Russia actually had a form of Totalitarianism Government, not Communism.?

Question

It seems that purley for propaganda they used Communism as a nice face to mask thier writhing serpants of Totalitarianism. It seems ludicris to me that everyone has been calling thier goverment Communism when it was clearly not. I mean, wealth didn't even come close to being distrubuted evenly. Hardly anything was paid for since it all went into the military budget. These are not signs of a Communist goverment, at leas not the text book of Communism.

So my real question is why call a pretty rainbow a terdstorm? Has America been drinking too much of it's own hubris?

Answer 1

When Marx first came up with Communism, he predicted that the revolution would take place on its own all over the world. That didn't happen. When the prolitariate of industrialized countries started to realize that they were getting the short end of the stick, they banded together and formed unions and won concessions, rather than take over in a bloddy revolution.

So Marxism became a "living theory," one that could be adapted to fit the time. The debate over whether the Soviet Union was a legitamate successor to Marxism depends on whether one believes that Lenin's adaptations to Marx's theory were valid.

Lenin had two principle amendments to the theory of Socialism:
1) Industrialized nations, through imperialism, had begun using the peoples of undeveloped countries as the new prolitariate. These peoples were not given an education so that they could continue to provide cheap labor.
2) In order for the Communist revolution to happen, the new prolitariate had to be guided through industrialization and development under the flag of a Socialist Vanguard Party. The Vanguard Party would cut ties with the imperialists and develop the country so that it may reach the post-industrial state of Communism.

After leading a coup in St. Petersburg, Lenin financed the resulting civil war in Russia by coercing the peasantry into paying high taxes. After the conclusion of the war, civil strife and unpopularity caused Lenin to back off of the harsh policy by ushering in the New Economic Policy, or NEP. The NEP allowed some entrepenureship, and greatly benefitted the economy, though causing an uneven distribution of wealth.

Then Lenin had a stroke and died. Stalin took over by consolidating power through his position of General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Stalin took Lenin's War Communism policy to the extreme, collectivizing agriculture and focusing on heavy industry. Many people died of hunger due to heavy taxation (especially in Ukraine).

Stalin then took Lenin's cues of consolidating political power to one party by carrying out the Great Purges which eliminated any political opposition Stalin faced. It also built support with the masses, as peasants who had been opressed by Stalin's policy of collectivization could turn in their "overzealous" managers, who were just following Stalin's orders. The peasants that turned in their managers often were called upon to fill the new vacancies.

All the while, Soviet citizens were told that they were building Communism, that the hardships they faced would be gone within a few years, and that the USSR would be hands down the leading power in the new world order.

So Stalin's policies resulted in millions of deaths, but ostensibly were linked to Marxism in some way. His actions had some precident in Lenin, just as Lenin's had some precident in Marxism. But the actions of the Soviet Union were in no way actions that Marx himself would have condoned. The Vanguard Party that Lenin envisioned turned into a totalitarian system within a few years. Though after Stalin, power was never so strongly concentrated in the hands of one person, the upper echelon of the Communist party generally did whatever would keep them in power.

Answer 2

NONONO.

Russia was a command economy and like you say, was essentially totalitarian. The thing is, Russia ARGUED that it was communist and didn't want citizens getting out and telling the truth anymore that our higher ups actually understood the difference. During the Cold War, communism took on nationalist and totalitarian versions such as the difference between Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong. The reason we had to fight the theme of Communism and the alligned threat of the Soviets was for security concerns such as Fidel and Cuba (I don't think knowing that hostile nukes are 90 miles away would be a particularly soothing thought).

Yes, we know the difference, but please understand who advertised the success of communism in the first place.

Side note - Lenin (not Stalin) knew Russia was not industrially developed enough to completely support communism so he compromised for a form of civil socialism in which the government did not control as much as it could have (although it did maintain control over far more than it should have). Lenin also knew time was not on his side and that eventually he would have to make peace with the west, a plan Stalin vehemently opposed.

Answer 3

United Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR they had a socialist economy. The ruling party was called Communist Party because the final goal of socialism was the communism.
In socialism there is no private sector in economics. All factories, organizations, plants, schools, hospitals etc were in hands of government and it was the government that controlled the State's economy. One part of the profits went to the workers in a form of salary and the other part went to the government and the government used the profits for free medicare, education, apartments/houses for all people in the country and to the Army. There was no communism in USSR.

Answer 4

Well thats what Communism turns into. It starts out about the "people" then when a few communists get their hands on the power and exploit it then it turns into Totalitariansim. China isn't a real Communist country either. Anywhere you can own private goods is not a true communist state. The world has never seen true communism only corrupt Communists attempts at one. I do a lot of reading on the subject, Communist history is really interesting.

Answer 5

USSR's, not Russia's, form of government was communism. Their own version. As China and Vietnam are communist even though they allow capitalist activities, and benefit from them.
Read a book.

Answer 6

When you get back to this universe from your sliding through alternate universes... let me know... Then you can learn what Communism *really* is and why it *NEVER* has worked.

Answer 7

No, because Russia was communist

Answer 8

Gee, the lightbulbs are coming on here
and think,
it only took 50 years

Answer 9

somebody saw the light
you are absolutely corresct of course
comunism was a propaganda strategy.