USSR Strangulation or suicide?

[weemadando]

Look, how many times do I have to point out the simple fact that COMMUNISM IS NOT SOCIALISM! NOR IS SOCIALISM COMMUNISM.

They are seperate political systems. Communism is a very specific set of ideals and concepts - WHICH HAVE NEVER EXISTED ON THIS PLANET IN ANY NATION OR ETHNIC GROUP. Socialism is a wide-ranging group of ideologies. IF you don't want to believe me, then fine, but go and read something other than GI Joe for your political theory.

[Sarevok]

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.

But the Soviet union called themselves communists. So they must be communists.

[Stormbringer]

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?

And worse yet the ones that really did know how to make capitalism work tended to be criminals. So not only did they not know how to make the system work, many were exploited and ripped off like hell as well.

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.

That arguement is so much hot air and bullshit.

The problems are hardly a fault of western capitalism. They miss the critical fact that you need something to start with in order to produce a viable capitalist economy. Instead the former Soviet republics were largely bankrupt, leaders unfamiliar with the system (which caused it's own problems), an economy that was in no great shape for civilian demands and outdated as hell, and the best talent pool being organized crime. Not ideal conditions by any means.

[weemadando]

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.

Actually it was never even close to Communist, Lenin stated that after the revolution it would take generations to achieve a Communist state, not to mention the whole thing about global revolution. When Stalin took power he stated that they had achieved Communism and we all know what happened to people who disagreed.

Just because I call myself the second coming of Christ doesn't mean I am. Just look at David Koresh.

[Darth Wong]

Actually it was never even close to Communist,

Lemme see. From the Communist Manifesto, we have:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."- Karl Marx

And of course, we know that he means "bourgeoisie property" when he says that, not the "simple property" of the common labourer or craftsman. So while you may go after all of the other things he talks about in his Communist Manifesto, the fact remains that Marx himself summed up communism in a single sentence, which just happened to be applicable to the USSR and China but not to Australia, Canada, or France.

Lenin stated that after the revolution it would take generations to achieve a Communist state, not to mention the whole thing about global revolution. When Stalin took power he stated that they had achieved Communism and we all know what happened to people who disagreed.

Just because I call myself the second coming of Christ doesn't mean I am. Just look at David Koresh.

Yadda yadda yadda. Marx defined Communism, and his definition was not as restrictive as yours. As I said, you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Johonebesus]

Marx predicted that there would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that would transform society from capitalist to communist. While, strictly speaking, we might say that the dictatorship stage was a prelude to communism and so not truly, completely communist, it is certain that Marx himself considered it to be the final stage before true communism, and an essential part of the process. In plain vernacular terms, there is no need to draw a clean distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and "pure" communism. The Soviets believed that they were in the dictatorship stage, and were working towards perfect communism. Since they called themselves communist, since they claimed to be in a stage that Marx predicted would be part of the birth of communism, and since they went beyond normal socialistic practices, I don't see the need to insist that they were not really communist because they had not achieved the communist utopia.

[phongn]

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!

/me imagines hordes of Seawolfs, F-22s and whatnot facing off against their Soviet foes.