I was taught that the Russians sat and watched the retreating German soldiers destroy Warsaw, and then walked into the empty city.

Is this untrue? It was from a Polish guide when I visited the city a few years back so it may be inaccurate but if anyone knows better I'd be interested to read more about it.

"anti-fascism, what is this 1939."

You think fascism disappeared in 1945? It has been systematically rehabilitated. They have Waffen SS marches in the Baltics, for christ's sake. This is a direct result of people like you rewriting history.

"I was taught that the Russians sat and watched the retreating German soldiers destroy Warsaw, and then walked into the empty city."

No, and I addressed this earlier. Read about the Battle of Radzymin and then tell me that the Soviets were "sitting and watching" during the uprising.

"You think fascism disappeared in 1945? It has been systematically rehabilitated. They have Waffen SS marches in the Baltics, for christ's sake. This is a direct result of people like you rewriting history."

ha right, id contend its from people like you who are deathly afraid of foreign cultures, but tomato tomahto, you know.

Alright, so you're from the United States, you passion for Northern English oppression and Soviet hagiography notwithstanding. But how old are you? Are you a brainwashed college student/that-guy-in-high-school-who-had-that-weird-obsession-with-WWII? OR are you a bitter old guard commie who's been making excuses for the USSR since the end of the Prague Spring?

Just give me a decade, or within five years if you're under 30.

" id contend its from people like you who are deathly afraid of foreign cultures"

ROFL. Yeah that's me, afraid of foreign cultures. Ask those people who played with me in the German-speaking diplomacy games, one of which I organized. And that's why I study foreign languages and teach about foreign political systems. That's why my favorite books are national epics about Celtic Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, and eastern Europe. That's why I spent six months living with a family in China who didn't speak English. Can you be more imbecilic?

I was born in the early 1980s. Anything else? Or do you have sufficient information to dismiss my politics on the basis of my background?

It's just sad that an obviously smart person has fallen for the one of the most discredited ideologies of the 20th century. I mean, you don't even have to like the Soviet Union to be a communist.

Have fun the lonely world of Soviet apologetics.

These discussions would be much easier to follow if the ad hominem attacks could be left out of it.

"I mean, you don't even have to like the Soviet Union to be a communist."

I never understood so-called "communists" who seem to do nothing but attack socialist countries. If a theory doesn't work in practice then it's useless idealism. It's also intellectually and morally cowardly to take up a philosophy which you attack whenever it is actually implemented. Self-proclaimed "communists" who do nothing but tear countries down for not living up to some utopian fantasy deserve no respect.

"Have fun the lonely world of Soviet apologetics."

Don't worry, I'm not lonely.

There is a deference though between communist regimes, no? I would take the Soviet Union over North Korea any day. Or Cuba over China during the cultural revolution.

born in the early eighties. so we have an individual who is 30 or under 30. Supposedly a faculty member at a university, who has already completed his PhD, and since hes in his first few years, is probably taking a 3 3 load at least, and being pressured to publish his dissertation, yet finds the time to spend hours on Phpdiplomacy. Whats that I smell again? Oh yes, Bull shit.

ad hominem attacks over ;)

Putin - Soviet Union was not marxist, it was Marxist-Leninist. Marxism - the genuine ideology developed by mature Marx and Engels - is essentially a theory of peaceful transition towards a classless, yet in many aspects distinctly capitalistic system that is supposed occur after the period of some ten generations (counting from the second half of the 19th ct). Therefore, any actual marxist must resent the Soviet Union and its belligerent ideology that is fundamentally different from the original idea. I'm saying that as someone who lives in a country belonging to the former Soviet bloc.

Putin is a self-avowed Marxist-Leninist. Which country do you live in steinrokkan? Are you a citizen on an ex-pat?

Typo... citizen *or ex-pat?

Jesus...can Putin33 sound anymore like a jingoistic asshole?

no

"Supposedly a faculty member at a university, who has already completed his PhD"

I never said I completed my PhD, I'm in the process of trying to complete it. I teach one class as grad student. I've said this several times, but I should have long ago stopped expecting you to read.

" is essentially a theory of peaceful transition towards a classless yet in many aspects distinctly capitalistic system that is supposed occur after the period of some ten generations"

No. First of all, how do you have a classless capitalist system? Second of all, Marx and Engels were revolutionists, not liberals.

Here's Marx:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

And what did Marx and Engels mean by revolution/revolutionary? Well let's read Engels.

"“Have these gentlemen” (the anti-authoritarians) “ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon-all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?”

I encourage people to read Lenin's pamphlet "How Kautsky turned Marx into a Common Liberal" which destroys this argument.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/common_liberal.htm

The kernel of Marxism is the analysis of society as being one of class struggle, and class struggle most assuredly is not 'peaceful'. The bourgeois isn't/doesn't just hand over power and give the proletariat a big pat on the back.

"There is a deference though between communist regimes, no? I would take the Soviet Union over North Korea any day. Or Cuba over China during the cultural revolution."

There are differences between all countries, due to uneven development. Cuba is hailed as a model but Cuba was relatively rich when the revolution of '59 took place. Cuba didn't have its capital city smashed by the combined military power of the western capitalist powers plus the South Koreans. The Soviet Union was a huge country with vast resources. It didn't need to rely on outside sources of energy, energy was its main export. So yeah of course there are differences between countries, because countries have different conditions and different historical trajectories of development.

Putin33, you are a reason why humanity will never get along. You just have so much hate and want to pick a fight with everyone. A true socialist country has never existed on this planet. The Soviets were a fucking mess of a country that pretended to be socialist, but were just using the disguise to prop up their dictatorship. Marx would be disgusted at what the Russians have done to his ideas, perverted beyond all recognition. If you are indeed teaching, then god help us all. I hate to be the students that have to listen to your dribble.

I see where you are coming from and I think it is an interesting idea.
So we when we judge the Soviet Union we have to consider that its circumstances were more challenging than the United Stated for example. Thus to blame its lower standard of living on communism (alone) is unfair. Thus when we consider the positive benefits of a command economy we need to understand, not so much how that economy compares to other countries (such as the USA) but other countries who came from a similar starting base, perhaps?
Likewise if China seemed worse than the Soviet Union then this was because its starting base was more challenging again.
Looking at Korea: Both the South and the North were smashed in the war. Today the North is dirt poor (and a dystopian nightmare?), while the South one of the worlds most advanced countries. Surely this means the North took an unfortunate path - it would have been better off had the South won the war and the two countries united, albeit falling under the American sphere of influence. No?

spyman - I live (and was born) in the Czech republic (or Czechoslovakia i guess).

Putin - Marx's idea was that eventually - as people gain more social rights through the means of democracy (don't forget he was strongly influenced by England) - everyone will be able to attain a level of knowledge and wisdom necessary to become a de facto capitalist and the system will move towards some form of collective management / ownership of factories in which everyone can have his say and everyone is entitled to the full benefits of his efforts.
As to the concept of revolution - I would recommend you read some Habermas' works on that, he can really bring marxist ideas into modern context. Revolution is the worst case scenario that occurs when someone opposes the natural flow of the dialectic dialogue. It is neither inevitable nor desirable - and the same can be said about the dictatorship of the proletariat. The role of the state in marxism is also a bit more complex than you seem o be suggesting.

BTW, just an example of how the leninists twisted marxism - Marx was a very vocal critic of the rural proletariat as a class that was essentially on the level of the urban working-class, yet was loyal to the ruling burg. class. He was convinced it was impossible to overcome this division of the working class by other means than gradual industrialization. Yet the socialist revolution in Russia happened at a time when Russia was very much an agricultural country, absolutely unsuited for a transition towards socialism. Not to mention that Marx always stressed the need for a global socialist movement that wouldn't be limited to a single country. Stalin's doctrines completely ignored that.

I know this argument does not wash with Putin - but I have never met a former eastern blocker who liked the iron curtain days better. All I hear are tales of how crazy things were. I have a good friend at work who is Bulgarian and he has many fascinating stories of what things were like (he also lived in Russia for a few years, he has some stories about that experience too).

steinrokkan, "defacto capitalism" - that is an interesting term. Is that your own description or is it commonly understood?

Steinrokkan, I have to get back to work, but if you could provide documentary examples, ie quotes, pamphlets, writings, from Marx and Engels in which they say the things you allege they say, that'd be great. I'll respond tomorrow or some other time.

Spyman - actually, there is a lot of nostalgia. It is just not so apparent to foreign observers since people sympathizing with the communists are generally not likely to have any acquaintances in the west. As to de facto capitalism - as far as I know, I've just made that up but I'm certain someone had used it before me.

Putin - I would have to do some extensive searchings in order to provide proper quotations - and I'm afraid that's a level of commitment no internet discussion with some random strangers deserves.