From what little I've read of Karl Marx, I understand that communism was supposed to be a natural revolution of the workers and was to result in common ownership of the means of production. But the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, pure and simple. Aren't these two completely unrelated styles of government? Are there any similarities at all between "true" communism and the former Soviet government?
2006-11-29 16:55:47 · 7 answers · asked by themandrill5 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The inherent weakness in communism is that it is subject to abuse by dictators.
2006-11-29 17:05:45 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"True" communism means that everyone owns everything and no one is higher in class than anyone else. Most communist states, including the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the former East Germany, and many more have twisted that ideal by using it to have one person or a group of people maintain strict control over the population by saying that everything belongs "to the state". What Marx really meant was that nothing would belong to "the state", but every person had a right to everything. Thinking about this makes me wonder what Marx would have thought about Erich Hoenecker (the former secretary of the Communist Party of East Germany) driving around in a nice, big Mercedes-Benz while the rest of the population struggles to even think about owning a car.
2006-11-29 17:14:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they were a dictatorship for a time but they were always claiming they were a communist country.
Actually, the Soviet Socialists had traces of communism, socialism, fascism and a dictatorship.
Now they are mafia driven in a sort of "New Deal" capitalism with barbs.
2006-11-29 17:01:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Soviet Union's main problem was that it allowed the state too become too centralized and powerful. This made it cumbersome and authoritarian. Real communism would seen a transition into a state-led rule that then disintegrates in order to allow the proletarian to rule collectively.
2006-11-29 16:58:11 · answer #4 · answered by Walter 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
maximum communists at the moment seek for suggestion from with the soviet union as a "state capitalism". exceedingly after their civil conflict. After the civil conflict they began to undertake marketplace-pleasant rules. So it change into no longer a "loose-marketplace" capitalism because the marketplace change into managed. despite the indisputable fact that it change into nonetheless capitalism because they'd a marketplace depending economic equipment. Even earlier that, no human being change into less than the effect that they were communist or socialist. Marx exceedingly said that for a rustic to bypass in the direction of socialism, they might want to attain top capitalist progression. Russia change into nonetheless regularly composed of peasants and change into regularly a feudal society. They were no longer "eligible" for socialism and did not create that. Lenin's plan change into to really "carry the fort" until eventually the genuine revolution got here in Germany- which change into the most industrialized usa on the time. Stalin change into the only which insisted the U.S. change into socialist. despite the indisputable fact that it change into no longer. there are a selection of, many leftists from those eras who bypass into large ingredient as to why it change into no longer.
2016-10-08 00:00:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the ownership of the means of production was with teh workers so it was a communist
2006-11-29 16:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
karl marx was educated in new york and funded by wall street capitalists.
2006-11-29 17:02:33 · answer #7 · answered by list 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋