Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform

[Odin]

Originally posted by Serb
Not in Stalin's USSR.

The common people sure as hell weren't benifiting.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
The soviet economy was anathema to true socialists for the same reason capitalism is, both had parasitic ruling classes, which in the USSR were the party bosses.

Actually, Serb is right. The pillage of the economy by the party bosses for their own benefit was much less developed under Stalin than after him. Stalin himself wasn't living in phenomenal wealth (yet, with all his power, he could easily have done so), and the bureaucrats were way too expandable for them to longlastingly parasite the economy. The worst economic abuses of the nomenklatura happened afterwards, when they had the stability required for a system based on such parasiting.

The destruction of entire economies under Stalin (notably the Ukrainian agriculture) has nearly everything to do with the stupidity of vesting absolute power in one megalomaniac, and pretty much nothing to do with the pilfer from local potentates.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, Serb is right. The pillage of the economy by the party bosses for their own benefit was much less developed under Stalin than after him. Stalin himself wasn't living in phenomenal wealth (yet, with all his power, he could easily have done so), and the bureaucrats were way too expandable for them to longlastingly parasite the economy. The worst economic abuses of the nomenklatura happened afterwards, when they had the stability required for a system based on such parasiting.

The destruction of entire economies under Stalin (notably the Ukrainian agriculture) has nearly everything to do with the stupidity of vesting absolute power in one megalomaniac, and pretty much nothing to do with the pilfer from local potentates.

Ahhh, thanks, I keep geting Stalin and post-stalin FUBARs mixed up.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Serb
Khrushev was such gift, not Stalin.

Could you please explain me why, long before Stalin's death, several enthusiastic western communists who went to visit Stalin's USSR came back utterly disgusted? Is it in Russia that they fell victim to American propaganda?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Could you please explain me why, long before Stalin's death, several enthusiastic western communists who went to visit Stalin's USSR came back utterly disgusted? Is it in Russia that they fell victim to American propaganda?

Yeah, they went expecting a Trotskyist USSR, but found something entirely different.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Odin


A country doesn't need to be ruled by a megalomanic psycopath to indistrialize.

But Stalin wasn't a megalomanic psycopath.

The fact Russia had just started industrializing is why socialism in russia was doomed to fail, socialism only works in wealthy developed countries. The Bolsheiviks were trying to go to socialism straight from a mostly feudal, agrarian society, a BIG nono.

"We are a century behind of major industrial countries. Either we'll make the same way within ten years or we'll be crushed".
Guess who said this?

The goal number one for Bolsheviks was survival.

[Serb]

It's 6:50 AM here. I need some rest.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Serb

"We are a century behind of major industrial countries. Either we'll make the same way within ten years or we'll be crushed".
Guess who said this?

Lenin? (Who I never liked, anyway)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, they went expecting a Trotskyist USSR, but found something entirely different.

I just finished reading the book From Plato to NATO, The Idea of the West and it's opponents and I read that left-wing acedamics in Western Europe thought The USSR was more democratic than the capitalist democracies since to them capitalist countries must be fascist a priori.

[Spiffor]

The development of democracy in capitalist societies isn't some obvious and inevitable result of history. In the early 20th century, the capitalist world was still divided between autocratic regimes, and "democratic" ones with strong authoritarian leanings (though they were weakening). You might want to check how bitterly the western democracies fought against trade unions, and generally had many laws that deprived the workers of their freedom.

Also, in theory, the Soviet model is one of a more direct democracy, where citizens can actively participate to the decisions. It's very different from the liberal democracies of the time, where the decisions were taken by very remote officials, who weren't really representative of the wishes of the population.

The USSR's theoretical model of democracy has been ruined by the civil war, by the party apparatchiki who were too happy to keep their power, by the formation of a bureaucratic class, and by Stalin's totalitarian and megalomaniac delirium. However, at the beginning, many didn't know what was going, on, and the Soviet model looked much more attractive to them than the western one. It's a big duh.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Odin


Lenin? (Who I never liked, anyway)

Stalin.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Odin
The USSR was more democratic than the capitalist democracies since to them capitalist countries must be fascist a priori.

It's a well known line of thought, though your own way of oversimplifying it does not do you any credit.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The development of democracy in capitalist societies isn't some obvious and inevitable result of history. In the early 20th century, the capitalist world was still divided between autocratic regimes, and "democratic" ones with strong authoritarian leanings (though they were weakening). You might want to check how bitterly the western democracies fought against trade unions, and generally had many laws that deprived the workers of their freedom.

I'm talking about post WW2, when western Euope (besides Spain and Portugal) were good democracies (with powerful trade unions and welfare states to placate the workers). I know there was still a lot of lingering athoritariansim in the early 20th century. The US basically forced liberal democracy on West Germany, Austria, and Italy after the war.

Also, in theory, the Soviet model is one of a more direct democracy, where citizens can actively participate to the decisions. It's very different from the liberal democracies of the time, where the decisions were taken by very remote officials, who weren't really representative of the wishes of the population.

The USSR's theoretical model of democracy has been ruined by the civil war, by the party apparatchiki who were too happy to keep their power, by the formation of a bureaucratic class, and by Stalin's totalitarian and megalomaniac delirium. However, at the beginning, many didn't know what was going, on, and the Soviet model looked much more attractive to them than the western one. It's a big duh.

Yeah, the Russian Civil War basically f*cked the USSR over, lack of a strong democratic tradition definitely played a part as well.. It is my understanding that Lenin tried to bring back a limited market economy but Stalin saw it as a threat to his absolute control when he seized power. Gorbachev tried to create a democratic USSR with a market socialist economy, but then the coup attempt, regional nationalism, and the rise of Boris Yeltsen distroyed the USSR and let the neo-liberals free reign to do thier worst.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
The Bolsheiviks were trying to go to socialism straight from a mostly feudal, agrarian society, a BIG nono.

Actually, the Bolsheviks launched the revolution in the hopes of sparking revolt in Western Europe. They figured that either they'd be successful or they'd be crushed. They were completely unprepared for what happened, defeating the counter-revolution, but the revolution being defeated in Western Europe. They were stuck with an utterly "unmarxist" situation, workers power in a state with no workers or industry.

Whatever else we need to say about Stalin, it needs to be remembered that what he did wasn't solely about aggrandizing Stalin the man, but about securing the revolution, and trying to find a way forward in the concrete situation in which they found themselves. Due to their limitations, they went forward full-steam, but in a ham-handed and brutal way.

I hate to write it, but I think that once German fascism takes power, Stalinism was the only possible means of Soviet survival. I would note, however, that had Stalin not been in charge, it is distinctly possible the Nazis wouldn't have come to power (but that is an hypothetical). We can only know what did happen, and despite all the brutality and murder (on an unheretofore heard of scale) they dragged the USSR from a war-torn medieval agrarian country to a space-faring country in the span of a life-time.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Odin
The Bolsheiviks were trying to go to socialism straight from a mostly feudal, agrarian society, a BIG nono.

Actually, the Bolsheviks launched the revolution in the hopes of sparking revolt in Western Europe. They figured that either they'd be successful or they'd be crushed. They were completely unprepared for what happened, defeating the counter-revolution, but the revolution being defeated in Western Europe. They were stuck with an utterly "unmarxist" situation, workers power in a state with no workers or industry.

Yeah, I know the situation was an accedent, that still didn't make it a good situation. Forced would of been a better way of putting it. The October Revolution was one of those things that had good intentions but went terribly wrong.