It’s disingenious to say that USSR achieved communism in 5 years between it’s inception and Stalin taking over. Especially since no one at the time have claimed achieving even socialism. Stalin took over country that attempted to build socialist society and struggled economically, and then led it in very different direction.
Early USSR was ruled by communists, sure, but that’s far from it being communist country, and even further from the country achieving communism.
The USSR was still socialist under Stalin, and Stalin’s influence wasn’t absolute. You are correct that the USSR never made it to communism, but that’s also because you can’t really have communism in one country, only socialism.
I specifically spoke of the USSR before what could be construed as Stalinism, whatever that would mean. I’m also on a fence whenever direct state ownership of the capital could be fairly described as socialism, as it was the case under Stalin from what I understand, but I won’t pretend I know all too much about that part. From what I’ve gathered, that would stand against the idea that the capital is democratically controlled by the workers working it, as it would instead by controlled by the outside force not completly dissimilar to the capitalist investors (in this case, the state, directed individually by some administrators). That always stood out for me when it comes to describing USSR as socialist country.
Pre-Stalin, the New Economic Policy was in place (as well as War Communism, which was its own thing). The NEP had controlled bourgeois ownership, and was there to build up the productive forces, kinda like what the PRC is doing now. Under Stalin, the NEP was considered complete, and collectivization of the economy occured. The economy had expanded worker democracy compared to the NEP as a consequence.
Further, socialism is not simply “worker democracy.” Socialism is a mode of production by which collectivized production is the principle aspect of the economy, which absolutely applies to the USSR. The state is not its own class, but an extension of the ruling class, in the USSR’s case the proletariat. Marxism has always been about collectivizing property into the hands of the state until classes disappear and the state, itself more of an instrument of class oppression, dies out of itself over time. Capitalism functions entirely differently and is run directly for the profits of the few, while in the USSR the economy was run to satisfy the needs of the people as best as possible.
It’s disingenious to say that USSR achieved communism in 5 years between it’s inception and Stalin taking over. Especially since no one at the time have claimed achieving even socialism. Stalin took over country that attempted to build socialist society and struggled economically, and then led it in very different direction.
Early USSR was ruled by communists, sure, but that’s far from it being communist country, and even further from the country achieving communism.
The USSR was still socialist under Stalin, and Stalin’s influence wasn’t absolute. You are correct that the USSR never made it to communism, but that’s also because you can’t really have communism in one country, only socialism.
I specifically spoke of the USSR before what could be construed as Stalinism, whatever that would mean. I’m also on a fence whenever direct state ownership of the capital could be fairly described as socialism, as it was the case under Stalin from what I understand, but I won’t pretend I know all too much about that part. From what I’ve gathered, that would stand against the idea that the capital is democratically controlled by the workers working it, as it would instead by controlled by the outside force not completly dissimilar to the capitalist investors (in this case, the state, directed individually by some administrators). That always stood out for me when it comes to describing USSR as socialist country.
Pre-Stalin, the New Economic Policy was in place (as well as War Communism, which was its own thing). The NEP had controlled bourgeois ownership, and was there to build up the productive forces, kinda like what the PRC is doing now. Under Stalin, the NEP was considered complete, and collectivization of the economy occured. The economy had expanded worker democracy compared to the NEP as a consequence.
Further, socialism is not simply “worker democracy.” Socialism is a mode of production by which collectivized production is the principle aspect of the economy, which absolutely applies to the USSR. The state is not its own class, but an extension of the ruling class, in the USSR’s case the proletariat. Marxism has always been about collectivizing property into the hands of the state until classes disappear and the state, itself more of an instrument of class oppression, dies out of itself over time. Capitalism functions entirely differently and is run directly for the profits of the few, while in the USSR the economy was run to satisfy the needs of the people as best as possible.
Here you just circumvent the rules of the language game.
No, it’s called using terms accurately instead of the propaganda that’s designed to mush it all into one un-discussable bogeyman.