USSR Strangulation or suicide?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-23 11:14pm

Let's visit a very old argument: Was the fall of the USSR inevitable? Was the Communist system inherently flawed and simply could not stay on its feet? Or did the US policy of containment and forcing them to keep up with us militarily truly end them? Could the USSR have maintained their power and status indefinately or did their decision to try and match the US and having outlets from which to branch out denied to them slowly strangle them?

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-01-23 11:18pm

Lets start with the bleedingly obvious.

The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.

It could have stayed afloat if it had just admitted to itself the above and dealt with it accordingly, opening trade and some capitalist routes, rather than attempting to cling to an ideal which all of the leadership knew to be an unobtainable goal while falsifying their successes to the people.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-01-23 11:32pm

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-23 11:49pm

It is interesting to note that Russia suffered economocaly in the years following the demise of the Soviet Union. Many have blamed this on the failure of the western style capitalism. Is this correct ?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-01-23 11:51pm

evilcat4000 wrote:It is interesting to note that Russia suffered economocaly in the years following the demise of the Soviet Union. Many have blamed this on the failure of the western style capitalism. Is this correct ?

That could be just becasue it was new to them, and they just jumped right in. Something similar happened just after the revolution, during the civil war. They couldn't just go straight to the pure communism.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-01-23 11:56pm

Come on, Lenny, where are you...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-01-23 11:58pm

Badme wrote:Come on, Lenny, where are you...

Eh?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-24 12:19am

weemadando wrote:The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.

This is quibbling semantics here.

It could have stayed afloat if it had just admitted to itself the above and dealt with it accordingly, opening trade and some capitalist routes, rather than attempting to cling to an ideal which all of the leadership knew to be an unobtainable goal while falsifying their successes to the people.

Opening the system would have been it's downfall, precisely as what happened under Gorbachev.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-24 12:25am

Stravo wrote:Let's visit a very old argument: Was the fall of the USSR inevitable? Was the Communist system inherently flawed and simply could not stay on its feet? Or did the US policy of containment and forcing them to keep up with us militarily truly end them? Could the USSR have maintained their power and status indefinately or did their decision to try and match the US and having outlets from which to branch out denied to them slowly strangle them?

The Communist system was inherently flawed, yes, but in a vacuum it might have been able to survive, although be very sick.

Towards the end of the Cold War, the USSR was imploding, but it's possible they could have outlasted the West's patience and morale or taken us down with them (say, if a Carter-style approach rather than a Reagan-style one was taken). The window for Reagan's attack on the USSR was not that long.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-24 12:36am

A related question. Suppose if the USSR decided to attack the US when would have been the best time to do it ? My personal guess would be the mid 70s since thats when Soviets were at their best.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-01-24 12:40am

phongn wrote:
weemadando wrote:The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.
This is quibbling semantics here.

Not really as its essential to realise that while Communism is a very limiting concept, there is an amazing amount of variety to Socialism, Australia, for example is all but Socialist, just as China is Socialist, its just a different implementation.

Communism is not Socialism and vice-versa.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-24 12:43am

I'd say the early-mid 70s at their best- the USSR was at its best and more importantly the US Army was at its worst.

Regarding the topic question- I don't think it was inevitable. Gorbachev was a fool who moved too fast. If they took a route more like China, slowly, without altering the political system so radically, the USSR would still be around, and more importantly, we'd still be treated to Cold War paranoia like Soviet Military Power every year!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-24 12:44am

The USSR would have had to taken action no later than 1950 to have survived. And it would have survived in nothing like it's current form.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-24 12:55am

weemadando wrote:The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-24 01:03am

evilcat4000 wrote:It is interesting to note that Russia suffered economocaly in the years following the demise of the Soviet Union. Many have blamed this on the failure of the western style capitalism. Is this correct ?

They went from being told what to do and when to do it and having their meager incomes given to them by the government to trying to make their own way. What do you expect to happen?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-24 01:04am

It is due to a largely uncontrolled switch, not an inherit fault in Western capitalism.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-24 01:09am

Nathan F wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:It is interesting to note that Russia suffered economocaly in the years following the demise of the Soviet Union. Many have blamed this on the failure of the western style capitalism. Is this correct ?
They went from being told what to do and when to do it and having their meager incomes given to them by the government to trying to make their own way. What do you expect to happen?

Actualy this argument is not from me but from anti-globalisation folks. They cite the example of Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union as an example of failure of the capitalist system.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 01:11am

weemadando wrote:The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No+true+scotsman+fallacy

The Soviet Union and China were both Communist states in the sense that they did attempt to implement the concept of Communism. However, the concept of Communism is so inherently flawed that it's impossible to implement exactly as written.

Strict Marxist communism not only prescribes solutions, but it also predicts outcomes, ie- it basically says "you will do this, and then this will happen". The problem, of course, is that the second part does not happen.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-01-24 01:20am

Darth Wong wrote:
weemadando wrote:The USSR wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. The world has yet to see and doubtful ever will see a Communist state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No+true+scotsman+fallacy

The Soviet Union and China were both Communist states in the sense that they did attempt to implement the concept of Communism. However, the concept of Communism is so inherently flawed that it's impossible to implement exactly as written.

Strict Marxist communism not only prescribes solutions, but it also predicts outcomes, ie- it basically says "you will do this, and then this will happen". The problem, of course, is that the second part does not happen.

Perhaps your missing the point, they weren't Communist, they were a variant on Socialism that was leaning towards Communism, or rather, leaning towards, Stalin's, Lenin's, Mao's or whoever's was in charge interpretation of Communism. It was all a basis of Marxist philosophy, but it was still Socialist as the conditions under which Communism exists DIDN'T.

Quote stuff from the net all you really want, but I don't think that wikipedia is a valid source for political theory. Kind of like quoting RR when discussing the second law of thermodynamics.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-24 01:20am

What is the difference between socialism and communism ?

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-01-24 01:20am

I'd would now like to point to the gigantic black white fallacy that is currently blocking out the sun. Just in case people failed to notice it on its way in.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 01:23am

What is the difference between socialism and communism ?

The latter is the extreme form of the former.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-24 01:24am

weemadando wrote:Perhaps your missing the point, they weren't Communist, they were a variant on Socialism that was leaning towards Communism, or rather, leaning towards, Stalin's, Lenin's, Mao's or whoever's was in charge interpretation of Communism. It was all a basis of Marxist philosophy, but it was still Socialist as the conditions under which Communism exists DIDN'T.

Blah blah blah. "It isn't true Communism" crap and replacing "communism" with "socialism leaning on Communism" as if it really makes a conceptual or distinguishing difference.

weemadando wrote:Quote stuff from the net all you really want, but I don't think that wikipedia is a valid source for political theory. Kind of like quoting RR when discussing the second law of thermodynamics.

Hardly, since by nature RR is not going to correctly describe thermodynamics. There's no such inherent quality built into wikipedia. 'Shucks we don't all have that poli sci degree, we're incompetant to discuss these things.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 01:24am

weemadando wrote:Perhaps your missing the point, they weren't Communist, they were a variant on Socialism that was leaning towards Communism, or rather, leaning towards, Stalin's, Lenin's, Mao's or whoever's was in charge interpretation of Communism. It was all a basis of Marxist philosophy, but it was still Socialist as the conditions under which Communism exists DIDN'T.

On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Marx prescribed numerous recommendations for Communism, and Communist societies attempted to implement many or most of them. He also predicted what the world would be like in the Age of Communism, and he was completely wrong. His blown prediction does not change the fact that those states were communist. Unless you can show that there was still a form of private investment property ownership permitted under Communism, since socialism does not ban such propery while communism does.

Quote stuff from the net all you really want, but I don't think that wikipedia is a valid source for political theory. Kind of like quoting RR when discussing the second law of thermodynamics.

You obviously didn't even bother reading the link. The link has nothing to do with "political theory"; it describes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy which you are employing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 01:24am

weemadando wrote:I'd would now like to point to the gigantic black white fallacy that is currently blocking out the sun. Just in case people failed to notice it on its way in.

You're a hypocrite. You're the one saying the Soviet Union can't be considered Communist because it was never fully, 100 percent Communist.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

USSR Strangulation or suicide?

USSR Strangulation or suicide?

Re: USSR Strangulation or suicide?