3 ms·

If you think about it in that light, it makes the achievements of the socialist bloc seem pretty impressive: a country like Russia managed to go from a

by hvs 12y ago

If you think about it in that light, it makes the achievements of the socialist bloc seem pretty impressive: a country like Russia managed to go from a backwater to a major world power with everyone working maybe on average four or five hours a day. That is a very selective reading of history.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
The empire-building helped I'd guess. Funny how a Socialist country had to depend on exploitation to grow. Just like most everybody else.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I'd be interested to see when actual socialists think the Soviet Union stopped being an effective socialist state and started being more of a totalitarian kleptocracy with a veneer of socialist rhetoric as justification. I was an early Agile person, starting with Extreme Programming in 2000. It blew me away how quickly a revolutionary approach to the work I loved was turned into a bunch of empty labels and pointless rituals that covered up the same old power structure but provided the useful appearance of change. [1] It's definitely made me wonder what early Russian revolutionaries would think of how the Soviet Union turned out. [1] http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we-fell-in/ http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how...
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Since Stalin was both an early Russian revolutionary and the nadir of "how the Soviet Union turned out", it's hard to accept the reading of history that says the Soviet Union didn't turn out according to plan.
    - krfsm 12y ago
      Considering Stalin's swift elimination of all his political rivals, it's reasonable to assume not everybody shared his political vision.
  - rquantz 12y ago
    The Bolshevik coup in 1917 pretty much ended democratic socialism in Russia. Prior to that, workers were forming self-organized soviets (essentially a union government) that, at least from my vantage point, looked pretty much exactly like what a communist government is supposed to look like. Lenin didn't think Russia was ready for socialism yet, so the Bolsheviks seized power away from the soviets and formed a dictatorship. I'm not a socialist (well, I probably am according to today's definition), but if I were I think I'd say that's when the Soviet Union stopped being an effective socialist state. Edit: just to clarify, this is a brief gloss that leaves out a lot of nuance.
  - primroot 12y ago
    Lenin called the new system State Capitalism and talked about "control, supervision, and accounting" as being the solution to the country's problems [1]. Even Marxists warned about the totalitarian nature of Lenin's project. These essays by Chomsky explore the topic: The Soviet Union Versus Socialism [2], Objectivity and Liberal Scholarchip [3]. Chomsky gives Luxembourg and Pannekoek as examples. [1] http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/02.htm#v25zz99h-329 http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/02.htm... [2] http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm [3] http://www.ditext.com/chomsky/1968.html http://www.ditext.com/chomsky/1968.html
tormeh 12y ago
"If you think about it in that light" explicitly tells you that it is an intentionally selective reading of history. Of course there's lots of other sides to the USSR, but this particular one is interesting in this discussion.

by hvs 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

The empire-building helped I'd guess. Funny how a Socialist country had to depend on exploitation to grow. Just like most everybody else.

wpietri 12y ago
I'd be interested to see when actual socialists think the Soviet Union stopped being an effective socialist state and started being more of a totalitarian kleptocracy with a veneer of socialist rhetoric as justification. I was an early Agile person, starting with Extreme Programming in 2000. It blew me away how quickly a revolutionary approach to the work I loved was turned into a bunch of empty labels and pointless rituals that covered up the same old power structure but provided the useful appearance of change. [1] It's definitely made me wonder what early Russian revolutionaries would think of how the Soviet Union turned out. [1] http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we-fell-in/ http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how...
- philwelch 12y ago
  Since Stalin was both an early Russian revolutionary and the nadir of "how the Soviet Union turned out", it's hard to accept the reading of history that says the Soviet Union didn't turn out according to plan.
  - krfsm 12y ago
    Considering Stalin's swift elimination of all his political rivals, it's reasonable to assume not everybody shared his political vision.
- rquantz 12y ago
  The Bolshevik coup in 1917 pretty much ended democratic socialism in Russia. Prior to that, workers were forming self-organized soviets (essentially a union government) that, at least from my vantage point, looked pretty much exactly like what a communist government is supposed to look like. Lenin didn't think Russia was ready for socialism yet, so the Bolsheviks seized power away from the soviets and formed a dictatorship. I'm not a socialist (well, I probably am according to today's definition), but if I were I think I'd say that's when the Soviet Union stopped being an effective socialist state. Edit: just to clarify, this is a brief gloss that leaves out a lot of nuance.
- primroot 12y ago
  Lenin called the new system State Capitalism and talked about "control, supervision, and accounting" as being the solution to the country's problems [1]. Even Marxists warned about the totalitarian nature of Lenin's project. These essays by Chomsky explore the topic: The Soviet Union Versus Socialism [2], Objectivity and Liberal Scholarchip [3]. Chomsky gives Luxembourg and Pannekoek as examples. [1] http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/02.htm#v25zz99h-329 http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/02.htm... [2] http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm [3] http://www.ditext.com/chomsky/1968.html http://www.ditext.com/chomsky/1968.html

tormeh 12y ago

"If you think about it in that light" explicitly tells you that it is an intentionally selective reading of history. Of course there's lots of other sides to the USSR, but this particular one is interesting in this discussion.