What was the exactly point in which the Soviet Union become an

It's formation

>>576047
The failure of the German revolution managed to bring out all of the 'conservative' elements of the political field in the USSR and facilitated Stalin's rise to power. I would argue that it was this that marked the transition to a deformed workers state, which would then transition to a state capitalist nation after Stalin's death.

>>576078
I should add that the USSR was equally doomed to authoritarianism by the civil war and foreign intervention occurring at the same time as the failed German revolution.

>>576047
>>576053
06:00 AM.
On Dec. 30, 1922, Russia and three other republics formed the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

>>576047
>What was the exactly point in which the Soviet Union become an oppressive regime?
When the Bolsheviks started killing anyone who didn't agree with them, so pretty much as soon as whatever you mark as the beginning of the "Soviet Union".

Stalin

>>576124
Uh, the liquidation of urban anarchists, rural anarchists and left-srs started LONG before the formation of the soviet union.

>>576047
Their ideological reliance on the vanguard party to act as the primary revolutionary body ultimately doomed them to eventual dictatorial rule (even more so than what was theorized during revolutionary transition).. Stalin was the nail in the coffin certainly, and any hope that things might improve after his death faded when the soviets began to lose their foundational position in government operations.

>>576160
>Stalin was the nail in the coffin
So why were there sympathy strikes with Hungary 1956?

>>576169
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you: what sympathy strikes are you referring to?

>>576179
So during Hungary 1956, Ukraine workers found out about the revolution, in the same way that Leningrad students did. Both took sympathy actions with the communist, anti-USSR, revolutionaries.

>>576182
So it appears that, in the case of the Leningrad student protesters, most were expelled or reprimanded for their actions.

Also, in the perspective of the discussion at hand of the Soviet Union being an oppressive regime: these were protests against that same state's action of invading another country because the people of Hungary were opposed to the Soviet-style system. The whole reason for war in that case was to ensure that Hungary stayed effectively under USSR control.

>>576199
It was a protest in favour of modifying the soviet system to resemble the system purported to be demanded by the Hungarians.

Mikoyan was on their side.

The point being that even though things went to shit in 1919, the last evidence of "the revolution" I've found is in 1956.

>>576047

Never.

>>576159
Yeah, but until the Soviet Union formed it wasn't the Soviet Union doing it.

>>576047
>The disbanding of the Constituent Assembly and the quelling of Kronstadt?
pretty much this tbch

>>576047
from the start. Socialism is oppression.

>>576296
but one was an anti-bourgeois action and the other an anti-proletarian. Are you some kind of "new class"er.

>>576047
Really it was oppressive since the second it was formed. The core ideals of Communism are, whether you consider it good or bad, oppressive. The State is in charge of everything. You work for the State, you're given food by the State, the State dictates everyone and everything.

But in terms of oppression in general, when they killed Tsar Nicholas the Second and his family without trial. That confirmed where it was going.

>>576314
>The core ideals of Communism are, …The State is in charge of everything.
You don't read so good, do you?

>>576047
Literally two days after the revolution, on 27th of October (9th of November): Decree on Print instated censorship.

File: sad.jpg (47KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x522px

>you will never leave in the glorious Soviet Union under Comrade Stalin

>>576078
You do know that the "progressive" elements were even more oppressive right? Trotsky was the one always calling for forced collectivization of agriculture, and he wanted to militarize even industrial labour.

>>576321
>communism is what communists say it is, not what they have actually been as an historical phenomenom

That's like saying Christianity is the revealed truth necessary for salvation, instead of an Abrahamic religion developed during the Roman Empire that became prevalent in the West.

>>576358
Because you're using bourgeois intellectuals as evidentiary of communist behaviour?

Even better. Please continue.

>>576385
If you want evidence of Communist behavior how about you look at almost any interview with communist citizens ever.

Or documentaries on conditions in Gulags, or how leaders could erase people from history for not being Communist enough.

Oh, I'm sorry, they were interviewed by the "bourgeois," or the documentaries were made by the "man," so they don't count. Nothing counts unless it fits the worldview of Communism being the best thing ever, right?

>>576385
>muh bourgeois intellectuals

Isn't kind of representative how only "bourgeois intellectuals" defended communism? "Proletarian" intellectuals like Eric Hoffer are anti-communist.

I guess that's where you come up with the "false consciousness" trump card.

Kronstadt definitely.
Stalin did not invent anything.

>>576314
The core ideals of communism presuppose the withering away of the state actually. Including in Lenin doctrine.

>>576394
>look at almost any interview with communist citizens ever.
You mean in Moscow in late 1917?
Or Barcelona in late 1936?
Or Budapest in early November 1956?

>>576411
It's never worked out that way, is the thing. Whenever a state has attempted to become Communistic, one of two things happen:

1: The state becomes more powerful than ever as "transition into true Communism," which only ends when the entire system crashes down, if it ever does (Russia, kinda North Korea)
or
2: Abandons the core ideals of Communism and morphs into a Capitalist economy with a One-Party government in charge of it (China, Vietnam)

>>576416
How about every other point in Communist history, too?

Or are there only three times in the last 100 years where people have enjoyed Communism?

>>576420
>How about every other point in Communist history, too?
You mean like after the NEP when capitalists were directly extracting surplus value?
Or in the FYP where trusts were directly extracting surplus value?

Fuck off.

>>576047
>What was the exactly point in which the Soviet Union become an oppressive regime?
3 days after the bolshevik takeover, when Lenin created the Cheka and allowed "revolutionary tribunals" which could apply the death penalty.

>>576424
Kek are you implying that the NEP was bad? The NEP was the only thing which saved the USSR from collapsing on itself.

Would it have been different under Trotsky? Would it have been more democratic? I think a claim can be made that personal issues and paranoia aside, a Trotskyte USSR would have been similarily oppressive.

>>576434
>Would it have been different under Trotsky?
Of course not, Trotsky was actually far more unrestrained when it came to advocate violence than Lenin and Stalin. He was a big proponent of "war communism", which can be loosely translated by "enslaving people at gunpoint"

>>576434
Trotsky was one of the worst human beings to ever live, excluding maybe a few serial killers and third world dictators.

Having said that some of his writings on art are p. cool.

>>576427
>Kek are you implying that the NEP was bad?
No. I am stating it was capitalism.

File: 1442211247336.png (2MB, 1318x749px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1318x749px

The problem with most Communist states are that they require absolute adherence to their ideology - OR open borders. So far, nobody has created a Communist state with freedom of travel - meaning that anyone who doesn't want to live in a communist state can leave - since they need the manpower to form the new society.

This in turn means that they need to enforce dissidents with force. There's an interesting discussion in Hans von Luck's memoirs between him and a Soviet officer after the war. The Soviet officer admits that there are probably less than 10% communists in Eastern Germany.

Many other ideologies can co-exist with each other. Communism is one of those that cannot.

>>576874
>The problem with most Communist states are that they require absolute adherence to their ideology
None of the histories of every day life indicate this in the least for actually existing socialism.