not mentioning their Timisoara either, nor thousands which suffered by Securitate.
I choose simpler explanation - go to the level of simplest man which is not concerned with the past, ideology, history, which just want to live.
Miserable life perhaps… in your and other member of this Forum standard, but ordinary life. Not all people are heroes, not all are even able to think logically. We cannot say that all are stupid because they form part of the society.

But they are all entitled to vote… Don’t you think this may be a problem?
Or is a problem already?

#84

Right, it depends on the perspective you choose.
I believe that general political rights are not the problem here. This is fundamental and any attempt to changing it would cause serious implications.
I think that problem is somewhere else, much deeper.
Example - 50% attendance in last elections in Poland.
Half of society doesn’t care about who is going to rule for next 4 years.
What should be done?
I’m sure that deprivement of voting rights would only worsen the situation.
We should focus on the reason of apathy and indifference.
How to revive the public spirit and will for active participation in society’s life.

#85

Hey, hey, hey…

What we are talking about???

Let’s go back to WWII…

#86

Lancer, I already asked the mods…

#87

Oh, it’s because you provoked me with that question about voting…
:):):slight_smile:

#88

Guys, I have moved this thread, theres not much ww2 in it as interesting as it has become.

However, I’m still awaiting my answer - What was the communist ideolagy in 1917 and how did it differ in 1989?

#89

In 1917 bolshevik’s program focused on building a society ruled by working classes and in their interests. The other communist plans (world revolution, proletary dictate, etc.) were secondary and auxilary to this paramount task.
Stalin shifted focus from worldwide victory of communism to USSR development and defence (and executed die-hard communists like Trotsky which proposed world revolution by any means). Paramount idea stayed the same, but means were changed. After that the official idea was that worldwide revolution is inevitable and USSR must defend achievements of commuism till that, helping communists in entire world and to be an example of country which achieved communism. Official program from these times was to defend the country where working classes prevailed until revolutions in other countries begin and help them.
The result was simple - because no revolutions were seen from 60s or so the idea of worldwide communism faded and only secondary by nature tasks like defending the USSR remained. Problem was that paramount, core idea was slowly lost (because of no revolutions) and thus was lost the very reason of USSR existence. Politics of USSR in 80s, for example, are politics of country which just try to survive in hostile environment.
In 1989 there were no communist ideology to speak of.
Throughout it’s history USSR waited like lone paratrooper who must hold the bridge for his comrades by any cost. He defended against enemy as long as he could - but his comrades did not came.

#90

Hmm, communism as a ideology was an utopia. It was based on false asumptions that creation of classless society is possible, with common possession of means of production and equal distribution of goods.
Existence of group of people which is in charge was in fact denying the idea. Of course commies had an explenation for that. Theoretically the period after 1917 was simply the transitional phase before the true communism could be implemented, and society needed someone who would lead it to revolution and communism. But as we all know, there were always some diffilucties.
In my opinion communists were simply another social group which wanted to take over the control. Obviously, there were thousands who truly believed that the revolution is about to take place and it is possible to make everybody happy. But from historical point of view it was antoher elite using a totalitarian ideology for its own purposes.
If we follow Max Weber’s theory of ideal type, the the purest communism took place in USSR about 1952.
Later, it was nothing more than regular dictatorship which used the ideology.
I wish I had more time to write more.
But I’m going for my mate’s wedding tomorrow and I’ll be gone for a whole weekend.
Have a nice discussion.:slight_smile:

#91

Regards by all.
I see the atmosphere here is hot.
Our discussion become pure political.

I saw this thread from begin, to me it’s very a pity that some members of our forum descend to the personal insults. As absolutely correctly noted Firefly it’s necessary to be held some determined of boundaries.
This became obvious when it appeared Jasa. Certainly it has very untypical and interesting persuasions (with which it is possible to argue). But instead of the arguments some our friends on the forum began to give out to the cliches lile “the revisionist” ," madman" or even “bolshevik”. ( it’s pity Lancer but yourself try to use the bolshevik method against the minority).
Some of you deside that all russians in this thread will compulsorily support persuasions Jasa. I think it’s also " soviet habit" to think by stereotypes which some members do.
Meanwhile practically no one of you noted key problem of social equality in the contemporary peace, which affected Jasa.
To me it’s very pity that some of our Eastern European participants attempt to present contemporary situation in the countries of East Europe as the “result of the successful election of way to prosperity”. I hope all of you understand that policy it is not always honest. Every day I have the capability to read the western press and to watch BBS and CNN.
There they tell about the immense successes of the eastern European countries in “on the way into Europe”. They speak about the investments - but not about the being grown external debts.
They speak about the right to work in the countries of the European Union - but they do not speak about infringement of the rights of workers from East Europe in the West.
They never speak that the workers from East Europe -this people of the third-sort in the West.
They never speak about the destroyed east european industry according to the "recommendations OF THE IMF "

Yes, Kovalsky it’s serious problem.
I think that the reason of “apathy and indifference” becouse people know that on their selection nothing it depends. This is the paradox of “new democracy”. This situation to me is familiar according to the personal experience. I never walked to vote up to 2000 . But now situation strongly changed for the better.
unfortunately (since cool war with Jasa) nobody noted my post about modern situation in Poland.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3714&page=4
This confirms Kovalski in its post.
And pleas ,gentlemens , don’t necessary to speak about THE USSR as if you there lived. I can imagine that situation in Poland and Rumania was worst, but does not be worth telling the fairy tales about “genocide of Stalin above the Russian people” about by the “terrible secret of the police in THE USSR”. Do not attempt to present life in THE USSR as survival under the conditions of terror and fear. This is nonsense.
Simply people were others. My parents remember Khrushchev, by child I saw Brezhnev.

Cheers.

#92

Hi Sneaksie.
WOW , WOW … mate.
“In 1989 there were no communist ideology to speak of”
What are you talking about?
You forgot about China.
Communist ideology did not die into 1989, on the contrary it very successfully was transformed in China after taking for the armament market reforms. After 1990 Chinas survives rapid economic growth (in average 11% per year). The Communist Party of China to vose not problem for the enormous foreign investments. Now China became the most important player in Asia.
In contrast to East Europe, which in 1990 was located in the crisis and lost the large part of its industry, China on the contrary completed powerful technological jump. It created the strategic missiles and the space industry. It independently neglected man into space. Ego of reaching they impress.
I even read that the China was real conqueror of the Cold War .
According to the forecasts of the American analysts in 10-15 years China will create the real threat of American hegemony in the world.

Gentlemen, I would not begin at your place “to bury the communism”. Is obvious this foolishly. Communism has all chances to successfully survive of all us.

#93

Gentelmen, we need to clear up what are we discussing. The theory of communism and all it’s aspect or historical examples.
It’s important, because we would mix-up everything and it will be very difficult to countinue the discussion.
What I mean is that the system in China that Chevan is talking about, has almost nothing in common with communism described by Marx and Engles. What is more, there would got mad if they saw what Chinese had done to their ideas.
Nothing left of communist economical theory there.
I suggest to implement some rules for discussion in order to avoid the mess.

#94

It’s not correct comparison.
The China socialism was practicaly copy of soviet socialism (with ouw national troubles like the “cultural revolition”). But basic principles was the same.
After 1989 China was capable transform it’s ruling party (Still COMMUNISTS) according “new wings”.
Just ideas of Marx were converted but not die.

#95

Dani and Lancer stop the fancy.
Talk about your states not about USSR.

I lived 13 years in THE USSR but no one as I remember even in the most difficult times (end 1980) it did not stand 3 hours in the turn after the toilet paper or the sausage. My parents told about the difficult times after WW2 but never about the turns after the toilet paper or the products. Certainly long-term turns were (for example to obtaining of free state apartment) but this situation was completely normal .
I looked very long American film “Moscow above Hudson”. I remember there it was episode with the turn after the toilet paper length into THE KILOMETER. We for long laughed with the friends.

Present problems arose after 1992 when it began the “shock therapy”.
According to the recommendations of criminals from IMF new Russian pro-Western government began to frankly steal the state asset.
This was real tragedy for the country. There was the abundance but no one it could this purchase on the shop windows of stores. Were shut plants in enterprises not there were means to buy industrial production. An increase in the crime began. The Mafia openly appeared.
In 1994 Began The war in Chechnya.
My dad acknowledged to me that the period of middle 1990 was most difficult after 1945.

I simply smile when our Polish friends they attempt to describe to me about the “heavy half-starving life in THE USSR”.
I understand on whom you try.
This not has relation to the reality.

#96

It is very simple. In all aspects where communist system relaxed or permitted to run something along logical, natural ways, it suddenly was very successful.

  1. NEP in soviet Russia - suddenly a lot of food appeared on the market.
  2. Individual plots in stalinist Russia. I don’t remember exact figures but something like 8% of cultivated land in private hand was supplying 80% of food for entire country.
  3. Same in Poland. Most of food - grain, meat and milk come from “obsolete” private farmers. Collective farms were always bankrupt.
  4. None of state enterprises could show even paper profit, but small private ones were very successful.

General conclusion - the whole Marx and Engels idea is impossible to implement in any way, in any country, in any time. Period.

The rest was perfectly explained by Kovalski.

Lancer44

#97

Chevan,

Writing my “funny” post I did not exaggerated…
Dani can support me.
It was like that in Poland and - I know, as a matter of fact - even worse in Romania.
In Poland the worst times were after 1980. During 1980-1982 - first strikes than martial law - shops were virtually empty. Tea and vinegar were the only things which you could buy freely.
And regarding food - we had rationing like during WWII. Everyone get his rationing card with his/her pay. Everything you could buy was there.
Kovalsky my correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I remember:

2.5 kg of meat a month
2 kg of sugar
200 grams of chocolate for 1 child a month.
2 bottles of vodka or 2 bottles of wine or 6 bottles of beer a month.

And I can tell you that contrary to todays official history strikes in Poland not started in Gdansk - they started in Lublin after trains with food for USSR were discovered by workers and looted.

Lancer44

#98

The whole Marx idea was never realised in anywhere, my friend. Marxism is just theory , very progressive for its time (end of 19 centure). Marxism had its last aim to build communism.
There were never communist countries , just socialist - the intermediate level to communism (accordind to marxists theory).
On my mind , socialism in USSR had all chances to successfully transform using market relations like in China.
Saving its own powerfull heavy indastry , USSR could solve all the economic problems.

#99

mate, you showed the reason of worsening in the standard of living of people in Poland into 1980-82 - strikes. When the large masses of workers nothing make perhaps this it does not lead to the economic problems.
Of course , as resault - the limited distribution of the products (the rationing system).

Recently I read about Rumania.
In 1980 there was there very heavy situation. Chaushesku without the agreement with THE USSR took many western credits in 1970. In Rumania it was built one of the strong industries in the eastern block. Rumanian goods bought both the eastern neighbors and western Europe.
However, situation sharply was complicated after economic errors in 1980. The West began to require debts back. Chaushesku introduces the “regime of total economy” - the purely Rumanian version of socialism.
This situation was more worst than you described in Poland in 1982.
As a result Rumania completely extinguished the external debts, but they speak that this it cost life for Chaushesku.

I think Dani can talk more interesting and correct information about “Rumanian socialicm” of period latest Chaushesku.

But its absolutly wrong to to speak so about THE USSR.
In the USSR till 1987 Gorbachev’s perestroika (but honestly saying also in 1960 after Chrushev’s experiments) were not the food problems.
One interest example. In 1986 in my native sity Tichoretsk (Krasnodar area) americans builded the “Combine of the meat canned foods”. One of the modern and biggest in south of USSR.
After its starting the the regiments of stores were covered with high-quality and cheap meat products.By natural meat products without genetic additives and steroids.
But after 1995 all natural production went to the export.
Today buying the watery “hen legs of Bush” in which steroids more than of meat, many Russian people with the regret they recall about the life in THE USSR.
I think this is the irony of fate. Or punishment.
people never do not value that they have.

#100

Wrong. Romania took credits like any other country. And speaking of “agreement with the USSR” you forgot one thing: Romania was considered the black sheep
of the Communist block. We had diplomatic relations with Federal Republic of Germany and with Israel (despite the Arab-Israelis wars).
We were against Romanian Army participation in August 1968 reppresing of the Prague movement.
We had good relations with USA (a lot of high level visits of Nixon, Ford and Carter and of course Ceausescu in Romania and USA).
We participated in both “boycott” Olympic Games - Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 (only Cuba participated beside Romania from Communist block).
All these facts pissed off the Mighty Big Brother from East who cut any money, any support, any market for Romania.
Therefore Romania was forced to borrow money on the free market like any other country (including USSR).

What “economic errors”? Simply Ceausescu decided that Romania need to be a “no debt” country (remember that you said something about external debts…)

NO to any imports and export everything (even food and MOSTLY to USSR).

Lucky you!
Romanian rations (of course with queing):
200g salami person/month;
1 kg meat/family/month (it doesn’t matter the size of the family);
10 eggs/family/month;
1.5 liter sunflower oil/family/month;
1 kg sugar/family/month
2 bread/person/day;
etc etc;
The only product available free was Vietnamese shrimps.:smiley:
You will say “Come on! that was Romanian version of socialism”. I’ll reply that we had reach at this tragic situation due to communism.
Imposed and sustained by the Soviets.

AFAIK are still three communist countries in the world: Cuba, Noth Korea and Vietnam (I’m not so sure about Vietnam anyway).