Socialism doesn’t mean “utopia,” it’s a Mode of Production. Either way, there were a number of factors working in West Germany’s favor over East Germany that don’t have to deal with the Mode of Production:
East Germany was made to pay reparations for the immense damage the Nazis dealt to the USSR (80% of combat with the Nazis was on the Eastern Front). West Germany was kept largely unaccountable.
West Germany had almost all of Germany’s industry, the East Germans had to industrialize and pay reparations.
East Germany provided free, high quality education, whereas West Germany did not, but paid higher wages. An effective tactic was to lure educated workers from East Germany over to the West, essentially subsidizing education in the West.
All of these factors contributed to serious economic problems more caused by circumstance than Socialism.
Sure, don’t see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.
The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator… i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communist, since the state is forcing a person’s means of production to remain in the state’s power.
There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.
The USSR was democratic. The ability to choose between parties is less important than the ability to influence policy. The Soviets practiced Soviet Democracy, as elaborated on in the infographic below and the book Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, “dictatorship” doesn’t really apply.
In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn’t invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism’s trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The “stateless” aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.
The Soviet Union wasn’t Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.
I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this or not, but I’m a Marxist, I’ve seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you’ve linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia’s page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).
Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn’t a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?
As I said, the argument was if the USSR was autocratic. Noone disagrees rather or not they were socialists nor they make offical statments they intended on working toward communism.
But its very clear that the leadership was very autocratic and anti-democractic and only accepted undying loyalty.
Youre totally right. west germany built a wall to keep people from running away to the communism utopia next door. Wait a minute…
Socialism doesn’t mean “utopia,” it’s a Mode of Production. Either way, there were a number of factors working in West Germany’s favor over East Germany that don’t have to deal with the Mode of Production:
East Germany was made to pay reparations for the immense damage the Nazis dealt to the USSR (80% of combat with the Nazis was on the Eastern Front). West Germany was kept largely unaccountable.
West Germany had almost all of Germany’s industry, the East Germans had to industrialize and pay reparations.
East Germany provided free, high quality education, whereas West Germany did not, but paid higher wages. An effective tactic was to lure educated workers from East Germany over to the West, essentially subsidizing education in the West.
All of these factors contributed to serious economic problems more caused by circumstance than Socialism.
I used germany as an example since it was the most extreme example of the USSR restricting emigration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bloc in general, the USSR prevented all emigration except under special circumstances.
Sure, don’t see what that has to do with whether or not the USSR was Socialist and working towards Communism. People still were able to leave and immigrate to the Soviet Union.
The argument was rather or not the USSR was an Autocracy. If people cant even choose to leave on their own volition unless they get approved by the single party, which ultimately lead by a dictator… i dont even know what else could be an autocracy. Also, doesnt sound very communist, since the state is forcing a person’s means of production to remain in the state’s power.
There are quite a few errors in your comment, both from a historical perspective and Marxist theory perspective.
As a consequence of the Soviet form of democracy, “dictatorship” doesn’t really apply.
In Marxist theory, the path to Communism is full centralization of the Means of Production. Marx didn’t invent Communism and work backwards, he analyzed Capitalism’s trajectory towards full centralization and monopoly, and thought that as industry advances it must grow in complexity and size. The State in the Soviet Union was controlled by the Proletariat. The “stateless” aspect of Communism refers to the stage in Socialism where a global Socialist economy is achieved, and all production is in the public sector, meaning no armies are needed or any laws upholding class distinctions like Private Property rights or the police that uphold them.
The Soviet Union wasn’t Anarchist, it was never trying to work towards full decentralization.
Sure…sure… theres democracy… so as long you align with the party’s ideology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this or not, but I’m a Marxist, I’ve seen the Wikipedia pages for everything you’ve linked, and actually read beyond Wikipedia. One of the books I linked, Soviet Democracy, is even listed as a source on Wikipedia’s page on Soviet Democracy (go figure).
Either way, liberals, fascists, and Tsarists were indeed kicked out of the party, imprisoned, or sentenced to death, depending on the severity of their crimes.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, I already openly stated that the Soviet Union wasn’t a mythical wonderland, my position is that it was Socialist and working towards Communism, none of which you seem to have contested. What are you trying to get at?
As I said, the argument was if the USSR was autocratic. Noone disagrees rather or not they were socialists nor they make offical statments they intended on working toward communism.
But its very clear that the leadership was very autocratic and anti-democractic and only accepted undying loyalty.