- 22 Oct 2013 23:28
#14318610
The USSR was the first attempt at socialism which actually established a state. It is of course gone now, but the question remains, where did the soviet union go wrong? There are many opinions about this. The right will of course say when it became communist. some parts of the left say that it was because the revolution was to soon, or blame the Bolsheviks. I make the case myself that Stalin was the one most to blame for the destruction of the Soviet system as a viable and sustainable system, with his gutting of the party and institutionalized corruption. However, for all his crimes, there is a reoccurring theme in both early Bolshevik, Stalinist, late period and even modern Russian government: fear.
At first look, one might assume that Russia is a conquering sort of country, being so large mainly by conquest, but Russia has actually been invaded many times, often catastrophically. Most recently it was the Germans in world war 2, then most of the first world did something to it in the civil war, and before that the Germans again in WW1, and before that Napoleon, and way back even the Mongols. And every time, the Russians eventually came out on top, but with massive amounts of devastation to the most important parts of their country. Today, Russia postures all the time, And it did often during the Cold War. But the idea of Russia being a war monger is ridiculous, and it was even more so sixty years ago.
Looking objectively at Stalin, his policies make little sense. Almost everything he did he tried to do too fast, assuming it was even a good idea to do it slowly, but if you actually try to look at what he was thinking, things start to make sense. The first thing we must consider is Russia's history as stated above. The entire time he was in office, Stalin was saying, we may at anytime be invaded, and so we must prepare ourselves (to be fair, he was in this respect, completely vindicated). The fact was that Russia was growing slowly, and was no match for West. Industrialization was a necessity if that was to change. Even collectivization seems to make sense: in a country with far to few machines, team work is a good way to produce more. The gutting of the party is iffy. There is a case to be made about the benefits of a strong leadership in the case of crisis, but in the long term it is self destructive (as we have seen). This logic also explains the creation of the Eastern block as a buffer from the west.
At this point, one might well think, "wait, didn't he say he did not approve of Stalin?" yes I did, and no I don't. This is not an endorsement of Stalin, Stalin-ism, or his legacy, merely a devil's advocate defense. But lets move on a little. In my country, the grand old US of A (said with enough sarcasm to confuse a teenager) the USSR is often portrayed as some great aggressor state, bent on world domination, the destruction of freedom, basically the same rhetoric we apply to all our enemies. But if one considers the facts, that is completely incorrect. Sure, the Soviet Union, like all true communists (take notes modern China) wanted to spread its ideology. But it did not want war. After the creation of the Eastern block, the soviets were often Quite reserved! (EX: Korea, Vietnam) while the US was putting boots on the ground and toppling regimes at the drop of a hat, the USSR was careful not to overly anger the US or West. There were of course exceptions, but mostly in places that they were already certain they had control, like the Warsaw pact countries and Afghanistan. Don't take this as Communist sympathies, I wish they'd done more, but if you write a list of all the place we intervened and where the Soviets did, we'd outstrip them by quite a bit. The simplest explanation is that which I've already stated, the Russians have had their country devastated many times. So far America has remained untouched, relative to almost anywhere except Canada. We were cocky, they were careful.
The right wing often loves to spend its time talking about how repressive a system communism is, and it has not been wrong much of the time. But the reason for this is not that communism is a wicked or abusive ideology, but that it has yet been the case that a communist country could safely assert its system without fear of being toppled by outside interference or receiving extremely violent treatment from reactionary elements within its own country. (important example: Cuba(bay of pigs), Vietnam(Vietnam War), Korea(Korean War), China(communist persecution by Nationalists), USSR (civil war), Afghanistan (Islamist revolt against education for women)) As a result, all communist systems must (to date) inevitably resort to police state like measure to keep foreign influence in check.
To conclude this rather long winded post, I feel that those who wish to condemn something must understand it. I condemn Stalin, but I understand him, and to some extent, I don't even fully blame him. He was a victim of history, if also a complete monster. The same could be said of the Soviet Union.
At first look, one might assume that Russia is a conquering sort of country, being so large mainly by conquest, but Russia has actually been invaded many times, often catastrophically. Most recently it was the Germans in world war 2, then most of the first world did something to it in the civil war, and before that the Germans again in WW1, and before that Napoleon, and way back even the Mongols. And every time, the Russians eventually came out on top, but with massive amounts of devastation to the most important parts of their country. Today, Russia postures all the time, And it did often during the Cold War. But the idea of Russia being a war monger is ridiculous, and it was even more so sixty years ago.
Looking objectively at Stalin, his policies make little sense. Almost everything he did he tried to do too fast, assuming it was even a good idea to do it slowly, but if you actually try to look at what he was thinking, things start to make sense. The first thing we must consider is Russia's history as stated above. The entire time he was in office, Stalin was saying, we may at anytime be invaded, and so we must prepare ourselves (to be fair, he was in this respect, completely vindicated). The fact was that Russia was growing slowly, and was no match for West. Industrialization was a necessity if that was to change. Even collectivization seems to make sense: in a country with far to few machines, team work is a good way to produce more. The gutting of the party is iffy. There is a case to be made about the benefits of a strong leadership in the case of crisis, but in the long term it is self destructive (as we have seen). This logic also explains the creation of the Eastern block as a buffer from the west.
At this point, one might well think, "wait, didn't he say he did not approve of Stalin?" yes I did, and no I don't. This is not an endorsement of Stalin, Stalin-ism, or his legacy, merely a devil's advocate defense. But lets move on a little. In my country, the grand old US of A (said with enough sarcasm to confuse a teenager) the USSR is often portrayed as some great aggressor state, bent on world domination, the destruction of freedom, basically the same rhetoric we apply to all our enemies. But if one considers the facts, that is completely incorrect. Sure, the Soviet Union, like all true communists (take notes modern China) wanted to spread its ideology. But it did not want war. After the creation of the Eastern block, the soviets were often Quite reserved! (EX: Korea, Vietnam) while the US was putting boots on the ground and toppling regimes at the drop of a hat, the USSR was careful not to overly anger the US or West. There were of course exceptions, but mostly in places that they were already certain they had control, like the Warsaw pact countries and Afghanistan. Don't take this as Communist sympathies, I wish they'd done more, but if you write a list of all the place we intervened and where the Soviets did, we'd outstrip them by quite a bit. The simplest explanation is that which I've already stated, the Russians have had their country devastated many times. So far America has remained untouched, relative to almost anywhere except Canada. We were cocky, they were careful.
The right wing often loves to spend its time talking about how repressive a system communism is, and it has not been wrong much of the time. But the reason for this is not that communism is a wicked or abusive ideology, but that it has yet been the case that a communist country could safely assert its system without fear of being toppled by outside interference or receiving extremely violent treatment from reactionary elements within its own country. (important example: Cuba(bay of pigs), Vietnam(Vietnam War), Korea(Korean War), China(communist persecution by Nationalists), USSR (civil war), Afghanistan (Islamist revolt against education for women)) As a result, all communist systems must (to date) inevitably resort to police state like measure to keep foreign influence in check.
To conclude this rather long winded post, I feel that those who wish to condemn something must understand it. I condemn Stalin, but I understand him, and to some extent, I don't even fully blame him. He was a victim of history, if also a complete monster. The same could be said of the Soviet Union.
- By Saeko
- By Puffer Fish
- By Istanbuller