Was the Soviet Union an Empire?

[Masada]

The word "lost" was one I used, not Chomsky. It very clearly means that they died.

So basically Chomsky is equating the number of people who died from natural causes with the conscious murder of people by the State. Well, Australian democracy must kill a few hundred thousand people a year then despite our working socialized health system, substantial cradle-to-grave welfare system and strict workplace laws! And I mean jeez, the Soviet Union even discounting the GULAGS and all the delightful innovations of Stalin managed to kill a substantially larger number of people each year! Moral of the story: People die.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So basically Chomsky is equating the number of people who died from natural causes with the conscious murder of people by the State.

What defines "natural cause?" Is it sickness? Starvation? Envenomation? A bullet entering the heart? What reason do you have to assume that the people adding up the tally in India died from heart disease or cobra bites and not famine and starvation? And why is it the fault of socialist countries when they have high death rates but when it happens in capitalist countries its simply "natural causes" and things beyond the control of the state?

The point is that more people died in India through the indifference of the state than did in all socialist countries through concerted acts by their governments or otherwise. And as I have said, while absolutely abhorrent, that socialist governments have effected those deaths while trying to bring greater things to their people is far more forgivable than the capitalist countries who sat idly by and did nothing while people died in droves. That the latter has produced far more bodies than the former only further drives home the point.

 

[LightSpectra]

The point is that more people died in India through the indifference of the state than did in all socialist countries through concerted acts by their governments or otherwise. And as I have said, while absolutely abhorrent, that socialist governments have effected those deaths while trying to bring greater things to their people is far more forgivable than the capitalist countries who sat idly by and did nothing while people died in droves. That the latter has produced far more bodies than the former only further drives home the point.

I suppose "not using the government to distribute funds to the aforementioned country" is the only criteria you're using, when you speak of "capitalist countries who sat idly by and did nothing?"

 

[dannyshenanigan]

How many ethnic minorities were in the politburo and secretariat, or other high government positions in the Kremlin? I don't know the figures but I would imagine it would be overwhelmingly Russian and Slavic beyond their actual demographic proportions in the Soviet Union. I'm aware of the obvious exception of Josef Stalin, but how many Central Asians or even Baltic people held power in Moscow?
Hopefully sombody has some statistics that can either support or refute me. If it is true as I suspect, that Russians and Slavs held disproportionate power, I think that can be a point in favor of the U.S.S.R. being an empire.

 

[Masada]

What defines "natural cause?" Is it sickness? Starvation? Envenomation? A bullet entering the heart? What reason do you have to assume that the people adding up the tally in India died from heart disease or cobra bites and not famine and starvation? And why is it the fault of socialist countries when they have high death rates but when it happens in capitalist countries its simply "natural causes" and things beyond the control of the state?

Your comparing an apple to a freaking carrot. Yes, people in China, Russia and India starved. No problem. It happens irrespective of the ideological purity of the State. But to equate state sanctioned mass murder with unintentional death is intellectually absurd: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

The point is that more people died in India through the indifference of the state than did in all socialist countries through concerted acts by their governments or otherwise.

Do you think Nehru's Five Year Plans were just an elaborate show for the Proletarian masses?

" The Constitution of India has guaranteed certain Fundamental Rights to the citizens of India and enunciated certain Directive Principles of State Policy, in particular, that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life, and shall direct its policy towards securing, among other things,—

1. that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood ;
2. that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good ; and
3. that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

Having regard to these rights and in furtherance of these principles as well as of the declared objective of the Government to promote a rapid rise in the standard of living of the people by efficient exploitation of the resources of the country, increasing production, and offering opportunities to all for employment in the service of the community.

The Planning Commission will—

1. make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of the country, including technical personnel, and investigate the possibilities of augmenting such of these resources as are found to be deficient in relation to the nation's requirements ;
2. formulate a Plan for the most effective and balanced utilisation of the country's resources ;
3. on a determination of priorities, define the stages in which the Plan should be carried out and propose the allocation of resources for the due completion of each stage ;
4. indicate the factors which are tending to ****** economic development, and determine the conditions which, in view of the current social and political situation, should be established for the successful execution of the Plan ;
5. determine the nature of the machinery which will be necessary for securing the successful implementation of each stage of the Plan in all its aspects ;
6. appraise from time to time the progress achieved in the execution of each stage of the Plan and recommend the adjustments of policy and measures that such appraisal may show to be necessary ; and
7. make such interim or ancillary recommendations as appear to it to be appropriate either for facilitating the discharge of the duties assigned to it ; or, on a consideration of the prevailing economic conditions, current policies, measures and development programmes ; or on an examination of such specific problems as may be referred to it for advice by Central or State Governments."

I can go on but the document is consummate with a state trying to attain sufficient development to ensure that the transfer to a Socialist goes like the textbook says it should. Well, you as well. The same could be said of Sukarno/Hatta and just about every other decolonized state that could look at the Soviet Union and take lessons for its failures.

And as I have said, while absolutely abhorrent, that socialist governments have effected those deaths while trying to bring greater things to their people is far more forgivable than the capitalist countries who sat idly by and did nothing while people died in droves. That the latter has produced far more bodies than the former only further drives home the point.

Rubbish. Your hardly even talking about a capitalist state.

 

[Yeekim]

Your comparing an apple to a freaking carrot. Yes, people in China, Russia and India starved. No problem. It happens irrespective of the ideological purity of the State. But to equate state sanctioned mass murder with unintentional death is intellectually absurd: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

"But you are lyn.... umm.... But average life expectancy of your Negroes is 7 years below ours!"

 

[SnowlyWhite]

How many ethnic minorities were in the politburo and secretariat, or other high government positions in the Kremlin?

actually I think they were quite some. And looking from my country's perspective, it'd make sense: the most nationalistic guys over here in history weren't even Romanians...

 

[RedRalph]

I would have thought that The Great War would be the most concrete example of how western capitalism is just as capable of mass slaughter as communist dictatorships.

It just does... not... work that way. Every single bad thing that happens in a communist country is proof of the inherent evil of Marxism; nothing bad that happens within or between capitalism has anything whatsoever to do with capitalism.

 

[LightSpectra]

It just does... not... work that way. Every single bad thing that happens in a communist country is proof of the inherent evil of Marxism; nothing bad that happens within or between capitalism has anything whatsoever to do with capitalism.

The Soviet Union's invasions and occupations of Eastern Europe were, and explicitly stated to be, because the CPSU wanted to export communism. Thus it's not a far cry to suggest that the evils behind the Iron Curtain happened because of Marxism, is it?

There were undeniably economic factors behind WWI, but it was largely moreso a matter of militarism and national pride. The Germans didn't storm through Belgium and northern France because they wanted more territory; they did it because they wanted to avoid a long and costly war that seemed inevitable due to the revanchism of France and the imperialism of Russia.

 

[Joecoolyo]

There were undeniably economic factors behind WWI, but it was largely moreso a matter of militarism and national pride. The Germans didn't storm through Belgium and northern France because they wanted more territory; they did it because they wanted to avoid a long and costly war that seemed inevitable due to the revanchism of France and the imperialism of Russia.

Yeah, WWI was basically 100 years worth of grudges and pent up rage between European nations that all exploded at once. Very little was economic.

 

[The Imp]

Of course it was an empire, I don't see how a rational person could deny this fact.

Deal with it Reds

 

[Traitorfish]

The Soviet Union's invasions and occupations of Eastern Europe were, and explicitly stated to be, because the CPSU wanted to export communism. Thus it's not a far cry to suggest that the evils behind the Iron Curtain happened because of Marxism, is it?

Well, that depends entirely on how far you are willing to trust a cabal of notorious liars.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, that depends entirely on how far you are willing to trust a cabal of notorious liars.

I don't dispute that Vladimir Lenin is a notorious liar, though I'm not seeing much motive for him to lie.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't dispute that Vladimir Lenin is a notorious liar, though I'm not seeing much motive for him to lie.

I wasn't talking about Lenin, as you well know. Why on earth would I bring him up in reaction to a comment about post-war expansion?

My point was that merely stating that any given action is dictated by communist ideology, or is even properly derived from it, does not make it so, whether or not the individual making the statement is a Communist Party official. These people lied about every other damn thing under the sun, why do we suddenly chose to unconditionally accept their word at this point?
That's something that's always puzzled me, this willingness that the West shows to believe Soviet propaganda when it's convenient for them. They can call a state the "Democratic Republic of Suchandsuch" we shall unconditionally deny that it is democratic, a republic, and quite possibly "of", but if they decided that it's the "Socialist Republic of Thisandthat" then we all sit quietly, content with the unblemished honesty of good ol' Uncle Joe. It is, I can only assume, an amazing act of pan-cultural doublethink.

 

[LightSpectra]

I wasn't talking about Lenin, as you well know. Why on earth would I bring him up in reaction to a comment about post-war expansion?

The comment you were responding to was mine, and it referred to the aggressions of the Soviet Union in general, not just Stalin's.

My point was that merely stating that any given action is dictated by communist ideology, or is even properly derived from it, does not make it so, whether or not the individual making the statement is a Communist Party official. These people lied about every other damn thing under the sun, why do we suddenly chose to unconditionally accept their word at this point?

There's quite a bit of difference between the propaganda that was shoved down the peasants' throats, and memoes issued to people within his own ministry, isn't there?

 

[Traitorfish]

The comment you were responding to was mine, and it referred to the aggressions of the Soviet Union in general, not just Stalin's.

Well, I supposed that it was what I inferred, and it is certainly still what is constituted by the bulk of Soviet history. The Leninist period is certainly below average when it comes to aggressively inflicting ideology upon other states; their internal struggles meant that they preferred to simply cultivate home-grown movements.

There's quite a bit of difference between the propaganda that was shoved down the peasants' throats, and memoes issued to people within his own ministry, isn't there?

Granted, but the Soviet Union wasn't know for it's honesty on any level. Even at the top of the pile, they were still notorious for guarded language and doublespeak. "Exporting communism" and it's equivalents rarely meant anything more than "expanding Soviet influence", but they were hardly going to acknowledge that, were they? A system so steeped in ideological pretence as the Soviet Union is rather bound to maintain a show of purity in these matters, regardless of the truth of the matter. Open secrets like that where rather a staple of Soviet politics.

 

[LightSpectra]

"Exporting communism" and it's equivalents rarely meant anything more than "expanding Soviet influence", but they were hardly going to acknowledge that, were they?

Is there a difference between the two, given that the USSR was the only significant Marxist entity in the world at the time?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is there a difference between the two, given that the USSR was the only significant Marxist entity in the world at the time?

I would argue that there were no significant Marxist entities at the time, although at least one claiming to be. As I said, it's not wise to take the word of an established and acknowledged liar at face value, politically convenient as it may be to do so.

 

[LightSpectra]

I would argue that there were no significant Marxist entities at the time, although at least one claiming to be. As I said, it's not wise to take the word of an established and acknowledged liar at face value, politically convenient as it may be to do so.

Well, if you'd like to take the route that "the USSR wasn't really communist," then you can do so; though throughout this topic, I've been arguing against Cheezy and Karalaysia, who believe the contrary.

Nevertheless, it seems as though you'd therefore agree that the Soviet Union was imperialistic. Correct?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, if you'd like to take the route that "the USSR wasn't really communist," then you can do so; though throughout this topic, I've been arguing against Cheezy and Karalaysia, who believe the contrary.

Well, I'm not for one for Soviet apologetics. It may simply be that, as I am British, I am more innately aware of an entirely independent and long-standing socialist tradition, but I have no worries in acknowledging the Soviet Union as the deformed despotate that it was.

Nevertheless, it seems as though you'd therefore agree that the Soviet Union was imperialistic. Correct?

More or less, yes. The term may not be ideal, and has something of a judgemental connotation which can make it ineffective when describing something other than a literal empire, but it's a broadly accurate description for the USSR of the post-Leninist period.