Was The Soviet Union A True Communist Government?

[Miku the Based]

The Soviet Union is a true communist government that same with the DPRK, Cuba, and China, Vietnam, and Democratic Kampuchea.
They do not have to follow Marx's writings and doctrine to the letter, for communism does not mean what marx said. Communism goes beyond marx, it advocates for the eventual stateless, classless, moneyless society. Any Organization that advocates for the transition to such society no matter how soon or distant is Communist by my definition. That said you can be a socialist and not a communist of some type because one may not believe in the withering away of national identities and states by extension but believe in the establishment of a monyless classless society.
Upholding the principles of marxist-leninism in the constitution, upholding the radical transformation of society whether by short or long period into the aforementioned characteristics of a communist society by the government both written and spoken is affirmative to the country or state being communist.
Stalin is a communist for he also believed in the transition to communism, he did not throw the idea of communism away. Even Khrushchev believed in communism, see the well known joke about Khrushchev and the computer regarding how many five year plans does it take to reach communism. Gorbachev is arguable whether or not he was a communist or just a opportunist who wanted pizza hut.

[Kubra]

The Soviet Union is a true communist government that same with the DPRK, Cuba, and China, Vietnam, and Democratic Kampuchea.
They do not have to follow Marx's writings and doctrine to the letter, for communism does not mean what marx said. Communism goes beyond marx, it advocates for the eventual stateless, classless, moneyless society. Any Organization that advocates for the transition to such society no matter how soon or distant is Communist by my definition. That said you can be a socialist and not a communist of some type because one may not believe in the withering away of national identities and states by extension but believe in the establishment of a monyless classless society.
Upholding the principles of marxist-leninism in the constitution, upholding the radical transformation of society whether by short or long period into the aforementioned characteristics of a communist society by the government both written and spoken is affirmative to the country or state being communist.

Sure, but toss out the way something was defined in conventional usage of millions of people who once existed is a tacit admittance that one isn't very interesting in understanding their internal life.

[Miku the Based]

Sure, but toss out the way something was defined in conventional usage of millions of people who once existed is a tacit admittance that one isn't very interesting in understanding their internal life.

What?

[Old Tyrannia]

As others have already pointed out, a truly communist society is defined by communists themselves as stateless, classless and moneyless; given that the Soviet Union was unambiguously a state, that would preclude it from being considered a truly communist society, and its leadership never described it as such. Rather, the USSR was regarded by the Communist Party as a socialist state and a "dictatorship of the proletariat," a transitional stage between capitalism and true communism.

On the other hand the government of the USSR could certainly be described as a "communist government" in the sense that it was a government consisting of communists, controlled by the Communist Party; I don't take seriously the occasional assertions by leftists that the leaders of the USSR, especially the earlier generations, weren't genuinely committed to the ideology they publicly espoused. I suppose it's easier by some on the left to view the revolution as having been highjacked by infiltrationists than accept that genuine leftists would be capable of the atrocities conducted by the Soviet authorities whilst sincerely believing themselves to be working towards communism.

[Kubra]

Sure, but toss out the way something was defined in conventional usage of millions of people who once existed is a tacit admittance that one isn't very interesting in understanding their internal life.

What?

Let me be blunter, then: you want to talk about places like the soviet union and vietnam and whatnot without understanding them.

As others have already pointed out, a truly communist society is defined by communists themselves as stateless, classless and moneyless; given that the Soviet Union was unambiguously a state, that would preclude it from being considered a truly communist society, and its leadership never described it as such. Rather, the USSR was regarded by the Communist Party as a socialist state and a "dictatorship of the proletariat," a transitional stage between capitalism and true communism.

On the other hand the government of the USSR could certainly be described as a "communist government" in the sense that it was a government consisting of communists, controlled by the Communist Party; I don't take seriously the occasional assertions by leftists that the leaders of the USSR, especially the earlier generations, weren't genuinely committed to the ideology they publicly espoused. I suppose it's easier by some on the left to view the revolution as having been highjacked by infiltrationists than accept that genuine leftists would be capable of the atrocities conducted by the Soviet authorities whilst sincerely believing themselves to be working towards communism.

Weeeeeeell it's tricky. In the first place, calling it a communist party was less a matter of saying "we are communists" and more "we are more communist than you communists who refused to call yourself communist", as had been the fashion before 1921 (and which *they themselves* had done). And secondly, no one in the union called themselves "communist", because really it'd be a pointless moniker in a one-party state building-socialism-and-then-communism. You're building that shit, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not. You know how it is, these labels can only feasibly exist where there is diversity of opinion, where multiple viewpoints necessitate multiple terms of differentiation.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Communism definitely influenced its rise and initially it was following the path of marxist-leninist teachings, but due to it remaining stuck as a dictatorship of the proletariat, the corruption of the communist party and their aid for Arab nationalists who in many ways were more fascist than communist, I would say it wasn't truly communist in the end.

[Anatolian Anarchy]

Obviously not. They were authoritarian socialists, and probably right after Lenin had no intentions of a transition to the "stateless, classless" society Marx advocated for. Pragmatism had taken its roots a few years into Stalin's reign.

[My Political Fantasy]

Well, the Soviet government printed their own currency (the Ruble), so that is probably enough to exclude it from being a communist society.

Probably the most messed up Socialist country in my opinion is Albania.

[The Archregimancy]

I am a Scotsman.

I did not support Soviet communism.

Therefore no true Scotsman could support Soviet communism.

[Atheris]

I am a Scotsman.

I did not support Soviet communism.

Therefore no true Scotsman could support Soviet communism.

That's dumb.

I love it.

[The New California Republic]

I am a Scotsman.

I did not support Soviet communism.

Therefore no true Scotsman could support Soviet communism.

The Stasi certainly tried however.

[Miku the Based]

What?

Let me be blunter, then: you want to talk about places like the soviet union and vietnam and whatnot without understanding them.

I do, thank you.

[Albrenia]

It's like arguing whether things like card tricks are "real magic."

Obviously they're not, but on the other hand they're the only kind of "magic" that's actually real.

Pretty much how I see it.

[Aeritai]

Obviously not. They were authoritarian socialists, and probably right after Lenin had no intentions of a transition to the "stateless, classless" society Marx advocated for. Pragmatism had taken its roots a few years into Stalin's reign.

Strange I thought Lenin had intentions in trying to transition Russia into communism. Granted he was a bit tyrannical during his early years in power.

[Postauthoritarian America]

No. /thread

[Stellar Colonies]

It helped prove that transitioning to communism is a process which easily swerves off track into dark places, but it was not.

[Alcala-Cordel]

"communist government" is an oxymoron, and the Soviet Union was never communist. What it claimed to be was a dictatorship of the proletariat; a state that existed to prepare the region for the transition to communism. Unfortunately, while the USSR was strong when it came to outside threats it was vulnerable to domination by opportunists who had no intention of establishing communism. It wasn't long before it became dominated by plutocrats and oligarchs. On a related note, China has also been corrupted into a hyper-capitalist state. Mao was kinda full of himself, but it was Deng who ensured that China would never be run by the proletariat. Mao even said of Deng that "he does not understand Marxism-Leninism, he represents the capitalist class". Calling yourself or your organization communist does not make you or your organization communist.

This isn't to say that communism is unattainable, though, or that the Zapatista municipalities are as much as we can do. We also can't wait around for the right conditions, we should help create them.


TL;DR: no

[The Lord Thy God]

The USSR never achieved actual communism, no. People debate whether they even achieved any stage of socialism, but from my perspective I would say that they were in the early stages of socialism.

[Rusozak]

As has been abundantly pointed out, they never achieved the goal of true communism. I think a better question to ask is if the USSR remained committed to realizing that goal through its existence, whether the CPSU remained devoted to the very end or were communist in name only after a certain point.

[Great Jenovah]

Marx studied Leninism. Lenin studied Stalinism, Stalinism is Communism.

QED.

Marx died when Lenin was 13.. what

[The Lord Thy God]

As has been abundantly pointed out, they never achieved the goal of true communism. I think a better question to ask is if the USSR remained committed to realizing that goal through its existence, whether the CPSU remained devoted to the very end or were communist in name only after a certain point.

This is a good question. I do wonder whether Gorbachev was actually trying to reform the USSR in the goal of achieving communism, or whether he was an opportunist(with potential foreign backing) who just got outplayed by Yeltsin.

[Aeritai]

As has been abundantly pointed out, they never achieved the goal of true communism. I think a better question to ask is if the USSR remained committed to realizing that goal through its existence, whether the CPSU remained devoted to the very end or were communist in name only after a certain point.

Yeah that's what I meant when trying to ask the question, I just didn't know how to phrase it.

But yeah it would be interesting to know if the Soviet Union was committed to establishing communism.

[Necroghastia]

No. As has been gone over by others countless times, it had classes and a state, both of which true communism is meant to avoid.

Yea, the Soviet Union was a communist state.

What makes you think that?

[Punished UMN]

As has been abundantly pointed out, they never achieved the goal of true communism. I think a better question to ask is if the USSR remained committed to realizing that goal through its existence, whether the CPSU remained devoted to the very end or were communist in name only after a certain point.

Yeah that's what I meant when trying to ask the question, I just didn't know how to phrase it.

But yeah it would be interesting to know if the Soviet Union was committed to establishing communism.

In that case, the evidence is pretty abundant that the KPSS remained quite committed to the goal of establishing communism, and many of the things which critics say are indicative of it abandoning this goal are perhaps better explained by cognitive biases.

[Rusozak]

Yeah that's what I meant when trying to ask the question, I just didn't know how to phrase it.

But yeah it would be interesting to know if the Soviet Union was committed to establishing communism.

In that case, the evidence is pretty abundant that the KPSS remained quite committed to the goal of establishing communism, and many of the things which critics say are indicative of it abandoning this goal are perhaps better explained by cognitive biases.

Did they though? Especially in the last few years, with economic reforms that allowed more private ownership and let western corporate entities establish a presence. Had the USSR not collapsed, I imagine it would have continued down this route and ended up more like modern China.