USSR Like it or not?

[silver 2039]

The USSR was the greatest country to grace the earth you capitalist scum.

 

[citedon]

The current Russian national anthem is the Soviet one with different words.

Thanks, I had no idea. About the only time I hear other national anthems is during the Olympics. Used to hear the USSR's a lot. After the fall so many of the former Soviet athletes are now from other nations we don't hear the song played as often as in the past. Also American TV has fallen into the habit of only showing award presentations for American winners (sometimes we see others, but not often). I just assumed that Russia had a new anthem.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

Eh. I dunno. The USSR was interesting, but I don't think I really care much for it. I just voted for "Yes and no"

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Improved standards of living tremendously in Russia, for one thing. It's difficult to overestimate how crappy life was for people before 1917; by the 1960s, the regime could boast a constantly improving state of life for virtually everybody in the country. By the same token, the economic problems beginning in the 1970s and extending into the next decade ruined the government's ability to provide that improvement, and eroded much of the regime's support base.

In addition, the social benefits were supreme; guaranteed pension, health care, education, and affordable housing for everyone, and Western workers simply cannot imagine what it's like to work in a democratically run business where the boss by law must hold meetings if the workers call it, and he must answer their grievances or face legal action by the State.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Why has nobody mentioned their uniforms? Commies are second only to fascists, Nazi Germany especially, in spiffy uniform design.

In addition, the social benefits were supreme; guaranteed pension, health care, education, and affordable housing for everyone[...]

How were these things paid for? Heavy taxation, seizure, or inflation seem like the only options, and all seem rather less than ideal.

That's a serious question, BTW. I've only recently started reading anything about economics, and it's all been liberatarian-slanted so far.

 

[innonimatu]

In addition, the social benefits were supreme; guaranteed pension, health care, education, and affordable housing for everyone, and Western workers simply cannot imagine what it's like to work in a democratically run business where the boss by law must hold meetings if the workers call it, and he must answer their grievances or face legal action by the State.

We may soon know. There's a serious underemployment problem that will not continue to be contained by creating more and more services jobs supported by debt. Marx as already been partly vindicated inasmuch as the economy is split mostly between large corporation which its owners (shareholders) no longer control, and very small business where at least some workers are the "owners of the means of production". What is missing is the acknowledgment of this reality and the rewriting of a few laws, with the purpose of curbing financial speculation and reducing that phenomenon of "living off the capital". And that piece, too, must now fall into place.
Economically, capitalism, continuously developed, will either lead to socialism or sink into a nearly continual crisis. The balance between production and consumption requires a reasonably balanced distribution of income, or progress is halted.
Politically, things are more complicated...

 

[Lockesdonkey]

But by "heading in the right direction" i'm not sure how the circumstances were in the USSR, but the years in the 80's were the WORST for us, and the rest of east bloc.

I speak of the period 1988-1991, when glasnost and perestroika were at their height. This is the period of the "Sinatra Doctrine," which was when the Eastern Bloc started making its own way, more or less independent of the USSR (hence the name). I'm not sure if you'd see all of the current Eastern European member states of NATO and the EU in the same positions, but certainly a lot of them would.

 

[nonconformist]

The USSR was essentially the world's longest, biggest, most deadly and dangerous social experiment ever implimented.

 

[luiz]

Improved standards of living tremendously in Russia, for one thing. It's difficult to overestimate how crappy life was for people before 1917; by the 1960s, the regime could boast a constantly improving state of life for virtually everybody in the country. By the same token, the economic problems beginning in the 1970s and extending into the next decade ruined the government's ability to provide that improvement, and eroded much of the regime's support base.

Living standards by the late 20's in Russia were inferior to what they were prior to the Revolution, which is enough proof of how it sucked. They did increase dramatically in the next decades - but so did the living standards in, say Brazil. Many nations achieved industrialization and higher levels of social development than Russia with a worse starting point - think about South Korea or Taiwan.
-------
Those who think it was on the right track under Lenin are of course ignorant of actual history. Lenin was the one who created the secret police and the first to use terror as the main political weapon of the soviet regime. He was in every way equal to Stalin. There are countless documents where he orders the execution of people just set an example, and other where he urges his fellow bolsheviks to show no mercy when handing executions. He was a monster in every sense of the world.

The USSR had its shining moments, but so did Imperial Russia. Russia is an extraordinary country with all sorts of natural resources. Much before the October Revolution Russia had a place of honour when it came to literature and many other fields of human achievement.

I argue that the communist regime did not have any particularly positive effect over Russia. Many other agricultural countries managed to industrialize, and better, without resorting to the insane levels of terror employed by the soviet leadership.

 

[philippe]

a lot of awesome movies were made in early soviet russia and the soviets did a big chunck for the women rights.

 

[innonimatu]

Living standards by the late 20's in Russia were inferior to what they were prior to the Revolution, which is enough proof of how it sucked. They did increase dramatically in the next decades - but so did the living standards in, say Brazil. Many nations achieved industrialization and higher levels of social development than Russia with a worse starting point - think about South Korea or Taiwan.
-------
Those who think it was on the right track under Lenin are of course ignorant of actual history. Lenin was the one who created the secret police and the first to use terror as the main political weapon of the soviet regime. He was in every way equal to Stalin. There are countless documents where he orders the execution of people just set an example, and other where he urges his fellow bolsheviks to show no mercy when handing executions. He was a monster in every sense of the world.

That's war. Between the civil war and WW2 the first half of the 20th century was a hellish time for Russians.

 

[luiz]

That's war. Between the civil war and WW2 the first half of the 20th century was a hellish time for Russians.

An unnecessary civil war that the bolsheviks started with their revolution against the much preferable Provisional Government of Kerensky. I blame the Russian Civil War and its horrors largely on them.
But wars aside, the catastrophic effect of collectivization over the living standards of most russians cannot be overstated. For those who argue that it was necessary in order to industrialize, I point to all the formerly agricultural nations that managed to industrialize without employing such tactics.

 

[Sharwood]

That's war. Between the civil war and WW2 the first half of the 20th century was a hellish time for Russians.

It's not just war. Lenin began purging after the war had been won. And Stalin made Lenin seem a happy-go-lucky childhood dream.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

An unnecessary civil war that the bolsheviks started with their revolution against the much preferable Provisional Government of Kerensky. I blame the Russian Civil War and its horrors largely on them.
But wars aside, the catastrophic effect of collectivization over the living standards of most russians cannot be overstated. For those who argue that it was necessary in order to industrialize, I point to all the formerly agricultural nations that managed to industrialize without employing such tactics.

The catastrophic effect of collectivization was primarily because the Soviet Union had lost about 2/3 of its farmland and cattle during the Civil War, and you can't just magically replace that. A lot of bad stuff was going down in Russia regardless of collectivization.

 

[luiz]

The catastrophic effect of collectivization was primarily because the Soviet Union had lost about 2/3 of its farmland and cattle during the Civil War, and you can't just magically replace that. A lot of bad stuff was going down in Russia regardless of collectivization.

Yes, alot of stuff related to the Bolsheviks and the terror campaign they unleashed against many sectors of the population.
But it's not like collectivization is blameless. For starters, starvation occured in all massive attempts of collectivization, including outside the USSR (China, for one). Second, it is a historically documented fact that most peasants, especially in the Ukraine, did not desire to join the collective farms and had to be coerced. It is a historically documented fact that peasants throughout the USSR would cut their productions because it would get confiscated anyway.

And lets not forget: Lenin and his terrorist thugs started and plotted the Russian Civil War, financed by the very same Germany that was fighting their country. All the destruction that was caused by that war is on them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, alot of stuff related to the Bolsheviks and the terror campaign they unleashed against many sectors of the population.

The White Army was more than happy to reciprocate, so don't act like this was purely a Red Army affair.

But it's not like collectivization is blameless.

I never said it was.

For starters, starvation occured in all massive attempts of collectivization, including outside the USSR (China, for one).

The only two I know of are Vietnam and China, which, remind me, were in a civil war for how many years? Every country that goes through a civil war, including the United States, England, France, and Mexico, suffered greatly from them; and three of the four I mentioned were relatively short compared to the Russian, Vietnamese, or Chinese wars. The US got out the best of the four, only because the Union was never pillaged the way the South was, which more resembled the other civil wars we're talking about.

Second, it is a historically documented fact that most peasants, especially in the Ukraine, did not desire to join the collective farms and had to be coerced. It is a historically documented fact that peasants throughout the USSR would cut their productions because it would get confiscated anyway.

It didn't help things to have them cut their own production, which was done largely because there was no food to be had elsewhere to begin with because 2/3 of their food producing farms were gone. A lot of people were going to die from starvation, collectivization or not. Yes, technically collectivization helped that along, but that's like saying the ground killed him, not the bullet that sent him out the window.

And lets not forget: Lenin and his terrorist thugs started and plotted the Russian Civil War, financed by the very same Germany that was fighting their country. All the destruction that was caused by that war is on them.

They tried to start it twice before, as you may recall, well before the Great War. Why should they have thrown away the only chance they were probably ever going to have to actually win their Revolution? It's not as if these things go right very often. After all, did the US wait for Britain to recover from the Seven Years' War, or any of the Spanish American colonies wait for Spain to oust Napoleon and his brother before they declared independence? You take what you can get. Its easy for you to say that fighting against imperialism is stupid and foolish; you were given your independence from Portugal, most people are not so lucky.

 

[Arwon]

They overthrew a perfectly good revolutionary socialist government and REPLACED IT WITH COMMUNISM!

 

[luiz]

The White Army was more than happy to reciprocate, so don't act like this was purely a Red Army affair.

The White Army was under control until Lenin and his terrorists deposed the Provisional Government, aided by a country they were fighting in a war, and threw the country in anarchy and self-destruction. There are no words strong enough to describe Lenin's treachery and evilness.

The only two I know of are Vietnam and China, which, remind me, were in a civil war for how many years? Every country that goes through a civil war, including the United States, England, France, and Mexico, suffered greatly from them; and three of the four I mentioned were relatively short compared to the Russian, Vietnamese, or Chinese wars. The US got out the best of the four, only because the Union was never pillaged the way the South was, which more resembled the other civil wars we're talking about.

You can't possibly compare the famines that happened in Russia or China to ones in England or the USA. The famines produced by communism were the worst famines of human history.
Yes, the war (started by the Bolsheviks) played its role in the famine. But the collectivization - and agricultural policy as whole, that was brutal even before complete collectivization - had a demonstrable effect in making things much, much worse.

It didn't help things to have them cut their own production, which was done largely because there was no food to be had elsewhere to begin with because 2/3 of their food producing farms were gone. A lot of people were going to die from starvation, collectivization or not. Yes, technically collectivization helped that along, but that's like saying the ground killed him, not the bullet that sent him out the window.

No, it's not. As I said, even in areas not that effected by the war, food output decreased dramatically. Peasants did not produce all that they could, simply because it would be confiscated without compensation. So the communist thugs instituted minimum ammounts that each peasant had to contribute with, frequently overlooking the constraints that they faced, which resulted in much resistence, terror and mass executions, frequently ordered by the great criminal Lenin himself.

They tried to start it twice before, as you may recall, well before the Great War. Why should they have thrown away the only chance they were probably ever going to have to actually win their Revolution? It's not as if these things go right very often. After all, did the US wait for Britain to recover from the Seven Years' War, or any of the Spanish American colonies wait for Spain to oust Napoleon and his brother before they declared independence? You take what you can get. Its easy for you to say that fighting against imperialism is stupid and foolish; you were given your independence from Portugal, most people are not so lucky.

You're not making any sense.
First, imperialism was long gone. Kerensky's government was socialistic and reasonably representative and democratic; far more than the communist regime ever was. Lenin, in his hunger for absolute power, allied himself with his nation's enemy and launched an attack against a socialistic and reasonably democratic regime; to call it a struggle against imperialism is ridiculous and a typical soviet falsification of history. To destroy that better regime Lenin threw the country in a bloody civil war, persecuted and killed anyone who dared to oppose his dogma, and produced nothing but starvation, poverty and failure. Not to mention that he paid huge compensation to his german pals and humiliated Russia with a shameful surrender nevermind the fact that it was 1918 and Germany was pretty much finished.

Not to threadjack, but Portugal did not give Brazil it's independence either. Perdo I, while a portuguese prince, was not the ruler of Portugal, and in fact gave up the right to rule Portugal as long as he would rule the independent Empire of Brazil. It was a negotiated independence that involved payments, concessions, threats, and even some fighting. It was not at all the result of portuguese benevolence.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The White Army was under control until Lenin and his terrorists deposed the Provisional Government, aided by a country they were fighting in a war, and threw the country in anarchy and self-destruction. There are no words strong enough to describe Lenin's treachery and evilness.

Define "under control." The Army was losing tens of thousands to desertion, because even though the government had changed in Petrograd, the performance of the Army did not. The Kerensky Offensive was a complete disaster, and was one of the first and few things the Provisional Government actually did; anyone who didn't think Kerensky was "more of the same" in 1917 would have been a fool. Popular support was overwhelming for and end to the war, and that's what the Soviet brought them. The territorial losses to the Germans at Brest-Litovsk were quite harsh, but it's hard to imagine a better fate had the Russians kept fighting; no one knew the Germans were only a year from collapse, all they knew was that the Russian Army was losing losing, and losing more, millions were dying, and there didn't seem to be any way to end it, and that neither the Czar or Kerensky realized that. Had the Provisional Government arisen AFTER the war was over, it probably would have faired better, and gotten more support from the Petrograd Soviet.

You can't possibly compare the famines that happened in Russia or China to ones in England or the USA.

Which is why I also included Mexico and France in that count, on whom the Revolutions were much more devastating. The US and England were on the list because they experienced a similar effect but on a smaller scale, which I also noted.

The famines produced by communism were the worst famines of human history.

Are the Indians aware of that? You might want to let them know.

Yes, the war (started by the Bolsheviks) played its role in the famine. But the collectivization - and agricultural policy as whole, that was brutal even before complete collectivization - had a demonstrable effect in making things much, much worse.

It doesn't matter who started the war, the effect was the same; both sides contributed to the destruction of their own land.

No, it's not. As I said, even in areas not that effected by the war, food output decreased dramatically.

Most of the country was covered by that civil war, including the best farmland, in the Ukraine and southwestern Siberia.

Peasants did not produce all that they could, simply because it would be confiscated without compensation. So the communist thugs instituted minimum ammounts that each peasant had to contribute with, frequently overlooking the constraints that they faced, which resulted in much resistence, terror and mass executions, frequently ordered by the great criminal Lenin himself.

Collectivization began in 1928. The famines started as early as 1917. You cannot blame the first famines on collectivization, only those after 1928.

You're not making any sense.
First, imperialism was long gone. Kerensky's government was socialistic and reasonably representative and democratic; far more than the communist regime ever was. Lenin, in his hunger for absolute power, allied himself with his nation's enemy and launched an attack against a socialistic and reasonably democratic regime; to call it a struggle against imperialism is ridiculous and a typical soviet falsification of history. To destroy that better regime Lenin threw the country in a bloody civil war, persecuted and killed anyone who dared to oppose his dogma, and produced nothing but starvation, poverty and failure. Not to mention that he paid huge compensation to his german pals and humiliated Russia with a shameful surrender nevermind the fact that it was 1918 and Germany was pretty much finished.

That's right, and they all knew that would happen before November 1917. Kerensky's government was quickly proving itself to be inept at solving really anything, including the most pressing problem; the war.

 

[luiz]

Define "under control." The Army was losing tens of thousands to desertion, because even though the government had changed in Petrograd, the performance of the Army did not. The Kerensky Offensive was a complete disaster, and was one of the first and few things the Provisional Government actually did; anyone who didn't think Kerensky was "more of the same" in 1917 would have been a fool. Popular support was overwhelming for and end to the war, and that's what the Soviet brought them. The territorial losses to the Germans at Brest-Litovsk were quite harsh, but it's hard to imagine a better fate had the Russians kept fighting; no one knew the Germans were only a year from collapse, all they knew was that the Russian Army was losing losing, and losing more, millions were dying, and there didn't seem to be any way to end it, and that neither the Czar or Kerensky realized that. Had the Provisional Government arisen AFTER the war was over, it probably would have faired better, and gotten more support from the Petrograd Soviet.

Nobody knew that the Germans were [less than] a year from collapse? Please.
Germany was finished. The US had already entered the war, the equilibrium on the western front was gone and the germans would not even be able to hold keep many troops in the East. Had Russia kept fighting, the german collapse would even be quicker, a matter of a few months.
The end did seem very much there; Kerensky knew it, Lenin knew it. Lenin surrendered to the Germans in a shameful and humiliating manner not because he wanted peace, but because he had been financed and supported by the Germans, as we now know, in an act of treason and monstrosity only seen on communists.

If Lenin's ignominious surrender to Germany was a matter of bringing peace, it wouldn't make much sense to start a Civil War that ravaged Russia as a whole. To call Kerensky "more of the same" is laughable. The man instituted liberalizing reforms that went much further what the USSR saw up to the days of Gorbachev. If he didn't put an end to the war, it is because he knew that the best course of action was indeed to keep fighting an enemy largely defeated.

Which is why I also included Mexico and France in that count, on whom the Revolutions were much more devastating. The US and England were on the list because they experienced a similar effect but on a smaller scale, which I also noted.

The famined experienced in Mexico or France were not on the same scale as those in the USSR or China either.

Are the Indians aware of that? You might want to let them know.

Eh, yes they are. China's famine was the worst ever recorded.

It doesn't matter who started the war, the effect was the same; both sides contributed to the destruction of their own land.

Of course it matters who started the war. Lenin started a war to overthrow democracy and to concentrate absolute power in his hands.

Most of the country was covered by that civil war, including the best farmland, in the Ukraine and southwestern Siberia.

Yes, but Lenin's and later Stalin's agricultural policies decreased productivity by themsleves. This is a known and established fact.

Collectivization began in 1928. The famines started as early as 1917. You cannot blame the first famines on collectivization, only those after 1928.

Which is why I said, in the post you replied to:
" But the collectivization - and agricultural policy as whole, that was brutal even before complete collectivization - had a demonstrable effect in making things much, much worse. "
It's not like Lenin had a reasonable policy towards peasants.

That's right, and they all knew that would happen before November 1917. Kerensky's government was quickly proving itself to be inept at solving really anything, including the most pressing problem; the war.

Ah, OK.
So let us surrender to a crumbling enemy, pay huge sums in gold and give up huge and valuable pieces of land in order to end and international war and then start a bloody Civil War that will result is mass starvation and destruction throughout the land, and last much more than already ending international conflict.

Makes perfect sense. Lenin and his thugs sure had the best interest of Russia in their hearts.