USSR Like it or not?

[Masada]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/la-liberte.htm

From Mssr. Bakunin on Mssrs. Marx and Engels. Not the full letter, that is supplied above, I've cut it down to the relevant parts for brevity.

The reasoning of Marx ends in absolute contradiction. Taking into account only the economic question, he insists that only the most advanced countries, those in which capitalist production has attained greatest development, are the most capable of making social revolution. These civilized countries, to the exclusion of all others, are the only ones destined to initiate and carry through this revolution. This revolution will expropriate either by peaceful, gradual, or by violent means, the present property owners and capitalists. To appropriate all the landed property and capital, and to carry out its extensive economic and political programs, the revolutionary State will have to be very powerful and highly centralized. The State will administer and direct the cultivation of the land, by means of its salaried officials commanding armies of rural workers organized and disciplined for this purpose. At the same time, on the ruins of the existing banks, it will establish a single state bank which will finance all labor and national commerce.

It is readily apparent how such a seemingly simple plan of organization can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people! For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented workingmen and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings.

There will be slavery within this state, and abroad there will be war without truce, at least until the “inferior” races, Latin and Slav, tired of bourgeois civilization, no longer resign themselves to the subjection of a State, which will be even more despotic than the former State, although it calls itself a People’s State.

I edited my previous post...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Right, because THAT'S not a huge strawman.

I refuse to respond to such canned nonsense. Next!

 

[Masada]

A question. Where is the misrepresentation? I haven't stated this is Cheezy the Wiz's position, he believes in a system which represents X. I've put it out for discussion. I would however be interested in seeing how exactly the Soviet Unions deviation at birth or whenever from Marx's vision occurred and what effects that you believe it had [hypothetical is allowed here].

It is however interesting to note that it was a prediction made in 1872, and broadly speaking it's held fairly well for "Marxist" or "Marxist-leaning" states at various periods of their existence.

Deviating from Marx's vision however does seem to be the Marxist version of the original sin, and seems to be attributed to just about every failed "Marxist" state.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Marx would have grinded his teeth at the sight of the USSR.
He might have had ideological differences with Lenin, but he would have just stoned Gorbachev(which todays Russians blame for some unclear reason)

 

[Richard Cribb]

The final verdict on the man is yet to come? He essentially murdered around 30 million people, many of them for the sole purpose of retaining power. Unless you're in the "Stalin was clinically insane, and therefore not responsible for his actions" set, the man was pretty damn close to pure evil.

- If you make a tall statement regarding people somebody "essentially murdered" a huge amount of people backing it up with some real sources would perhaps not be too much asking for.
- And I am not a psychiatrist. Nor a Victorian moralist. I am a historian. I am capable of dialectic thinking.

I dont think the jury is still out on him, I think what he did is (mostly) well known and it's up to each to weigh up the good and the bad. Frankly, he did a lot of evil things, which everyone knows about, but he did a lot of good things too, which most people dont. I think the world would be a worse place without him, but I think its easy to see why so many people hate him. some of the horrible things he did actually achived things, industrialisation, defeat of Hitler etc, but some was pointless.

Sorry, but no.
History is much more complicated than that and I think I can safely say that Stalin will remain controversial for a long time.
I should probably have done an article on this or at least explained more thoroughly why, but right now when I even can't deliver the quiz I have promised that is obviously beyond me for the moment.
As for what everybody "knows" about topics as these, one should examine where they got this "knowledge" from. Then have a strong drink. And then some.Trust me, you will need it.

Don't leave us hanging. I really want to know who could have been that much out of touch with reality. I know Hamsun was institutionalized later in his life, but he was more a national socialism fan as far as I know...

GeorgJohannesen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Johannesen If I had any time, I should write have expanded that article considerably.
I think he was more in touch with "reality" than most.Of course, the definition of reality might prove a difficult one.
As for Hamsun, I fail to see why you bring him into this, except for rhetorical purposes. He was a renowned anti-communist.

Other key issue with the USSR, a lack of ability to stomach criticism.

Sigh.
I have little reason to expect much from people nowadays, but basic reading comprehension shouldn't be too much to ask for. However, that is obviously the case.
- While being impressive, I am not the USSR.
- There are 15 people on this entire forum who I regard as fascists (I got another one in this thread whose existence I blisfully had forgotten about) and consequently don't engage in any sort of communication with. On the other hand there are perhaps 2 or 3 people here who more or less agree with me in most matters. Now consider how many active posters there is here, do the math and make up your mind whether I have "a lack of ability to stomach criticism".

Democracies screw up, but they also correct. We were wrong to inter the Japanese, but we are not currently interring (most) of the Muslims.

"We" support any sort of sinister regime if it is in "our" interest.
"We" have in our societies an organization of the economical sector which is highly undemocratic.
"We" tolerate a certain amount of political democracy as long as status quo is preserved. If not, "we" will resort to exteme means to protect "our" privileges. Like in the 1930s.
"Our" record demonstrates comprehensively that moral indignation, whenever it comes from the political right ("liberals" are included here), can and should not be taken seriously.

If you asked your average Soviet citizen whether he was interested in more material goods, I really hope you don't think he would say "Hell no!". People are people, with similar wants and needs.

This is supposed to be a history forum. Many people should note that.
And one of the things history ought to teach us is that people living in different societes to different times certainly not have the same needs and wants, the fundamental ones aside.
The average Soviet citizen could be interested in the social security and justice in God's Own Country, for instance.
Here is interesting reading in regard to this:http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1120/contents.html
Regarding the difference between capitalism and socialism, there is a difference between living to consume (the capitalist ideal) and consuming to live (the socialist one). A basic intro to commodity fetishism could be useful here.

 

[Dodge_272]

The final verdict on the man is yet to come? He essentially murdered around 30 million people, many of them for the sole purpose of retaining power. Unless you're in the "Stalin was clinically insane, and therefore not responsible for his actions" set, the man was pretty damn close to pure evil.

Stalin was recently voted the greatest ever Russian, despite not being Russian.

 

[Sharwood]

Stalin was recently voted the greatest ever Russian, despite not being Russian.

I know, which proves that Russia is seriously effed up at the moment. I'm surprised I never responded to luceafarul, I might edit this.

EDIT: Okay, a quick check reveals why I didn't respond. It's a ridiculous point he's making, it was from three pages back, and it was also the day I left town for two weeks.

@luceafarul: As a lecturer once told me, one does not have to reference common knowledge. And it common knowledge that Stalin was a butcher. i could potentially provide references on the exact numbers of dead, but they are debated and it would be beside the point. Stalin murdered tens of millions, many of them simply to tighten his own personal grip on power. If there's a final judgement, Stalin is playing Risk with Hitler in Hell now.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It is important to remember that "common knowledge" simply means "widely circulated." It is also "common knowledge" that people thought the world was flat before 1492, and "common knowledge" that knights needed to use cranes to get on their horses, their armor was so heavy. Obviously, neither of these is true, yet they are widely circulated "facts."

I don't know precisely what it is that Luce is referring to when he says that the "common knowledge" about Stalin is wrong, or that the origin of these "facts" requires a strong drink afterwards, so don't think I'm defending his statement (though I am intently curious to know what it is you're talking about, Luce), I am simply reminding you and others of the nature of the statement you have used in your defense. As Luce said, we are historians, we are capable of dialectic thought processes.

"Common knowledge" when referring to history means things that are not contreversial and do not need to be verified, such as "Richard the Lionheart was a king of England" or "the Battle of Borodino was in 1812," unless such a statement is part of the argument itself (meaning that you are arguing whether or not Borodino was in 1812 or something).

 

[Sharwood]

Exactly. And it is common knowledge and does not need to be verified that Stalin murdered millions. If I tried to post exact numbers, then I'd need to verify it through references, and even then it would be controversial due to the contradictory references and secretive nature of many of the deaths in question. But I'm not doing that. 30 million was just thrown out there, and is cheerfully withdrawn.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Since Luce challenged your source, I think it is safe to say that your claim is somewhat controversial. Falling back onto an "I don't need to cite, its so well known" is not an answer.

 

[Sharwood]

Since Luce challenged your source, I think it is safe to say that your claim is somewhat controversial. Falling back onto an "I don't need to cite, its so well known" is not an answer.

It's qualifies as an answer for several reasons. Firstly, I withdrew the exact number, so now I am only saying that Stalin essentially murdered millions. Rather than get into an argument about that, let's just say that Stalin's actions led to the deaths of millions. That good enough?

Secondly, it qualifies as common knowledge. I'm not saying it doesn't need to be cited because it's so well-known. I'm saying it doesn't need to be cited because, in your words, it is not controversial and does not need to be verified. That's your own definition of common knowledge.

If luceafarul has a problem with that statement, then there isn't any point arguing with him on the subject, as it's such laughably easy to find that he could trip over it on the way to the bathroom. Would you bother to cite the comment "bees can sting you," just because someone took issue with it? No, you'd laugh at them, because doing so would be a waste of time. I've withdrawn everything I said that could possibly need citation, and we're down to the bare basics.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

We will have to wait and see how Luce quantifies his objection to your lack of sources.

 

[Sharwood]

We will have to wait and see how Luce quantifies his objection to your lack of sources.

You know, a one sentence response doesn't really do justice to three paragraphs rationalising the fact that I simply couldn't be bothered. Shame on you Cheezy.

 

[Yeekim]

The number of victims of Stalin has been argued about ad nauseam on this board (even pretty recently), with the exact number of perished victims being somewhere between 2 and 20 millions, iirc. I believe that "millions" is a safe choice of words in any case.

 

[Masada]

A thousand here, a million here, pretty soon we are talking about large numbers.

 

[RedRalph]

Sorry, but no.
History is much more complicated than that and I think I can safely say that Stalin will remain controversial for a long time.
I should probably have done an article on this or at least explained more thoroughly why, but right now when I even can't deliver the quiz I have promised that is obviously beyond me for the moment.
As for what everybody "knows" about topics as these, one should examine where they got this "knowledge" from. Then have a strong drink. And then some.Trust me, you will need it.

I think most people know all the main points about him, and argue about rthe details. i.e. he was responsible for a lot of deaths (he was), but no one can say for sure how many, he presided over and incredible period of industrialisation, but the cost is disputed, etc. I think people know a fair bit about him, hes hardly some obscure figure who people arent generally educated about, theres a gigantic range of sources people can find on him, not all demonise him, even in my own local bookshop there are books which examine his achievements and his crimes.

I think the biggest thing people dispute about Stalin is not what he did, but whether the good outweighed the bad.

 

[lovett]

Do you think the good outweighed the bad?

 

[RedRalph]

Do you think the good outweighed the bad?

I think given that the USSR would likely have been defeated by Nazi Germany had Trotsky been in power, and given that the allies wouldnt have been able to defeat a Nazi empire that stretached fomr the Urals to the Atlantic, yeah I think overall the good did outwegh the bad. I just dont buy it that being a Soviet satellite was as bad for Eastern and Central Europe as being under the Nazis was. Dont get me wrong; he was responsible for some absolutely unforgivable crimes, horrific ones.

 

[Masada]

I think given that the USSR would likely have been defeated by Nazi Germany had Trotsky been in power, and given that the allies wouldnt have been able to defeat a Nazi empire that stretached fomr the Urals to the Atlantic, yeah I think overall the good did outwegh the bad. I just dont buy it that being a Soviet satellite was as bad for Eastern and Central Europe as being under the Nazis was. Dont get me wrong; he was responsible for some absolutely unforgivable crimes, horrific ones.

This is the same Trotsky who acquitted himself militarily well during the Civil War? I also don't think Trotsky would have engaged in a purge, or would have made deals with the Nazi's in the first instance. Highly speculative on both of our parts though.

 

[RedRalph]

This is the same Trotsky who acquitted himself militarily well during the Civil War? I also don't think Trotsky would have engaged in a purge, or would have made deals with the Nazi's in the first instance. Highly speculative on both of our parts though.

Yeah, of course, by the subjects nature it is, but do you think Trotsky would have industrialised the country to the degree Stalin did? That is the main reason the USSR won