THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOVIET UNION PROVED....

THE INEVITABILITY OF COMMUNISM WITH HUMAN GREED APPERANT WHETHER IT WAS GOOD OR BAD?

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

please rephrase?

also - could you please refrain from typing in all caps?

Ok I will try to say this better.

(I hope this posts. I am having difficulties with my computer, so I am sorry if it double posts)

I am asking if the Soviet Union epitomizes communism ideally, or whether it shows what happens when humans try to impose of the theory themselves knowing human nature is against collectivization.

well, first of all, i don't think human nature is against collectivization, so to speak....

and second of all, the soviet union indisputably never epitomized communism (if i understand that word right and what you are saying)....it was a totalitarian state that has quite the mixed record in its simultaneously progressive programs and horribly dictatorial actions...

at one point it is encouraging revolutions throughout the world and the next conquering afghanistan....not exactly a consistent message (deja vu saying this lol)

now - why the soviet union, as arguably the most prevalent state capitalist nations to have ever existed, collapsed? they were spending some 80% on military and never cut down their budget - and then gorbachev fucked everything up even more with the perestroika....so.....that's not a surprise

ultimately, i believe it was because the people had no control of the government after stalin began the consolidate his power that pushed the ussr irretrievably beyond the reach of revolutionary concepts such as a gift or people planned economy (state planned economy...yeah...but that fucks you up when you have an ignoramus as the head *cough* kruschev*cough*)

sorry if i totally missed the mark lol

ALRIGHT

TROTSKYISM CLASS 1 IS GOING TO BE ON THE BUREAUCRATIC DEGENERATION OF THE SOVIET UNION!!!!!

Okay but this site says otherwise. I read other comments which say this site adopts Soviet style. Also it says you are Soviet Administrator? Having references like this leaves people to question the basis of this site, whether or not you support policies like those adopted in the Soviet Union and whether or not you would wish to reproduce them globally. I think people like Stalin were really bad.

first you need to understand what soviet means

yes I know. It means "council", but you are refering to the Soviet processes, am I right? That is what I am confused?

We stand for the soviet system prior to the stalinist purges and it's transformation into a tool for stalinist oppression

card wrote:

I am asking if the Soviet Union epitomizes communism ideally, or whether it shows what happens when humans try to impose of the theory themselves knowing human nature is against collectivization.

First, it does not epitomize communism. It had its good aspects and moments, but i believe they were far outweighed by the bad (I think it's rather obvious, but some would disagree). To me, it epitomizes authoritarian socialism.

Second, how do you figure human nature is inherently opposed to collectivization? If anything, it is directly in line with collectivization, since it best suits the needs of the majority of (if not all) people.

meh...there is no such thing.
It's a deformed workers' state in which a bureaucracy has usurped political power while still defending the collectivized property.

There has never existed socialism or communism so calling it "authoritarian socialism" distorts marxist definitions.

It epitomizes what happens when a workers' state is no longer run by workers, but run by peasants.

MORE ON THIS IN THE CLASS
the class will be in a thread and at the end of it, state what time would be best for you guys to take it into the chat room.

I think the USSR proved what happens when you try to employ capitalism to build a communist society.

no, thats it's what happens when the wrong class is leading

that class being the petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

no, thats it's what happens when the wrong class is leading

that class being the petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat

I wouldn't say Stalin would qualify as burgeoise.

You don't know your marxist classes?
the petty bourgeoisie are not the bourgeoisie

even if you wouldn't consider him that, he catered to the bourgeoisie from day one in the pravada. His government was one that appealed to the petty bourgeoisie's interests.

alright fuck next time i bring up the USSR it WILL ONLY BE IN THE CLASS *sigh*

but this is helpful because it lets me know what to address in the class.

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

You don't know your marxist classes?
the petty bourgeoisie are not the bourgeoisie

even if you wouldn't consider him that, he catered to the bourgeoisie from day one in the pravada. His government was one that appealed to the petty bourgeoisie's interests.

alright fuck next time i bring up the USSR it WILL ONLY BE IN THE CLASS *sigh*

but this is helpful because it lets me know what to address in the class.

Well, I'm convinced that more matter of classes it was a matter of appliying a contradictory economic system whatever this was the result of, this was the cause in my view.

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

meh...there is no such thing.
It's a deformed workers' state in which a bureaucracy has usurped political power while still defending the collectivized property.

There has never existed socialism or communism so calling it "authoritarian socialism" distorts marxist definitions.

I assume you mean there is no such thing as authoritarian socialism. Seeing as how i'm no marxist (merely marxist informed), i don't feel the need to adhere to marxist definitions, especially when i find that none of them apply. When i say authoritarian socialism, i am, in no way, implying that Marx coined that term. That is simply how us anarchists distinguish between those who would go about creating socialism and communism through authoritarian means.

Quote :

It epitomizes what happens when a workers' state is no longer run by workers, but run by peasants.

But if the workers are supposed to be inherently able to lead the revolution due to the environment their class is in, then how were the peasants allowed to run it (i'm not so sure i believe this to be true, but for the sake of arguement)? And when was it that the peasantry was leading? I can't recall ever hearing this.

My response is in the class XP