# Forum About Russia Politics  Communism: Do Russians think the USSR was communist?

## Chemist12

Hi everyone, 
I was wondering if most Russians think that the USSR was in anyway communist? Many people in the west think of the USSR as communist when in fact it was obviously socialist. 
So, are Russians taught about socialism and communism? Do they know the difference? 
I find this quite interesting, because the west is just as socialist as the USSR was. It is just that they are different types of socialism. 
So I want to know, do Russians know that? 
Not only that, do they know about socialism and communism in detail? I mean, it seems that the Soviet military had political officers that were suppose to teach conscripts about socialism/communism. If they only taught the subject superficially, then they would run out of things to say after 5 minutes I think. 
I guess another way I could ask this is: what do Russians think socialism is? what do they think communism is? 
Would most Russians think that the USSR collapsed because socialism and communism (according to their understanding of it - whatever that is) can't work, or because of mistakes made by political leaders. 
Socialism in the USSR was nothing like how the old European communists described it. 
Based on what the European communists were thinking of when they described socialism hundreds of years ago, Europe (and even the United States) are socialist countries. Russia is also socialist. 
I haven't described socialism and communism here, because I want to hear what people (Russians specifically) think it is first.

----------


## Chemist12

I am not really asking about what the USSR was like. I am asking about what Russians (as individuals) think socialism and communism is, and if they think that the USSR was communist. 
Russia, the USSR, the USA, Canada etc etc or all socialist countries. They are simply different types of socialism. One is not more socialist than the other.  
I am interested in knowing if they have a better understanding of socialism and communism than westerners do. That is not the same as knowing what socialism in the USSR was like. Or what people in the USA think socialism is.  
I also know what socialism in the USSR was like, what I want to know is whether or not Russians think that what the USSR had the one and only type of socialism, or simply a version of socialism. 
Karl Marx did not come up with communism or socialism. 
Another way to put it is to ask, would a Russian (or even a Soviet citizen) look at the United States, or Canada, or a European country and say: "oh, they are socialist as well" (implies an understanding of what socialism is). Or would they say "I would rather live in a non-socialist country like the United States or Canada" (implies a lack of understanding of what socialism is).

----------


## Alex80

> So, are Russians taught about socialism and communism?

 I think more than 3/4 of people do not know these things. Maybe more.
Idea of "USSR crash as the result of congenital malformations of the planned economy" was very important keynote of the 90th during capitalization of Russia, so, most of people believe it.
There are few people who realize that modern developed countries are synthesis of planned and market economy, synthesis of socialism and capitalism.

----------


## Chemist12

I just came up with another way to ask *one aspect of my* question to help clarify things: What were the Soviet political officers teaching people? 
It has to be more than just a USSR government definition of communism and socialism.

----------


## Alex80

> Or would they say "I would rather live in a non-socialist country like the United States or Canada" (implies a lack of understanding of what socialism is).

 Yes. Most of russians think that 'western countries are pure capitalism', which excludes term 'socialism'.
There is mess with these terms.

----------


## Alex80

> What were the Soviet political officers teaching people?

 I think nobody remembers.  ::  It was boring and soldiers prefer to sleep with open eyes at these lessons.  :: 
But I think they cannot be far from official books anyway.

----------


## Chemist12

> Putin might be a neoliberal but has implemented socialist features in Russia. Billions of funds for education were set aside for the deserving. Almost all narrow-minded Russians are amazed with fast cars, HDTV, American movies, and life in America. But we communists can see through the silhouette. The more you patronize these American products like CDs, movies, cars, computers, the more our own countries suffer. Our national bourgeoisie cannot sell their products always outcompeted by US because of the brainwashing done by American movies. Communists like me would rather prepare an organic chicken sandwich in my kitchen rather than McDonalds. I would rather patronize the Soviet Lada which can bring you tens of thousands of miles away from Moscow. I drink water. Not Coke. I consider myself a patriotic Canadian who would rather go to the tailor than buy those American imported Levis bluejeans.

 This has literally nothing to do with my question. I am interested to hear your thoughts, but please do it in your own thread so that my questions can be discussed on this thread. 
Thank you.

----------


## RedFox

The soviet definitions are completely different from the western ones. 
Communism is a hypothetical social order, at which "people's well-being, equality and freedom will be 
achieved on the basis of the highest development of material production, technologies and science". 
Socialism is the first stage of Communism's development. 
There were (and are) no communism countries on the Earth, but there were countries, which tried to achieve communism. 
The sentence "The USSR is a communist country" can have 2 meanings:
1. Western: There is communism in the USSR.
2. Soviet: They develop communism in the USSR. 
I don't think soviet people could describe the USSR as a communist country in the western meaning. They were teached that communism is the future, not the present.  
What about the USSR collapse, I don't think it is related to communism in any way.
USSR never was independent from the Western Europe. In my opinion, the soviet governement was under control of the British Intelligence Service. The USSR was and Russia now is a British satellite.
The independent Russian politics was over, when the Russian Empire fell.

----------


## RedFox

> A Soviet Lada car costs only 800 roubles which is 2 months pay.

 800 roubles is a price of a motorbike. 
Here are real prices: http://www.opoccuu.com/autoprices.html

----------


## Chemist12

> Yes. Most of russians think that 'western countries are pure capitalism', which excludes term 'socialism'.

 What about older Russians? The ones that grew up in the USSR? 
To be clear, I am not asking people to tell me what communism and socialism is. I already know a lot about communism and socialism. I am interested specifically with a Russians understanding of what socialism and communism is.   

> The soviet definitions are completely different from the western ones.

 I am not asking about the Soviet definition, I am asking about the Russian peoples understanding of communism and socialism in general. 
Soviet communism or Soviet socialism is specific. I want to know about what Russians understand about communism/socialism in general. 
I think that you are misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not asking what socialism/communism according to the Soviet government was. 
So for example, my country is a "constitutional monarchy". I can describe what that means for my country, but I also know that a constitutional monarchy will look different depending on which country I am in. The constitutional monarchy in Australia is different to the constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom. However, they are both constitutional monarchies. If you flew me from my country to another country that is a constitutional monarchy, I would be able to recognize it as a constitutional monarchy even though it is not run in the same way as my country is. 
It seems that Alex80 has already answered my question, but I am eager to hear other peoples views. 
Another way to put it is if I flew a Russian to the new communist country of "Esidian", a country that is nothing like the USSR whatsoever, would Russians say to themselves: "*hey, this is a communist country*"? or would they say: "what sort of country is this?". 
if I flew a Russian to the new socialist country of "Residian", a country that is nothing like the USSR whatsoever, would Russians say to themselves: "*hey, this is a socialist country*"? or would they say: "what sort of country is this?". 
The comments in bold require a Russian to actually know what socialism/communism is. Not what the USSR was, not the USSR governments brand of socialism was, not what the typical westerner thinks socialism/communism is, but what socialism/communism *actually is*.

----------


## Alex80

> What about older Russians? The ones that grew up in the USSR?

 Well, I made experiment and call my mother (56 years old). She was typical "city worker class woman". She worked as telegraphist. No special high edication nor political education.
My questions and her answers: 
Me: What kind of political system was in the Soviet Union?
She: We were going to communism.
Me: So, what it was, if it was no communism?
She: Socialism. 
Me: Ok. What kind of political system was/is in the USA?
She: Bourgeoisie.
Me: Hmmm.. Can socialism happen in USA?
She: No. They have bourgeois clans of several people who controls everything and not allow it to happen.

----------


## Chemist12

Did you really call your mum? Thanks so much for your dedication to the question ::  
It is so cool that she uses the term bourgeoisie. Is it normal for Russians to use bourgeoisie? Proletarian? What about "the worker class"? 
Does your mother think the Russia Federation is bourgeoisie or socialist?

----------


## Alex80

> Is it normal for Russians to use bourgeoisie?

 A little. It is archaic term. I smile too.  ::   

> Proletarian?

 Jokingly or in context of history papers.  

> What about "the worker class"?

 It's ok.   

> Does your mother think the Russia Federation is bourgeoisie or socialist?

 She told "oh... we are half bourgeoisie too right now...".

----------


## Alex80

P.S.
Indeed "we are going to communism" was well-known idea in soviet times. It was on the posters often and so on.
So, it is difficult for old people to forget it. However new generations (including mine) do not know it often and thinks that "if communist party was only party in USSR, so it was communistic too". Moreover this is used sometimes as "marker of the political ignorance" in political disputes.
But term "socialism" is associated with USSR very often.

----------


## RedFox

> I am not asking about the Soviet definition, I am asking about the Russian peoples understanding of communism and socialism in general.

  

> The sentence "The USSR is a communist country" can have 2 meanings:
> 1. Western: There is communism in the USSR.
> 2. Soviet: They develop communism in the USSR.  *I don't think soviet people could describe the USSR as a communist country in the western sense. They were teached that communism is the future, not the present.*

 Are you able to read?

----------


## RedFox

> Another way to put it is if I flew a Russian to the new communist country of "Esidian", a country that is nothing like the USSR whatsoever, would Russians say to themselves: "*hey, this is a communist country*"? or would they say: "what sort of country is this?".

 *Коммунистическая страна* makes no sense in soviet political terms. 
"В этой стране строят коммунизм" — "They develop communism in this country", they would say.

----------


## RedFox

> It is so cool that she uses the term bourgeoisie. Is it normal for Russians to use bourgeoisie? Proletarian? What about "the worker class"?

 The younger generation mainly uses these terms in a humorous way. 
For example: По многочисленным просьбам трудящихся — Lurkmore

----------


## alexsms

It might probably help if Химик provided brief definitions of both terms to make a sort of terminological corridor.  
It's not likely that younger generations (born after late 80s) can really help much here.  
The attitude towards these ideas was different during the course of the Soviet history and they were developing and changing due to propaganda and educating Soviet generations according to the official ideology (i.e. in 1920s and 1980s the attitudes were different). I suspect the early stages of the Soviet state are not of interest here, so just a brief remark that anti-communism among the people was big during the beginning of the new Soviet state.  
So phrases commonly used were:     we are building communism, this generation of the Soviet people will live in the society of communism (Khrutschev in 1961, implying that communism will have been built within life of this generation).. so you see the idea of building was present.  
So the word 'communism' has a more practical meaning in minds of Russian people compared to 'socialism', the latter being some sort of theoretical and sometimes even philosophical basis, often some abstract idea (at least in its classical meaning). Whereas 'communism' is some concrete realization. At least this is official theoretical description that people born in 50s and 60s would find satisfactory (in USSR contexts) I am suggesting.  
Now as for today, the word '_communism_' is not so popular in the media, maybe it's heard in some debates and historical contexts  (i think the idea that this was an erroneous course is quite popular in the Russian society today, though some older people are quite nostalgic about the Soviet past).  
But I often here people in Russia today commenting on Norway and Sweden using phrases like У них там _социализм_ (They have socialism there). I think this is quite interesting. The meanings of words are really evolving and changing. 
Bourgeois - immensely popular term today in Russia, the connotations are different (e.g. 'all those westerners', 'all those capitalists', ... might be negative, might be humorous)...  
Working class and proletarian - these words are not so popular, as they are part of earlier Soviet class based theoretical ideology (so they may be used humourously or in scientific literature), ... but Он из рабочих (he is from working class family) - without the word 'class' - can still be used.

----------


## Alex80

> Bourgeois - immensely popular term today in Russia

 Do you mean semi-humorous "буржуи"?  ::  
"Буржуазия" is not so popular term now. I think it may appear in rhetoric of modern communist party due to historical connections, but it is not widespreaded. 
"Буржуй" as semi-humorous description of business class with connotations to "exploitation of the working class" can be met in inofficial speech often, yes...

----------


## alexsms

> Do you mean semi-humorous "буржуи"?

 Yes, и все производные.

----------


## Chemist12

> It might probably help if Химик provided brief definitions of both terms to make a sort of terminological corridor.

 The following is from "The Principles of Communism" which was written in 1847. Well before the existence of the Soviet Union. 
Note that "present day society" refers to the capitalist society of 1847. 
Reactionary Socialism:  

> The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end. 
> This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons: 
> (i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible. 
> (ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution. 
> (iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.

 Bourgeois Socialism:  

> The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it. 
> To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. 
> Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.

 Democratic Socialism:  

> Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18 *[see below]*, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society. 
> These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat. 
> It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. 
> It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.

 Measures that communists advocate (Question 18 ):  

> (i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
> (ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
> (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
> (iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
> (v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
> (vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
> (vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
> (viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
> (ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
> ...

 It should be obvious to anyone that the western world is very socialist. Even the United States, the most anti-socialism/communism country I know of, has taken a lot of communist measures.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Well, I made experiment and call my mother (56 years old).

 Ha-ha, I asked my parents and my grandmother too. All said that USSR was only going to communism, and that they lived in socialist country. However when I asked what is the difference between communism and socialism, each of them answered: "I don't remember".  ::

----------


## Hanna

As far as I am aware, it was called "building communism". It was understood by most educated Europeans - that communism was the _goal_ and not the current state in the "communist" countries.  *A basic thing that most people know about Communism: There is no money in communism. 
But  all the "communist" (socialist) used money. So this proved in a very  simplistic way to kids and regular people that there was not communism  in Eastern Europe.*  
The ruling parties in those  countries were called Communist because that was their ideology, not  because they could instantly create communism. Creating communism turned  out to take a lot longer than what Marx etc had envisaged.  
Plus  - there was a lot of criticism from foreign communists against the USSR  - because the USSR went against Marxist ideals when they fortified  their borders and got involved in wars and the arms race  with the US   (all that is against Marxist ideology).  
So regarding the USSR, it was very common for people to point out _"they are not real communists, it's "state capitalism" there. _ Did Russians say that about themselves too? Plus, in hindsight, it's clear at least to me, that there was a sort of a bourgeoisie in the USSR_._ People who lived very well and had opportunities that others did not have. Definitely not communist...In  the defense of the USSR I guess one could say that it was easy to be  utopian and ideologically pure from afar... To sit at a cafe in Paris or  Stockholm and pretend that you'd be able to snap your fingers and  realise Marx' dream.  
Whereas the actual planners in the USSR had  to deal with reality - ensure that 250 million people were housed, fed,  clothed etc. All the while the USA was actively plotting to destroy the  system. 
So, in order to cope, they took some shortcuts that Marx (and Lenin) probably would not have agreed with.  
And  in the end, the whole thing fell because they ignored the warnings of  communist ideology and let themselves be manipulated by capitalist  influences from abroad.  
I agree about the words "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie". They sound outdated now. 
Those people who used such words a lot in the past, are talking about gay rights, multiculturalism and feminism today.

----------


## Lady Maria

Socialist country heading towards communism is what we were taught here, too.

----------


## Eric C.

All that communist thing was a drug for sheeple's brains. The commie party mafia that ruled the country were going to "build" it forever, while their 250 million slaves worked for mere food to maintain their (the mafia's) well-being. Such a system was naturally doomed to failure.

----------


## Eric C.

> A basic thing that most people know about Communism: There is no money in communism. 
> But all the "communist" (socialist) used money. So this proved in a very simplistic way to kids and regular people that there was not communism in Eastern Europe.

 LOL! I came across a hilarious joke as a kid, that might explain it:  _Q. "Will there be money in communism?"
A. "Yugoslavian comrades say there will be; Chinese comrades say there won't be; we merge these two theories, and think there will be money, but not everyone will have it."_

----------


## Hanna

> But I often here people in Russia today commenting on Norway and Sweden using phrases like У них там _социализм_ (They have socialism there). I think this is quite interesting. The meanings of words are really evolving and changing.

 Yes, you are right that the meanings of what socialism is, (or what people think it is..) has evolved. 
I  have met a several Russians who have this view, and a very idealised  view of Sweden.  It must be something that's been written about in  Russian media? One person actually wanted to emigrate to Sweden for that  reason.  
Sweden was traditionally much more "red" than Norway,  but this has now changed. Only Norway can afford grand "socialist"  schemes, thanks to their oil...Sweden is much more restrictive. What  extra money there is, goes on funding immigration and attempts at  integrating new immigrants.  
In my childhood (mainly 1980s),  there was lots of socialism going on, and anyone from the USSR would  probably have perceived Sweden as a "deluxe" and relaxed version of the  USSR. Everyone was constantly throwing around socialist jargon and media  in particularly was practically communist. We sang socialist songs in  school but at the same time people said "we have enough capitalism to  keep the wheels greased".  It was all democratically elected. People  just kept voting for Social democrats. The state was like an  omni-present parent that always knew best. It still is, in Sweden and it  can be very overbearing. Socialism worked relatively well in Sweden in  the past, because the country was homogenous (no problems with  minorities or different cultures). Almost everybody had a strong work  ethic, which is part of Lutheran tradition.  
It was known to us,  that one of the biggest problems in the USS, was people who didn't pull  their weight, and the fact that the USSR spent so much of its money  propping up backwards Soviet areas and third world allies. The alleged  abuses of the Soviet state were sometimes whispered about. My dad did a  lot of business in the USSR and sometimes talked about his observations.  Many people were interested and wanted to hear what he thought.  
In  the past, Swedes and Norwegian socialists were concerned about things  like social justice and the other traditional objectives of Marx &  co. But now people in the left now have forgotten this! Instead they are  obsessing about immigration/mulitculturalism, gay rights and feminism.  You can't turn on the TV or read a paper without seeing promotion of  this. That's what younger people now associate with socialism. Meanwhile  class differences are now growing every year. Social democratic work  policies don't work with the new "multicultural" society where 1-2  people in 10 simply don't have the same references, because they come  from Africa or the Middle East.  
In Norway, imo, people just got  lazy and entitled from the social democratic system! Lots of young  people deliberately don't get a job, but spend a couple of years on  benefits, "discovering themselves". Immigrants spend on average 7 years  on benefits, before they get a real job. Many are still unemployed after  15 years. 
Lots of locally born people people in secure jobs are  skiving off, lazy or indifferent, and you can tell when you visit: Poor  service, crazy bureacracy etc.  
Hope all this made some sense!  
So,  anyone looking for socialism: You'll find some remnants in Norway,  otherwise the only country still doing it in Europe on a limited scale,  is Belarus. What Belarus is doing, looks to me like Nordic social  democracy from the 1970s.  The people there have voted for it, although  some criticize the democratic process there.

----------


## Hanna

> LOL! I came across a hilarious joke as a kid, that might explain it:  _Q. "Will there be money in communism?"
> A. "Yugoslavian comrades say there will be; Chinese comrades say there won't be; we merge these two theories, and think there will be money, but not everyone will have it."_

 Yugoslavia was just socialist. I don't think it even had communism as the stated objective.  It wasn't considered to be properly part of the Eastern bloc, back in those days. They had private enterprise on a limited scale. 
I don't think that the USSR, or China which you mention, took them seriously as communists whatsoever. Yugoslavia had mass tourism from Western Europe, just as an example.

----------


## Chemist12

> So, anyone looking for socialism: You'll find some remnants in Norway, otherwise the only country still doing it in Europe on a limited scale, is Belarus.

 Literally every country in Europe is socialist. No socialist country is more socialist than the other. It is really a black and white thing. You either live in a socialist country or you don't. 
There are different types of socialism for sure (feudalism would be consider reactionary socialism for example), but let me assure you, Europe is entirely socialist.

----------


## Hanna

> Literally every country in Europe is socialist. No socialist country is more socialist than the other. It is really a black and white thing. You either live in a socialist country or you don't. 
> There are different types of socialism for sure (feudalism would be consider reactionary socialism for example), but let me assure you, Europe is entirely socialist.

 I think most residents of Europe would disagree with you, and I don't know what makes you qualified to determine the political nature of an entire continent, in direct contrast to the views of its inhabitants. Are you American?  
To say "no socialist country is more socialist than another" shows that you don't understand the concept of socialism. 
The less private ownership there is, the more socialism there is. There are also different levels of workers rights, pricing structure and much more that are telltale signs of to what degree socialism has been implemented in a country. All European countries today, except Belarus, has a majority of private ownership of industry and the service sector. By definition, that means they are NOT socialist.  
Usually unfounded accusations about "socialism" and "communism" without understanding it, come from teenagers (if European) or Americans.

----------


## Chemist12

> I think most residents of Europe would disagree with you, and I don't know what makes you qualified to determine the political nature of an entire continent, in direct contrast to the views of its inhabitants.

 Err... I am the person that started this thread - so it should suggest to you that I have a particular interest in the subject. I study socialism and have read a lot of the original writings of socialists and communists (from hundreds of years ago). 
I have also read more recent communist and socialist literature (which basically just restates and expands on what the older literature said).  
I regularly watch the updates by Richard Wolff, a/the leading American Marxian economist. Richard Wolff is also very knowledgeable when it comes to socialism and has produced an entire video series on the subject. He consults with businesses that are looking for assistance in developing their communist style businesses.  
I have also watched many of the talks by prominent European socialists.   

> Are you American

 No I am not. What has that got to do with anything? I am from New Zealand (which is also a socialist country).   

> To say "no socialist country is more socialist than another" shows that you don't understand the concept of socialism.

 To say that this means I don't understand the concept of socialism, shows that you don't understand the concept of socialism. 
Would you consider a feudal society more socialist than Norway? Both are socialist - just different types. 
Feudalism had a lot of private ownership (the lords owned the land). That doesn't change the fact that feudalism is a type of socialism (reactionary socialism).   

> Usually unfounded accusations about "socialism" and "communism" without understanding it, come from teenagers (if European) or Americans.

 Except I didn't make unfounded "accusations" about socialism and communism did I? I literally posted earlier on in this topic quotes from the 1847 book "The Principles of Communism" - which set out what socialism is. 
Today, there have been more branches of socialism (for example Marxian-Lenism socialism), but that does not mean the old literature is not relevant. The old literature is still what most modern day communist and socialism is based on. New literature still references the old literature. It is still studied by proponents of socialism and communism. 
Many of the Europeans I have met are happy to accept that they live in socialist countries. I think it is more likely that an American would not think they live in a socialist country (even though they do). 
I also read reports produced by the European Union on socialist/communist practices in Europe (for example Co-determination in Germany). 
And yes, before you ask, I do know the difference between communism and socialism. Implementing communist ideals is *one form* of socialism (democratic socialism) which is why I use a "/" mark between the two. The practices/ideals constitute a part of socialism until the country becomes fully communist.

----------


## Alex80

In russian wiki there is strong difference between "social state" and "socialistic state".
Second includes elimination of private property as important thing (usually on the way to communism). First is about wide social programs and state-controlled private business.
So, it may be wrong to name EU/SA state "socialistic", but they are definitely not "pure capitalism/market".
Even if we talk about "private property/business" we must remember:
- dotations and tax regulations for business, which are indirect form of STATE-CONTROLLED ECONOMY (green energy as the modern example, agriculture and farming is long-term example)
- dotations/pensions/tax regulations for private persons, which are indirect form of state-controlled "social equality"
and so on.
Also, if you remember that government is "chosen by people and express will of people" you end up with "it's people who control economy and many aspects of life in global way". 
All things are mixed up in modern states.

----------


## Chemist12

Not only that, but having a democratic constitution would constitute socialism. 
A democratic constitution was also one of the goals of the early communists - but again, a country is not communist until it has fully implemented communism. 
Also, keep in mind that while Communists wanted to use socialism as a way to reach communism, that does not mean that for many people socialism is not an end in itself (there are plenty of socialists - as opposed to communists). It also does not mean that all forms of socialism are consistent with a path to Communism - they are not. 
The early communists identified democratic socialism as the movement that they could work with to reach communism.

----------


## Hanna

_Chemist, sorry if I came on a bit strongly. In the past there have been lots of people coming in here and hollering about "commies" and that everything apart from US Republicans is "socialist". I.e. "Obama is a socialist"._  
That said, I don't agree with the academic interpretation of some old texts that lead you to believe that "Europe is socialist".  
I also don't believe that most people in New Zealand would agree that they live in a socialist country. I think you are taking some ivory tower position that just doesn't line up with reality.  
Basically, Alex80 nails it:  *What you are talking about, is "Social democracy", or social democratic influence.* 
It's true that this is common in Europe, particularly the Northern parts, and particularly Scandinavia.  
That is NOT real socialism though! It contains some aspects of socialism, but frankly, so does Christianity. The types of policies I refer to are making healthcare and university "free", subsidising public transport and ensuring everybody has adequate housing.  
In the countries where social democracy took hold, even the parties that are not social democratic had to adopt a lot of the social democratic policies if they wanted any chance of winning an election. 
People quickly got used to the benefits that the social democrats introduced. They wanted to keep all, or most of it, even if they were not social democrats themselves.  
During this period, the top 15% of the population had their living conditions reduced quite a bit. Most aristocrats lost their fortunes and land-holdings due to taxation. Most others saw their living standards rising year by year. *
Social democracy = A hybrid of capitalism and socialism, where there are privately owned production means** and regular elections. They wanted to achieve socialism gradually, without any revolution.* This became really popular with the working class in many European countries (i.e. the majority of the population). In Sweden, the social democrats had 70 years of near uninterrupted rule to implement their goals. They were incredibly popular. They catered for some really "red" people, and others who were just interested in what they personally could get out of it.   
Initially, the goal of social democracy was socialism --> communism. The idea was to get there gradually, without violence or a revolution. However, as time progressed this objective was discreetly dropped. In the 1920s-1930s, social democrats quite liked the USSR (the social aspects of it, like childcare and worker collectives).  
But after the war, the social democrats stopped idealising the USSR. Instead started supporting anti-imperialist/anti-colonial liberation struggle in the developing world and countries like Cuba, Allende's Chile, Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia.  
"Internationalism" became a big thing - i.e. solidarity with people in various poor countries. Richer social democratic countries gave aid to anyone from liberation fighters in South America, the ANZ in South Africa, and to North Korea, Vietnam and Tanzania. Political refugees, mainly from right wing dictatorships were given political asylum.  
In the 1990s, socialism was extremely discredited, as most of us remember. The social democratic parties reacted by moving more towards the right. No more red banners and "Internationale".  
They started selling out publically owned companies, they stopped subsidising a lot of things that previously had been almost free. On paper, they remained committed to "the welfare state", but in reality it became harder and harder for normal people to fit the criteria to access a lot of welfare state benefits. They broke completely with all remaining socialist or communist countries.  
In the early 2000s, social democrats got really serious about feminism, anti-racism, generous immigration and gay rights. That's where they still are at. In the meantime the welfare states have declined and class divides are on the rise again. 
That's social democracy in a nutshell, from somebody who grew up with it. If you want to call that "socialism" I can't stop you, but I don't agree!   *And do be aware that several of the heavyweight socialists/communists absolutely hated social democracy and considered it to be treason against real socialism,* and a trojan horse. Communists also hate them, because they steal potential voters from communist parties, and/or stood in the way of revolution. Certainly Marx and Lenin were strongly against social democracy. 
Socialism and communism has played an absolutely immeasurable role in Europe. The generation of our grandparents or great grandparents grew up deeply unequal conditions that we can't even imagine today. Socialism and social democracy changed all that. Re communism, it has shaped Russia in particular, but also all of Eastern Europe.  
For that reason, I feel it's extremely important that people have no misconceptions about what these ideologies and polices were, or weren't!

----------


## Eric C.

> Socialism and communism has played an absolutely immeasurable role in Europe. The generation of our grandparents or great grandparents grew up deeply unequal conditions that we can't even imagine today. Socialism and social democracy changed all that. Re communism, it has shaped Russia in particular, but also all of Eastern Europe.

 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> Yugoslavia was just socialist. I don't think it even had communism as the stated objective.  It wasn't considered to be properly part of the Eastern bloc, back in those days. They had private enterprise on a limited scale. 
> I don't think that the USSR, or China which you mention, took them seriously as communists whatsoever. Yugoslavia had mass tourism from Western Europe, just as an example.

 I know that, and actually, the joke mentions them as "revisionists", and it refers to the "Chinese comrades" as "dogmatists". The punchline is about combining two polar opposite views into something that people under "state capitalism" (and the USSR obviously was one) would rather believe, based on their own experience in such a system. =))

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## hddscan

> Hi everyone,
> I was wondering if most Russians think that the USSR was in anyway communist? Many people in the west think of the USSR as communist when in fact it was obviously socialist.
> So, are Russians taught about socialism and communism? Do they know the difference?

 Please define communism first. What I found is that the "West" has its own definition of communism, which has nothing to do with reality.

----------


## hddscan

> 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.

 the socialism always goes for equalizing living conditions among different social groups of a society(for example - Sweden). Capitalism cares less about it(for example - USA)
But in general what matters most is economy, the better the economy the more people care about something beside food and shelter - Maslow pyramid is in action.
Could it be possible that USSR would have remained socialistic and have high life standards - yes, it would have(in some other time), Sweden is an example. Could have USSR be better economically if it would have been capitalistic, yes, it would have, the US is an example. 
It's the matter of perspective.
I would say the more developed the country is(economically and culturally) - the more socialistic it would become. USSR was destined to fail because it was too young to be socialistic. 
As for democracy  - it does not exist, the same way as communism couldn't exist.

----------


## Hanna

> the socialism always goes for equalizing living conditions among different social groups of a society(for example - Sweden). Capitalism cares less about it(for example - USA)
> But in general what matters most is economy, the better the economy the more people care about something beside food and shelter - Maslow pyramid is in action.
> Could it be possible that USSR would have remained socialistic and have high life standards - yes, it would have(in some other time), Sweden is an example. Could have USSR be better economically if it would have been capitalistic, yes, it would have, the US is an example. 
> It's the matter of perspective.
> I would say the more developed the country is(economically and culturally) - the more socialistic it would become. USSR was destined to fail because it was too young to be socialistic. 
> As for democracy  - it does not exist, the same way as communism couldn't exist.

 Interesting comments. I agree with most of what you say. 
But as a Swedish person I don't believe that my country is socialist, and neither to most Swedish people, apart from right wing people who want to whinge about things they don't like.  
I don't think it can be called "socialist" because there has always been private ownership of a large part of the industry. I admit that there was a period during the 1960s — 1985 when there was a lot of socialist "paraphernalia/language and ideology. The state owned all utilities companies and there were virtually no private alternatives in healthcare, education etc. A lot of people believed that the eventual victory of communism was inevitable. 
But socialism was never fully in charge of the country, and in the 1990s, the state sold off their companies and introduced market pricing on most things.  
I just don't agree with it being labelled "socialist" either by you or by Chemist12. Today, it's absolutely like any other Western European country. 
But I think the USSR is very fascinating as a project, an experience etc. I would like to understand what was good and bad about it, what exactly made it voluntarily dissolve itself and fail. Can socialism and communism help the developing world? 
 The challenge about it is that everything relating to the USSR is hidden behind strong feelings of people who experienced it, layers of propaganda and illusion coming from every angle of historical documentation.

----------


## hddscan

> I just don't agree with it being labelled "socialist" either by you or by Chemist12.

 I don't see it as a negative thing. But obviously different people may have different opinions.

----------


## hddscan

> Can socialism and communism help the developing world?

 Communism is utopia. It could only be achieved in small, closed societies. Communism relies on people to be truly altruistic, with compassion, super humane in a sense. And this can only be achieved if a society would have no economical or cultural problems whatsoever, internal or external. People should be *willing* to do "greater good" for the whole society and not for themselves but this can only be done if all the people in such society are more or less equal in all terms, so the uniqueness of an individual has to be removed completely, which is practically impossible.

----------


## Hanna

> Communism is utopia. It could only be achieved in small, closed societies. Communism relies on people to be truly altruistic, with compassion, super humane in a sense. And this can only be achieved if a society would have no economical or cultural problems whatsoever, internal or external. People should be *willing* to do "greater good" for the whole society and not for themselves but this can only be done if all the people in such society are more or less equal in all terms, so the uniqueness of an individual has to be removed completely, which is practically impossible.

 I agree that communism is better suited for smaller groups. People need to be _really_ committed and there needs to be discipline. In a way, you could say that monasteries run a sort of "communism". Everyone lives in the same way, they share almost everything and it's "to everyone according to their needs". They are held together by strong religious conviction. Also, they can simply ask people to leave, who don't follow the rules. A country can't really do that.. 
The problem with doing it in a large country, is a lot of people never wanted socialism to begin with. They will be negative. Others are just uninterested, lazy or out to exploit the system. Countries like the USA will be out to sabotage the socialistic state as much as possible. And as the years pass, people forget the hardships before socialism and they start taking everything for granted -- worrying a lot more about their "rights" than their obligations.  
One of the reasons social democracy worked in Sweden was because it was a completely homogenous country, and there was a real high work ethic among regular people, thanks to Lutheranism. (Neither is true anymore though....)  
In actual communism, just triple all the challenges. I agree that it's just not compatible with human nature at present. 
But note: The world in Star Trek is communist. ::  If there was a colony on Mars, they'd be living "communism" by necessity, even if they wouldn't call it by that name.    

> I don't see it as a negative thing. But obviously different people may have different opinions.

 No I don't see it as something negative either. But it seems like it's a closed chapter now - gone and not coming back. Or if it's coming back, it will be different and called something else.  
The image of socialism was totally ruined in the 1990s. As a "brand", it's almost dead.
Or does anyone see communism or socialism making a real comeback in our lifetimes? I don't...  
When I say "socialism" I think of - no private means of production, job and housing for everyone... etc, etc.
Have you got a different view on what it is?  
Also:  I think all countries that implemented socialism put their own  "deviating" touches on it, so there really is no text-book example of  "plain" or "pure" socialism.

----------


## hddscan

> When I say "socialism" I think of - no private means of production, job and housing for everyone... etc, etc.
> Have you got a different view on what it is?

 I don't think socialism could be applicable in black and white terms to any country.
But there are some examples of socialism in many countries. Government sponsored pensions, government sponsored medical care, government sponsored education, government sponsored unemployment benefits are the most common modern examples of socialism that could be applicable to many countries. 
Government sponsored housing is less common but still exist. 
Government-controlled production exists in many countries but at a different degree. And government-controlled service I would say exists in any country with a government. 
The more "government-controlled" things a country has the more socialistic it is.
But the "heavyweight" of it all is production of course, which supports my previous claim that economy matters the most for a country. 
However based on that Saudi Arabia is a socialistic country, because its oil production is controlled by the government. And when you say "Countries like the USA will be out to sabotage the socialistic state as much as possible" it makes me wonder: was it actually the socialism the US was after or was it something else during the Cold War? I know the answer of course  ::

----------


## Hanna

> was it actually the socialism the US was after or was it something else during the Cold War? I know the answer of course

 Regarding the USA: I can't follow the reasoning of a violent madman.... 
But please tell me your theory of why they did it!  
To be serious: We know that they used every trick in the book, from blockades, to invasions & propaganda campaigns to destroy socialism. And I believed that the US egged the USSR on, into a spending war on nuclear weapons on purpose, since they knew they had deeper coffers.   
Secondly: In 1989 it looked like Russians were prepared to ditch everything they built up, for Coca Cola, rock'n'roll and a pair of Levi's... If the US achieved this consciously, it was pure psy-ops genius warfare. The US turned the population into a Trojan horse and destroyed their biggest enemy from within....  And during the 1990s, the US could feast on the corpse.... But now they are angry, because the party is over... So Russia is again an enemy.  
Same with other, smaller countries that have been declared "enemies" of the US, simply because they use a socialist system within their own borders. Countries that now feel forced to spend half their GDP on the military, just to defend themselves, while becoming increasingly paranoid..  
Obviously the motivation for the USA can always be traced back to money, but what's your theory?

----------


## Hanna

I forgot a BIG reason why Sweden is not and never has been "socialist".  
No five year plans or anything like that. Because it was never a centrally planned economy and the government had to be re-elected every 3 years. There was always a risk that they would not get re-elected. So, making a 5 year plan was impossible. 
They made some "special" plans for stuff like housing and healthcare and  set them up in a way that no future government could change it.  
But it was not a Plan that governed everything, like the ones that the real socialist countries had. 
I think Marx said something to the extent that a socialist economy must be planned by the representatives of the people, outside of the reach of manipulation by capitalists. This never happened in Sweden, instead there was a symbiosis between the capital and the state.

----------


## hddscan

> But please tell me your theory of why they did it!

 Money of course. 
The US always wanted to be a world's leader on public and world's ruler in reality. Normally an empire would try and conquer actual land to rule it, but after the WW2 the US realized that it can't conquer lands without consequences, so it decided to be an economical ruler of the world. 
The US created the Bretton Woods system, which included the IMF and the World Bank and proclaimed American dollar as a currency as equal as gold, which was basically the end of "gold standard" and the beginning of dollar domination. It was a brilliant move at the time. Many countries ratified it but the USSR did not, it also did not join the IMF. That's how the Cold War started. 
In a couple of years the US proposed Marshall Plan, which tied the Western Europe to the US with big money and made it dependable on the US for many years. 
The world became bipolar: on one side it was the US, UK, Australia, India and Western Europe, on the other it was the USSR, Eastern Europe, South America, China and Africa. Middle East was divided between the sides. 
After the USSR collapsed the world stopped being bipolar and the US became dominant country of the world. At the moment the US could do whatever it wants and nobody could do anything about it, it ignores the UN and nobody could do anything, it bombs sovereign nations and nobody puts any sanctions on it, it dictates what over countries could or could not do based on its own interests and so far there is very little resistance. So it finally became a world ruler.
Russia still tries to create a multipolar world, so it is a threat to the US world power and makes it the US enemy. 
China started not to do as it told and thus there are consequences: Hong Kong rivals, suddenly Chinese markets drop and now the US sends a warship to the South China Sea to show who's the boss.

----------


## Chemist12

> I just don't agree with it being labelled "socialist" either by you or by Chemist12

 I am using the definitions of the early communists. People do disagree on what socialism means, however I go with the definitions that people who have made a career out of studying the subject use. 
For example, Richard Wolff says: "socialism is the criticism of capitalism". Basically, any change from pure capitalism, becomes socialism. This is consistent with all the Communist literature I have read on the subject. I am aware that some say that Social democrats split from the socialists, but I think it would be more accurate to say that social democrats split from democratic socialists. As stated earlier, democratic socialism is only one type of socialism. The way socialism was described by the early communists basically included everything except pure capitalism and pure communism (which is why feudalism is a type of socialism). 
You may not like the title, but it becomes impossible to talk about socialism if you don't acknowledge that a country that meets the definition of socialism is socialist. It is like saying socialism is x, y, and z. Country A has x, y, and z. However country A it is not socialist. It would become confusing.  
I guess you can choose to redefine it (no idea why you would want to), but when talking about socialism in terms of communist/socialist literature, we need to describe those countries that fit the defintion of socialist as socialist.   

> Please define communism first. What I found is that the "West" has its own definition of communism, which has nothing to do with reality.

 I did eventually describe socialism in this thread by quote the Principles of Communism. I explained in the opening post why I was not defining communism. The question is about what Russians think communism is. It doesn't require me to tell them what it is. This is what I said in my opening post:   

> I haven't described socialism and communism here, because I want to hear what people (Russians specifically) think it is first.

 Finally, please have a short book that people can read. It is called the Principles of Communism. It was published in 1847, before the USSR even existed. Pay attention to how it describes socialism:  https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1/prin-com.htm 
I choose this book to link here because it is a very short read.  
This site has a lot of old communist literature. So if you want to know what Communism is, it would be a good idea to go and see what the early communist wrote about it.

----------


## Hanna

*@Chemist12* -  I have read that book in the distant past and am familiar with the  content. IMO, there is no way Engels would have described modern France,  Germany or UK as socialist.  
If you are set on using the early socialists; the one you want is the main Bernstein book (not sure of English title) on social democracy. It has relevance to modern Europe and the way countries are run. If Bernstein was alive, I think he'd agree up to a point, although he'd  label most of contemporary social democratic parties as sellouts.  
I'm not able to say any more on this, because I simply can't relate to your premise that Western Europe is socialist.  *@HDDscan:* Yes agree, but the US wasn't so bad when it first started (well, slavery and homicide of indians apart....) My view is that it took the wrong turn after WW2 and it has been downhill ever since. Exacerbated as you said, by the end of the USSR.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.  
> ...

 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?

----------


## hddscan

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> 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.

----------


## hddscan

> 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> So, are Russians taught about socialism and communism? Do they know the difference?

 Alright, I'm not by all means an expert on the topic, but I do remember something from those days of yore. In essence, we've been taught that: 
1. The bourgeois system of the private ownership rights to the means of production is temporary, it is going to rot, and will inevitably be replaced with the Communism whereas the means of production will be collectively owned and operated. There would be no way a person could exploit (=employ) another person. Only the Communist State will be the sole employer for everyone. 
2. The Communism will thus inevitably occur world-wide as a result of the technological and humanitarian advancement of the entire humanity. 
3. The workers do not have to wait until the Communism would occur naturally and suffer in the meantime. In order to reduce the suffering of the mankind, the Communism could be expedited by means of the Socialist Revolution. 
4. Since those who presently own the means of production would not obviously give up their rights easily, they would have to be prosecuted by the Communist State. Since those who owned the means of production comprise negligible amount of the society, the suffering of the entire society is thus minimized and is therefore an act of the humanism. Thus, the unfortunate and temporary usage of the Red Terror is fully legitimate and should be supported by the society as a whole. 
5. However the society is far better now once the overall suffering is much less than before, the Communism would still not be reachable until the technological advancement would create the proper means of production to facilitate the provision of the goods and services (=the "needs') required by each individual in the society. Hence, the newly established state would have to be Industrialized first. The suffering caused by the changes are only temporary and should as such be fully accepted by the society. 
6. This would therefore facilitate the establishment of the Socialist State called the USSR. So, yes, USSR was officially a socialist country and not a communist country. 
7. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is still bourgeois and the owners of the means of production in the rest of the world would obviously strive to destroy the Socialist State fearing that the Socialist Revolution would also occur in their countries. They would inevitably want to destroy the newly established Socialist State. As a result, the Socialist State has to: (a) maintain strong army, (b) maintain lots of secret services in order to identify spies, undercover agents of influence, provocateurs, and terrorists, (c) destabilize the oppressive regimes in the bourgeois countries to expedite the Socialist Revolutions in them in order to reduce suffering in those bourgeois countries. 
8. With the advent of the technological improvements, the Socialism in the USSR was renamed into the Developed Socialism (=Развитой Социализм), which roughly meant the state is getting closer to the Communism because they could offer the citizens more goods and services than before. 
9. The story ended in 1991. 
Hope it helps..

----------

