People keep asking about sources, so there you go: a short and concise description of USSR circa 1934 by the contemporary American journalist.
NB: I still believe that reading a few dozen of books on the subject is the best choice, but I'm being a realist here.
Added some comments so as to clear up some potential misunderstandings. Explaining in more detail how Planning worked would also be useful, but that would take too much space and time. Probably, another time.
Daily Reminder that this is the only poster with quallity posts.
...
Interesting read. Thanks.
You people are killing the board.
Keep posting stuff famrade, the more info the better.
Bump
Page 10:
" If Stalin should die tomorrow; if a thousand
of the highest men in the Soviet Union should be
blown up by dynamite in a single hour, the “Soviet
Power” would be unchanged either in policy,
method or the rate of its motion.
There would be
a serious change in quality of work from the loss
of these efficient people; but the “power” of the
masses would put forth new leaders to interpret
it’s will."
Tell me again how masses in Russia run things all by themselves with mere "aid" of the Party and gov/party officials.
I've asked this question on a different thread here, but I'll ask again: What. Went. Wrong?
Is this you trying to be rude?
Uncertain. There were at least 3 factors:
1) WWII
Personally, I consider it the worst influence. Not only a lot of Communists died (~2-3 million; Party was 3.8 mil during 1941), but a lot of Communists (~5 mil) joined without being properly vetted during WWII.
Basically, it was a new Party at this point. Inexperienced and bad with ideology.
2) Bureaucratic lobby felt safe
With both external and internal (kulaks and old military) threats gone, it felt no need to conform to the strict Bolshevik course.
3) Lack of understanding of the "what should we do next".
While Stalin's faction had a pretty good understanding, they've got purged and their works became politically radioactive. Which is why OGAS project got tanked (as well as the electronics - just to be sure).
Is it Duranty?
By whom? This is new to me.
No.
Khrushchev. It begun in 1953 and culminated in 1956 with Malenkov being deposed. Then there was even Stalinist coup attempted in 1957 to take down Khrushchev.
I gave some thought to your arguments.
I realised something.
The USSR was never governed by the workers.
Why?
Because if the downfall begun with the ruination of the Party ideology and organisation, that means that the working masses never had enough power as to defend their country from going back on its revolutionary gains.
What do you think?
You've been "realizing" it extremely often, IIRC.
Do you even logic?
You get swindled out of money. Does this mean that your money always belonged to the swindler?
Nah, nihilistfags like you and n1x are.
Needless to say, but of course it didn't belong to the swindler.
I just can't see how can you swindle yourself, that is all.
Because… worker's direct democracy.
Bomp Boop.
Bumping this because still waiting for a reply to
I prefer not to engage in conversations with schizophrenic people who are clearly off their meds.
guess what your reply ISN'T…
Anyway, I gave your argument (revolution stolen away by bad ideology and something else I have discovered, keep reading) some thought and realised that either the lack of proletarian class consciousness
(you said that almost a half of the population wasn't proletarian and that was somehow, in turn, a serious problem in the long run) or like I am starting to think the real reason was - the nature of the soviet state and governance.
Now comrade, I earnestly want to have a discussion with someone who actually knows a lot more about the SU than me.
Not wanting to kiss ass and suck myself up to you, but I truly find your contribution in opinion and sources very helpful.
We also care about the same thing, death of capitalism and birth of socialism if I may say so.
I know I come off as someone who hates the SU and Stalin, but I don't.
I am just not convinced that the SU was both a worker's democracy, as in the workers had significant authority, and a statist country, as in there was a counter-force (e.g. bureaucratic lobby and such) at the same time; a coexistence of two contradicting systems.
Of course, this is not to say that the final downfall of the SU was solely of internal origin.
My final opinion is thus that workers owning and managing the MoP just isn't enough.
What do you think about all this?
Good thread, maybe someday the anarkkidies and """"""Market socialists""""""" will learn.