Young Liberal Fascist (XII)

Mark Lockett mlockett at
Sun Feb 11 04:18:40 MST 1996

On Sat, 10 Feb 1996 CKates at wrote:

> In a message dated 96-02-10 18:38:08 EST, Kevin Cabral writes:
> Totalitarian?? Anti-socialist?? How exactly can a socialist country be
> anti-socialist?? Socialism is an economic and political system, not a matte
> of political line.

True, lets set up a definition of socialism. How about. "A Mode of
Production where the working class has both economic and political
power." Close enough for the purposes of this discussion.

For the working class to control both economics an politics your obvious
need some sort of democracy. Democracy was clearly not present in the
ex-USSR. No worker boards to control enterprises, no votes on any matter
of policy, no votes in free and fair elections to decide who the decision
makers are, no political alternatives to the leadership[ of the CPSU
(except underground). Quite simply the workers had no say in either
political and economic life. This hardly qualifies as socialism then.

>However, I completely support Soviet political line, which
> was not anti-socialist. Soviet policy was based on national unity and the
> building of a working class state, as well as the support of socialism and
> national liberation movements worldwide.

I fail to see how this policy of "Socialism in One Country" actually
helped revolutionary movements elsewhere, the record from the 1930's is
well known but the same phenomena continued on to 1989.

> If only United States policy would
> be like that of the USSR....if only U.S. economics would be like that of the
> USSR...oh, well, one day we will have socialism here, and it will be truly
> democratic, liberatory and free. The USSR had some flaws, but compare them to
> the flaws of the U.S. government. Also, the USSR's flaws were not systemic,
> as opposed to those of capitalist governments. The USSR was a democratic,
> workingclass, socialist state.

OK let specifically compare some US and USSR actions in the international
sphere and see how they stack up.

1920's USA is involved in various interventions in Latin America.
1921 USSR (the RSFSR) takes over Mongolia a backwards Feudal State.
1947 USA intiates the Marshall Plan in order to buy off the countrys of
Western Europe.
1948 With Soviet military backing Czech Communists stage a coup after
losing elections
1950-2 USA under UN auspices intervenes in Korea.
1956 USSR invades Hungary after a local rebelion against Moscow rule
1963-73 USA uses military force to prop up a client state in South Vietnam.
1968 USSR invades Czechoslovakia after local communists implement a more
independent policy.
1979-87 USSR sends troops to Afghanistan in order to prop up a local
pro-Moscow regime.

Obviously in the area of foreign policy both the USA and USSR were wquite
prepared to use the same tactics. The only reason one could say that the
USSR was "less imperalist" than the USA is because it's empire was smaller.

As for the USSR's economy - well the CIA estimates that the GDP had been
decreasing since the late 60's and even the most pro-Soviet analysis say
that the GDP was decreasing since the late 70's. I wonder then what it is
like to live in a society which sits at the bottom of a recession for
over ten years. Well todays Russians know.

Mark Lockett
mlockett at

PS: It quite amazes me that defenders of Stalin exist even in this day
and age. Probably for the same reason that othodox religon can continue
to exist in industrialised countrys.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list