NationStates Jolt Archive

From all the communists on the board (socialists if you'd like to express your opinion please do), I want your opinions on the USSR and PRC.

From both groups, I've either heard the USSR and PRC were wonderful workers' paradises or totalitarian Hellholes. I tend to go with the latter due to the mass mudering and rights suppresion which occured, but I still hear people praising Stalin and Mao and their respective countries under their rule. I want to see the mainstream opinion.

Remember, this thread is exclusively for USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao. None of their predecesors please, just to make this discussion more expedient. Also, can we please avoid the 'They were/weren't communist countries' discussion please? This discussion is less about communism itself, but about two rather influential leaders which are often associated with it (whether or not that association is valid, we can discuss in another thread).

Oh, and poll coming.

They were both atrociously vile and disgusting regimes. I don't think I need to add anything else to that.

Stalin was a brute and a vile man, even Lenin was rather put off by him. He was not a socialist or communist, he just wanted power. Mao had good intentions, I do not think he was bad like Stalin. However his methods and ideas were seriously flawed and his mistakes/actions caused the deaths of millions and caused many more suffer.

They were both atrociously vile and disgusting regimes. I don't think I need to add anything else to that.

Agreed.

Killing millions of people to achieve a/your higher goal?
What´s wrong with that?
(PLease note the abscence of the sarcasm smiley)

But, But... we're so much better than them. WE can make it work! Just watch!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/FASCISM_NOT_US_large.jpg

You can't defend either of them.

Well those are the two worst-case scenarios. I approve of the PRC and approve of the Soviet Union after Stalin, but this poll is like saying "did you approve of America in the Civil War" or something to that effect.

Well, I'm not exactly considered a "traditional" communist, but I would disapprove of them both. There are very few communist regimes that I do approve of, Tito is one of them, Castro is another. Other than that, I am a big fan of Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez (just look at my national flag)

Well those are the two worst-case scenarios. I approve of the PRC Because Tiennaman Square was a nice restrained bit of politics... :rolleyes: and approve of the Soviet Union after Stalin, Ah. OK. Spent any time in a Soviet Apartment Block? but this poll is like saying "did you approve of America in the Civil War" or something to that effect.How so?

Mao had good intentions

The intention behind the Cultural Revolution was, completely literally, to kill all intellectuals. Do you seriously believe that this is a good intetion??

I tend to be more on the socialist side, and think that neither regime was truely socialism. Socialism can be seen in Bolivia right now the way it SHOULD be, with the (new) government doing what is best for the people, not running a totalitarian state.

Stalin ruined the USSR, Mao i do not know too much on but he killed millions to get where he was.

Lenin i approve of but thats another matter

The intention behind the Cultural Revolution was, completely literally, to kill all intellectuals. Do you seriously believe that this is a good intetion??
His intentions overall were to help the Chinese people. I do not agree with his methods or his ideology though.

Mao had good intentions...

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/chinese.jpg

Stalin ruined the USSR, Mao i do not know too much on but he killed millions to get where he was.

Lenin i approve of but thats another matter
Lenin wasn't much better than Stalin, he just didn't last as long.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1431072,00.html

"In a nationwide poll by the VTsIOM agency, 50% said that their view of the role Stalin played in Russian history was undoubtedly positive or probably positive; 37% said they viewed Stalin's role as undoubtedly or probably negative; and 13% were undecided. Some 42% of the 1,600 respondents said they wanted or would not object to having a leader like Stalin today."

His intentions overall were to help the Chinese people. I do not agree with his methods or his ideology though.

Chinese intellectuals were Chinese people.

I disagree. Thinking "let's kill all clever people" was an intention, not a method. The method was sending soldiers to beat them up and shoot them.

Well, I'm not exactly considered a "traditional" communist, but I would disapprove of them both. There are very few communist regimes that I do approve of, Tito is one of them, Castro is another. Other than that, I am a big fan of Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez (just look at my national flag)

So you approve of Fidel Castro, a dictator for life 47 years and counting, a one political party state, were foreigners are being treated better than native citizens unless you are part of the white Priviledged governing elite, where you would not be allowed Cable, satelite or a personal home computer to share your views on a site like Nationstates because a site like this would not be allowed, where the government keeps a record of your personal loyalty to the government or not, castro has betrayed the goals of his own revolution, he promised free and fair democratic elections, a middle class nation, and Cuba for Cubans first.

Entire sections of some hospitals are beign reserved for rich foreigners and now for poor foreigners financed by Hugo Chavez with Venezuelan oil money, while Cuban citizens are treated as second class in their own nation.

And have to share the hospitals resources with foreigners,
the Cuban doctors some of whom defect the Cuban government when they can, should stay home and and care for the Cuban people first.

Average Cuban citizens are not allowed to stay in their own nations hotels and restaurants reserved for tourists, thier overseas Cuban relatives and the Priviledged governing elite.

The execution, exile and government organized mobs againt anyone who disagrees with his dictatorship government.

Cuba is not a workers paradise, Cuba is not poor peoples paradise.

... Ah. OK. Spent any time in a Soviet Apartment Block? ...
And what's your problem with Soviet apartment blocks? I'm posting from one of them. It was built in 1959, and it is quite tolerable, and it is very warm here. The builders, it seems, had not enough bricks to finish and put a considerable amount of... erm... (how do you call paklya -- oakum?) into the walls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1431072,00.html

"In a nationwide poll by the VTsIOM agency, 50% said that their view of the role Stalin played in Russian history was undoubtedly positive or probably positive; 37% said they viewed Stalin's role as undoubtedly or probably negative; and 13% were undecided. Some 42% of the 1,600 respondents said they wanted or would not object to having a leader like Stalin today."
We Russians are masochistic, it seems... :(

We Russians are masochistic, it seems... :(

or maybe the "killing everyone who opposes you" thing actually works to some extent.

This poll is like saying "did you approve of America in the Civil War" or something to that effect.
Sorry if my poll feels rather biased - however I've come across a number of communists who seriously approve of these two crooks. That's the scary part.

I believe that is why Orwell wrote Animal Farm, in an attempt to dispel the myth that the USSR was so "wonderful."

or maybe the "killing everyone who opposes you" thing actually works to some extent.
Ah, but do the ends justfiy the means?

or maybe the "killing everyone who opposes you" thing actually works to some extent.
Yes...

Although, to be sure, there always was a silent opposition in the USSR. In the 1960s, my grandfather enjoined my father from becoming a Party member with the following words: "Someday all of them will hang".

Chinese intellectuals were Chinese people.

I disagree. Thinking "let's kill all clever people" was an intention, not a method. The method was sending soldiers to beat them up and shoot them.

I disagree with you :P He believed that intellectuals were hurting the country and revolution and therfore they had to be stopped. His method was using the Red guards(basically soldiers) to belittleand beat them, others where went to work camps, some outspoken ones were shot. A very flawed approach obivously.

But, But... we're so much better than them. WE can make it work! Just watch!

What really annoys me are these people advocating democracy. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea tried democracy. They tried absurd democratic notions, so contrary to human nature, and we can easily see these results.

But all those advocates of democracy are in denial. "But we can do it better!" Yeah, right.

or maybe the "killing everyone who opposes you" thing actually works to some extent.
For obvious reasons, it didn't work good enough. So let's not try it again, all right?

I approve of the watered-down and then burtalized Chinese version of socialism because it helped them climb out of absolute poverty (to total poverty) and left the other countries of the region in the dust.

I disagree with you :P He believed that intellectuals were hurting the country and revolution and therfore they had to be stopped. His method was using the Red guards(basically soldiers) to belittleand beat them, others where went to work camps, some outspoken ones were shot. A very flawed approach obivously.

We can use the same process you use to defend Mao to deduce that Hitler had good intentions. Key nouns fixed below. The only changes are the name of the leader, the name of the thing being hurt, the group doing the apparent hurting, and the name of the law enforcement agency used to brutalize them.

I disagree with you :P Hitler believed that Jews were hurting the country and Aryans and therfore they had to be stopped. His method was using the SS(basically soldiers) to belittleand beat them, others where went to work camps, some outspoken ones were shot. A very flawed approach obivously.

The same deal with Stalin, who you said was positively evil compared with Mao. Only the names have been changed.

I disagree with you :P Stalin believed that political dissenters, kulaks etc., were hurting the country and revolution and therfore they had to be stopped. His method was using the NKVD(basically soldiers) to belittleand beat them, others where went to work camps, some outspoken ones were shot. A very flawed approach obivously.

You are wrong. Mao's intentions were just as despicable as Hitler's and Stalin's.

Horrible. I can't even see how anybody would think that us real Communists support those fascist dicks.

We can use the same process you use to defend Mao to deduce that Hitler had good intentions. Key nouns fixed below. The only changes are the name of the leader, the name of the thing being hurt, the group doing the apparent hurting, and the name of the law enforcement agency used to brutalize them.

I knew someone was going to bring Hitler into this. The difference is Hitlers intentions were BAD and his methods were much worse.

The same deal with Stalin, who you said was positively evil compared with Mao. Only the names have been changed. Again Stalin's intentions were not good, he did not want to truely help the people. His sole concern was himself.

You are wrong. Mao's intentions were just as despicable as Hitler's and Stalin's. You can think I am wrong. Fine by me. Hitler and Stalin were despicable men, Mao although seriously misguided was not despicable like H & S, certainly an authoritarian man, but nothing like the others.

I would never seriously defend any action of any communist leader however.

I knew someone was going to bring Hitler into this. The difference is Hitlers intentions were BAD and his methods were much worse.


Mao's intentions were to "help" the Chinese people by killing intellectuals. Hitler's intentions were to "help" the German people by killing Jews. I do not see the difference, and you haven't qualified that Mao's intentions were better than Hitler's or Stalin's in any way other than saying "they just were".