Russia - End of USSR brought poverty, unemployment and misery for most Russians.

[moss]

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/arshinov/index.htm

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/index.htm

[bolshevik]

Back on the topic - IBT article from 2002 looking at the effects of the 1st decade of capitalist restoration http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no24/USSR_Article.html

[bormotello]

Back on the topic - IBT article from 2002 looking at the effects of the 1st decade of capitalist restoration http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no24/USSR_Article.html

Typical Trotskyist's propaganda without any understanding what was happening

Socialism cannot exist without bureaucracy, because it is impossible to make all decision by direct voting. It means that Trotsky was lying that his version of socialism will manage to avoid bureaucracy. Stalin's solution was regular purges in order to prevent gaining of excessive power by bureaucracy.
Even Trotsky acknowledged that purges against state bureaucracy had big support

The monstrous purges in the USSR are most convincing testimony of the fact that Soviet society organically tends toward ejection of the bureaucracy.

It was no Stalinist bureaucracy in Moscow in 1991. It was socialist bureaucracy, which gained huge power after death of Stalin.

And in 1991 those bureaucrats decided to change ownership in order have full unleashed control under resources of Soviet Union.

Soviet people were poor before collapse of Soviet Union, everybody had money, which was impossible to spend while bureaucracy had control over distribution and had access to real wealth.
Everybody was dreaming to get a job of shop assistant, because only job in retail could guarantee some access to wealth.

[bolshevik]

Typical Trotskyist's propaganda without any understanding what was happening

Socialism cannot exist without bureaucracy, because it is impossible to make all decision by direct voting. It means that Trotsky was lying that his version of socialism will manage to avoid bureaucracy. Stalin's solution was regular purges in order to prevent gaining of excessive power by bureaucracy.
Even Trotsky acknowledged that purges against state bureaucracy had big support

It is quite clear that the alternative of a system based on functioning workers' councils is a very real possibility. The Soviet Union in the first years of the revolution before the bureaucratic degeneration and Stalinist counter-revolution and the anarchist controlled areas of Spain in the mid-'30s being the prime examples.

Soviet people were poor before collapse of Soviet Union, everybody had money, which was impossible to spend while bureaucracy had control over distribution and had access to real wealth.
Everybody was dreaming to get a job of shop assistant, because only job in retail could guarantee some access to wealth.

Of course life in the Soviet Union under the rule of the bureaucracy was far from perfect but the reality of the social devastation caused by capitalist restoration is simply an empirical fact. Not being made up by Trotskyists - we quote facts from the UN and other bourgeois sources.

There needed to be a revolution in the Soviet Union for sure but one that put working people in power through a functioning workers' council system not the disaster of a capitalist counter-revolution.


Not that I expect you to accept either of these points because, as I've discovered on another discussion thread, you are apparently completely blind to concrete social reality.

[C. Flower]

Typical Trotskyist's propaganda without any understanding what was happening

Socialism cannot exist without bureaucracy, because it is impossible to make all decision by direct voting. It means that Trotsky was lying that his version of socialism will manage to avoid bureaucracy. Stalin's solution was regular purges in order to prevent gaining of excessive power by bureaucracy.
Even Trotsky acknowledged that purges against state bureaucracy had big support


It was no Stalinist bureaucracy in Moscow in 1991. It was socialist bureaucracy, which gained huge power after death of Stalin.

And in 1991 those bureaucrats decided to change ownership in order have full unleashed control under resources of Soviet Union.

Soviet people were poor before collapse of Soviet Union, everybody had money, which was impossible to spend while bureaucracy had control over distribution and had access to real wealth.
Everybody was dreaming to get a job of shop assistant, because only job in retail could guarantee some access to wealth.

Do you think that things have got better for the mass of people in Russia under capitalism ? The decline in population would surely suggest not? T

[bormotello]

It is quite clear that the alternative of a system based on functioning workers' councils is a very real possibility. The Soviet Union in the first years of the revolution before the bureaucratic degeneration and Stalinist counter-revolution and the anarchist controlled areas of Spain in the mid-'30s being the prime examples.



Of course life in the Soviet Union under the rule of the bureaucracy was far from perfect but the reality of the social devastation caused by capitalist restoration is simply an empirical fact. Not being made up by Trotskyists - we quote facts from the UN and other bourgeois sources.

There needed to be a revolution in the Soviet Union for sure but one that put working people in power through a functioning workers' council system not the disaster of a capitalist counter-revolution.


Not that I expect you to accept either of these points because, as I've discovered on another discussion thread, you are apparently completely blind to concrete social reality.

I don't have pink glasses andI seen what we are discussing myself
It was attempts to establish working councils, it was meetings, but state bureaucracy quickly gained control through populism and false promises
Most of ruling elite managed to keep their positions, but they don't have to hide their wealth anymore
Rise of Stalinism was a response to that. Famous letter of Nina Andreeva to Gorbachev was a turning point. This why people in Russia are so admiring Stalin, because they know that Trotskysm is the most reliable way to give bureaucrats all power
It makes me really sick when somebody mentioning late USSR as Stalinist country. When I was 18(young and radical ), I been refused communist party membership on grounds that I don't see Stalin as the biggest evil in Soviet history ( to be honest i quite happy now that I never was a member of KPSS)
Stalins purges always was a major threat to bureaucracy and late USSR was a perfect example of Trotskysm implemented in real life.

[C. Flower]

I don't have pink glasses andI seen what we are discussing myself
It was attempts to establish working councils, it was meetings, but state bureaucracy quickly gained control through populism and false promises
Most of ruling elite managed to keep their positions, but they don't have to hide their wealth anymore
Rise of Stalinism was a response to that. Famous letter of Nina Andreeva to Gorbachev was a turning point. This why people in Russia are so admiring Stalin, because they know that Trotskysm is the most reliable way to give bureaucrats all power
It makes me really sick when somebody mentioning late USSR as Stalinist country. When I was 18(young and radical ), I been refused communist party membership on grounds that I don't see Stalin as the biggest evil in Soviet history ( to be honest i quite happy now that I never was a member of KPSS)
Stalins purges always was a major threat to bureaucracy and late USSR was a perfect example of Trotskysm implemented in real life.

When you say "late USSR" which years are you talking about ?
Perestroika ? Trotsky would have opposed any break up and privatisation of national resources.

A lot of what a bureaucracy is about is "gate-keeping" access to publicly controlled goods and services, when they are in short supply.

The solution to it has to be economic as well as social.

[bormotello]

When you say "late USSR" which years are you talking about ?

Chernenko times

Perestroika ? Trotsky would have opposed any break up and privatisation of national resources.

Putin nationalized(returned back under state control) most of natural resources, but it doesn't make him trotskyist

A lot of what a bureaucracy is about is "gate-keeping" access to publicly controlled goods and services, when they are in short supply.

The solution to it has to be economic as well as social.

bureaucracy always will be able to turn any social solution for own profit

[C. Flower]

Chernenko times

Putin nationalized (returned back under state control) most of natural resources, but it doesn't make him trotskyist

bureaucracy always will be able to turn any social solution for own profit

In what way was Chernenko Trotskyist ?

Certainly Putin is not a Trotskyist - he is doing a balancing act.

[bormotello]

In what way was Chernenko Trotskyist ?

Certainly Putin is not a Trotskyist - he is doing a balancing act.

Andropov with crusade against corruption definitely was Stalinist
Gorbachev with his idea democracy and open society was nearly Trotskyist
While Chernenko somewhere between
Gorbachev failed because he underestimated power of bureaucracy and he didn't realized that populism can destroy whole idea of democracy

[bolshevik]

This why people in Russia are so admiring Stalin, because they know that Trotskysm is the most reliable way to give bureaucrats all power

Good grief - Stalin as the anti-bureaucratic opponent of Trotsky the friend of the bureaucracy. Really you couldn't make this stuff up...

[bolshevik]

Gorbachev with his idea democracy and open society was nearly Trotskyist

Do you have any idea what Trotskyism actually is?

[Summerday Sands]

Just switched over to TG4, there seems to be a programme on about Russia since the fall. Russian people in Ireland talking about whats happened over there.

[TotalMayhem]

End of USSR brought poverty, unemployment and misery for most Russians.

Relief is underway, or is it?

FT reports today that Russia is to start $10bln fund to draw foreign capital... with the help of the good people at Goldman Sachs.

"Setting up a $10 billion fund to co-invest with international private equity firms"... If you find such a proposal in your inbox, you'd immediately think of Nigerian origins.

[Sam Lord]

Stalin set grain quotas so high, that they could not be met without leaving the locals without food. There are various theories as to why he did this, but that's a different story. He did it, and was aware of the consequesnces.

I came acros this book on the Ukranian famine which may be of interest.

http://rationalrevolution.net/specia...ottlefraud.pdf