"Why don't you ask the people of the Soviet Union what they think of Communism?" Here is the answer.

[white_wolf]

I have gotten a lot of responses to my various threads on socialism where people say stuff along the lines of "ask the people of the USSR what they think of Marxism or communism." or "no one who has lived under those systems wants to go back." Well it just so happens that the Soviet government put that question to a vote in the first and last referendum of the Soviet Union. Here is the question that was asked:"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?" 76.4% of the people voted for reforming the Soviet Union, but not abolishing it completely.

I am not defending Stalinism or other forms of totalitarianism, but I think it is interesting and important to note that the very people who lived under that system wanted to preseve the basic framework of a socialist society. Here is the wikipeda article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991

[originalpckelly]

1. I bet you'd get the same response about capitalism in America.

Just sayin'.

It shows nothing.

[white_wolf]

2. It does show one thing.

It shows how foolish those "Ask the people of the Soviet Union how they feel about Communism." arguments really are, now hopefully people will debate ideas instead of bogeymen.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. Actually the last poll I saw on capitalism in America...

showed it at about 58% positive rating. And that's with CENTURIES of propaganda relating capitalism to God.

[PufPuf23]

62. Some of the best things about American capitalism was the social democracy

that kept capitalism in check by anti-trust, regulation, taxation, an a social safety net.

The fix for the USA (and world economy) is prosecution of political and financial felons and confiscation of their ill-gained assets, a dramatic decrease in military spending, scientific respect for the environment, and basic humanity to the individual as population is decreased. This solution is pretty damn obvious to me as any alternative is worse and more short sighted.

The alternative is whatever grade of hell one considers acceptable for the Earth and humanity.

[Bucky]

122. Great point.

Pure capitalism, as worshiped by Republican, is a recipe for social disaster. We tried it in the Gilded Age and we ended up with a Dickensian nightmare. You can think of capitalism as alcohol. There's a difference between a glass of wine with dinner and chugging a bottle of grain alcohol.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Re-read the wording of the referendum...

It hardly asks what you claim it does.

[white_wolf]

4. It asks whether they favor the reforming of the Soviet Union.

The voted in favor of keeping the Soviet Union, but reforming it. It shows that they wanted more political freedom, but were not in favor of ending Socialism.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Jesus...

Read it again.

[white_wolf]

8. I've read it a lot.

Why don't you enlighten as to what it means? Oh and here is the definition of reform: "to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses." It does not mean abolishment. If they favored reform the Soviet Union, then they likely favored instituting real socialism and removing the abuses of the bureaucracy.

[SDuderstadt]

11. That isn't a referendum on socialism (or communism)...

by any remote stretch of imagination.

[white_wolf]

13. They were asked if they wanted to keep a union of "Socialist Republics."

What do you think is entailed in a "Socialist Republic?" Maybe Socialism.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Dude...

That is asking whether they are better off to have all the republics to remain as part of the federation.

Learn the difference between "a" and "the".

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. And, following your wikipedia link, 'socialist' was going to be dropped from the name

On the first draft of the treaty released in July 1991, the proclaimed name for the new nation was the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics ... By November 1991, the overall support for preserving the Soviet state changed to reform the Soviet Union into a confederation of sovereign states. The final draft renamed the proposed state the Union of Sovereign States ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty

So, yes, they favoured reforming the USSR, including dropping the 'socialist' bit. No doubt many would have happily continued with some form of socialism, but the referendum does not say what the people of the USSR thought of socialism, communism, Marxism etc.

[dionysus]

81. why SDuderstadt,

i was just ponderin..., the mysteries of the church of rome. my hypocricy knows no bounds...

[SDuderstadt]

92. Why, dionysus!

Whatever do you mean?

[dionysus]

98. there are no "normal" OPs, SDuderstadt, just OPs. take this spirited thread and run with it.

post SDuderstadt... post for me....

[SDuderstadt]

99. Well....

are you going to do something or just stand there and bleed?

[dionysus]

100. communism.. must be a.... peach of a thread. why SDuderstadt you look like you're just about ready

to burst...

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

101. I have not yet begun to...

defile myself.

[dionysus]

102. hey,.. "loving man".. are you in or are you out?

[SDuderstadt]

103. Why, Kate!

You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I didn't see the word "socialism" in there anywhere. Let me go read it again.

Nope, not there.

[white_wolf]

9. You can't really have a Socialist Repuibc

without out socialism. Oh and did you miss this part: "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics."

[SDuderstadt]

12. Dude...

that was the name of their federation.

[Zanzoobar]

18. Gotta agree

"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed"

In other words:

"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the COUNTRY as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed"

Sounds like they want to emulate something like the US constitution.

[dkf]

65. Yup. Nothing about socialism.

They wanted to keep their relationship with the other states/countries intact. That is it.

[Rage for Order]

22. You mean like the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

That has both "socialist" and "workers". How'd that work out for you?

:eyes:

[eallen]

36. Yeah, and everyone named Cooper can make you a bucket.

Because that's what a cooper does.

Names don't work that way.

:hippie:

[rzemanfl]

7. During the 2008 campaign I had an plumber here who was

from one of the former "Iron Curtain" countries. He said to me "there are certain things, healthcare for instance, that the government should do." I found that semi-remarkable.

[L0oniX]

10. What's so bad about socialism Sweden style?

Since about 1935 Sweden has had a social democratic economy, with high, redistributive income tax and general welfare benefits (even when under conservative governments). However, the Swedish economic model, which has been similar to other Scandinavian countries and therefore are called the "Scandinavian model", is not entirely socialistic, since the goal has been to create a welfare state, not a state with collective ownership. It's not a dictatorship either, but the conservatives in Sweden are very moderate if you compare internationally.

What's more it's one of the most prosperous countries in Europe.

[brooklynite]

41. What makes it "socialist"?

Socialism is defined as: "vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.". Social Democracy may be a desirable structure, but its not Socialism as defined, and its not Socialism as most people would understand it.

[white_wolf]

43. Well there is a lot of nationalization of industries in some social-democracies.

Also some, but not all, democratic socialists consider social-democracy to be a stepping stone to real socialism.

[Exilednight]

106. There's a difference between socialism and socialist democracy. And using the former Soviet Union

as a measuring stick of what socialism is, is the wrong way to measure socialism.

Russia gave no socialism a bad name, and in no way represents what socialism was suppose to be. Dictatorships are dictatorships.

Decades of propaganda have mutilated the definition.

[white_wolf]

108. Pretty much.

This thread wasn't at all meant to defend the Soviet Union, simply to point out something I found interesting regarding the Soviet people's feelings.

[DutchLiberal]

71. You mean that nordic country with the center-right government?

[yurbud]

84. that's what Gorbachev was aiming for, but Western banks said it was shock therapy or no help at all

he should have chosen the latter.

[swilton]

15. Thanks for this perspective

People love to demonize socialism as much as they demonize the Republicans.

[BOG PERSON]

16. glasnost, perestroika, german reunification, losing afghanistan

the truth is that by 1991 the toothpaste was out of the tube. i'm sure the dissolution of the USSR could have been avoided (nothing is 100% unavoidable), but not by that point.

[Boojatta]

30. "losing afghanistan"

Do you think that a surge would have enabled victory and prosperity for the USSR?

[BOG PERSON]

32. no, not really

they lost an unwinnable conflict, but that still counts as losing in my humble estimation.

[Boojatta]

52. Wouldn't it have been less costly for both the USSR and Afghanistan ...

if the USSR had tried to win for a short time, and then retreated and accepted a loss?

You're right that what happened counts as the USSR losing, but if you are talking about causes of the breakup of the USSR, then you should explain what reason there is to believe that losing had to be costly for the USSR.

Why not place the blame on the USSR persistently trying to win in Afghanistan?

[Nevernose]

17. I had a Russian classmate a few years back

He said he went back and was talking to some prostitutes. They told him that they used to have good jobs in the now-abandoned factory they were hooking in front of, but when the USSR collapsed, there were no more jobs. Even now, 20 years later, it's not so very different; look at all the mail-order brides from that part of the world. They told him that they didn't care about politics, because it had no bearing on their lives and they would be bad off either way, but perhaps less bad off under the Soviets (which seems to me to be a very Russian attitude).

This guy also told me that when he was a child, there was a commercial on TV: it was nothing but homeless people on the streets of New York and San Francisco, with a voiceover that kept repeating "This is what capitalism looks like." He was terrified when his parents defected because of that, but the circus survived and they even managed to escape with the lions and tigers. Family still lives a block from me (this is a weird town sometimes).

The moral is: there arealways two sides to an issue. ALWAYS. Nothing is EVER good & evil, right & wrong.

[RebelOne]

69. I had a Russian neighbor a few years ago.

He said he was much happier over there than he is in the U.S. He wanted to go back but couldn't because his mother was here and working toward becoming a U.S. citizen. His mother passed away. Unfortunately, he had some trouble involving drugs. Our government tried to deport him, but Russia wouldn't take him back. So he is stuck here and a man without a country, because the last I heard he was not a citizen of the U.S. yet.

[DutchLiberal]

72. Millions of people died of mass famine in the Soviet Union...

.. while shiploads of food where exported to the rest of the world in a propaganda-stunt to show how prosperous the Soviet Union was.

In the Soviet Union, people pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them.

[blindpig]

78. Prove it. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

88. History books. Library. I learned this in high school. It's f*cking pathetic people ask for 'prove'.

Or have you never been to high school?

[blindpig]

117. Propaganda

If it is so obvious show me some primary source with attribution.

I say this because so much anti-communist propaganda was lifted directly from the Nazis.

[chrisa]

123. What?

That's so blatently untrue. It's well known that there were multiple famines in Soviet Union history. Some of them were even purposeful. There's even a wikipedia article devoted specifically to Russian famines.

Most of it was from bad government practices. They would steal people's food under the guise of Communism, and leave them to starve. This, combined to crop failures from drought, led to people starving.

[blindpig]

128. Ah, the 'common wisdom'.

Propaganda does work.

Show me.

[chrisa]

130. Look for yourself.

Start here, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

The Soviet Union was terrible at taking care of its own people, mostly because of the massive amount of corruption.

[blindpig]

131. Gonna take more than Wiki,

rather fungible.

The onus is upon the other poster who made the assertion.

The Soviet Union took better care of it's people than any nation in history. An uneducated populace was fully educated, full health care was provided, unemployment didn't exist.

But you just go and believe what capitalists society has told you, after all it has no interest in besmirching socialism, does it?

[chrisa]

132. lol

First off, Socialism is not even close to Communism. To use the two as synonymous is ridiculous. Communists actually hate Socialists, and vice-versa: The systems are not compatible with each other.

The Soviet Union took better care of its people? lol. That's even more ridiculous. That's why they had to build a wall to keep people in.

Unemployment didn't exist because you had bozo the clown manning the local nuclear plant. The Soviet system of employment was absolutely terrible. People just sat around drinking all day, and the system fell apart.

Overall a ridiculous post. I think you should go and read up on the Soviet Union, since you seem to know nothing about it.

[leftstreet]

82. Do you have some links for this?

Thanks

[DutchLiberal]

89. I have some history books which I used in high school & college. Because that's how elementary it is

Try Wikipedia or Google if you must insist on asking for commonly known historic facts.

[formernaderite]

113. not to mention the millions

who died in prison camps. The Ukrainians were the ones really hit hardest during the Holodomor, where 15 million were starved to death. I understand the desire to white wash this into some sort of workers paradise... but it wasn't. Not saying everyones initial intentions towards this didn't exist. Sure there was the post Stalin era joke... when an old woman was asked about Stalin "Under Stalin there was order". But that "order" came at a very high price.

[BzaDem]

19. Do you have a poll that ACTUALLY asked the question you seem to be claiming your current poll does?

I mean, if you were so correct, surely you could produce a poll that directly asks people today whether they would like to return to USSR-style communism (as opposed to a question about national boundaries asked 20 YEARS AGO that had NOTHING to do with the economic system).

I suspect I will get crickets as a response.

[white_wolf]

24. I do have something for you.. I'll be waiting on your response.

Here you go:http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism

[BzaDem]

27. 2009 approval of change to Capitalism: 82% in East Germany, 79 % in Czech Rep, 71% in Poland,

66% in Slovakia, 53% in Bulgaria, 50% in Lithuania, 50% in Russia, 46% in Hungary, and 36% in the Ukraine.

And this is supposed to support your OP?

[white_wolf]

33. Look at what I posted.

The majority in every country, but the Czech Republic and Poland, say they were better off under Communism. Care to explain that?? Oh and how do you address the fact that Communist party came very close to being brought back into power in 1995? Also the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is one of the biggest parties in Russia.

[BzaDem]

40. Usually, if you want to show that people prefer communism or would like it back

it is hard to do that with a poll that says they specifically approve of the switch to Capitalism, and huge leaps and bounds in life satisfaction compared to polls 20 years ago. (For future reference.)

Apparently, while some countries have majorities/pluralities that think people were better off then, they don't think so to the extent that they would ever want to go back. Perhaps this is because the question asked them to guess whether conditions were better "for most people" (i.e. a lake wobegon effect). Because when it comes to "for me," apparently life has improved significantly (according to life satisfaction levels then and now in the very poll you linked to).

[white_wolf]

53. The majority say they were better off under the USSR

[DutchLiberal]

73. Yes: people are stupid, have bad long term memories and tend to glorify the past...

Just because of the "everything used to be better" feeling that people always seem to have, no matter the circumstances.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Yet a plurality of people thought that things were better........

in the USSR.

[brooklynite]

42. Virtually all of these Countries have a Communist Party...

and yet none of the majority populations referenced in these poll has overturned the Government in favor of a socialist one.

[white_wolf]

45. A lot of those countries also have rather suspect elections as well.

I'm not saying that is the reason, but if elections can be stolen here by Bush how much easier would it be for say Puton to do it?

[creon]

115. not a surprise either

The transition out of communism has been very difficult. Capitalism is a very dificult system to manage and requires strong regulations and a strong safety net to function decently.

The most interesting result is Hungary, with 72% saying that they are worse off.

[Honeycombe8]

20. That makes sense. Most people don't want radical change. But we all know that.

We are familiar with the way things are. We may see the need for change, for reform. But few people want a total, radical change to something they're unfamiliar with.

So that makes sense. If you can believe the state-owned polling.

[Puregonzo1188]

21. How about the fact that in 1996 the Communist Party was almost brought back into power in Russia?

For the longest time they were leading over Yeltsin in the polls, and came very close to Yelstin in the first round.

They lost in the runoff by 10%, but still it's worth noting--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996

[Octafish]

23. Thank you for a great post, white_wolf!

The capitalist system is the best way for the few to steal the most as quickly as possible. Consider: Neil Bush hangs out with Russian Mafiya Godfather.

PS: The pro-capitalist contingent is well represented, I see.

[white_wolf]

26. Yes they are. I'm curious to see their response to my pew results.

I wonder how they will spin it.

[Starry Messenger]

25. A timely thread.

:)

[coalition_unwilling]

29. Thanks for this. The red-baiting and anti-communist prejudice here

has made me consider leaving DU for good on more than one occasion. Your post and the mixed responses to it gives me hope.

[BzaDem]

31. LOL, you think it is somehow "prejudiced" to be anti-communist?

Maybe DU is not for you. On DU, generally people can have their own views on economic and political systems without being called "prejudiced."

Would you consider yourself prejudiced against Capitalism?

[coalition_unwilling]

34. I think it is ignorant to be "anti-communist" and, yes, I would

consider myself prejudiced against Capitalism, especially as it is practiced in the developed world.

[BzaDem]

49. Interesting. I think it is ignorant to NOT be "anti-communist."

Fortunately, so few support communism (even on DU, let alone world-wide) that such ignorance isn't really worth worrying about.

[coalition_unwilling]

66. Little story for you to counter your smugness: I attended the

University of Missouri in the mid-1970s. Some dignitary from South Africa's apartheid regime came to speak at the Student Union and I happened to see a small circle of about 15 students walking in a circle outside the Student Union protesting the dignitary's appearance. At the time (1977), the only organization on campus that was protesting against South Africa's apartheid regime was the Communist Party-USA. Now why was that, do you think? This was long before it became fashionable in liberal circles to be anti-apartheid and long before most liberals even knew what apartheid was.

Sure enough, when you look at American history closely, you find that the Communist Party supported racial equality in the USA long before many mainstream liberals got on the civil rights bus. Again, I ask, why do you think that was, if supporting Communism is so 'ignorant'?

I took a lesson from that: the Communists seemed to line up on the right side of history long before most liberals ever even had a clue.

[Throd]

54. Communism just fucking sucks.

No, by no means is this an eloquent rebuttal, but it just does.

[white_wolf]

55. Defend that statement, please. Oh and without using

the old "Soviet Union killed people" argument. Defend it philosophically.

[Throd]

56. It can only exist in a contamination free chamber.

Once exposed to the foilbles of humanity it quickly mutates into something quite different.

Communism is long on theory, short on reality.

[white_wolf]

57. The anarchists communites in Spain worked out fairly well for a time

until they were all killed off by the fascist. Granted Anarchy isn't a communist philosophy per say, but is derived from Marxism. Also the same argument could be made about capitalism, it seems to have failed when exposed to humanity as well.

[Throd]

58. Franco and the Falangists cut that experiment short.

So we will never really know.

[white_wolf]

59. Not only them, Stalin sent troops as well.

He wanted the USSR to have a monopoly on Socialism, so he helped crush them. There is something we will both agree on: Stalin can burn in hell!

[Throd]

60. Cool, we part as friends.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. Not defending Stalin, but he did fight and defeat Hitler along a 2,000-mile

front while the capitalist opponents to Hitler were dilly-dallying around down in North Africa.

[DutchLiberal]

76. OMG! Do you not know Hitler and Stalin initially signed an agreement not to attack each other?

And to divide Eastern Europe amongst them? The only reason Hitler could initially be so succesful, is because he didn't have two fronts to fight (the reason Germany lost World War I) and that was thanks to his agreement with Stalin. Stalin got almost crushed because he had 'eliminated' lots of higher officers in his army, which severly weakened it. It was ultimately the unbearable Russian winter and the inability to provide German troops with enough food and ammunition that broke the Germans' backs in Stalingrad.

"while the capitalist opponents to Hitler were dilly-dallying around down in North Africa."

OMG! You are CRAZY and OUT OF YOUR MIND!

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Um, there was the little matter of a Soviet General named

Zhukov when it came to breaking the Germans' backs in Stalingrad.

Oh, and the brave and valiant defenders of Stalingrad had nothing to do with it either.

When it comes to ignorant, your post takes first prize.

[DutchLiberal]

90. Hey, from someone who glorifies mass-murderer Stalin's army of thugs, that's a compliment.

Now please go on with your train of thought... Last time I left you, you were belittling and insulting the Western allied forces because they were fighting Rommel in northern Africa...

[coalition_unwilling]

116. "Mass murderer Stalin's army of thugs"??? Dude, what planet

are you from? The Soviet Union lost 20 million people during World War II, the U.S. lost roughly 250,000 in Europe. In other words, for every one U.S. soldier who died on the European front, the Soviets lost 100. No problem, because we all know that the life of a Soviet soldier was only worth 1/100 of the life of an American soldier :sarcasm:

So, yeah, I'll belittle Western allied forces for dinking around in North Africa while the Soviet peoples were fighting and dying along a 2,000-mile front confronting the full might of the Wehrmacht.

[Starry Messenger]

127. +1000

[MedleyMisty]

61. Just like capitalism in that respect, no?

Or do you consider our system to be working well and as intended right now?

[chrisa]

124. Communism, without fail, has always led to totalitarianism

I would think that's the biggest argument against it out there.

[coalition_unwilling]

67. Jesus H. Christ, what passes for discourse on this board. If you are

poor, sick, hungry or homeless, capitalism just fucking sucks. Or weren't you paying attention during Katrina?

[chrisa]

120. I fail to notice any secret police shooting people in the US

And if you want to go outside and protest right now, nobody will bum-rush you with nightsticks, or worse, and beat the crap out of you.

It's already been established that Capitalism isn't perfect. At least it leads to some sort of stability, as opposed to Communism. The inevitable result of Communism is totalitarianism. Communism is a total failure.

[inna]

94. +1

and yes, the red-baiting is appalling

[snooper2]

74. anti-communist prejudice

Well, you can go to Chicago and eat the forced school lunch if you like :)

[DutchLiberal]

75. Er... learning about the Khmer Rouge, Mao's China and Stalin's Soviet paradise has taught me that...

No prejudice here, just... you know... knowledge.

[AlabamaLibrul]

79. And the same for Pinochet et al as propped up by capitalist western regimes

Communism, if one is interested in actually analyzing it, is not necessarily totalitarianism with tons of death involved any more than you could say the same for any other economic system.

[DutchLiberal]

91. Yes, that obviously makes the genocides in Cambodia and China much more acceptable...

Oh, and you *do* know the US and UK (and China) have supported and backed the communist Khmer Rouge, even after their genocidal practices were revealed, just because they were at war with the Vietnamese communists, don't you?

You don't have to tell me that the Pinochet-regime was installed to impose radical predator Friedman-style capitalism on a suppressed and tortured people. But that was nothing compared to the unspeakable horrors, the living hell Cambodians had to go through in just 5 years of Khmer Rouge rule. That was communism when the theory was put into practice: schools were closed, money was abolished and millions of people were driven to the countryside to produce farm products, so Cambodia could feed itself and not be dependant of the outside world. This led to the death and starvation of a fifth of the population. Yes, Pinochet was a filthy animal and yes, Henry Kissinger should still stand trial because he helped that pig into power, but the Khmer Rouge regime was the worst that has *ever* existed. Worse than Stalin, worse than Mao, worse than even Hitler.

[white_wolf]

86. Khmer Rouge were in no way communist.

They broke with Marxist ideas when they proclaimed the peasantry to be the proletariat. Also their ideology was heavily based in a nationalistic goal to drive out French Imperialism and a desire to restore Cambodia's ancient glory. It sounds more like extreme nationalism than communism. As for Stalin and Mao, I am a Trotskyist, I HATE both of those men and everything they did. Read Trotksy's Revolution Betrayed for how I feel about the USSR and what it was.

[DutchLiberal]

93. Yeah, and Hitler wasn't a national-socialist. He was just misunderstood.

:eyes:

Read up, will you. The Khmer Rouge inflicted a radical mix of Mao-ism and Marxism on their country.

But hey, you are the Trotskyist, so you must be the definite source.

[white_wolf]

95. Well when someone breaks with one of the most

basic ideas of Marxism than they can't be called a Marxist. By the way, go read up on Augusto Pinochet, because any system can be used to justify murder and oppression, but we know for a fact Pinochet was a capitalist and was supported by the West, The Khmer Rouge however were opposed by the Viet Cong, and as I'm said they weren't even communist.

[chrisa]

121. No True Scottsman

'They can't possibly be Communist because they weren't perfectly Communist'

^ It's a logical fallacy.

[amborin]

37. they had state capitalism, not communism

[BOG PERSON]

38. actually they had socialism

communism is what happens when socialism is victorious in every nation and the apparatus of the State (necessary to defend the gains of socialism) can be abolished. communism is the end of history.

[white_wolf]

39. Your getting into a huge debate in socialist circles.

Trotskyists will tell you that under Stalin the USSR did not have Socialism, but did in fact have state capitalism or "degenerated workers state." The best source for Trotsky's view is the Revolution Betrayed. Those who oppose Trotskyism, mostly Stalinists or anti-revisionists as sometimes like to be called. For the record I am a Trotskyist, so of course I don't think they had socialism in Russia.

[SDuderstadt]

44. With all due respect...

you sound like you are channeling Lee Harvey Oswald.

[white_wolf]

46. How the hell do I sound like I'm channeling Lee Harvey Oswald?!

You better have a damn good reason for comparing me to a murderer, because that is really crossing a line. So go on, defend that statement.

[SDuderstadt]

48. I'm hardly comparing you to...

Lee Harvey Oswald, the murderer.

I'm comparing you to Lee Harvey Oswald, the Marxist. Listen to a clip of him extolling the virtues of Marxism sometime.

[white_wolf]

50. Same person.

Oh and it appears Oswald supported the Soviet Union, something Trotsky did not, so that argument falls apart. Regardless of whether he was a marxist or not, you really could have chosen an better example than a murderer. You could have said I'm channeling a well known Trotskyist and that would have been fine, but to use the example you used was uncalled for.

[SDuderstadt]

51. I don't think most people here would...

recognize a "well known Trotskyist" and I have already explained why I made the comparison. Since we haven't been discussing murder, it's hard to understand precisely how you leapt to that conclusion. My apologies if you misunderstood, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[BOG PERSON]

85. it's only a huge debate for trotskyites

and nobody really cares what trotskyites think (fyi).

[AlabamaLibrul]

87. in other words, because one group was defeated by the more violent

totalitarian faction, the group that denounces the violent totalitarian faction doesn't matter and isn't relevant to the discussion.

Is this really your argument?

[BOG PERSON]

97. in other words ... huh?

nobody likes trotskyites - even most trotskyites hate each other's guts. in point of fact, leon trotsky himself was murdered by a particularly exasperated trotskyite named ramon mercader.

[white_wolf]

104. According to what I have read, declassified Soviet files

indicates Ramon Mecader was an agent of Stalin.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Please provide these...

"declassified Soviet files", dude.

[white_wolf]

109. Here is this for starters:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF133EF936A35752C0A96F948260 Here is a quote from the article: Trotsky, who with Lenin forged the success of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, was assassinated in Mexico City in 1940 in an operation ordered from Moscow and run by an N.K.V.D. secret police

[SDuderstadt]

110. Dude...

that's a historian's account of it. Where are the "declassified Soviet files" you claimed to have?

[white_wolf]

111. I'm done talking to you.

You claim to want facts and I gave you facts, and now you ignore them. I'm done. Welcome to my ignore list.

[SDuderstadt]

114. A historian saying something does not make it true...

you claimed "declassified Soviet files", yet, when I challenge you for the files, you put me on "ignore".

Too funny.

[amborin]

47. no, actually they had state capitalism

[XemaSab]

63. My old roommate and her boyfriend were Bosnian

They LOVED communism and thought that American capitalism was bullshit.

[Dorian Gray]

96. So

you were roommates with them in Bosnia?

[XemaSab]

105. Nah

California. :shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

126. They hated capitalism so much they emigrated to a country that

is capitalist?

This is the one thing I can never fully understand...why aren't there more people wanting to move to socialist countries and leave capitalist ones behind?

The flow of people always seems to be in one direction, by a large percentage.

And please spare me the 'No True Scotsman' argument over socialism.

[XemaSab]

133. Two things:

They left to escape that little thing known as the CIVIL WAR, and Yugoslavia was no longer communist at the time. Or even Yugoslavia, for that matter.

[Ikonoklast]

134. Why didn't they emigrate to a non-capitalist country then?

No one held a gun to their heads to come here, did they?

[chrisa]

119. That's incredibly stupid of your roomates. No offense.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DutchLiberal]

68. Wait... the Soviet government organized the referendum... and you believe the outcome?!

Wow, I didn't know there will still people *that* delusional nowadays. Maybe you should ask the Russians if they enjoyed the KGB, too; or the mass famine; or the Gulag archipel, the labor camps and the ethnic cleansings.

[fascisthunter]

80. lol... dude, it's not fascism

dude, worry about socialism not fascism... dude, duh...

[SDuderstadt]

83. Do a lot of...

"fascist-hunting" from your computer, do ya?

[creon]

112. Not a surprise

There were quite a few people who fared well in the USSR, and did not want their life and world turned upside down.

[chrisa]

118. Calling Communism socialist is like calling Nazism socialist.

It's a cruel joke. It's something that makes your eyes roll and say, "yeah right," because at the time, people in those countries were anything but equal. The rich bought the government in the Soviet Union, but it was even more ridiculous, because the government forced its own "equality" on the underclass.

[WatsonT]

129. Bit of a leading question

also if this was done during the USSRs existence I imagine people didn't feel entirely free to answer.

"Do you support the wise and just policies of glorious soviet leadership or do you wish to see you children disappear in the night?"