Thread: Communism: Do Russians think the USSR was communist?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What do you think played the crucial role for equalizing ppl's living conditions, the socialism as it was treated in the European "red block" countries, or just normal capitalism evolving? Because I was taught and used to think it's the second, and not the first.

I think this is a very complex question, and a lot of dynamics play in.
You can't just look at it in isolation.

If a communist revolution hadn't happened in Russia, it almost certainly would have happened somewhere else, like England, France or Germany. Socialism was boiling across Europe for half a century, due to unequal conditions and imperialist wars. It was inevitable that a communist revolution would happen somewhere. By chance (?) the largest country, with the most natural resources and best able to protect itself, was where it eventually happened.

There were lots of side effects of the socialist influence across the continent.

Improved conditions in other countries: As a direct result of the revolution in Russia, conditions were instantly improved for workers and peasants in neighbouring countries. This was of course because elites got scared the revolution would spread. To appease the workers and peasants, their conditions were improved.

Religion: For example, from my own background: Scandinavia being the most atheist region on Earth, is the result of good living and uninterupted socialist influence for almost a century. It's the first place on earth where almost nobody believes in God. What are the long term results of this? Time will tell...

Level of education: What would have happened in Russia and South East Europe without the revolution? These areas weren't industrialised, and peasants were horrendously oppressed. People didn't even know how to read. Whatever else you think about socialism, it educated people and it sped up industrialisation.

Technology: If the USSR hadn't got spurred on by a quest for hardcore science and ideology, they wouldn't have been first in space! If they hadn't been first in space, the USA probably hadn't bothered going to the Moon..
Without the space race, we wouldn't have sattellite technology today...

WW2: Without the the focus of the USSR to fight the Nazis, they probably would have won the war.

Socialism was largely what stopped colonialism, as well as the brutal right wing dictatorships in Southern Europe.
All this goes on, and on and on.

So it's not just about somebody sitting in Poland and thinking "F-ck communism, if that hadn't happened, I would own a villa with a swimming pool and a brand new BMW like some rich dude...."

I think a few of the Eastern European countries would have been better off today without socialism, for instance Poland and Hungary. Some other areas would be worse off (large parts of the ex USSR and South east Europe). I don't know it for sure, but it's what I think.

In hindsight I think that it was a mistake by the socialist countries to end socialism the way they did. Phasing it out gradually would have been better, alternatively a well managed perestroika.
As it is, they got screwed over and ripped off, and I think that's the modern tragedy of Europe. The EU has not been the equality fix that many of us thought it would be. Instead it made things worse in many ways.

So there you have my personal view of all this.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think this is a very complex question, and a lot of dynamics play in.
You can't just look at it in isolation.

If a communist revolution hadn't happened in Russia, it almost certainly would have happened somewhere else, like England, France or Germany. Socialism was boiling across Europe for half a century, due to unequal conditions and imperialist wars. It was inevitable that a communist revolution would happen somewhere. By chance (?) the largest country, with the most natural resources and best able to protect itself, was where it eventually happened.

There were lots of side effects of the socialist influence across the continent.

Improved conditions in other countries: As a direct result of the revolution in Russia, conditions were instantly improved for workers and peasants in neighbouring countries. This was of course because elites got scared the revolution would spread. To appease the workers and peasants, their conditions were improved.

Religion: For example, from my own background: Scandinavia being the most atheist region on Earth, is the result of good living and uninterupted socialist influence for almost a century. It's the first place on earth where almost nobody believes in God. What are the long term results of this? Time will tell...

Level of education: What would have happened in Russia and South East Europe without the revolution? These areas weren't industrialised, and peasants were horrendously oppressed. People didn't even know how to read. Whatever else you think about socialism, it educated people and it sped up industrialisation.

Technology: If the USSR hadn't got spurred on by a quest for hardcore science and ideology, they wouldn't have been first in space! If they hadn't been first in space, the USA probably hadn't bothered going to the Moon..
Without the space race, we wouldn't have sattellite technology today...

WW2: Without the the focus of the USSR to fight the Nazis, they probably would have won the war.

Socialism was largely what stopped colonialism, as well as the brutal right wing dictatorships in Southern Europe.
All this goes on, and on and on.

So it's not just about somebody sitting in Poland and thinking "F-ck communism, if that hadn't happened, I would own a villa with a swimming pool and a brand new BMW like some rich dude...."

I think a few of the Eastern European countries would have been better off today without socialism, for instance Poland and Hungary. Some other areas would be worse off (large parts of the ex USSR and South east Europe). I don't know it for sure, but it's what I think.

In hindsight I think that it was a mistake by the socialist countries to end socialism the way they did. Phasing it out gradually would have been better, alternatively a well managed perestroika.
As it is, they got screwed over and ripped off, and I think that's the modern tragedy of Europe. The EU has not been the equality fix that many of us thought it would be. Instead it made things worse in many ways.

So there you have my personal view of all this.

You see, most ppl want to live now. They rather don't care what might be in 200 years from now if they continue doing it this or that way. And if all they see is, doing it this way makes them live miserable lives, and waste their best years, they'll eventually come down to stop such a system, which was done in lots of those socialist countries. Equality by the internal redistribution of ppl's wealth always sucks, and incidentally, that is the only way leftists see any system like that (socialist and similar). It's never about a state that would make conditions for the poor so they can get employed, get their own businesses running, and start making wealth, but always about a state that would make terrible conditions for everyone in making any move for any wealth, and then come out as their only savior. Who needs such a system? Honestly, is there anyone? A lot of "socialists" here would get far less enthusiastic if they were offered to share 99% of their wages with 99 of poor African ppl so they became 100 totally equal ppl. Or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Or am I wrong?

You are right if you take a point of view of a particular individual in society.
From a government point of view you are not quite right.
The more "unsoicialistic" a country is the more inequality you would find in society of that country. If you don't deal with inequality you would get a revolution, eventually.

Originally Posted by hddscan

You are right if you take a point of view of a particular individual in society.
From a government point of view you are not quite right.
The more "unsoicialistic" a country is the more inequality you would find in society of that country. If you don't deal with inequality you would get a revolution, eventually.

Interesting point, I didn't look at it that way. Yeah, if there are too many freeloaders who get really poor, it all may explode in a revolution against the successful people. But then, if a government gets too socialist and starts taking away too much from people to keep freeloaders afloat, the successful people will arrange a coup just the same way. Either way, the government is taken down, so if it wants to stay in the office, a balance is important.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

But then, if a government gets too socialist and starts taking away too much from people to keep freeloaders afloat, the successful people will arrange a coup just the same way.

I guess we will see if it's true in Germany.