How do liberals explain so many of their contemporaries showing admiration for the Soviet economic system?

Question

Many pro-communist/socialst liberals say Stalin's system was not "true communism." Yet many in the previous generation believed it was and that it represented "the future."

Now it is relegated to the ash heap of history with modern liberalism soon to follow.

Like typical liberals, you are sidestepping my question entirely. I asked why, regardless of what you think happened, liberals in the Cold War were enamored with the Soviet system and said it was a model for future economies.

Take this quote by J.K. Galbraith: "Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."

Answer 1

There will always be people who believe in the simplistic ideal of everyone having equality in every way. These people that fear competiton and cannot see themselves as being less in any way than anyone else.

They see communism as the answer. They rooted for the USSR as the answer during those times. But it failed and they were left with nothing to root for but still with the same beliefs.

So now they make excuses for why that other form of communism didn't work. Claiming that it wasn't true communism. Because in their minds communism can work. Contrary to all of the evidence put before them.

Answer 2

Name one contemporary liberal who admires the Soviet style of economics? Go on, do it.

With that out of the way, stop listening to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Those two knuckleheads don't have the first inkling of how economics works.

Let me fill you in on something. The Soviet system failed because they used a planned economy. A planned economy is doomed to failure for two key reasons:

First there is no basis for determining the value of a good or service. This is due to the fact that there is no market to gauge the value of a good or service. (Although black markets existed in the old USSR.)

Secondly, planned economies cannot plan for every eventuality. How can you know what you'll need in six months or a year. A market based system can meet the demands of a society because it's capable of producing goods and services as needed. Whereas, a planned economy only generates what is needed.

With me so far?

True communism is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but one where there is freedom, democracy, and all means of production are shared via a process of giving to each what they need.

Not a great system because its based on a planned economy.

Now, I have to wonder what you think liberalism is. The Founding Fathers were liberals. If they weren't we'd live in a monarchy today. Thank God, they were deists and children of the Enlightenment.

Also, Jesus was a liberal. All that stuff about loving people unconditionally. Liberal.

Love your neighbor. Liberal.

Help the poor, the sick, the elderly, the downtrodden. Liberal.

Justice should be determined by a jury of peers and in fair trials. Liberal.

Speech should not be censored. Liberal.

Slavery should be abolished. Liberal.

A man is more valuable than the work he produces. There's something more profound to everyone than his bank account. Liberal.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg of liberalism, dude.

Which brings me to my final question. If you hate liberals so much, why do you hate America so much. After all, America is a liberal nation. Freedom, Liberty, Democracy, Pursuit of Happiness. All liberal ideas.

Or, perhaps your just a fascist. Then I can see why you're so ignorant.

Get out. Read a book once in a while. Turn off Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. Otherwise bask in violent ignorance.

It's your choice.

Answer 3

Well, I don't think that there is anyone saying that the USSR is a more politically, and economically viable system. The communist manefesto was written as a response to the vicious nature of laissez-faire capitalism. It attempted to get the workers of the world to realize their own power and potential as the main motivators to industry, both as consumers and as workers. Liberalism in its own right is a way for the workers of the world to take control of a buisness controlled marketplace. I think what people are advicating more than anything is that if the workers and the board of directors realized that their goals were the same the wages would be high enough for the workers to play an active role in the global marketplace as consumers and the owners would have both higher demand and higher productivity, Only when the two are working together can they begin to work in harmony and toward the same ends, as responsible partners in economics.

Answer 4

Excuse me are you talking about Socialists?? They are not the same as Liberals.And you know what although I was never enamored with communism, the people of these places feel differently then we do. When the USSR fell apart they all lost their jobs. Their apartments started to fall apart. there was no food. no child care and I could go on. Their system was not one I would like to live under but it worked for them. Why is that a problem for you. True communism means everyone owns everything and shares. However the only true communist country is Kuwait. Everybody in that country shares in the wealth. They sell their oil and share the profits with all of their citizens and that is true communism. Not a poor person in that country. Amazing isn't it??

Answer 5

Stalin was an evil dictator who killed millions who disagreed with him. I dare you to find one person who actually agrees with the Soviet economic style.

All you're doing is playing around with stereotypes and pretending that they're true. Liberals support capitalism, but like communism, in practice there can be issues that need to be regulated.

Capitalism is much more effective than communism. Is there anything wrong with a liberal admitting that? And if so, what's wrong with saying there needs to be a safety net for the most vulnerable in our society?

My grandparents raised eight children on a farm that was successful until the early 80's. One of their children (my uncle) was severely mentally retarded. When the farm began to fail, they ended up having to declare bankruptcy to try to pay for my uncle's care (lest you think the family was not helping, they refused to tell us).

So, again, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism. It is a much more effective system of economic government than Communism. You would be hard-pressed to find a liberal to that doesn't agree with what I just wrote.

Saying that we need a safety net is not the same as saying that I want a Stalinist government. When you understand that, then you can begin to debate politics honestly, instead of relying on silly stereotypes.

Answer 6

Communism is a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Early forms of human social organization have been described as "primitive communism" by Marxists. However, communism as a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization which has never been implemented. There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists, including Maoism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the "Stalinist") and Maoist forms of Marxism-Leninism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th Century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction.

Stalinism has been described as being synonymous with totalitarianism, or a tyrannical regime. The term has been used to describe regimes that fight political dissent through violence, imprisonment, and killings.Stalinism marked a fundamental break with the legacy of Lenin and Marxism-Leninism as practised up to that point.

The historians who support Discontinuity theory claim that Leninism and Stalinism were two opposing ideologies. They point out that Leninism was a much more flexible style of politics, whereas Stalin introduced a totally “orthodox” regime. According to them Lenin was head of a revolutionary proletariat dictatorship and Stalin imposed his own totalitarian one. Lenin wanted to keep state influence low and called for the “withering away” of the worker’s state as soon as possible after the revolution. But Stalin enlarged the power of the state until it was dominating every aspect of Soviet life.

In addition, Lenin always wanted to keep a revolutionary form of democracy. His party originated from a multi-party state and contained many different groups and factions under his rule. It was Stalin who made it a monolithic block that only carried out his directives. Lenin saw the ban on factions and opposition parties only as a preliminary measure and a distortion of the ideology, on the other hand, Stalin misused it to attack his political enemies. However, in his authoritative biography of Lenin, Robert Service argues against the portrayal of the Bolshevik/communist party under Lenin as having been extremely democratic.

Answer 7

That's a pretty apocryphal comment you have there. If you want to quote someone, do so and try to represent the quote in context. " I heard some guy say all communism was cool" doesn't sound too trustworthy as a basis for your entire view of the liberal movement.

We're not bad people, really.

Answer 8

Conservatism is dead. Even conservative fox news is calling it bad for nutcase conservatives come election time.

Now conservatives including Republican congressman Ron Paul are calling for Bush to be impeached. He says that conservative Bush is turning America into soft fascism. He claims Bush sold out America.

Conservatives have slowly taken away our freedoms and privacies (kinda like Hitler did).

Conservatives like Bush have signed to form a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. We will have open borders making illegal aliens to come and go as they please. The North American Union (sounds like Soviet Union) will override American courts and America will no longer be America.

Conservatives are nutcases. Their popular ratings are lower than a midget in a fox hole. Its so bad that even conservatives have figured out that the only chance they have is to seperate themselves from Bush.

CONSERVATISM IS OBSOLETE..

Answer 9

I explain it this way, repukes are actually the problem here, they would rather spend trillions going to war in other country's based on a lie then to spend money on our own people here at home. Somehow I think that their priority's are eschewed and so are their morals.

Answer 10

Stalin was a dictator, more like your point of view. How about about a real question like our children, and their future.