How long did it take the country to turn into a slave/police state?
Years? Decades? A Year?
After Lenin's death there was a struggle between political leaders (particularily between Stalin and Trotsky), which Stalin won. In order to secure against any possible political discord he started prosecuting anyone who seemed to oppose him. As biggest repressions were in 30s , I think that answer is a little more than a decade.
From before day one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Pretty much as soon as Lenin was in power.
For further information look up pretty much anything Rosa Luxemborg.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
The Soviet union was a police state from the beginning. Lenin saw politics as a form of pest control, and indiscriminately murdered people to an extreme degree. The early Soviets were just economic ignoramuses who thought that abolishing the capitalist economy would magically produce a free lunch. When that scheme led to a complete unraveling of the economy, it paved the way for Stalin to take control. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin was not a betrayer of "true" Marxist ideology, but did what Marxist-Leninist theory suggested. Extreme depredation of the rural population was part of that.
Im no Marxist. But if you can produce one Marx quote that encourages such behavior, I'll have to throw my underwear away, because I'll poop my pants.
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Poop away: https://mises.org/Community/forums/p/15219/316237.aspx#316237
Also the rest of that thread is full of his bloodlust.
Laotzu del Zinn:Im no Marxist. But if you can produce one Marx quote that encourages such behavior, I'll have to throw my underwear away, because I'll poop my pants.
I don't know whether Marx directly encouraged depredation of the rural population, but it followed from his theories. Note that I wrote Marxist-Leninist theory, not Marxist theory. Marx had predicted that a capitalist country would become imperialist during it's final demise. I think it was Lenin who developed the theory that capitalist nations would not allow a successful socialist country, so they would soon invade the Soviet union. Therefore, after Stalin took power the Soviet union faced the challenge of quickly having to build up it's military capacity to defend against the imminent capitalist invasion (they believed). To do so they had to expropriate large shares of the resources from the rural population to quickly develop heavy industry. Of course the peasants wouldn't be happy about that, so it was necessary to intimidate them. That's why Stalin was so evil and essentially made lists of random people to be shot, the population had to be sufficiently intimidated to go along with 'socialism in one country'. His actions were later declared a betrayal of the "true" socialism that was attempted by Lenin, but in reality Stalin acted to defend socialism according to what Marxist-Leninists believed at that time. He was later thrown under the bus by leftie historians, kind of like Hitler.
nirgrahamUK:The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
That's why the left became 'pacifist' in the 60s, because it meant surrendering to communism. Prior to that the mainstream left were always the ones who favored rearmament and war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt4Ohq0LKiI#t=28m13s
Poop away: https://mises.org/Community/forums/p/15219/316237.aspx#316237 Also the rest of that thread is full of his bloodlust.
Lol, perhaps you should have looked up the context of this quote;
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rheinische_Zeitung
This was not a promotion of terror. It was an attack on government terror and secrecy.
One of those quotes you produce is an outright falsehood that cannot be attributed to Marx, only to the same newspaper listed above which was edited by Marx. But this does not imply absolute agreement.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-revolutionary-terror-t138707/index.html?t=138707
The rest of that thread is mostly Cain and the other poster having a good discussion on Marxism, and you jumping in to froth at the mouth and engage in sophistry.
I don't know whether Marx directly encouraged depredation of the rural population, but it followed from his theories. Note that I wrote Marxist-Leninist theory, not Marxist theory. Marx had predicted that capitalism in it's demise would become imperialist. I think it was Lenin who developed the theory that capitalist nations would not allow a successful socialist country, so they would soon invade the Soviet union. Therefore, after Stalin took power they believed that the Soviet union faced the challenge of quickly having to build up it's military capacity to defend against the imminent capitalist invasion. To do that they had to expropriate resources from the rural population to develop heavy industry. Of course the peasants wouldn't be happy about that, they would rebel, so it was necessary to intimidate them. That's why Stalin was so evil and essentially made lists of random people to be shot, the rural population had to be sufficiently intimidated to go along with 'socialism in one country'. His actions were later declared a betrayal of the "true" socialism that was attempted by Lenin, but in reality Stalin acted to defend socialism according to what Marxist-Leninists believed at that time. He was kind of thrown under the bus by leftie historians, kind of like Hitler
I have nothing to argue against this. Soviet style rule was really a product of its' time and the material factors surrounding it.
1. Of course it was a promotion of terror.
2. That link you provide to revleft is chock full of quotes by Marx and his vampirish psychosis.
Soviet style rule was really a product of its' [sic] time and the material factors surrounding it.
Funny how that unique time and those surrounding material factors turn up, by sheer coincidence, in every communist country.
Hayek's book, Road to Serfdom, explains how it has nothing to do with unique times and surrounding material factors, but is the inevitable consequnces of socialism.
Listen to Vladimir Bukovsky speak about the commanalities between the EU and USSR.
Thought i would add another one, he has more videos on youtube if you search his name
Funny how that unique time and those surrounding material factors turn up, by sheer coincidence, in every communist country
Catalonia
Look, I don't want to have to defend Marxism. But until you can produce something genuine to back up your charge, I'm just going to write you off as a sophist.
Of course we could go into long debates, though, about Stalin v Andrew Jackson and the USSR vs the early US... but again, I'm not here to defend Marxism, and especially not M-Lism.
But until you can produce something genuine to back up your charge
So you consider Hayek's book not genuine? What flaw have you found in it?
Please summarize his argument, and explain why you think it is wrong.
His actions were later declared a betrayal of the "true" socialism that was attempted by Lenin, but in reality Stalin acted to defend socialism according to what Marxist-Leninists believed at that time.
That is a good point. The world was a much darker place after 1918.
Dave,
In my "genuine" statemnt I was asking you to produce something genuine from Marx that promoted terrorism. You've yet to do that.
I think The Road to Serfdom is a good discussion on totalitarianism, and central planning. Other than a few fallacies and mischaracterization, I'm enjoying it. But I've yet to see anything in it that deals with real socialism; ie, worker control of the means of production.
My statemnent about "time and material circumstance" was in no way a defense of Marxist-leninism. I would prefer liberal capitalism to any leninist system (perhaps Cuba I could live with. It's not as bad, from anything I can find, as exiles in Miami make it out to be.). I was agreeing with what Nero had to say. So if you have a problem with my statement, you can find something specific in his post that doesn't sit well with you.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Well, that's Engels.. but at least you're trying.
"...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism." - Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." - Karl Marx, "Forced Emigration", New York Tribune 1853:
Better?
I got curious and started searching for English translated old archive newspaper editorials from this revolutionary newspaper from 1848.
Some interesting thoughts.
See, while Ludwig von Mises and Frederich Engels could not be any more different, both seem to have very close opinions about ongoing issues of Germany in the 19th century, especially about the German government. They also seem to share a common dislike for Russians, whom they saw as brutish.
Maybe it's a ridiculous statement, but NRZ today could easily pass for a conservative newspaper with a few progressive ideas thrown in along with it.
Another piece called "The Prague Uprising" seems to hint that Central European nationalism was a preferable choice, for it is something precisely in opposition to what Engels and Marx saw as Russian despotism.
Can you give us the link?
"...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism." - Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848. "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849
Yes, much better. At least you're trying. But as I have already pointed out both of these are in the context of a response to bourgie state terror. And Marx was explicitly against individual terrorist acts, seeing them as counterproductive. Also, the second quote cannot be attributed to Marx, but was an editorial in a paper edited by Marx (both of them are from the same paper, but idk whether the first was or wasn't authored by Marx).
But I did squirt a little
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.
I don't think you understand this one... the "human existence" he's talking about is wage labor, and the classes and races are not actual people, but social constructs.
The article itself was about something else entirely - the double standards of German nationalism which did not press for the same values in neighbouring regions, and which thus drove one ethnic group into hands of the Russian monarch. M&E believed nationalism would inevitably succeed, Russian imperialism inevitably fail. Czechs would have fared better if they sided with nationalism, but the Germans were at fault for pushing Czechs away from nationalism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/18.htm
"A revolutionized Germany ought to have renounced her entire past, especially as far as the neighboring nations are concerned. Together with her own freedom, she should have proclaimed the freedom of the nations hitherto suppressed by her.
And what has revolutionized Germany done? She has fully endorsed the old oppression of Italy, Poland, and now of Bohemia too, by German troops. Kaunitz and Metternich have been completely vindicated."
Later:
"But it is the gallant Czechs themselves who are most of all to be pitied. Whether they win or are defeated, their doom is sealed. They have been driven into the arms of the Russians by 400 years of German oppression, which is being continued now in the street-fighting waged in Prague. In the great struggle between Western and Eastern Europe, which may begin very soon, perhaps in a few weeks, the Czechs are placed by an unhappy fate on the side of the Russians, the side of despotism opposed to the revolution. The revolution will triumph and the Czechs will be the first to be crushed by it.
The Germans once again bear the responsibility for the ruin of the Czech people, for the Germans have betrayed them to the Russians."
You can not deduce this from the article, but I know a little bit about Engels, so I can say this has nothing to do with prefering Central European nationalisms. It has to do with who is being a nationalist. Marx and Engels were fans of Hungarian uprising, even though its success would result in Hungarian rule over Croats, Slovaks, Rusyns, Romanians and Serbs, because Hungarians were radicals (Jacobins). But they detested the Croatian patriots fighting against the Hungarian revolt, because they were conservative. The Czech patriots were liberal and anti-clerical and therefore qualified to receive sympathies of Engels. So he can be bothered about German rule over the progressive Czechs, but never about Hungarian rule over the reactionary Croats. Read more and you will see that Engels spoke in terms of "reactionary peoples" (who happen to largely coincide with Slav peoples).
Marko:His actions were later declared a betrayal of the "true" socialism that was attempted by Lenin, but in reality Stalin acted to defend socialism according to what Marxist-Leninists believed at that time.Stalin positioned himself as a centrist. Originally the Communists belived that either you would have Communism accross the whole world, or you would not have Communism anywhere. For this reason one part of the Bolsheviks ("the leftists") was dead set on world revolution. Another set ("the right") however deduced a world revolution was unrealistic and therefore concluded they had no choice but to give up on having Communism in the Soviet Union. Stalin, always the cautious one, took the middle road of "socialism in one country". Against world revolution, but in favor of achieving Communism.
That sounds about right. It reminds me of the Nazis. They too presented themselves as centrists in the same socialism/capitalism dilemma. They too presented "socialism in one country", i.e. a market framework with heavy intervention and depredation, as the moderate middle ground. They too were the right-wing ones among the leftists. And they too used persecution as a means to make it work.
Jack Roberts. thanks for videos. After "The tragedy of the Euro" it's the second source I've come across with view on EU as socialist model.
@Laotzu del Zinn
It's widely known and widely acknowledged that the marxists position employs an aggressive rhetorical language to make their point. Words like oppressive, exploitive, slavery, and the list goes on where words are used out of place to make a point.
Stalin positioned himself as a centrist. Originally the Communists belived that either you would have Communism accross the whole world, or you would not have Communism anywhere. For this reason one part of the Bolsheviks ("the leftists") was dead set on world revolution. Another set ("the right") however deduced a world revolution was unrealistic and therefore concluded they had no choice but to give up on having Communism in the Soviet Union. Stalin, always the cautious one, took the middle road of "socialism in one country". Against world revolution, but in favor of achieving Communism.
All of this about Stalin contradicts his own words. He advocated using the Soviet pool of resources to incite internal revolutions all over the world.
Marko, as far as your own readings go, do you find the ancien socialists to be a cosmopolitan people? I ask, because they do seem to have a disapproval of certain ethnic groups and approval of others. It's very confusing.
When you say, "Read more and you will see that Engels spoke in terms of "reactionary peoples" (who happen to largely coincide with Slav peoples)", you drop an interesting hint.
I don't know. There is a big gap in my knowledge spanning the Communists that came after Marx & Engels and before the Bolsheviks.
Laotzu, it is all detailed in Kolakowski's 3 volume magnum opus Main Currents of Marxism.