Was the fall of the Soviet Union a victory or a defeat? Explain your answer. I'd say a victory against Capitalism in its worst form: State Capitalism.

No, it's a defeat that started with the empowering of Khrushchev and end in 1989. But, actually, in my opinion, it is a defeat for world proletariat. They hadn't shown the ability to rise up together in favor of their world leader against united imperialist forces.

And do you know,you smart aleck,what happened with people of the USSR after this "victory?Do you know how many people were killed in wars?Only in Tajikistan were murdered in 1990s about 100 000.Do you know that Russia loses every year without any war 800 000 of population?Is this you make glad?What's the course of this bloodthristieness?

This is not an easy question to answer. It's not black and white.

Was the USSR a mockery of socialism, at the very least since the 50's (and I would argue far before that)? Yes, it was. In many respects, it wasn't that great a place, though obviously not as horrible as American propaganda painted it. And you could make the argument that its existence impeded the growth of actual socialist revolution, so in a certain sense, if ever there was to be real socialism, the USSR, as it currently existed, had to go.

However, its demise was, nevertheless, a blow to the socialist movement in another sense. The fall of the USSR served to (falsely) discredit the name of socialism as a failed, unworkable system that only leads to tyranny and eventually destruction, and now the bourgeois forever have a historical example to use to make this point, and to implicitly argue for capitalism as the only real alternative. The left now stands weaker than it ever has been, though I am not sure if we can fully attribute this to the fall of the USSR.

And of course, I haven't even gotten into the nightmare Russia and much of Eastern Europe has turned into as a result of its degeneration into mafia-run capitalism. So many people have died since then due to the collapse of the Soviet system, imperfect and oppressive as it may have been, and the far-right is more potent than ever in those countries.

It's definitely a huge mixed bag. I don't exactly shed a tear for the old USSR. I just wish it had fallen in favor of something better, something actually representative of socialism, instead of what actually happened.

I'm not talking about what happened long after as a result of any other system, but more of the immediate downfall of the USSR - stick to the topic.

If what you have said is true, can you or anybody explain how so much people, who are ruthlessly tortured by "Stalin regime" will take in arms and fight shoulder to shoulder to defeat the Nazis. PLEASE, DON'T SAY THAT THEY JUST THOUGHT NAZIS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STALIN.
So far I know, in the third world colonies, a huge lot of people were supporting Nazis and Fascists as they were fighting with their colonial masters.

I'd go with the "mixed bag" assessment also. However, I'd first say that the Soviet Union didn't "fall" or "collapse" in any particularly valid sense of those words; its dissolution was engineered by political officials acting against a popular desire for its preservation. I support the libertarian position of the USSR not being characterized by legitimately socialist conditions due to the authoritarianism and power consolidation of the ruling class there, but the very reason that the self-description of "socialism" even emerged was as an appeal to populist sentiments in favor of socialism, just as the reference to republicanism was an appeal to anti-monarchist populist sentiments. And reliable evidence indicates that a substantial number of Soviet citizens favored the implementation of "legitimate socialism," which they evidently believed had not been present in the country up to that point, with another significant number favoring social democratic capitalism such as that of Scandinavia, and only a small minority favoring Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

1992-1996 is not "long after".I'm talking about results of what you call a "victory".The falling of the USSR was a great catastrophe for all Soviets.Was it a victory?Yes,it was a victory of capitalist West,it won the cold war.Capitalistic ass-kisser can be happy .

I don't know who was "ruthlessly tortured by Stalin regime".My pearants were not tortured,my grandpearants were not tortured too - I don't know anybody who was tortured.Your question doesn't have a point.

I have just made my mind up that the fall of the USSR was a defeat.

You do have to say that the USSR was not representing socialism in the way that most of us would want it to. It could also be said that, had the Union not been dissolved, it is not likely that under Gorbachev or any of crew the Soviet Union had any sort of a credible future as a burgeoning socialist entity.

In this way, I am not and have never been a strong supporter of the USSR. It has two histories (1917-53 and onwards to its dissolution), neither of which, it seems, were something where the workers were democratically empowered as a class.

However, it is clear that the capitalist world has been able to propagandise that the fall of the USSR and GDR was the proof that no type of socialism could work, and that capitalism was the winning ideology (hence the flood of moronic theses' such as Fukuyama: End of History). In doing so, many social democrats, democratic socialists and former Communists were roped into either all out capitalism or one of its reformist branches. The revolutionary left has thus become extremely isolated, and I believe that, Latin America aside, the left is in serious trouble and has been waning with increasing severity since the late 90s, when the battle of ideological education seemed to be lost with a whimper.

For me, the tragic state of British revolutionary politics emphasises this point perfectly. There is no uniting party and this is to the extreme discredit of those on the left (notwithstanding the strong role played by the capitalists, mind).

Kindly read my post attentively, I am just supporting what you want to say.

Since defeat of working class started in 1918, fall of Soviet Union was victory, because this state capitalist regime which people used to connect with communism died and proved that you can't have communism if you exploit working class under hammer and sickle. Also, communists and anarchists (in other parts of the World) could continue their practice without being repressed or judged as "Soviet Union collaborators".

Capitalism means exploitation of working class. In "state capitalism", where the surplus of labor (I hope you have little knowledge of Marxian economy) will go and who were enjoying the surplus? I am curious to understand how a "workers victory" can accompany sharp increase in wealth difference, degradation of life standard of the working class without any kind of imperialist intervention and inside sabotage?

I say a victory for true socialism actually.

The brutal regime which saw Stalin and led on to be an imperialistic power in itself fell and ended the butchering of Marxist ideology.

The "brutal regime" is a result of imperialist intervention and counter reactionary sabotage from inside. One have to be tough and "brutal" to fight continuously.

98 of the 139 members of the 1936 Central Committee were 'counter-reactionaries', all looking to re-establish capitalism were they?

Give me a break.

Cuba has been the subject of an economic blockade since the inception of socialism there, it has had no major economic support from socialist countries for 20 years. Why are there not millions of Cubans dying at the hands of Castro?

It doesn't help to defend that which, whilst under our banner, was not socialism.

Bollocks.

How much increased support do you "true socialists" have since the collapse of the USSR?
Are you really closer to creating your perfect society?
Do people no longer bring up "the evil crimes of Stalin" or the "USSR police state" since the USSR collapsed?

One good thing is that the Archives are open, disproving a lot of anti-communist history lies, but is the ability to make a cheap ideological point at the expense of the destruction of the USSR and the destruction and suffering it has bought the ex-Soviet people a victory? No.


Most former-Soviet people think the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy. But no, you in Canada will decide it is a victory because you no longer have a country claiming your ideology that you find hard to defend.

At the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B) Stalin said mistakes were made, innocents were killed.
Read John Arch Getty - 'The Road to Terror' if you actually want to understand the purges. Alternatively you could just continue to talk rubbish you learnt in Humanities GCSE.


Millions were not executed in the purges. About 700,000 were.
In its early days, Cuba had the protection of the USSR. No longer is Cuba seen as a great threat to America

Why? Because you said so?
It does not help to, after a century of Proletarian revolution, claim that no lasting society was ever created out of it.

You seem to not mind Cuba. Do you believe they are Socialist? If so, why is the USSR not?

Proof?

The poll last year that found Stalin to be the 2nd most revered person in Russian history can be left aside, because that does not mean most people thought the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy.

The referendum which was (wrongly) ignored by Gorbachev, Yeltsin et al at the time points to people being educated enough to realise what the Nomenklatura didn't; that the dissolution of the Union would lead to economic catastrophe and nationalist conflict.

It is true that Russia in the 1990s was absolutely shambolic, compared to the relative calm of the previous 20 years. However, one cannot simply equate the failings of post-Communist Russia and a couple of opinion polls with genuine sentiment for the socialism that the USSR implemented.

I do agree with your first point, that the collapse of the USSR has led to the equally foolish capitalist notion of the collapse of Communism in one area of the world somehow proving that all socialism is barbaric, totalitarian, anti-democratic etc.

Neither success nor victory. Either way it is a defeat for the working class of Russia.