How democratic was the USSR before Stalin, under Stalin, and after Stalin?

How democratic was the USSR before Stalin, under Stalin, and after Stalin?

Other urls found in this thread:

clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Occasionally, Not, Occasionally

Depends on how you want to define democratic. Personally, I'm pretty much done with the term. Capitalists can have their democracy, I am for proletarian dictatorship.

But some details are worth elaborating. Elections with universal suffrage did exist, but national ones served as little more than a holiday for the public to express their approval. Local elections were often contested and more free, but still ultimately under the authority of the party. Most but by no means all party members were of working-class background. The party was regularly purged as well with tens of thousands being booted out annually so in some respects bureaucratic character of officials was checked.

Related article below. Furr takes the Stalin apologetics way too far but he's still a nice counter-balance to the endless Western propaganda that most communists today take at face-valuie.

clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Proletarian dictatorship is still democracy, but it's democracy that actually serves the proletariat and isn't captured by capital. In the Marxist sense, we already live under dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Democracy is still important.

Define "democracy"

the soviets were democratic, the Bolsheviks were not. Lenin Crated a Red fascism, and i don't mean the as a derogatory term i mean it as it sounds, a sad reality of the Soviet Union.

During Stalin: Not really, politically. But that was historical necessity considering the position of the USSR at that time.

What's more important for me as a Marxist-Leninist is workers self-control, which occurred largely under Stalin with workers chosing their own managers etc. - ofc that was restricted during the war for obvious reasons. To be honest, I believe that under Stalin it was the closest we ever got to large-scale textbook socialism.

What's the point of being politically democratic when it comes with the premise of economic oppression? What is the point of casting a vote when material conditions don't change? As communists we believe in material/class reductionism when it comes to designing a political system.

Secondly, your statement doesn't make sense in any way because the Bolshevisks were part of said Soviets. What Soviets are you referring to? You do realize that historically, all the liberal and SocDem factions simply refused to work with the Bolsheviks?

Also,
wew lad

The soviet union neither gave political autonomy not economic stabilization, they were merely a form of state capitalism controlled by the party.

Well I already told you that political autonomy is sort of spooky when it doesn't relate directly to economic conditions. Again, MLs want workers self-control which occurred in the cooperatives under Stalin more or less. And the Soviets still existed.
Have you actually read Marx?

Completely different topic. USSR was ravaged by war and unrest and came out as a superpower with economic stability and putting an end to the famines that were ravaging the Russian Empire regularly, massively increased life quality, reached levels of education and health care that at some points in time surpassed it's western equivalents and gut humanity into space - I think this has something to do with economic stability in the long run. Not to mention that it didn't rely on Third World exploitation like the West.

How is this a fact? "Red Fascism" is an oxymoron, read a definiton of Fascism, even fucking Holla Forums realizes that word is stupid.