Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Although the USSR adopted communist values, it was not a true Communist State; True or false?

If true, argue why.


If false, argue why.








I don't know the answer to this, and it is for History, so if you could help me, I'd be really grateful!Although the USSR adopted communist values, it was not a true Communist State; True or false?
False. The USSR only ever aspirted to communism but the revolution was defeated by the middle of the 1920's by a combination of outside pressure from Western capitalist powers, and internal problems of civil war.





Many Bolsheviks died in the civil war and they were the backbone of the revolution. The working class were smaller than the peasantry, who were the largest class, and had different demands from workers. It was a major task to placate the peasantry and get them on side for the revolution.





Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin were always clear that no communist state could survive in isolation. The German revolution of 1918-1923 was significant inasmuch as, if it were successful, would have supported the USSR and inspired other, more advanced capitalist countries, with a larger and more sophisticated working class into revolution.





Communism is the absence of the state, an absence of money relationships, and true equality. This was clearly not the case in the USSR. The economic system in the USSR was state capitalism, as explained by Tony Cliff in his book, 'State Capitalism In Russia'.





After Stalin seized power, the true Bolsheviks were hunted down and sent to the Gulag. Trotsky himself was 'airbrushed' out of history and ultimately murdered in 1940 in exile in Mexico by a Stalinist agent.





Because Lenin had been incredibly popular, Stalin adopted his rhetoric and distorted his philosophy in order to con the working class to tow the line.





You ask a very big Q. so I hope my answer has pointed you in the right direction.Although the USSR adopted communist values, it was not a true Communist State; True or false?
False.





It was definetely on the right path for communism, however a true communist state is one in which the working people are in control of the means of production and the government as a whole. In the USSR there was a authoritarian dictatorship which was in control of the economy. Although, Lenin saw this authoritarian government as an essential step to achieve the classless society and the people running the economy, it never got to the point where the people were in charge of the means of production.





Communism is supposed to be classless and stateless based on a common ownership of production. Instead the USSR was still divided by classes, and their was no common ownership of production since the ownership of production was held at the state level under a dictator.
True, because though they took on the basic Communist values, the state did not function like a real Communist state. This was largely due to people's natural tendency for corruption and greed, the higher-ups often took large portions of the wealth from the working class while the working class was forced to accept low standards of living.





In addition, there was no real motivation to work harder at something (since you get the same treatment regardless of effort or skill). This led to lots of people simply not working since they had to be taken care of, on some level, by the state.
Technically, that is arguably false depending on how you want to evaluate it. By literal interpretation of the Marx plan, the USSR complied with the program (which commences with an authoritarian strongman and over time, evolves into true socialism) but also arguably, the USSR never evolved to the socialism part before it dissolved, so no, the USSR was never a true socialist state, it was at best a transitional state with (as you describe) communist values but not a true communst state, (in which case the correct answer is, true).
False, because technically speaking only the authorities of a state can label their country ';communist'; or ';socalist democracy'; or what have you.





The russians put people in gulags, therefore i would offer the argumentative point that the USSR was not a true communist state.





While there is contention in the ranks, it doesn't matter what the leaders say.





edit; i answered false as if you had asked if it WAS a true communist state lol.
False,


Under Krushchev and Gorbachev, the USSR was Communist. There was a lot of propaganda in this country at that time - Americans thought they knew everything, as did the Russians. My mom was taught in the Republic of Moldova that you whipped African Americans and that women weren't allowed to walk on the streets because capitalist societies didn't have equality. Was THAT true? Don't believe everything you hear when it comes to the USSR and communist countries - you might be surprised how much the media hides and divulges. Communism is, by dictionary terms, the control of property by the government or neutral force - this was true of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev. Everyone was employed, crime was low, the government may have been corrupt, but it is far more corrupt now than it was then, I can assure you. Employment in EVERY previous republic of the SSR is lower than it EVER was under the socialist regime, and organized crime has overthrown the governments and taken rule into their own hands. Eastern Europe and Russia is far scarier today than it was twenty years ago - as a child, I was safe, but I wouldn't bring a kid over there now and allow him or her to play outside unattended. Think about that.





Read the Communist Manifesto - the USSR followed every rule in the book in terms of a communist transition. Marx pushed for a revolution, even if it had to be ';temporarily vicious'; and violent, as long as the end result was the abolition of capitalism. The USSR did just this - during Lenin and Stalin's time, all capitalists' properties were seized, if they resisted they were thrown into gulags or found themselves transported to the ends of the Earth (aka, Siberia), you know that part of the story. Under Stalin, people were worked beyond capacity - this was within the first 20 of the Soviet Union's creation. It wasn't right, it was horrible and exploitative - sort of like the child labor of the US and the UK at the time, and the severe depression that sweeped the nation and forced people to work for pennies on the hour just to survive. But after Stalin's death, life got somewhat better for residents. Teachers and doctors were paid well (instead of their pay now - which is a fraction of what ';businessmen'; are paid) and it was relatively equal. The USSR didn't fall because it was communist or wasn't communist - it feel because the leaders squandered their money and tried to take over Afghanistan in a stupid, ignorant and poorly planned initiative.
Well, of course a ';true Communist State'; is up to interpretation. At the time of Lenin's death, there were two camps - one headed by Leon Trotsky and the other headed by Josef Stalin. As you hopefully know from your class, Stalin seized power over Trotsky.





Thought we could just as well accuse Trotsky of being bitter over his loss, he had this to say about Stalin's rule:





'It is time, my listeners, it is high time, to recognise, finally, that a new aristocracy has been formed in the Soviet Union. The October Revolution proceeded under the banner of equality. The bureaucracy is the embodiment of monstrous inequality. The revolution destroyed the nobility. The bureaucracy creates a new gentry. The revolution destroyed titles and decorations. The new aristocracy produces marshals and generals. The new aristocracy absorbs an enormous part of the national income. Its position before the people is deceitful and false. Its leaders are forced to hide the reality, to deceive the masses, to cloak themselves, calling black white. The whole policy of the new aristocracy is a frame-up.' [1]





Going back to the root directory [2] of the link at which we find the above quote, we can read about a proposed alternative to what Communism *ought* to have been. Obviously, it has been written about biased adherents to Trotsky's brand of Communism, but it seems that it would be critical input into the question that you're considering.





Beyond that, you should cross reference to the Communist Manifesto [3]. Good luck in your class!
Its all a bunch of hog wash whether a state was x or y. Truth is resources get to the people one way or another. Think about the USA. We promote freedom. But if we want your food we'll just send the marines to kill anyone who doesn't give us what we want . I'll say that its too complicated to say a state is communist or not. Its more a matter of specifically describing what a state does to provide for its people. For example, the USA claims to be a democracy but we're obviously and technically a representative democracy. (IF THAT) So forget the values and forget whats true or false, unless you were there to witness what really happened no one can prove to you that it was or wasn't a true communist state.
USSR


United Soviet Socialists Republic


Russia was a socialist government with mild aspects of communism.


Rarely do you find a 'pure' communists country, or a 'pure' socialist country. The majority of countries in the world are a blend. Even the US. We are a representative republic with some aspects of socialism. Always have been.
The USSR did not adopt what communism should have been. If you read the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels you will see what Communism should have been and what it turned out to be were two different things. What should have been Communism turned into a brutal dictatorship. Apparamtely the nearest the world ever got to a working example of Communism was Fidel Castro's Cuba with their excellent education and healthcare services.


The George Orwell novel 'Animal Farm' is a good way of seeing what happend to Communism as theres a great line in it which says 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others'
In theory, a true communist state is ironically ';stateless';, according to Marx. Meaning that people would just be better people, and work together with one another, without being forced to do it by the government.
A Communist would tell you that since the USSR failed, it was by definition not Communist, since a truly Communist state would succeed. That's why Communism is still popular today--it ignores reality.
True. It was never properly Communist. It attempted to reach Communism through socialism, but never succeeded. This was caused by a variety of factors, including misrule and international pressure.
True


The government controlled everything


That is totalitarianism


I have said this for years


Communism is simply a classless society


There were only rich and poor in the U.S.S.R


That is not classless
True, because those government officials who were Party insiders reaped the benefits of a lavish lifestyle while countless millions of citizens lived in horrific conditions.
Technically it was a socialist oligarchy. In the Communist Manifesto Marx states that the revolution must be led by the peasants, not aristocrats like Lenin.
true, why? because i say so
False, if you actually take the time to read some of Carl Marx's original ideas about communism.
True, because the USSR was a totalitarian state. That's not real communism.
true suggest you read (animal farm ) then you will understand why there will never be true Communism in the world
False





They are all just a bunch of commies.
theyre a bunch of commies
it was a country not a state

No comments:

Post a Comment