Opinion of leftists who supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War

[Cactus Jack]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

The Government controlled everything in the soviet era which is literally the definition of Communism .

Communism is both distinctly different from socialism and...really, at its core, not at all what you just described. I'm not picking a fight here, but communism is meant to be the common ownership of goods on the part of those who produce them, i.e. the workers. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it as an ideology, but it's hard to argue that the Soviet Union wasn't a complete bastardization of communist philosophy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government.I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them,and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

yah thats totally false, most socialists support interventionism if done for the socialist cause.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

The Government controlled everything in the soviet era which is literally the definition of Communism .

Communism is both distinctly different from socialism and...really, at its core, not at all what you just described. I'm not picking a fight here, but communism is meant to be the common ownership of goods on the part of those who produce them, i.e. the workers. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it as an ideology, but it's hard to argue that the Soviet Union wasn't a complete bastardization of communist philosophy.

Its exactly what you would get if you implement communism.  The idea of stealing other people's stuff in an attempt to make everyone equal requires a government to acquire dictatorial powers and also take people's freedoms away, so when that happens dont be surprised you have gotten an tyrannical state . At the end of the day communist = tyranny in both reality and in in theory. So this whole communism is good in theory is BS , and the idea it would have worked better with better leaders is BS.


People who are communists in my opinion are major HP's or Idiots.

[Intell]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

The Government controlled everything in the soviet era which is literally the definition of Communism .

Hits a wall.

[Murica!]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

The Government controlled everything in the soviet era which is literally the definition of Communism .

I know this will be totally useless, but I guess I'm simply a fan of lost causes.

No, that is not "literally the definition of Communism." the Soviet Union did not even claim to be "communist" but rather socialist*, and theoretically** and in actuality***, it was nothing more than State-Capitalism with a few more red flags.

*Socialist in this case referring to the theoretical Leninist transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, not to the ownership of the means of production
**Theoretically the Soviet Union failed to be modeled on the Paris Commune as Marx, Engels and even Lenin wanted
***In actuality, the economy of the Soviet Union was totally centralized into the Bureaucracy rather than given over to the control of the workers, either through their control of the State, or through the original basis of the Union, the Soviets.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1. "Communism" has two very different meanings. Within the world of social philosophy, political theory, and so on, "communist" might refer to someone who follows and attempts to enact a version of Marxism. "Communism" is some stateless, propertyless "end of history" following proletarian revolution. It is in this context that we can spend all day bickering about what "real communism" is. Within the world of international relations and comparative politics, "communism" is going to refer to governments that arose underneath the banner of communism and communist parties--the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Yugoslavia, and so on...
2. Socialism and communism are distinct phenomena in both theory and practice. In theory, socialism can have an array of democratic and revolutionary strains, while communism (within Marxism?) refers to a specific social arrangement that theoretically follows the "dictatorship of the proletariat". In the real world, socialist and communist parties, particularly in the West, remained opposed within the confines of each country's left. Communist parties, in this case, were vocal proponents of the Soviet Union's foreign policy.
3. Sure, theoretically, some socialists may support intervention in the case that such advances a socialist agenda. The modern world does not afford many opportunities for this (unless you subscribe to strange horseshoe theories linking neoconservatives and Trotskyists). During the Cold War, there were, however, communist parties that did support intervention undertaken by other communist countries. This was not always the case, however, as China and the USSR--for example--embodied what they believed to be two different types of communism (or "socialism" or "building communism" or "building socialism" and so on).
4. The debate continues as to whether or not the Soviet Union was a "perversion" of communism, or simply the natural result of Marxism in the case where someone attempted to enact it in the real world. There is no question, however, that the Russian Revolution flies in the face of "Marxism" in general owing to its occurring in an underdeveloped, not-yet-fully-industrialized Russia, instead of, say, Germany, Britain, or France. This ideological somersaulting to justify Marxist movements in avowedly not-yet-developed, "Third World" countries would be a feature of the Soviet Union for years after. The Bolsheviks, nevertheless, did benefit from the support of the burgeoning industrial working class, were led by self-professed Marxists, and at various points embraced (even if only in rhetoric) the idea of supporting some "world revolution" against both traditional and liberal capitalist nations.

[Goldwater]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

It seems like you think of libertarian socialism as the only forum of socialism, which doesn't really seem to match how the term is usually used.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Usually misguided. A few of them were true HP though.

[vanguard96]

Absolute hypocrites. Modern politicos forget way too easily that the Soviet Union was closer to a fascist state than a socialist one.

Explain, please? There were no millionaires in the USSR until the 1980s. There were plenty in the fascist states.

There's a lot more to socialism than just equality in wealth. Equality in race, religion, ethnicity, and the rest of the works are also key - as is the defense of civil liberties and freedom of speech, which is why Eugene Debs is sympathetically-regarded by many self-proclaimed libertarians, and why Bernie Sanders has been such an ardent opponent of things like the PATRIOT Act. Even beyond that, the USSR really wasn't equal in wealth or power, either - the very crux of socialist thought. There were no millionaires, sure, but Soviet money was not in any way distributed equally among Soviet citizens; it was all in the hands of the government. I find that socialists also tend toward noninterventionism, at least in my experience with them, and the Soviet Union was the absolute furthest thing from noninterventionist.

So, that's my argument. When you get down to it, the Soviet Union was barely any different from Nazi Germany - just poorer.

The timing of the writing of The Road to Serfdom in 1944 gave Hayek a chance to illustrate the parallels between National Socialists and the Soviet Socialists. Both wanted free public school, central banking, massive welfare states. Germany in the Nazi era nationalized a good deal of its key heavy industry. Many Nazis were former Socialist party members. They are two side of the same coin in authoritarianism.

I personally would let socialists make their own non-coercive, mutually agreed upon co-ops if they wanted to eschew prices, money, and centrally plan for a small village of say 250 people. But to have it occur on a large scale then inevitably the socialists I have had discussions with would resort to coercion when they face resistance as well as people that overachieve and don't want to sacrifice for someone else's common good.

One of my main issue with modern socialists and left libertarians is that they only regard civil liberty issues and disregard the importance of private property beyond personal residence and an extremely small business like a corner shop or craft store. The idea of 'the commons' and the 'public good' and even the concept of 'society' is a flawed one on a large scale in terms of how it can lead to  negative consequences and that is why socialist regimes have largely moved to authoritarianism. Thus while on certain issues with overseas military use or civil liberties I often agree with the Sanders and Gabbard types in Congress they are absolute enemies in terms of their heavily misguided views on economic freedom that have considerable 'unintended' negative consequences that go along with noble views of wanting to 'do something' to help those who are having a hard time.

I think even Trotsky and many Soviet economists acknowledged that planning at the centralized level was inaccurate - embarrassingly from a symbolic POV they looked to prices in the West (as late period Soviet economists admitted) but it was very inaccurate under their state capitalist system.

Realistically most socialists acknowledge in a world of scarcity with today's technological limits that the price system and money are a necessity. Thus they accept a measure of the market economy on a large scale given the inefficiencies of a barter economy, a command economy, or some alternative at determining the values of millions and millions of goods and services exchanged in a complex large-scale national and international economy.

However if one thinks the Soviet Union was a place of freedom should read their non-socialist history. If they have and still hold those beliefs then they are morally repugnant individuals who are not worth engaging and if I were socialist I would sincerely reconsider association with such people.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Currently it is HP, especially since this policy would bar members of democratic Communist parties like the Japanese Communist Party from coming here.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Usually misguided. A few of them were true HP though.