Living Like Communists - Soviet Union

[civfanatic]

Food for thought: If you value socialist ideals, then democracy doesn't really go with it. In many western countries where they've experimented with long periods of democratic socialism including the Scandanavian countries, often after a while people elect rightwing, fundamentalist parties to power. These parties enact policies that serve to wipe out the gains made in terms of cultural, social and economic progress by the leftists, by focussing too much on the military, small government, and religious agendas. Hitler is a perfect example, and there are tons of more contemporary examples. Democracy is good as long as it is practiced in a framework where the choice is restricted to progressive parties only.

Ideally, there should be a socialist constitution in place that prevents right-wing extremist groups from wrecking the country too much (should they get elected). Also, I assume that the majority is in favor of socialism. Otherwise, the whole point of "democratic socialism" is ruined.

Another problem with democratic socialism is that it can only work in certain societies. These tend to be the ones with no external enemies, and which can hence devote a large amount of the state's resources towards welfare schemes such as EI, free healthcare, free education etc. Large countries tend to have great power ambitions, and hence their leaders want to invest more in military and industrial production. Other large countries like India tend to have external threats which force them to spend more on defence, thus taking away resources from social welfare schemes. Nehru tried to follow a democratic socialist model for India (a la Scandanavia), but 1962 made him realize that it was not possible.

In India's context, I do not support pursuing global ambitions like the U.S. does, even if India was a developed country with a huge economy. I believe that India should only spend enough on defence to protect its sphere of influence, deter potential aggressors, and maintain limited power projection capabilities within the IOR. The rest of the money should be invested in the people.

 

[civfanatic]

You had none to begin with, but then again please do go ahead with your pointless discussion on an ideology you claim to love.

I asked for a simple definition of communism, and a comparison of communism, socialism, and Marxism. You failed to do so, and instead resorted to more useless rhetoric.

That's all I had to know. Cheers.

 

[Adux]

I asked for a simple definition of communism, and a comparison of communism, socialism, and Marxism. You failed to do so, and instead resorted to more useless rhetoric.

That's all I had to know. Cheers.

In the age of easy google searches, you are yanking my chain mate! Go find it yourself!

 

[civfanatic]

In the age of easy google searches, you are yanking my chain mate! Go find it yourself!

I didn't ask the question for myself. I already know the answer.

 

[Adux]

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Ayn Rand

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Ayn Rand

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Ayn Rand

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?
Ayn Rand

Now more importantly for you clearly ignorant communist sympathizers who have never actually lived in one or experienced it first hand, who cant even read human history,

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
Ayn Rand

 

[Known_Unknown]

Ideally, there should be a socialist constitution in place that prevents right-wing extremist groups from wrecking the country too much (should they get elected). Also, I assume that the majority is in favor of socialism. Otherwise, the whole point of "democratic socialism" is ruined.

You mean like how India's constitution specifies that it is a "socialist republic", and yet the BJP comes to power with its communal agenda, stages riots etc?

As for the majority, the opinions of people are like waves on the sea, they always keep changing. A less charitable quote from a higher being says that "People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader - occasionally in the right direction."

I'd like to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the creation, maintenance, and propagation of socialist ideology should be the preserve of an enlightened elite. This elite will be responsible for laying the tracks down, and only then will the train move in the right direction. Without any particular track, the train will be directionless, and may even reverse direction from time to time. The progress of human civilization depends on herding the sheep in the right direction, the direction of progressive, humanist, socialist ideology, and away from religious, conservative thinking.

Inevitably, this will need some form of social control. You cannot have democratically elected socialist governments keep coming to power unless you can control what people think. This may sound a bit like "1984", but it's actually true of all governments, but more so socialist ones. You will find that in most countries with a long history of socialist rule, everything from the textbooks, the state TV stations, government policies, programs, laws etc are designed to foster socialist or progressive ideology. (The reverse is true in capitalist/right leaning countries like the US).

In the USSR for example, the government created a whole new concept of art, which is reflected in Soviet era architecture, paintings, sculptures etc. They all reflect a common theme-freedom from the capitalist yoke, working hard, hand in hand with each other to create a country for the better good of everyone. The USSR government didn't have to worry about winning elections, but about something far more important: to ensure the continued propagation of communist ideology in the people.

Democratic socialism while fine in theory, cannot exist continually in practice as long as there is democracy, and people can substitute socialism with right wing ideology.

The only way socialism can exist is through a democracy which outlaws non-socialist parties. However, even in this case, it only takes care of opinion within the country. How about outside the country? When your people look outside and see glamorous Hollywood stars, glittering super rich celebrities and illusions of "freedom", how can they manage to square that with their lives? In socialist countries, wealth distribution ensured that no one was too poor, this also meant that no one can be too rich. Guaranteed jobs, pensions and free healthcare in the Soviet model maybe don't sound too appealing to those with higher ambitions of owning global corporations, villas in Italy or diamond crusted sandals.

In conclusion, true socialism can only be achieved through a global socialist revolution. Unless each and every country in the world adheres to socialist ideology, those people in socialist countries can always be led astray by capitalist ideas. Since right wing, capitalist ideas are much easier to understand and accept, they appeal to the lowest common factor of intelligence, and vast majorities of people are usually drawn to these ideas. Socialist ideas being a bit more difficult to understand and being out of the common experience of most people, can be put in action, as I mentioned earlier, only by an intellectual elite who have a broader vision for the progress of not just their country, but of humanity.

 

[pmaitra]

What about True democracy doesnt your pea brain understand?



No because it really doesnt matter, maybe your pea brain doesnt get it, You live in USA for a reason and not in Venezuela or ertswhile USSR. Hypocrite much.



Yes, Commie's havent killed in China or any other country. Heck even in West Bengal. /Sarcasm (just so that you can understand), Communism is the most successful economic and political model ever! This is not even funny at this point.


So says the hypocrite. I have known your kind, earn capitalist salaries in the USA and sermon the poor us Desi Yahoo's about the benefits of Communism and being dirt poor. Fuck Off!

In the age of easy google searches, you are yanking my chain mate! Go find it yourself!

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Ayn Rand

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Ayn Rand

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Ayn Rand

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?
Ayn Rand

Now more importantly for you clearly ignorant communist sympathizers who have never actually lived in one or experienced it first hand, who cant even read human history,

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
Ayn Rand

Adux, I thought the only talent you had is to troll around like a moron. Now I see you are an expert in using expletives as well. If the forum rules did not forbid me, I'd have reciprocated long time back. What do you mean by 'Rand'? What do you mean by 'Fuck Off'? For that matter, what did you imply by 'you are yanking my chain'? Do you even have one? <I had more in mind, but I am holding myself here>

All you have shown so far is that you a big mouth, that too a dirty one. Can you please take your expertise in expletives to the slum that you hail from? It's not impressing most of us and moreover, you are not contributing to this discussion or the image of this forum.

P.S.: No need to reply. I am quoting you just for the record.

CivFanatic and Known_Unknown, please ignore trolls. Let us carry on with our discussion.

 

[pmaitra]

You mean like how India's constitution specifies that it is a "socialist republic", and yet the BJP comes to power with its communal agenda, stages riots etc?

Well, there is a law that states that all political parties must declare that their aim is socialist, apart from the socialist thingy in the Preamble to the Constitution.

As for the majority, the opinions of people are like waves on the sea, they always keep changing. A less charitable quote from a higher being says that "People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader - occasionally in the right direction."

Very true.

I'd like to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the creation, maintenance, and propagation of socialist ideology should be the preserve of an enlightened elite. This elite will be responsible for laying the tracks down, and only then will the train move in the right direction. Without any particular track, the train will be directionless, and may even reverse direction from time to time. The progress of human civilization depends on herding the sheep in the right direction, the direction of progressive, humanist, socialist ideology, and away from religious, conservative thinking.

Inevitably, this will need some form of social control. You cannot have democratically elected socialist governments keep coming to power unless you can control what people think. This may sound a bit like "1984", but it's actually true of all governments, but more so socialist ones. You will find that in most countries with a long history of socialist rule, everything from the textbooks, the state TV stations, government policies, programs, laws etc are designed to foster socialist or progressive ideology. (The reverse is true in capitalist/right leaning countries like the US).

There is a fair amount of propaganda in all nations. It is required to keep morale up and to keep people motivated. So, we are back to moulding people to think in a particular direction. However, truth cannot be hidden for long. Just like the US wanted to hide their casualties in Vietnam and the USSR theirs in Afghanistan, truth shall emerge. Therefore, I'd rather there was an opposition to point out the flaws of the ruling regime. What happened in USSR was that the CPSU and their party functionaries became corrupt, people with party contacts avoided conscription, the privileged could afford to ride the Chaika while the common man, if lucky, managed the Zhiguli or Lada. People will see that and take notice, no matter how much mouding is done. These things are not communist in strict terms. PRC, on the other hand, and Deng Xiaoping in particular managed to usher in change in its policies, albeit slowly to avoid the shock effect that the USSR went through. People were also seeing a lot of things in PRC. Ergo, the protests in Tienanmen Square.

In the USSR for example, the government created a whole new concept of art, which is reflected in Soviet era architecture, paintings, sculptures etc. They all reflect a common theme-freedom from the capitalist yoke, working hard, hand in hand with each other to create a country for the better good of everyone. The USSR government didn't have to worry about winning elections, but about something far more important: to ensure the continued propagation of communist ideology in the people.

Democratic socialism while fine in theory, cannot exist continually in practice as long as there is democracy, and people can substitute socialism with right wing ideology.

I think people should have the opportunity to remove people from the government who are not able to meet their basic demands. If the government cannot meet these demands, at least the leader should come out in the open, convince the people and buy time. People liked the reforms and democratisation of the USSR. That is why majority voted to preserve the reformed USSR. In fact, USSR's collapse was not democratic at all.

Many leaders had that charisma. Lenin, Khrushchyov and Gorbachyov to some extent had these public skills. Stalin did not, but he made good use of the bullet, while Brezhnev was busy decorating himself with medals while recession tore apart the Soviet economy.

The only way socialism can exist is through a democracy which outlaws non-socialist parties. However, even in this case, it only takes care of opinion within the country. How about outside the country? When your people look outside and see glamorous Hollywood stars, glittering super rich celebrities and illusions of "freedom", how can they manage to square that with their lives? In socialist countries, wealth distribution ensured that no one was too poor, this also meant that no one can be too rich. Guaranteed jobs, pensions and free healthcare in the Soviet model maybe don't sound too appealing to those with higher ambitions of owning global corporations, villas in Italy or diamond crusted sandals.

I used to see foreign tourists taking pictures of poor Indians. They probably felt sorry or maybe there were some other reasons. I do see the same kind of poverty here in the US now. People standing in cold dark snow covered bus stop waiting for the bus, that will arrive every 60 minutes. Walk around near the 5 Points Station in Atlanta, and at least 15 people will come begging for money. It is not so rosy in this capitalist paradise anyway.

The Soviet model failed. The US model might also fail, but chances are less because there is always a system of checks and balances in place. PRC will carry on for a while because they know that they need to keep the people happy and there shall be no more protests. They have watched the fall of the USSR and learnt some really good lessons. They are good learners and one needs to admire them for that.

In conclusion, true socialism can only be achieved through a global socialist revolution. Unless each and every country in the world adheres to socialist ideology, those people in socialist countries can always be led astray by capitalist ideas. Since right wing, capitalist ideas are much easier to understand and accept, they appeal to the lowest common factor of intelligence, and vast majorities of people are usually drawn to these ideas. Socialist ideas being a bit more difficult to understand and being out of the common experience of most people, can be put in action, as I mentioned earlier, only by an intellectual elite who have a broader vision for the progress of not just their country, but of humanity.

We are all experimenting. Feudalism, Kingdom, Republic, Empire, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy ... now we are in the Free Market Era. This human quest for the perfect solution shall continue. It is interesting to watch things unfolding.

 

[The Messiah]

We are all experimenting. Feudalism, Kingdom, Republic, Empire, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy ... now we are in the Free Market Era. This human quest for the perfect solution shall continue. It is interesting to watch things unfolding.

No system can work flawlessly because ultimately people become corrupted.

Vast majority of the people are sheep anyways and need someone to direct them. And from the minority of people that aren't sheep the majority get corrupted.

Did that make sense ?

 

[pmaitra]

No system can work flawlessly because ultimately people become corrupted.

Vast majority of the people are sheep anyways and need someone to direct them. And from the minority of people that aren't sheep the majority get corrupted.

Did that make sense ?

Absolutely. Basically, we humans have this habit of pointing the finger at others when we ourselves are subject to greed and like to bend the rules hoping no one will notice. Often, no one notice, but we also do not notice that everyone else is bending the rules some way or the others. The system, built on the assumption that everyone will do things right, collapses.

Murphys Law: If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. For some reason, probability theory does not hold that only a small % will be corrupt and the system will carry on.

 

[civfanatic]

You mean like how India's constitution specifies that it is a "socialist republic", and yet the BJP comes to power with its communal agenda, stages riots etc?

Even the BJP say that they are committed to "Gandhian socialism", whatever that is.

But in general India's politics are not the best example to use.

As for the majority, the opinions of people are like waves on the sea, they always keep changing. A less charitable quote from a higher being says that "People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader - occasionally in the right direction."

And that is to be expected.

I'd like to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the creation, maintenance, and propagation of socialist ideology should be the preserve of an enlightened elite. This elite will be responsible for laying the tracks down, and only then will the train move in the right direction. Without any particular track, the train will be directionless, and may even reverse direction from time to time. The progress of human civilization depends on herding the sheep in the right direction, the direction of progressive, humanist, socialist ideology, and away from religious, conservative thinking.

So basically, you support the Leninist ideal? Lenin thought that the lower classes lacked "class consciousness" and that a "vanguard party" in the form of highly disciplined, committed, professional revolutionaries was needed in order to spur a revolution. What Lenin did not foresee was how creating such a party would lead to bureaucratic authoritarianism, and eventually Stalinist totalitarianism. As noble as Lenin's intentions may have been, in the long-term he did not create a true socialist state that looked after its people's needs; he merely created another oligarchy where the nomenklatura replaced the old Tsarist aristocracy.

History tells us that entrusting power in the hands of privileged elite is not a wise decision.

Inevitably, this will need some form of social control. You cannot have democratically elected socialist governments keep coming to power unless you can control what people think. This may sound a bit like "1984", but it's actually true of all governments, but more so socialist ones. You will find that in most countries with a long history of socialist rule, everything from the textbooks, the state TV stations, government policies, programs, laws etc are designed to foster socialist or progressive ideology. (The reverse is true in capitalist/right leaning countries like the US).

You are correct. The education system needs to foster civic virtue and ingrain social values in order for any democracy to survive in a genuine form.

In the USSR for example, the government created a whole new concept of art, which is reflected in Soviet era architecture, paintings, sculptures etc. They all reflect a common theme-freedom from the capitalist yoke, working hard, hand in hand with each other to create a country for the better good of everyone. The USSR government didn't have to worry about winning elections, but about something far more important: to ensure the continued propagation of communist ideology in the people.

Agreed. Though I am strongly opposed to government censorship of the arts or literature, in any form whatsoever.

However, even in this case, it only takes care of opinion within the country. How about outside the country? When your people look outside and see glamorous Hollywood stars, glittering super rich celebrities and illusions of "freedom", how can they manage to square that with their lives? In socialist countries, wealth distribution ensured that no one was too poor, this also meant that no one can be too rich. Guaranteed jobs, pensions and free healthcare in the Soviet model maybe don't sound too appealing to those with higher ambitions of owning global corporations, villas in Italy or diamond crusted sandals.

A nation should be judged by how it treats it least fortunate citizens, not by how glamorous its creamy layer acts.

In conclusion, true socialism can only be achieved through a global socialist revolution. Unless each and every country in the world adheres to socialist ideology, those people in socialist countries can always be led astray by capitalist ideas. Since right wing, capitalist ideas are much easier to understand and accept, they appeal to the lowest common factor of intelligence, and vast majorities of people are usually drawn to these ideas. Socialist ideas being a bit more difficult to understand and being out of the common experience of most people, can be put in action, as I mentioned earlier, only by an intellectual elite who have a broader vision for the progress of not just their country, but of humanity.

This might be true. It is reminiscent of Leon Trotsky's "World Revolution" theory versus the Stalinist theory of "Socialism in One Country".

But a global socialist revolution is highly impractical, and is not going to happen anytime soon. Especially since there is no longer a superpower backing the international socialist movement, as there was during the Cold War.

 

[pmaitra]

So basically, you support the Leninist ideal? Lenin thought that the lower classes lacked "class consciousness" and that a "vanguard party" in the form of highly disciplined, committed, professional revolutionaries was needed in order to spur a revolution. What Lenin did not foresee was how creating such a party would lead to bureaucratic authoritarianism, and eventually Stalinist totalitarianism. As noble as Lenin's intentions may have been, in the long-term he did not create a true socialist state that looked after its people's needs; he merely created another oligarchy where the nomenklatura replaced the old Tsarist aristocracy.

History tells us that entrusting power in the hands of privileged elite is not a wise decision.

Excellent post. Yes, I would not like to be left out when decision that affect me are being made. Intentions may be good, I want to participate, even if outnumbered, in the decision making process.

 

[amoy]

Even in a one-party country there're different (sometimes contradicting) thoughts and factions within the ruling party. That's why u (we) often note conflicting 'propaganda', such as,

Economically: More liberalization, less monopoly by state-run ent. Vs. anti-privatization & strengthening SOE
Socially: Development vs.Equity (Priority: enlarging the cake vs. distributing the cake)
Politically: Cleansing CCP and reinforming its leading role back to the 'orthodox' version Vs. turning CCP to something like "Social Democrats"
Foreign Policy: G2 whim alike Vs. Confrontation mode

Once the 'strongman' (Deng) was gone, more debates, brainstorming and "wrestles" are coming out of box and intensifying. Deng's 'pragmatism' is being challenged (covertly) while Mao's is in kind of revival.

 

[pmaitra]

Even in a one-party country there're different (sometimes contradicting) thoughts and factions within the ruling party. That's why u (we) often note conflicting 'propaganda', such as,

Economically: More liberalization, less monopoly by state-run ent. Vs. anti-privatization & strengthening SOE
Socially: Development vs.Equity (Priority: enlarging the cake vs. distributing the cake)
Politically: Cleansing CCP and reinforming its leading role back to the 'orthodox' version Vs. turning CCP to something like "Social Democrats"
Foreign Policy: G2 whim alike Vs. Confrontation mode

Once the 'strongman' (Deng) was gone, more debates, brainstorming and "wrestles" are coming out of box and intensifying. Deng's 'pragmatism' is being challenged (covertly) while Mao's is in kind of revival.

Thank you. Your post was insightful.

It is true, there will always be factionalism. The problem is how to find a middle ground. Of course packing people off to the firing squad like Stalin will not solve the problems. Again, checks and balances. Yet, the drawback of the single party system is that it is still within the "Party" and there are limitations as to how far a person can go without dismantling the ideology. That is why there is a need to allow an opposition. Let there be true checks and balances.

Said that, PRC has so far done a great job and CCP deserves credit for that.

 

[amoy]

Lenin thought that the lower classes lacked "class consciousness" and that a "vanguard party" in the form of highly disciplined, committed, professional revolutionaries was needed in order to spur a revolution. What Lenin did not foresee was how creating such a party would lead to bureaucratic authoritarianism, and eventually Stalinist totalitarianism. As noble as Lenin's intentions may have been, in the long-term he did not create a true socialist state that looked after its people's needs; he merely created another oligarchy where the nomenklatura replaced the old Tsarist aristocracy.

Let's sound more practical in sobriety. When Bolshevik or CCP (so called vanguards) came onto the stage what was the %% of illiteracy? or %% pop. were landless peasants (exactly 'sheepish' lacking "class consciousness") who barely heard of anything but status quo and accepted their fate as norms? That might sound perfectly ideal that everyone has a say in the decision making process. But that's 'anarchy' in which a country would have gone nowhere (worse than being static).

So, in a certain phase 'oligaphy' is inevitable. then phase II, phase III, IV... evolving step by step.

Even in your fabulous democracy u've got charismatic Nehru, Indira GANDHI, Rajiv GANDHI, and now Sonia, and... coming in a line, as an 'elite' class, whereas politics/election seems of little relevance to many commoners (backward castes, peasants), some of whom consequently resort to extreme means in a modern context.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Let's sound more practical in sobriety. When Bolshevik or CCP (so called vanguards) came onto the stage what was the %% of illiteracy? or %% pop. were landless peasants (exactly 'sheepish' lacking "class consciousness") who barely heard of anything but status quo and accepted their fate as norms? That might sound perfectly ideal that everyone has a say in the decision making process. But that's 'anarchy' in which a country would have gone nowhere (worse than being static).

So, in a certain phase 'oligaphy' is inevitable. then phase II, phase III, IV... evolving step by step.

Even in your fabulous democracy u've got charismatic Nehru, Indira GANDHI, Rajiv GANDHI, and now Sonia, and... coming in a line, as an 'elite' class, whereas politics/election seems of little relevance to many commoners (backward castes, peasants), some of whom consequently resort to extreme means in a modern context.

1)No one can supress the mob in a democracy.Maya,Laloo,Nitish the Mandalites and the original mandalite Karunanidhi are testimonial to that

2)India is unitary as well as federal

 

[civfanatic]

Let's sound more practical in sobriety. When Bolshevik or CCP (so called vanguards) came onto the stage what was the %% of illiteracy? or %% pop. were landless peasants (exactly 'sheepish' lacking "class consciousness") who barely heard of anything but status quo and accepted their fate as norms? That might sound perfectly ideal that everyone has a say in the decision making process. But that's 'anarchy' in which a country would have gone nowhere (worse than being static).

I did not say that Lenin was 'right' or 'wrong'. Considering the circumstances in Russia at the time, I would say that the Bolshevik Revolution was a much-needed change.

So, in a certain phase 'oligaphy' is inevitable. then phase II, phase III, IV... evolving step by step.

The problem, in the Soviet context, is that the Revolution stopped evolving. Once the CPSU bureaucrats were firmly entrenched in power, they resorted to any means to hold on to that power. The Stalinist oligarchy became the new 'status quo'.

Lenin promised "All Power to the Soviets" and he rose to prominence on the back of this claim. Did the slogan have any meaning after his death?

Even in your fabulous democracy u've got charismatic Nehru, Indira GANDHI, Rajiv GANDHI, and now Sonia, and... coming in a line, as an 'elite' class, whereas politics/election seems of little relevance to many commoners (backward castes, peasants), some of whom consequently resort to extreme means in a modern context.

India as it is now is a corrupt, plutocratic sham democracy. There are positive signs that the political system is changing for the better (e.g. look at the anti-corruption movement this year) but it will take time. Now that the people themselves are taking action the politicos are forced to be more accountable, else they will be thrown out and disgraced.