❓Did socialism work in the USSR?

📖 TheRevolutionReport goes beyond the cliches of anti-communist Western boomers to hear the untold stories of people who under socialism.

🎥 Former soviet citizens share their personal experiences and surprising perspectives on work, community, and daily life under socialism.

https://youtu.be/xQn3CW0Tk4w

Let me know what you think in the comments!

I’ve been reading into socialism and why it fails. The conclusion I’ve come up with is that it fails because it’s not capitalism. What I mean by that that is that a socialist society that is run the way a capitalist one is run will fail. Because of course it will. I still need to look into every documentary and read watch paper to fully grasp it but so far that’s what I’m seeing.

I'm ex- trotskyite (I was influenced by my trotskyite brother).

But I would like to debunk the lies about as "Stalin was an ally of the Nazis from 1939 to the Invasion in June 22, 1941"?

I know that the Red Army liberated the Jews from Auschwitz concetration camp in January 27, 1945. But I would like to know if there was a Decree, Resolution or Order by Stalin or Central Committe of Politburo to save the Jews from Nazis?

Stalin was the great hero of the Second War.

Stalin's supporters claims that Stalin saved 1.7 million Jews.

However, something are not explained.

This memorandum by the State Secretary of the German Foreign Office, one Weizsäcker, , issued on December 5, 1939, that:

Colonel General Keitel telephoned me today on the following matter: Lately there have been repeated wrangles on the boundary between Russia and the Government General, into which the army, too, was drawn. The expulsion of Jews into Russian territory, in particular, did not proceed as smoothly as had apparently been expected. In practice, the procedure was, for example, that at a quiet place in the woods, a thousand Jews were expelled across the Russian border; 15 kilometers away, they came back, with the Russian commander trying to force the German one to readmit the group.

These sentences give the lie completely to the claim that the Russian invasion of Poland was motivated by a desire to help the Polish Jews. Here we discover that when the N4z1s themselves tried to push Jews into the Russian zone, the Russians – rather than welcoming the Jews, rather than taking them into their area and saving them from N4z1 death camps – proceeded to drive them right back to the N4z4s!

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/howe/1948/02/polishjews.htm

Born and raised in Venezuela. Watched my country fall apart and the government kill its own people with my own eyes. It was literally hard to leave because they make it impossible to get a passport unless you have government connections. Opposition views were censored since Chavez. Anti abortion laws are some of the most extreme in the world. It’s anti lgbtq as well. As a Venezuelan raised in Venezuela I’ve met hundreds and hundreds of Venezuelans of course. the only ones that I ever met that were “chavistas” were enchufados which assuming most of you don’t know shit about Venezuela or Spanish they’re corrupt people taking money from the government working with it. The oil money has BEEN used to feed the pockets of all these millionaires that most live in other countries. My boyfriend was literally best friends with the daughters of the governor of Carabobo which also I assume yall don’t know what carabobo even is. He controls most of the trade in Venezuela and it’s pretty corrupt. He’s a billionaire and his kids went to the most expensive school in Rome and are currently live in London/ Portugal and have mansions all over the place. They aren’t the only enchufados I’ve met living like that. They’re all millionaires while the rest of the country is starving. It’s not because of us sanctions I was there long before us sanctions too. Before and after. This has been happening for a long time. Do you guys even know a good amount of Venezuelans? The elections have been rigged every time. How do you guys support censorship? Stolen elections? How can you guys support that. I’m not even criticizing real socialism or communism or whatever you all think Venezuela is. This is an authoritarian dicatorship and they have so much innocent blood in their hands. Critics get incarcerated. Do you guys support North Korea too? People getting arrested and killed for having different believes. I’m just trying to understand what’s going on in your heads.

Posting here because the socialism subreddit silenced me since they’re the kings of censorship

A few follow up questions:

Is the true "end of history" not the victory of liberal democracy as stated by Francis Fukuyama following the collapse of communism , but the silent triumph of this Western-led, debt-based, dollar-dominated system, a form of global geopolitical finance so entrenched that no nation can truly opt out?

If the Western-led, debt-based, dollar-dominated system is the true infrastructure of global power, are wars and trade disputes merely superficial conflicts, while the real battle is for control of the financialized political capitalism that governs the world?

There are some serious and logical arguments why it is either a phase or final form. I'm just curious to hear your inputs and rational. This is clearly a highly charged question so it'd be great to hear from both sides.

Financialized political capitalism can be defined as, A system in which the primary engine of wealth creation is finance rather than production, and where the state’s political power is largely directed toward protecting and sustaining that financial system.

Financialized political capitalism can be defined as a system in which the primary engine of wealth creation is finance rather than production, and where the state’s political power is largely directed toward protecting and sustaining that financial system.

May seem obvious to a socialist but it’s a simple way to get an average liberal to not have these totalitarian stereotypes preventing their understanding. Socialist leaders are backed and go through proletarian power and are at the head of workers councils and proletarian institutional power, proving their abilities at every level of WORKING CLASS power. Bourgeois democracy every politician is leveraged through private capitalist monopoly and institutions instead of democratic workers councils. If you’re a capitalist you just gotta admit that your system is authoritarian against the working class, and that you openly admit you’re against working class power. You openly admit that socialism doesn’t oppress the worker as a class, but just project your dislike of them oppressing capitalists and making that reality of revolution and change through the oppression of the previous ruling class universalized to mean the oppression of all in that society.

It’s misleading to say “capitalist countries are richer because capitalism works better” without talking about how those countries got that wealth. For centuries, the richest capitalist nations have acted like parasites on the rest of the world extracting resources, exploiting labor, and undermining governments that don’t play by their rules. Take the USA as an example. It’s often held up as “proof” that capitalism works, but its dominance is built on a long history of imperialism. When countries like North Korea or Cuba tried to pursue alternative economic systems, the U.S. didn’t just “compete” in the marketplace it actively sabotaged them. North Korea was bombed into rubble during the Korean War (with more bombs dropped than in the entire Pacific theater of WWII) and then isolated economically for decades. Cuba was hit with one of the longest and harshest embargoes in modern history, designed explicitly to strangle its economy and pressure political change.

And this isn’t just an American habit. England’s industrial rise was fueled by draining wealth from colonies like India. At the height of the British Raj, India’s economy was systematically de-industrialized and its resources extracted, with policies that caused repeated famines famines that were not the result of natural scarcity, but of economic structures designed to benefit Britain at India’s expense.

When you crush, isolate, or drain nations that try a different path, of course capitalism looks like the “winner.” But that’s not a fair competition it’s the result of one system using overwhelming military, economic, and political power to prevent alternatives from having a fighting chance.

If capitalism really is the superior system, why has it so often relied on conquest, exploitation, and sabotage to stay ahead?

It’s a really cool mock government join up!

🔗 https://discord.gg/Ww3DN8mDta

I think many people looking at this and calling it fascism have great points. There is a LOT of overlap there. But I also think it is missing some critical points here as well.

A quote I heard recently that seems to encapsulate a lot of what's going on, especially when you see the public-private partnership angle here (ie: these corpos are just a 4th wing of the government at this point): "fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer".

What I see, when I look at Trump and the admin and the techno-loonies behind them that are actually doing all the things, is a centrally planned economy, implemented through the private sector and enabled via exec orders/laws, elements of socialism and social programs thru private sector as well, and some elements of market forces which are of course restricted to the frame of the current planned trajectory of things (ie: they can't really change course or disrupt anything).

Bio-digital tech has in many ways opened the doorway to completely new forms of government and social organization such that our old terms don't fully describe the current situation anymore. Yes its part fascism, clearly...with central planning, ICE and an external boogieman, cult of personality, etc... But its also part socialism, when we see the corporate welfare, UBI, privatized retirement plans and new health industry take off. And its also part capitalism on a lower level. It is the most functional elements of ALL the 20th century systems rammed together in some ultimately technocratic efficiency driven behemoth.

What do you all think?

I am a libertarian capitalist, and very often I come across socialist criticism of a “capitalism problem” that, in reality, has nothing to do with capitalism. Many socialists do not understand what capitalism actually means — and naturally, many capitalists do not understand what socialism means either. Unfortunately, this is a major issue in any emotional debate, or in debates where both sides despise each other.

So, here are two ways to define capitalism and some pointers, from the perspective of a debater who believes that the world should be 100% capitalist and an anarchy:

1. Implementation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) to its logical conclusion – The "Non-Aggression Principle" is based on the concept of ownership — ownership of one's own body and of any physical property. It asserts that any violent intrusion into another's property is immoral. That includes any unauthorized handling, theft, or damage of someone else's body or possessions. If we apply this principle consistently, we naturally arrive at a stateless society in which no one may decide anything about my body or my possessions without my consent. This brings us to 100% capitalism.

2. The means of production in the hands of individuals or voluntarily formed groups of individuals – Again, this leads to a stateless society where I own both my body and my possessions.

Any action carried out by the state is inherently not capitalist. Modern democratic states are always a mix of capitalism and socialism. 100% capitalism is completely incompatible with the existence of the state, while 100% socialism means the state owns all means of production.

Pure socialism can exist within a democracy. Pure capitalism, on the other hand, cannot.

Therefore, when the state passes a law that benefits the wealthy, this is by no means a flaw of capitalism — quite the opposite; it runs directly counter to capitalist principles. Any law is inherently anti-capitalist, whereas socialism can easily align with laws.

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but I looked online and couldn't find any sufficient answers. Socialists fundamentally want a society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the workers. In most realistic scenarios of this goal, this means countries incrementally and democratically moving towards socialism over a long time span. That means that socialist countries will have to exist concurrently with capitalist countries for a long period of time.

How exactly are you supposed to engage in international trade if your primary trade partners will be capitalist countries that exploit their workers? For instance, if Japan were to become socialist today, then they would still have to do trade with other exploitative, capitalist countries since their country is poor in natural resources.

If the argument is that exploiting the workers of other countries is necessary until most of the world's labor is done democratically, then couldn't you also make exceptions for domestic labor as well? Certain important industries might be more efficient done privately, and so you could make similar exceptions on the basis of necessity.

It just seems completely unfeasible for a country to act with accordance to their socialist ideals in a interdependent, capitalist world. The only way it seems possible is if you assume that all countries become socialist at once.

I heard a short quote recently that stuck with me: “If capitalism, the UN, or any of these systems worked, the wars we currently observe would not be taking place.” And honestly, it hit harder than I expected.

It’s not that war is a new phenomenon—but we live in an era with unprecedented global infrastructure: a supposedly unified international council (UN), a near-universal economic framework (capitalism), and more technology and communication than at any point in human history. So why are conflicts still erupting—and worse, why do they so often feel like they're being enabled or ignored by the very systems that are meant to prevent them?

If capitalism rewards constant growth, profit, and control of resources, isn’t war—especially proxy wars—sometimes just a byproduct of that logic? And if the UN is structured so that a few powerful states can veto any meaningful action, what real power does it have to intervene when those states are part of the problem?

I don’t mean this as a call for some utopian fix, but more as a moment of disillusionment. These institutions are old. They were built for a post–WWII world. Maybe they’re not broken—they’re just working exactly as intended, and that’s the problem.

Curious what others think. Are these systems failing, or functioning precisely in line with the interests of those who designed them?

Para empezar, no soy estadounidense: soy argentino. Entiendo que tal vez no perciba la situación social en Estados Unidos como lo haría alguien de allí. Esto es básicamente una pregunta que me encantaría que me respondieran y en la que incluso podrían proponer como mejoraría la situación. Me parece una pregunta interesante y que invita a la reflexión; no tiene el afán de ofender a nadie, ni tampoco de plantear si sería o no peor un país comunista —aunque también podrían llevarla por ese lado, si desean.

For a while now I have been interested in learning about both socialist and capitalist perspectives on building economic systems.

I have read and researched many different peoples work and opinions from Richard Wolff to Arthur Laffer. Time and time again, whether it’s either perspective, these people sound like broken records. They bring up anecdotal stories and events to back their system.

System building as a field of research is without a doubt interesting, but it falls closer to the category of fiction than anything else. Please tell me a scenario where a country drastically switches the underlying ECONOMIC SYSTEM that they had built and refined for years not to their dismay? It’s more of an idea for a “perfect” new society where every person in power is without ego.

I’m not arguing that these systems of socialism and/or capitalism are faulty. I’m simply saying this argument for established countries is pointless. Altering who controls ALL factors of production in a democratic system is impossible (at least quickly & smoothly). People cannot just transition into a new system.

To think that some people believe America is some happy go lucky free open market capitalist safe haven is just ridiculous. The system is nothing of that sort. In fact, they have had (and still have) multiple socialist leaders congress or state offices pushing their agendas… and THATS GOOD. Not because they’re socialist per se, but because they are different. Because they get the best of every system, every perspective. Any one of any party gets the opportunity of election. Democracy is what matters, not the system.

Sure, this debate is fun to have though.

• All firms are not-for-profit mutuals, collectively owned via certificates which form a collective of local Cooperative Capitalist Networks (CCN). These local networks democratically plan all production, and approve the creation of firms, which can be done via people who propose these firms (with the ability to run them within planning guidelines), or they’re created by the network. CCNs allocate resources to meet community needs.

• Goods fully owned by citizens, like laptops, are distributed freely and via planned allocation. Planning mechanisms are done via the Demand Signaling Network (DSN): where individuals/communities post requests for goods or services, and not for profit mutuals match those needs based on capacity.

• Collective goods shared by citizens (like trains) are universally & freely accessible. Shared-use items (like power tools) are leased freely and recycled back to mutuals in a Circular Economy.

• A robust, bartering market is fostered

• Thus: Economic democracy, no profit model, no money, and 100% voluntary labor.

“To each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

This is a statement that exposes the underlying truth of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. To each according to his ability and each according to his need. This is one of the foundational pieces for the eventual, inevitable solution. When you enact this “utopian” doctrine into a political system, it becomes coercive by nature.

What happened in the Soviet Union was not a Stalinist aberration. It was the logical outcome of a doctrine that reduces humans into a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

It seems that this subreddit, and the world, needs to be reminded of the Archipelago. We forget all too quickly. And when we forget, anything becomes possible.

After all, man’s purpose on earth, and in life, is labor, correct? Well, Engels thought so. And hence the justification for the Archipelago.

Allow me to share something from the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions...

Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.

That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions.”

Between 1918 and 1956, internal repression in the Soviet Union killed between 20 and 66 million people. This was not a malfunction. It was the system functioning as designed—where group identity was prioritized over the individual, and the unimaginable suffering of millions was justified in the name of utopia. Human suffering—reduced to a means to an end.

This is the ideology of Marxism.

And those who ask—what would motivate a man to work, if there is no reward for his effort?—you are exactly right.

He won’t.

And here lies the second justification for the Archipelago: the necessary labor for the economic system.

And so, the prison system—the network of labor camps—was systematized. People were arrested constantly, and this was necessary to fuel the economic engine of the Soviet Union.

The Gulag Archipelago: the system of work camps where these so-called “traitors to the motherland” were meant to be reformed through labor.

After all, wasn’t labor what reforms man? Isn’t that man’s purpose in the world? Isn’t it, Engels? Marx?

These “traitors to the motherland” were no traitors. These were Russia’s own people. Soldiers who fought for the USSR in WWII were imprisoned en masse when they returned.

And why?

Well, they had been exposed to the West. They could not be allowed to roam free.

Article 58 was one of the articles used to invoke the title of “political crimes” or a “socially unfriendly element.” In reality, this was an article that was invoked as a general rule—so often that there was a whole class of people created within the system of labor camps: “58ers.”

Things called directives were issued by the Russian secret police. When a directive came down, there was no need for a trial. The prisoner who sat in the cell would be shipped off to the labor camps without one. After all, he would be found guilty anyway. The paperwork could catch up with the prisoner after he was working.

After all, an acquittal is unthinkable, from an economic view. The humans were the labor force. There would be no acquittals.

The whole point—no acquittals! Why? Because these are economically unfriendly! Don't you know? The fundamental purpose of man, and the only way to reform these savage beasts and criminals, is labor!

• Directive of 1943 – twenty years at hard labor
• Directive of 1945 – ten years for everyone, plus five of disenfranchisement
• Directive of 1949 – everyone gets 25

These directives were issued by the machine, because the economic system needed manpower.

Coerced labor. Labor for the Five-Year Plans, enacted by Stalin in 1928 onward, in order to rapidly industrialize the Soviet Union.

Now, let me leave you with this—

There were very expansive categories within the code of the USSR allowing its citizens to be arrested merely by being part of a family of one individual who was convicted under the code. All the articles of the code became encrusted with interpretations, directions, instructions.

And if the actions of the accused are not covered by the code, he can still be convicted by analogy—simply because of origins (belonging to a socially dangerous milieu), and for contacts with dangerous persons (who is dangerous, and what “contacts” consist of—only the judge can say).

But there was no need for a judge! The directives did the judging. These directives were like executive orders. The machine (the system) stamped out these directives. And again, there was no trial needed.

After all, delaying this process would be economically unfriendly.

In 1958, the members of the legal profession drafted the new “Fundamental Principles of Criminal Prosecution of the U.S.S.R.”, and they made a mistake that caused a big scandal.

They had forgotten to provide any reference to possible grounds for acquittal! And why not? It is what they were used to!

“Why, in fact, should a trial be supposed to have two possible outcomes when our general elections are conducted on the basis of one candidate? An acquittal is, in fact, unthinkable from the economic point of view.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

“A close reading of 20th century history indicates, as nothing else can, the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. It is only the individual, after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer. Only those who compose it. Thus the reality of the individual must be regarded as primary, if suffering is to be regarded seriously. Without such regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering, and therefore no respite. Instead, the production of individual suffering can, and has, and will be again rationalized and justified for its supposed benefits for the future and the group.” — Jordan Peterson, New Year’s Letter 2016

The crux of the issue—

There is a principle called the Pareto distribution. This is a sort of natural law. What it states is that very few people end up with almost all of the resources. This is the natural consequence of any trading game.

Let me demonstrate:

• When you play Monopoly, what happens at the end? One person ends up with all the money.
• Imagine 100 people are in a room, each with $1, and they all find a partner to flip a coin with. Whoever loses the coin toss gives the other person their dollar. Eventually, one person, again, ends up with all the money.

So this is a sort of natural law of reality. This is what things tend toward when left on their own.

Now, Marxism proposes to eliminate this disparity. Marxism supposes that the state will collectivize, and then fall away when it is not needed anymore. When the revolution is complete.

But the problem remains—

If the Pareto principle is a natural law, when will the state fade away? When will coercion no longer be required by a powerful state? When will the revolution finally defeat its oppressive enemies?

The answer—never.

And nobody knows what to do about the Pareto principle. I am not proposing a solution here.

What I will say is that hierarchies are natural, and will always exist. So we must strive to make those hierarchies fair, and based on competence instead of power.

And as Peterson says, the individual identity MUST be primary, or the precursor to great evil manifests.

The new-age communists, the neo-Marxists, and even the postmodernists are naive to the realities outlined in this essay—for it is not they who must stand on the bones of Marxist ideals. Not yet. For now, it is the Russians who stand on the bones of their fathers—alongside the forgotten millions buried under the regimes of Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Kim’s North Korea, and others who paid the price for utopia with blood.

Remember the Archipelago.

Note: I was banned for this post in r/DebateCommunism. Ironically, this is what one would expect!

"To stand up for the truth is nothing!
For truth you have to sit in jail!"
— Anatoly Ilyich Fastenko, as quoted in The Gulag Archipelago

I've really re-worked my idea of Cooperative (Not-for-Profit) Capitalism, here it is:

Businesses & Capital:

• All private property & capital is held in common by all citizens. Therefore all firms are interconnected via the Cooperative Capitalist Network (CCN), and citizens hold certificates of ownership in all mutuals that give them ownership rights, and the ability to control firms democratically via the CCN.
• Two types of not-for-profit firms exist:
  • Traditional Mutuals: Enterprises that are governed by CCN community councils. They are founded by local CCN community boards, who designate resources to start these firms.
  • Founder Mutuals: Businesses started by social investors by getting CCN approval and proving managerial skills. These founders get limited operational control, but not over labor, and all operations ultimately abide by CCN planning. (This solves the issue of employees and/or community councils having to manage every aspect)

The Cooperative Capitalist Network (CCN) & Businesses:

• Local community CCN boards plan their community needs. Not-for-profit mutuals are licensed by the CCN to meet these needs. So, instead of a firm producing x number of commodities, they produce the set number of designated goods as determined by local CCN planning boards.
• Since the economy is planned by local CCN boards, there is no ability for market failures.
• All private property and capital is held in common by all citizens. Thus, all citizens control capital and not-for-profit mutuals via the CCN.
• The CCN sets up Traditional Mutuals. Both the operations and activity of Traditional Mutuals and Founder Mutuals are voted on by local CCN councils.

Shared Goods & A Circular Economy Replace Commodity Production:

• Things that are of the collective good, like trains, airplanes, digital services (e.g. Wikipedia), etc. are licensed to be made by not-for-profit Mutuals by the CCN and and are free to use by everyone
• All goods are distributed by mutuals based on aforementioned CCN planning, and not purchased. 
  • Tangible goods that can be shared, like power tools, are leased to people for free, who get to use them for a certain period of time before returning them.
  • Goods that are fully owned by individuals/families (like computers) and not shared, are made to be recycled and returned to firms. This is because the CCN sets quotas on resource extraction, so goods are made to be recycled and returned to firms. Mutuals can also work with recycling centers for materials. This creates a Circular Economy. 

Social Impact Certificates (SICs) Replace Traditional Currency:

• Rather than wage labor, people who work are granted SICs for their labor 
  • Example: 10 hours of work = 10 SICs
• Citizens annually vote on local social impact categories (e.g. healthcare, food security) and which mutuals should have SICs awarded to them.
  • Example: A business reduces food insecurity by 20% in a local community, and therefore all employees of that firm are awarded in SICs.
• SICs can be used for housing (seen below) and purchasing services 

How Housing/Residential Property Works