English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What were the Soviets around the time of Stalin's reign?

2007-05-08 18:51:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

9 answers

~Communism is but a branch of socialism. By definition of Marx (the only definition that should count, since it was his conceptualization) , the USSR was obviously NOT communist. But then again, with the possible exception of Jamestown, circa 1607, pure Marxist communism has never existed. The USSR (under Lenin) was a brand of Bolshevist Social democracy (more republican than democratic) and was an entity and political philosophy onto itself. Stalin of course changed that. The USSR could put any lable on itself as it wished (much like when the USA calls itself a democracy) but calling an apple a grape won't change the taste of the fruit. As the name suggests, the USSR was a socialist republic - with limited suffgrage and neo-Marxist economic structure.

2007-05-08 19:58:57 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 1 1

Although there are not strict definitions to separate the two concepts, generally it is said that the USSR was communist.

Communism has a particular emphasis on everyone having the same living standard and an authoritarian central government. It also has an emphasis on central planning and people doing what they're told... hopefully to advance the social cause... but of course this was only part of it. I think Lenin said the definition was 'socialism plus electrification of the whole country'.

Communism may be seen a a sub-set of socialism. Communism came to be connected more and more with Stalinism and with the USSR model. After the 1940s people would say they were 'socialists but not communists' to mean they opposed Stalinism.

2007-05-08 19:05:19 · answer #2 · answered by llordlloyd 6 · 0 0

Ahoy!

The Soviet regime was not truly socialist OR communist. It was a totalitarian regime(dictatorship) that unsuccessfully tried to implement socialist policies, causing the starvation, abuse, and death of millions of its own citizens.

If one refers to Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto and reputed originator of the idea of communism, one can quickly see that true communism, as Marx envisioned it, is impossible.

To Marx, communism was not a political system or form of government, but instead a state of being. He believed that the disparity between the rich and poor necessarily caused unrest. The rich upper class exploits the working class, not paying them appropriately for their labour. Marx believed that eventually this unrest would create such tension in society that eventually the working class ("proletariat') would violently overthrow the upper class.
Next, a "socialist" government would be formed out of the ashes of the revolution, a government that seized all private property and wealth and "collectivized" it, ie redistributed it equally amongst all citizens of the country. Socialism is a step in the inevitable progression towards communism, according to Marx.

Eventually, according to Marx, the need for government would erode over time into nothingness and people would live in a state of "communism"--no government would be necessary because people would all agree to work for the common good. Therefore, the idea of a "communist government" is N oxymoron. Marx believed this was inevitable in industrialized society. However, we have yet to ever see a true, functioning "communist" society.

Obviously, this presents several problems, the foremost of which is that the entire theory is based on the supposition that people will naturally work toward the state of being that is most mutually beneficial for all people, ie that people are essentially good and altruistic.

The Soviets attempted to enforce socialist principles, seizing all private property, industry, and wealth. During the regime of Stalin, for instance, millions died of starvation as a result of the collectivization of farms and government control of agricultural produce.

See Adam Smith for the principles upon which our free-market economy/capitalist system is based(ie, that society benefits the most when all people seek their own best interests). Hobbes and Locke also make for interesting reading concerning the question of man in a "state of nature."

Regards.

2007-05-08 19:54:12 · answer #3 · answered by benjamin h 1 · 0 1

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They were their own deal, I don't think the met the definition of either of those poorly defined words. The Chinese call themselves Communists, but what are they but totalitarians exploiting the capitalist system to make a few people at the top more powerful?

2007-05-08 19:02:14 · answer #4 · answered by knuckleheadmcspazmatron 4 · 1 1

"Communism has a particular emphasis on everyone having the same living standard and an authoritarian central government. It also has an emphasis on central planning and people doing what they're told... hopefully to advance the social cause..."

Sound a little like Canada today? Read Friedrich von Hayek...please...

2007-05-08 19:27:35 · answer #5 · answered by PAUL S 1 · 0 0

maximum communists as we talk talk over with the soviet union as a "state capitalism". specially after their civil conflict. After the civil conflict they began to undertake marketplace-friendly rules. So it replaced into not a "loose-marketplace" capitalism because of the fact the marketplace replaced into controlled. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it replaced into nevertheless capitalism provided that they had a marketplace based financial device. Even till now that, no person replaced into below the impact that they've been communist or socialist. Marx specially pronounced that for a rustic to go in the direction of socialism, they could attain height capitalist progression. Russia replaced into nevertheless quite often composed of peasants and replaced into frequently a feudal society. They weren't "eligible" for socialism and did not create that. Lenin's plan replaced into to in fact "carry the fortress" till the genuine revolution got here in Germany- which replaced into the main industrialized u . s . on the time. Stalin replaced into the only which insisted the U.S. replaced into socialist. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it replaced into not. there are a number of, many leftists from those eras who pass into great component as to why it replaced into not.

2016-10-04 14:45:22 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Hardline communists

2007-05-08 19:04:03 · answer #7 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 0 1

its called stalinistic communism

2007-05-09 09:48:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

communists.

2007-05-08 18:56:50 · answer #9 · answered by Yashaswini K 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers