Was The Soviet Union A True Communist Government?

[Punished UMN]

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.

The KPSS was obviously not a monolith but I meant more generally in relation to the era prior to the dissolution period.

[Ifreann]

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

QED.

Marx died when Lenin was 13.. what

Vladimir Lenin, boy genius.

[The New California Republic]

Marx died when Lenin was 13.. what

Vladimir Lenin, boy genius.

His earliest still existing written work however is from Spring 1893 when he was 22, it was a paper on peasant economics called New Economic Developments in Peasant Life. It's the first thing in the 45 volume Lenin's Collected Works, which is over 27,000 pages long in total. I've set myself the task of reading it all, as soon as my current reading list is exhausted. I must be a glutton for punishment.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

The USSR and PRC have always been communist. Their interpretations of communism may vary, but they are communist no less.

[South Reinkalistan]

The USSR and PRC have always been communist. Their interpretations of communism may vary, but they are communist no less.

What is the process by which you judge something to be Communist?

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

the soviet union was not communist in the pure marxist sense, no

a more apt term would be 'authoritarian socialist'

[Vaspelia]

probably not
but that's what makes the USSR cool

[Cordel One]

The USSR and PRC have always been communist. Their interpretations of communism may vary, but they are communist no less.

communism is when something calls itself communist

[South Reinkalistan]

the soviet union was not communist in the pure marxist sense, no

a more apt term would be 'authoritarian socialist'

Considering how most Marxism concerns itself with a relative understanding of authority (meaning that a society cannot be seen as universally authoritarian by such standards), how can "authoritarianism" conflict with being pure Marxist-socialist? I cite Engels here:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No. The Soviet Union was a state capitalist empire with the intent of achieving communism by oppressing the exact people it meant to set free. Whilst the language they used was convincing, in reality the moment Lenin banned elections and then of course Stalin came into power, it was over.

[Atheris]

the soviet union was not communist in the pure marxist sense, no

a more apt term would be 'authoritarian socialist'

Marxism, especially Marxist-Leninism, is inherently authoritarian.

[North Rosmana]

No, they where not, they never tried to make the state less powerful, they only used the symbols of communism, and Stalin was the worst.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

the soviet union was not communist in the pure marxist sense, no

a more apt term would be 'authoritarian socialist'

Marxism, especially Marxist-Leninism, is inherently authoritarian.

I dunno, it might or might not be. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if Kropotkin would be a better alternative.

[North Rosmana]

Marxism, especially Marxist-Leninism, is inherently authoritarian.

I dunno, it might or might not be. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if Kropotkin would be a better alternative.

His methods where not, that is for sure, sorry but I take very dim view on terrorism.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I dunno, it might or might not be. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if Kropotkin would be a better alternative.

His methods where not, that is for sure, sorry but I take very dim view on terrorism.

What do you mean? Who is the advocate for terrorism?

[North Rosmana]

His methods where not, that is for sure, sorry but I take very dim view on terrorism.

What do you mean? Who is the advocate for terrorism?

Kropotkin had a campaign of bombings if I am not mistaken.

I could be wrong though, I only read about him in my school books as a teen.

[Vaspelia]

Yeah-yeah. But what matters if the Soviet Union wasn't an An-Com utopia like the people of our post-coldwar era wanted it to be or someshit. If it really was a "classless, moneyless marxist utopia", it wouldn't had become The Empire that have made the other empires piss and shit themselves in fear as it lifted itself away from the czarist agrarianism that it was, into a serious industrial power that then would spread the name of "socialism" across the planet; such influence wouldn't be felt as much (even still after it's collapse) if it wasn't because the USSR was authoritarian empire that wanted to GET SHIT DONE.
I am an Anti-Communist actually, but i know when someone or something deserves my respect for it's virtues and hard-work.

[Forsher]

Let's put it this way... if it wasn't communist, what was it? Soviet?

Let's use an analogy. Say we have a sports team but we don't know what sport it plays. One approach would be to ask local people what they play, to which they might respond with "football". In English there are about seven notable different sports this could refer to, three of which are major international sports. Another approach would be to observe the team playing its sport, which will be useful only if we actually know what the sports are.

But let's flip it on its head. Say we're not trying to find out what the sport they play is. What if we're a local child being taken to watch them play. Whatever sport the team plays according to some alien observer, we will (like the other local children) come to understand the sport the team is said to be playing as being the sport the team plays.

Right, so now we're political scientists or whatever trying to determine what the USSR was. One approach is to ask people... we'll get a variety of answers, but Communist will probably be dominant. Another approach is to compare its feature with a preconceived list and do something like a differential diagnosis. Except, where do those features come from?

The USSR was communist not because it embodied a theoretical understanding that, in any case, is usually called Marxism these days, but because people understand it to be communist... and that basis is probably the most sensible one for determining how to define communism.

OTOH, maybe it's like "football" and the word "communist" is unhelpful to start with. In which case Marx isn't communist, he's Marxist, and the USSR isn't communist either, but Soviet. Though resorting to "the thing is itself" doesn't seem overly useful either. But that does allow you to define Communism in its broadest possible sense... encompassing everything that people consider to be communist, in the same way that English, Dutch and German are all West Germanic languages but the situation where that is more important than English, Dutch and German's being separate languages is niche.

[Fedel]

>Gather behind the existing political entity that aligns the most with or can most easily be made to align with communist principles
>Once that political entity has achieved primacy, give it the power it needs to destroy your opponents by sacrificing your own ability ( and theirs ) to resist it
>Use utilitarian philosophy to justify the destruction and harm necessary to suppress your political opponents and bring them in line
>Those who now run the all powerful political entity that rules through fear and threat of force are not that interested in setting up your communist utopia

[North Rosmana]

Marx died when Lenin was 13.. what

Vladimir Lenin, boy genius.

And he was not even called Lenin back then, he was just Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

[Duvniask]

Let's put it this way... if it wasn't communist, what was it? Soviet?

Let's use an analogy. Say we have a sports team but we don't know what sport it plays. One approach would be to ask local people what they play, to which they might respond with "football". In English there are about seven notable different sports this could refer to, three of which are major international sports. Another approach would be to observe the team playing its sport, which will be useful only if we actually know what the sports are.

But let's flip it on its head. Say we're not trying to find out what the sport they play is. What if we're a local child being taken to watch them play. Whatever sport the team plays according to some alien observer, we will (like the other local children) come to understand the sport the team is said to be playing as being the sport the team plays.

Right, so now we're political scientists or whatever trying to determine what the USSR was. One approach is to ask people... we'll get a variety of answers, but Communist will probably be dominant. Another approach is to compare its feature with a preconceived list and do something like a differential diagnosis. Except, where do those features come from?

The USSR was communist not because it embodied a theoretical understanding that, in any case, is usually called Marxism these days, but because people understand it to be communist... and that basis is probably the most sensible one for determining how to define communism.

OTOH, maybe it's like "football" and the word "communist" is unhelpful to start with. In which case Marx isn't communist, he's Marxist, and the USSR isn't communist either, but Soviet. Though resorting to "the thing is itself" doesn't seem overly useful either. But that does allow you to define Communism in its broadest possible sense... encompassing everything that people consider to be communist, in the same way that English, Dutch and German are all West Germanic languages but the situation where that is more important than English, Dutch and German's being separate languages is niche.

Complete humbug. You'd have us call North Korea a democracy if its people didn't know any better (which for all intents and purposes, a decent amount of them might not). White gold isn't silver just because people might look upon it and consider it so. You'd reduce us to meaningless blabber because most people can't be arsed to learn something about the world.

And a political scientist who, upon being tasked with determining the substance of a political system, only asks for people's (often ignorant) preconceived notions and takes their answers at face value, is undeserving of being in the field.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

No because "true communism" as Marx defined it is impossible.

[Cordel One]

>Gather behind the existing political entity that aligns the most with or can most easily be made to align with communist principles

Who, the Zapatistas? The Soviet Union cetainly didn't.

>Once that political entity has achieved primacy, give it the power it needs to destroy your opponents by sacrificing your own ability ( and theirs ) to resist it

they haven't done that

>Use utilitarian philosophy to justify the destruction and harm necessary to suppress your political opponents and bring them in line

or that

>Those who now run the all powerful political entity that rules through fear and threat of force are not that interested in setting up your communist utopia

or that

[Atheris]

Vladimir Lenin, boy genius.

And he was not even called Lenin back then, he was just Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

Before there was Jimmy Neutron, there was Johnny Quasar. And before there was Johnny Quasar, there was Vladdy Reddwarf.

[Forsher]

Complete humbug. You'd have us call North Korea a democracy if its people didn't know any better (which for all intents and purposes, a decent amount of them might not). White gold isn't silver just because people might look upon it and consider it so. You'd reduce us to meaningless blabber because most people can't be arsed to learn something about the world.

And, somehow everyone knows that white gold isn't silver.

Read what I wrote. I literally just described a learning process.

And a political scientist who, upon being tasked with determining the substance of a political system, only asks for people's (often ignorant) preconceived notions and takes their answers at face value, is undeserving of being in the field.

So... you're saying that definitions of political systems ought to have no bearing whatsoever on what people understand those systems to mean? Absurd.