[CasX]

What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists.

"So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist................. "

http://www.worldsocialism.org/russia.htm

[C-Kokos]

Actually it was, up until Stalin turned his bereaucrats into aristocrats and himself into a new age Tsar

[Skullers]

BS! it was Socialist ONLY under Stalin, not before or after

[Siberian Fox]

I have noticed in several threads people using non-arguments like "BS!" and "Fuck you".

Next time I see a non-post like that I'll just delete it. Once forums are allowed to degenerate into spam those people who have something worthwhile to say stop posting. Consider yourselves warned.

[Evan Roberts]

Well under Lenin it was a very early form of socialism, and wasn't trully socialist. Lenin, before his death was already alarmed at how weak the revolution had become. Stalin's "socialism" was a deformed workers state.

[Ymir]

To say that Russia was not socialist, only enforces the popular idea that 'Communism sounds good on paper, but it can't work.' It sounds like revisionist propaganda to me.

[Zoltan Varga]

What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists.

"So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist................. "

http://www.worldsocialism.org/russia.htm

You failed to notice the piece you quoted was written in August 1917 BEFORE the October Bolshevik revolution. The author was describing the February revolution, which admittedley wasn't Socialist (although largely supported by Socialists and Communists) but only overthrow the Czarist autocracy.

[CasX]

...Aug 1918...
...the November movement...

?

[Comrade Serb]

Pure socialism ever was only in Sweden ! Now CHina TRIES to build it.
Socialism is a mix of capitalism and communism!
Russia was NEVER socialistic ! Under Stalin was war communism! But I think that RUssia needs hard hand like Stalin or Russian Tzars - under Stalin, the USSR improved industry hundred times comparing to 1913 year, but Hrushev-Breznev-Gorba4ev's politics lead USSR to defeat!

[CasX]

RUssia needs hard hand like Stalin or Russian Tzars

Aha! The true view of Stalinists comes to light . Another Tsar? That's incredible you could even say that

[Skullers]

Pure socialism ever was only in Sweden! Now CHina TRIES to build it.

no, china tries to destroy it.

Socialism is a mix of capitalism and communism!

That's what the capitalists want you to think. It's FALSE.
Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and socialism and nothing else. The slogan of Socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds". Private property is abolished under Socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat is established.

[CasX]

Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and socialism and nothing else.

Totally incorrect.

The caption of the 'Socialism' forum on this very board proves this wrong.

Socialism; As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in it's own right.

[Skullers]

but the way HE SAID IT, it was nothing but "capitalism plus".

[Cassius Clay]

Yes ofcourse it was. BTW not 'Russia' but Soviet Union would be a better description, Socialism existed from around 1929 right up until the mid 1950's, whether or not some want to argue that Socialism still existed right up to the 80's doesn't really matter in terms of this thread. Oh and btw Trotsky himself admitted that Socialism had been established in the Soviet Union, saying that it would take ten times the number of lifes lost in the Civil War to overthrow it.

[Koba SE]

The caption of the 'Socialism' forum on this very board proves this wrong.

YES!! SIBERIAN FOXES DEFFINITION OF A FORUM SUPECEEDES CENTURIES OF THOUGHT!!

anyways....

and socialism isnt 'each according to his ability each according to his needs' thats higher communism which is the stage after socialism.... Socialism as Marx put it shall retain some birthmarks of its mothers womb (capitalism) and therefore there shall be hints of capitalism in socialism... which is all the more proof of how socialism is a transitional stage because socialism shall rid itself of these birthmarks and give new socialist birthmarks to higher communism.

And the socio whatever ends in its own right is not 'socialism' since nothing is socialised (i.e collectivized) it would just be expensive capitalism. Take a look at France... their Prime minister is a dedicated Trotskyist.. France also reserves the right to interfere in business affairs... now how 'socialist' are they?

[Siberian Fox]

Keith you're too kind

[Skullers]

and socialism isnt 'each according to his ability each according to his needs'

i said Deeds (as in 'according to his Labour')

ps: i rather have a buncha trots than a buncha capitalist justice-haters

[Evan Roberts]

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production ? the factories, machines, land, etc. ? and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."

-Lenin, the state and revolution

[Gothmog]

Well under Lenin it was a very early form of socialism, and wasn't trully socialist. Lenin, before his death was already alarmed at how weak the revolution had become. Stalin's "socialism" was a deformed workers state.

-You´re right, but this deformation has its roots in the one party
-dictatorship created by the October Revolution. To what extent
-this was a "Bolshevik plan since the start" or an unintended
-consequence of the Civil war is debatable, but the truth is that
-this system opened the way to Stalin (whose economic policies,
-btw, were not wrong, but were put forward with extraordinary
-brutality, causing much more suffering than what was needed
-to promote a fast modernization).
-Btw: How would you define socialism?

[Gothmog]

Pure socialism ever was only in Sweden ! Now CHina TRIES to build it.

-Sweden would be better escribed as a mixed economy or a social
-market economy. Even his PM Olaf Palme used to say Sweden
-wasn´t socialist because Swedish people wasn´t prepared for
-socialism. Chine, unfortunately, is in the way of capitalist restoration
-Their NEP like policies were bradly correct, but went too far....