NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard a lot of people say in other threads that the Soviet Union wasn't communist, then a bunch of replies saying they were, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Anyway... Here's my theory.

Hypothetically...

Stalin's dead, Nikita Khrushchev has won the seat of power. He 'de-Stalinizes' Russia, but instead of just taking away labour camps and shorting the work days, etc., he takes it a step further. Nikita allows for democratic reform, brings back the NEP and instead of investing most of the USSR's money into a nuclear arms race and a space race with the Americans, he focuses on consumer products.

Would that make the Soviet Union communist? Or another kind of government? Or would they eventually collapse into a capitalist government, just sooner or later than 1991? Your thoughts?

With the NEP, mixed economy, towards the government ownership side of things. Whether or not it would be socialism depends on the involvement of the population in economic decisions, and to what degree government ownership is actually collective ownership and not just bureaucratic ownership.

It would not be Communism, technically; rather, even by the government's own propaganda it would be socialism, on the transition to Communism.

NEP was the temporary discontinuation of communism after the civil war. It was a stop-gap measure, as Lenin said. Lenin himself said it was a necessary crutch to revive the economy. Khruschev wouldn't have needed it.

Just my tuppence ha'penny. :)

Okay, so forget the NEP, but as for the rest... If the economy was still government controlled, but now citizens could vote Liberal Communist, or Conservative Communist (if such a thing exists) that decided on how much control the government had over the economy. It wouldn't be the communism that Marx described without borders and crazy shit like that, but in your opinion would it qualify as communist. I think it would, at least more communist than the real USSR turned out to be.

Okay, so forget the NEP, but as for the rest... If the economy was still government controlled, but now citizens could vote Liberal Communist, or Conservative Communist (if such a thing exists) that decided on how much control the government had over the economy. It wouldn't be the communism that Marx described without borders and crazy shit like that, but in your opinion would it qualify as communist. I think it would, at least more communist than the real USSR turned out to be.

The defining feature of any true socialist state is worker control over the economy, for example the democratically elected soviets that existed prior to the Bolshevik takeover. Even had the USSR democratised, the top-down bureaucracy would have gotten in the way of it being "truly" socialist. In addition, because Stalin built up the USSR on force, it probably would have collapsed a lot sooner than 1991 once people were allowed to go their separate ways.

It always pisses me off when communists say the U.S.S.R. "was never communist." You don't hear National Socialists saying the Third Reich "was never Nazist." Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc. Now that the U.S.S.R. has collapsed and their lies are wide out in the open, they're rushing to cover up their trail of blood, and now all of a sudden Stalin, Mao, etc. are no longer cool. A bunch of weasels is what they are. They have neither the balls nor the spine nor the decency to stand up to their atrocities.

Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc.

No they weren't silent. They were in the gulags BECAUSE they spoke up.

No they weren't silent. They were in the gulags BECAUSE they spoke up.

I'm talking about communists abroad.

Socialists held their breath with the USSR, hoping that it would yeild true socialism when it didnt. Another thing is that many of the atrocities werent wildly known as they are today.

Any socialist should understand the difference between themselves and Communists. Russia during the USSR was indeed Stalinist, but it was not Socialist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it was very much Stalinist that was legitimizing itself by saying they were socialist.

I'm talking about communists abroad.
Ah, you mean the Sartre's and other foreign Communists who hailed the 'brilliance' of Mao & Co. That I agree with.

But, Communism itself was perverted (as a political theory) by people like Mao and Stalin.. Kim Il Sung... Pol Pot etc etc. These people claimed to be Communist but when their leadership styles and forms of rule are examined, even briefly, they exhibit all the tendancies of totalitarian or at best, authoritarian regimes. Not Commmunist in the political sense.

The only Communist (or Communialist) success I can think of was the Paris Commune of 1870(ish) before it was militarily crushed.

Stalin's dead, Nikita Khrushchev has won the seat of power. He 'de-Stalinizes' Russia, but instead of just taking away labour camps and shorting the work days, etc., he takes it a step further. Nikita allows for democratic reform, brings back the NEP and instead of investing most of the USSR's money into a nuclear arms race and a space race with the Americans, he focuses on consumer products.

That's not enough to make the USSR communist in the Marxist sense. Stalin was defined by almost an "authoritative leftism", opposing most of the Leninist reforms which set up this stable transition for final-stage communism at gunpoint. Khrushchev, on the other hand, made the USSR stagnate in this transitionary "conservative socialism", as Marx would call it. While he reformatted the government to care for the quality of civilian life instead of survival and stability of the state, allowed for freedom and democracy, and created a socialist transitionary economy out of the NEP, he never showed any signs of progression to final-stage Marxism. Granted, Khrushchev was better than Stalin, since it was on the right track, but was simply democratic socialism and not Marxian communism.

It always pisses me off when communists say the U.S.S.R. "was never communist." You don't hear National Socialists saying the Third Reich "was never Nazist." Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc. Now that the U.S.S.R. has collapsed and their lies are wide out in the open, they're rushing to cover up their trail of blood, and now all of a sudden Stalin, Mao, etc. are no longer cool. A bunch of weasels is what they are. They have neither the balls nor the spine nor the decency to stand up to their atrocities.

I wasn't born then. Rest assured that I would have been a vehement opponent had I been around.

I'm talking about communists abroad.

Okay. Orwell.

People say that the USSR was a state, and in True Communism there is no state so it was not True Communism. Fine, it was merely the world's largest and most celebrated attempt at bringing the world to True Communism. Picky picky.

Then they say that the USSR acted self-interestedly trying to maximize it's resources and that this somehow makes it capitalist, hence "State Capitalism." I say, bullshit! Self interest does not capitalism make. Everyone is self-interested.

And if private ownership is outlawed, as it was in USSR, its definitely not any sort of capitalism and the term is at best an oxymoron and at worst an attempt to smear capitalism with the feces of the USSR's failings.

I've decided that the USSR was not True Communist, and not State Capitalist. It was... State Communist!

Originally Posted by -Magdha-
It always pisses me off when communists say the U.S.S.R. "was never communist." You don't hear National Socialists saying the Third Reich "was never Nazist." Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc. Now that the U.S.S.R. has collapsed and their lies are wide out in the open, they're rushing to cover up their trail of blood, and now all of a sudden Stalin, Mao, etc. are no longer cool. A bunch of weasels is what they are. They have neither the balls nor the spine nor the decency to stand up to their atrocities.

First off, there are many National Socialists who deny that the Third Reich was ever Nazist. Some deny that the Holocaust ever existed! Secondly, why can't you accept that, maybe, the USSR was not communist and the Third Reich was Nazi?

Also, there were many Marxists, as well as other socialists from different sects, who were quite adverse to the anti-communist actions of the USSR. However, the ones in the CPSU, for the most part, were largely unaware of these actions, and the government calling itself communist that commited them... well... they weren't communist, remember?

Marxists don't defend anything besides what is mentioned in Marx. Therefore, if the USSR was not Marxists, the actions commited by the USSR are not actions that represent the ends of both modern Marxists and any true Marxists in history. How can one-party, undemocratic politics be Marxist if they establish state-capitalism and a ruling class in the form of the state? If anything, Mao and Lenin were wrong for not being Marxist *enough*, and *this* caused the damage!

Now if you want to talk about the theoretical and historical benefits of *true* Marxism (the latter of which very much *does* exist), that's a whole different story...

**Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here**

People say that the USSR was a state, and in True Communism there is no state so it was not True Communism. Fine, it was merely the world's largest and most celebrated attempt at bringing the world to True Communism. Picky picky.

Then they say that the USSR acted self-interestedly trying to maximize it's resources and that this somehow makes it capitalist, hence "State Capitalism." I say, bullshit! Self interest does not capitalism make. Everyone is self-interested.

And if private ownership is outlawed, as it was in USSR, its definitely not any sort of capitalism and the term is at best an oxymoron and at worst an attempt to smear capitalism with the feces of the USSR's failings.

I've decided that the USSR was not True Communist, and not State Capitalist. It was... State Communist!


First paragraph: Not really, if you look at Lenin's writings, even while he was a member of the RSDLP, he advocated one-party politics and ideas which very much coincided with what he would later initiate as War Communism, which he developed independantly without taking any of it from Marx's work. Therefore, not only was the USSR not communist, but had never attempted to be communist in the Marxist sense. Not picky at all, it's like calling American the first application of Whig Monarchy simply because certain indirect similarities existed in juxtaposition to other countries, like France...

Second Paragraph: Even softcore capitalists admit that self-interest is the driving force of capitalism. It is impossible for one to meet their self-interests if these interests are not denied to another worker/consumer to a degree. Capitalism is not completely a zero-sum game, but there is always some loss in value in any exchange, subjective or actual.

Third Paragraph: The USSR outlawed private enterprise among its citizens, but, by using its unchecked, unparty power, and maximizing the resources of the state instead of those of the people (up until Khrushchev, to an extent...), it constituted the same scenario as an unchecked monopoly inevitably resulting in a laissez-faire capitalist system... And, of course, any true Marxist would understand that without the presence of opposition to the socialist state, the state abandons socialism...

Okay. Orwell.

Kudos! ;)


**Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here**

LMAO

And, of course, any true Marxist would understand that without the presence of opposition to the socialist state, the state abandons socialism...

Hallauha! I will copy this and paste it in my personal Rhetoric file. ;)

First paragraph: Not really, if you look at Lenin's writings, even while he was a member of the RSDLP, he advocated one-party politics and ideas which very much coincided with what he would later initiate as War Communism, which he developed independantly without taking any of it from Marx's work. Therefore, not only was the USSR not communist, but had never attempted to be communist in the Marxist sense.

Big deal. It attempted to be communist in the Communist Party's sense, in the sense of hundreds of millions of Soviets calling themselves Communists. Just because you don't think it "really" attempted to be "real" marxism and therefore "real" Communism doesn't change any of that.


Second Paragraph: Even softcore capitalists admit that self-interest is the driving force of capitalism.

Driving force =/= defining quality.


Third Paragraph: The USSR outlawed private enterprise among its citizens, but, by using its unchecked, unparty power, and maximizing the resources of the state instead of those of the people (up until Khrushchev, to an extent...), it constituted the same scenario as an unchecked monopoly inevitably resulting in a laissez-faire capitalist system

Unchecked monopoly =/= laissez-faire capitalism. I really don't see how even you could make that claim. With the USSR having outlawed private enterprise among its citizens, as you just said, it is no kind of capitalism. Period.

As I said the only people who advocate using the term, state capitalism, are anti-capitalists and soviet apologists who refuse to face the fact that the USSR was the 20th century's grand experiment in communism. State Communism.

Big deal. It attempted to be communist in the Communist Party's sense, in the sense of hundreds of millions of Soviets calling themselves Communists. Just because you don't think it "really" attempted to be "real" marxism and therefore "real" Communism doesn't change any of that.



Driving force =/= defining quality.



Unchecked monopoly =/= laissez-faire capitalism. I really don't see how even you could make that claim. With the USSR having outlawed private enterprise among its citizens, as you just said, it is no kind of capitalism. Period.

As I said the only people who advocate using the term, state capitalism, are anti-capitalists and soviet apologists who refuse to face the fact that the USSR was the 20th century's grand experiment in communism. State Communism.

First paragraph: I doubt there were even over 200 million people within the USSR in 1917 (there are only 150 million people in Russia *today*, where the world's population has tripled since WWII). Nevertheless, even the Soviet intelligentsia who knew what communism was thought that the state was executing it as Marx had defined, because the state, in its un-Marxist fashion, pretty much banned information about its activities. To paraphrase Trotsky, the [communist] party becomes the party-state, and the party-state becomes the dictatorship. This is why I have little sympathy for communist parties who advocate elimination of opposition to communism within the state. It isn't a matter of putting quotation marks around "real", if you read and understood Marx, you would know that all candid individuals see the very clear, unambiguous abuse of power that the state in the USSR took, thus destroying the central tenet of Marxism that calls for governship of the WORKING CLASS, not the STATE CLASS! Blaming Marxists for the USSR is much like blaming American Democrats for the Iraq War...

Second Paragraph: "Defining quality"? Elaborate... Is this going to be a debate on the malevolence of capitalism instead of the malevolence of the USSR party-government? Tell me now so I can start a new forum for it.

Third Paragraph: That inequality is untrue. In laissez-faire capitalism, you lack anti-trust acts and state policies (all of which have been, in restricted capitalism, driven by the working class) which would otherwise limit the privileges and powers of corporations and their ability to outcompete each other, thus, monopolies will form inevitably. The tenet of capitalism rests on competition, of which monopoly is the end result unless you counter it with socialist policies and doctrine (and by doing so admit the benevolence of socialism). Regarding the USSR, while it outlawed competition, it enforced the aformentioned *result* of competition, and, thus, the errs of the USSR are capitalist in nature, despite the lack of *civilian* free enterprise. Countering the errs of the USSR would be countering an element of capitalism. Accept it.

Fourth paragraph: Stop repeating your thesis and make a response to all of my own responses to that claim that doesn't coerce me to repeat myself in separate manners that they might be more coherent to you...

Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc.

What about Trotskyism and Left Communism?

If you want to include socialists, well, basically all the affiliates of the Second International, and a whole lot of radical intellectuals - Orwell, Russell, etc.

But the argument is meaningless, really; if they denied the "gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc." then they must not have supported the "gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc.", else there would have been no need to deny them. Therefore one cannot say that such actions were indeed reflective of the will of the Communist movement.

Maybe you people would want to check out some stuff about
Lavrenti Beria
The thing is, Krushchev was not the immediate succesor. Beria was.

And guess what? Beria, of all people, did exactly what the op is suggesting would be alternate history.

On a related story, Beria was shot.

I think that's irrelevant. Interesting fact, but doesn't really do much for the debate.

Santa Barbara (or anyone else), please reply to my remark.

Maybe you people would want to check out some stuff about
Lavrenti Beria
The thing is, Krushchev was not the immediate succesor. Beria was.

And guess what? Beria, of all people, did exactly what the op is suggesting would be alternate history.

On a related story, Beria was shot.

Odd that one of the greatest butchers under Stalin, became the first reformer.

"Khrushchev: the Man; his Era" by William Taubman is a brilliant read. Gives a lot of insight into the immediate post Stalin era of Soviet politics.

Beria was the first Gorbachev in a sense- pity he was such a monster. Kinda offset his 'reformer' angle.

First paragraph: I doubt there were even over 200 million people within the USSR in 1917 (there are only 150 million people in Russia *today*, where the world's population has tripled since WWII). Nevertheless, even the Soviet intelligentsia who knew what communism was thought that the state was executing it as Marx had defined, because the state, in its un-Marxist fashion, pretty much banned information about its activities. To paraphrase Trotsky, the [communist] party becomes the party-state, and the party-state becomes the dictatorship. This is why I have little sympathy for communist parties who advocate elimination of opposition to communism within the state. It isn't a matter of putting quotation marks around "real", if you read and understood Marx, you would know that all candid individuals see the very clear, unambiguous abuse of power that the state in the USSR took, thus destroying the central tenet of Marxism that calls for governship of the WORKING CLASS, not the STATE CLASS! Blaming Marxists for the USSR is much like blaming American Democrats for the Iraq War...

As I said, just because you define communism as marxism doesn't mean everyone else does. Fine, it wasn't Marxism. I never said it was Marxism.

And since American Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War, they ARE to blame... so...


Second Paragraph: "Defining quality"? Elaborate...

You say that self-interest is the driving force of capitalism. I agree. But it is not the defining quality of capitalism; you can't point at any example of self interest and say that's capitalism.

Third Paragraph: That inequality is untrue. In laissez-faire capitalism, you lack anti-trust acts and state policies (all of which have been, in restricted capitalism, driven by the working class) which would otherwise limit the privileges and powers of corporations and their ability to outcompete each other, thus, monopolies will form inevitably.

And again, an unchecked monopoly does not a free market make. You're arguing that the latter leads to the former; that may or may not be true, but its irrelevant. You can't simply point out any example of an unchecked monopoly and say that that is equal to laisezze-faire capitalism, any more than I could point out an example of people working for the greater good and say that's communism.

Regarding the USSR, while it outlawed competition, it enforced the aformentioned *result* of competition, and, thus, the errs of the USSR are capitalist in nature, despite the lack of *civilian* free enterprise.

The lack of "civilian" free enterprise - that is to say, the lack of free enterprise - is what makes it not capitalist.


Fourth paragraph: Stop repeating your thesis and make a response to all of my own responses to that claim that doesn't coerce me to repeat myself in separate manners that they might be more coherent to you...

Countering the errs of the USSR would be countering an element of capitalism. Accept it.

Why don't you stop simply repeating your thesis? ;)

:rolleyes:
:headbang:

Odd that one of the greatest butchers under Stalin, became the first reformer.

"Khrushchev: the Man; his Era" by William Taubman is a brilliant read. Gives a lot of insight into the immediate post Stalin era of Soviet politics.

Beria was the first Gorbachev in a sense- pity he was such a monster. Kinda offset his 'reformer' angle.

Now, to be fair, Khrusschev too knew how to maim and starve people to death. These were the skills Stalin required of commisioners for the Ukraine. The difference is in sheer numbers, but it also matters that it could've been anybody in Beria's place, and that even individual cruelty and arrivism meant nothing to the strict "they-say-jump-you-say-how-high" character of the times.

Now, to be fair, Khrusschev too knew how to maim and starve people to death. These were the skills Stalin required of commisioners for the Ukraine. The difference is in sheer numbers, but it also matters that it could've been anybody in Beria's place, and that even individual cruelty and arrivism meant nothing to the strict "they-say-jump-you-say-how-high" character of the times.

Oh very much so. His time as First Sec. in Ukraine towards the end of Stalins life wasmarked by some terrible purges themselves. But the book itself is a brilliant read- won a few Pulitzers a year or two ago- didn't say he was brilliant ;)

It was just odd that given Beria's ruthlessness and near glee and eagerness to carry out the massive purges, as well as personally 'interrogate' suspects, that he was such a proponent of reform.

One would have thought that Beria would have tried to keep on the same power of the NKVD/MVD over the state after Stalin.

But history will remember Beria as the notorious head of the Secret Police and Khrushchev as the simple but 'street smart' peasant who rose to power and initated the first visible reforms.

Helped inspire Gorbachev, so that is something to be thankful for I guess.

As I said, just because you define communism as marxism doesn't mean everyone else does. Fine, it wasn't Marxism. I never said it was Marxism.

And since American Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War, they ARE to blame... so...



You say that self-interest is the driving force of capitalism. I agree. But it is not the defining quality of capitalism; you can't point at any example of self interest and say that's capitalism.



And again, an unchecked monopoly does not a free market make. You're arguing that the latter leads to the former; that may or may not be true, but its irrelevant. You can't simply point out any example of an unchecked monopoly and say that that is equal to laisezze-faire capitalism, any more than I could point out an example of people working for the greater good and say that's communism.



The lack of "civilian" free enterprise - that is to say, the lack of free enterprise - is what makes it not capitalist.





Why don't you stop simply repeating your thesis? ;)

:rolleyes:
:headbang:

First Paragraph: But Communism is Marxism. If someone is referring to Communism and not Marxism, then they are referring to a slandered term coined by counterrevolutionaries and capitalists. I cannot call myself Christian if I disagree with just about every vital tenet outlined by Jesus Christ, similarly, I cannot call myself or someone/thing else communist if it disagrees with Communism's own "messiah", Karl Marx. It's as simple as that.

By the way, many democrats did not vote for the Iraq War, the Right has just made a note of a select few who have, like Kerry and Clinton. Many republicans voted against the war too, ya know...

Second Paragraph: The defining quality of capitalism is the utilization of private property in order to make a profit out of self, and not public, interest. The USSR government, while not outwardly capitalist, behaved in this manner, with the industries it siezed under its control as its "private property" (since not until Khrushchev were state resources largely expended for the people) and, with the self-interest that we do acknowledge in their state, utilized their resources as state to profit. Thus, the state behaved as a monopoly does in capitalism, and *this* is what Trotskyists/Left-Communists criticize.

Third Paragraph: If you pointed out people working together for the greater good, I would certainly deem it an element of final-stage communism, just as I deem a monopoly an element of laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, if you point to a nation where people work together for the greater good, and cited its benefits, I would say that its benefits stem from something that is communistic in nature. If this is so, why can I not look to the USSR's unchecked monopoly's harm, and cite its capitalist nature?

Fourth Paragraph: Capitalist in the Western sense. I'm not calling the USSR capitalist, I'm calling its flaws that have been cited capitalist in nature.
----------

"Freedom in Capitalism is the same as freedom in the Ancient Greek republics--Freedom for the slaveowners." -Vladimir Lenin

First Paragraph: But Communism is Marxism. If someone is referring to Communism and not Marxism, then they are referring to a slandered term coined by counterrevolutionaries and capitalists.

Funny, I would describe calling the USSR state capitalist as the coining of a slandered term by anticapitalists and communists.

I've never seen a capitalist use the term... or an economist.

Wikipedia, and common usage, doesnt seem to define communism solely as Marxism either. Apparently they are two different things... hence calling one Marxism, and the other communism. ;)

I cannot call myself Christian if I disagree with just about every vital tenet outlined by Jesus Christ, similarly, I cannot call myself or someone/thing else communist if it disagrees with Communism's own "messiah", Karl Marx. It's as simple as that.

No, actually you *can* call yourself Christian. Even if you disobey every one of the Ten Commandments. Or even if don't really believe in Jesus. Whether others agree with you or not is up to them..

By the way, many democrats did not vote for the Iraq War, the Right has just made a note of a select few who have, like Kerry and Clinton. Many republicans voted against the war too, ya know...

This is irrelevant as I didn't say the Democrats voted unanimously, nor is a unanimous vote required in our system.

Second Paragraph: The defining quality of capitalism is the utilization of private property in order to make a profit out of self, and not public, interest.

You might say that. Key word here: Self.

The USSR government, while not outwardly capitalist, behaved in this manner, with the industries it siezed under its control as its "private property" (since not until Khrushchev were state resources largely expended for the people) and, with the self-interest that we do acknowledge in their state, utilized their resources as state to profit.

Sorry, industries under control of the state are not private property. In fact that would be rather the opposite now wouldn't it. And ALL states have self-interest in the sense that they seek to preserve their selves, yet not all states are capitalist. Unless you define capitalism so broadly as to have basically no meaning. Which, unfortunately, I suspect you do.


Third Paragraph: If you pointed out people working together for the greater good, I would certainly deem it an element of final-stage communism, just as I deem a monopoly an element of laissez-faire capitalism.

Thus, if you point to a nation where people work together for the greater good, and cited its benefits, I would say that its benefits stem from something that is communistic in nature. If this is so, why can I not look to the USSR's unchecked monopoly's harm, and cite its capitalist nature?

Because that is NOT so. You're free to redefine terms how you want, but sadly they have no place in the real world where not everyone agrees with your "good = communism, harm = capitalism" definitions of terminology.


Fourth Paragraph: Capitalist in the Western sense. I'm not calling the USSR capitalist

Very well, so you do not agree with the usage of the term "state capitalism" then and you're not actually opposing anything I've said and this whole conversation is just for shits and giggles?

If you agree with and support calling the USSR "State Capitalist" you are saying the USSR was capitalist.

State capitalist can be used to describe the USSR because the state(that owned the means of production) exploited its workers to make a profit.

It always pisses me off when communists say the U.S.S.R. "was never communist." You don't hear National Socialists saying the Third Reich "was never Nazist." Funny how communists were dead silent during the years of the U.S.S.R., denying the gulags, the genocides, the totalitarianism, etc. Now that the U.S.S.R. has collapsed and their lies are wide out in the open, they're rushing to cover up their trail of blood, and now all of a sudden Stalin, Mao, etc. are no longer cool. A bunch of weasels is what they are. They have neither the balls nor the spine nor the decency to stand up to their atrocities.
first off, you hear many national socialists claiming that the third reich wasn't facist. and thats what matters here if you're comparing the two ideologies.
plus as already mentioned, there are many who claim the holocaust didn't happen...


but the real point is that these sorts of atrocities and human rights abuses are not a central part - or even a part - of 'communist' ideology, and should/would be abhorred whether communist, stalinist, facist or even just a plain ol' conservative government were in power.
seperation of the evil tools used and the ideology the tools were wrongly put to use for is essential in this case.

its one of the reasons i don't vehemently hate hitler... i hate what he did, his tools and how he went about doing what he did, but i have to say many of his policies worked quite well (such as the autobahns) at improving the country and bringing out from the depths of economic collapse. many of his policies were indeed 'socialist' before he went nuts and incorporated atrocities into his doctrine.
stalinism or trotskyism, similarly, both have some level of this form of atrocity that you mention built into their dogma, but not all communism, and not the communism that many communists support...
certainly not me.


one of the problems here is that communism is such an expansive term for so many different and wide-ranging types of ideology, each with their own views about both intent and methodology... united by a universal purpose, at least.


State capitalist can be used to describe the USSR because the state(that owned the means of production) exploited its workers to make a profit.
quite right

State capitalist can be used to describe the USSR because the state(that owned the means of production) exploited its workers to make a profit.

State capitalist cannot be used to describe the USSR because the state owned the means of production.

Okay. Orwell.

Orwell was a democratic socialist. Nice try.

One reason fascists are morally superior to communists is at least fascists are honest and openly totalitarian.

Francisco Franco: "Our regime is based on bayonets and blood, not on hypocritical elections."

Benito Mussolini: "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace."

Adolf Hitler: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland."

Hitler again: "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."

As evil as fascists are, at least they are blunt and up front about their intentions. They don't hide their lust for power and contempt for liberty. Unlike communists, who preach love, freedom, companionship, etc., fascists don't pretend to be what they're not.

As evil as fascists are, at least they are blunt and up front about their intentions. They don't hide their lust for power and contempt for liberty. Unlike communists, who preach love, freedom, companionship, etc., fascists don't pretend to be what they're not.

Have you ever considered that they might actually mean what they say?

Or do you hold that there is a secret Communist conspiracy to which all Communists belong, where ordination requires support for totalitarianism and repression, that releases propaganda about "love, freedom, companionship, etc."?

Orwell was a democratic socialist. Nice try.

So were most of the Communists, only with a greater respect for Marx and support for armed revolution.

The USSR was clearly not communist. After all, we are constantly told how incredibly inefficient the communist system is and how it stifles innovation and progress. On the other hand, the USSR managed to turn from an embarressment of a nation, still agriculturally based, losing wars against Japan and incredibly backward and poor into an industrialised world super power in a very short space of time. Obviously not possible when run by an ineffiencent system.