To elaborate, that's how the Soviet troops got there (beginning of "occupation"). Why they stood was tackled by Putin.

Most of the actual seizures of power by communists were quite bloodless (including and most especially the Bolshevik Revolution). It was the rightwing reaction to their seizure of power which made it bloody in some cases.

"I didn't read any of the Prohibition thread, so I wouldn't know.

But I doubt it. It's Putin and he was likely wrong."
ooc: he was wrong, however this is suppose to be an argument taken from a socialist perspective and your being to right wing.
ic: you should read it, its long and informative.

Actually the black markets began in earnest as soon as the Soviets loosened their economic control of the state, under Khrushchov & Brezhnev. Especially when the managers were given more autonomy over production decisions, they decided to trade with other managers in the black market for their inputs.

@ulytau - Of course I'm not saying that he defeat of Hitler was a bad thing, and I fully recognise that it would not have been possible with the Soviet Union. However, the idea that the creation of communist East Germany was anything other than forcible is laughable - imposed by Moscow, not chosen by the people

Putin, thanks for answering. But now, I can think of a few criticisms of your point about dictatorship of the proletariat, which is to say, is it not true that, instead of the proletariat being in power in a "dictatorship" (the proletariat numbers in the millions), it was a narrow group around the leader himself?

I know you may not believe that, which is fine. As I said at the beginning that's one of the possible arguments. But, as a socialist, Putin, do you know of any other arguments (whether they are your own arguments or not) that people from similar ideological positions as you might use? Are there, in short, any socialists or communists who do believe that the communist states of history failed because they slipped into authoritarianism, and, if there are, what is their response to that phenomenon?

@redhouse regarding equating authoritarianism with a failure of communism:

As I understand it, communism is democratic in theory. So, if a communist revolution results in an autocracy, communism has failed in that state. Or am I wrong?

@ Fasces: my own politics are not relevant to this discussion, nor should anyone's be. The first couple of posts should make that clear. Here we are discussing the views and argumentation of others, whether we happen to agree with them or not. If you must know:

http://www.theadvocates.org/images/bd/quiz/red_dots/50_20.gif?1351125729

Where was the slaughter that led to the formation of the East German government, Pete U? Ulytau said there was "no slaughter", not that it met Pete U's standard of a bunch of millionaires competing for votes. Did it ever occur to you that the Communists had a great deal of respect from the people due to their having done the heavy lifting in the war while the rightwingers and moderates collaborated?

Hang on Putin - firstly, where did you get the millionaires thing from? Not a standard that I applied, or even one that applies to my nation in the way you're implying.

Secondly, I never mentioned slaughter. What i said was that every communist regime has been imposed, either by revolution, coup or force. The communist government of east Germany WAS imposed. It was not chosen by the people of East Germany. (Unless of course there was a 1949 election that I missed).

Can I make a suggestion - read what I've posted, not what you seem to think I've said

"But now, I can think of a few criticisms of your point about dictatorship of the proletariat, which is to say, is it not true that, instead of the proletariat being in power in a "dictatorship" (the proletariat numbers in the millions), it was a narrow group around the leader himself?"

It wasn't really a 'narrow group', the CP of the USSR and elsewhere were massive massive organizations. The Party Congress elected the Central Committee, which itself was always a large organization about the size of our US Congress, and the Central Committee elected the Political Bureau. The Political Bureau itself was usually a committee of about 15 top administrators. The fiction of one person ruling a socialist country with an iron fist is just that, a fiction. I fail to see what the problem with electing representatives to administrate a country is. These representatives were elected from among the workers and peasants themselves. You're not going to have every single person in a 150 million person country be an administrator, and to say that is not to suggest that the country is not truly ruled by the proletariat.

As for people on the left heaping abuse on the socialist countries, yes - there are plenty. Mainly Trotskyists or similar types who claim that "Stalinism" ruled in all of Eastern Europe and this was a bastardized bureaucratic & despotic version of Marx and Lenin's pure vision. (Which is a joke since Lenin agreed with Trotsky about absolutely nothing). Trotskyist's claim that there should have been a world revolution (or at least one that spread to the most developed countries in the world), that socialism in one country always fails. They argue that the socialist countries suffered from allying with the peasants, and that this was a fatal mistake since the latter are too backward in their thinking to build socialism. They claim that the socialist countries were not really socialist, but "state capitalism", exploiting the workers just as the same as any capitalist country did. They will claim the leadership cadres became hopelessly corrupt, living pose lifestyles while the workers toiled. They will claim the workers saw this and became cynical about the whole project of socialism, and increasingly revolted against the political class - ala Czechoslovakia in 1968, or Poland in 1953, or Hungary in 1956, and the fallout from this was yet more repression.

In short, the argument is that while revolutions started out well enough, they were betrayed by power hungry leaders, who were more interested in their own power than spreading revolution and building socialism.

Some Maoists also argue that the East European countries degenerated, because they forgot about the importance of continual revolution. They forgot about energizing the masses with mass campaigns. They became complacent and content with living comfortable lives. They neglected their duties in fighting the remnants of the old ruling class, and so they became just like the old ruling class.

"Hang on Putin - firstly, where did you get the millionaires thing from?"

Because bourgeois elections are always deemed "legitimate", the candidates "chosen" from among the people, even if it's a competition between one super rich candidate with super rich friends vs another super rich candidate with super rich friends, and has turnout below 50%.

"Secondly, I never mentioned slaughter. "

Well Ulytau did, and you lit into him for it. So maybe it's you who has the problem responding to what people actually say.

"Unless of course there was a 1949 election that I missed)."

There was an election in 1950, and a national unity list comprised of a myriad of different parties was chosen. But again, this doesn't meet the bourgeois standards of legitimacy, even if virtually every GDR citizen turned out to vote.

At any rate, the Soviets expected a unified Germany, not a Soviet Germany (the KPD explicitly spoke out against a Sovietized Germany). So they instructed the KPD to unify with the SPD and try to create as open a working class party as possible in a de-Nazified German state.

Putin - I'm not an American, so wrong election. However, the flaws in the US electoral system do not legitimise non-democratic states (either right or left)

I'll reread what ulytau said, but I think we may be missing each others points here.

And choosing to vote for a list of approved candidates or parties (as the 49 (which I did miss, mea culpa) and 50 elections were) is not democracy. Those elections (too tired to look at later ones), the people could vote for the communist approved list, or against it, not for a wide range of candidates, with free selection. Not democracy, not even close

While I cannot say I can represent the 'left,' I can give the answer because no government has successfully been communist.

The concept of communism lies in the idea that the public shall control the resources and shall determine how such resources are allocated. While it is a popular statement to call China, N. Korea, or various people or politicians people don't like 'communist nations' or 'communists' respectively, those nations do not have a system where resources are controlled by the people.

Other nations falling into anarchy often fail from attempting a form of 'pseudo-communism' if you will. Many hold a philosophy that the transition of power to the public should be gradually done from a committee or individual. While I cannot say for certain, most cases of this to my recollection fail to actually turn power over to the people and lead close to an oligarchy or a dictatorship.

I suppose if I were on the 'left,' I would propose that the reasoning or the fall would be the lack of a successful establishing of communism altogether.

Now how well would the economy work is an entirely different question, as people tend to be motivated to take greater strides and risk if their profits and rights to their resources are secured by the government. In communism, since to my knowledge it's never truly been established, it's a question of how well that would be handled.

Granted, your academic assignment may be referring to the fall itself and fail in transition to communism, which I would argue in all seriousness lies in the nature of power and prestige. If you hold 1/8th of your nation's power in your hands, and you are even an altruist to boot, it is very tempting I imagine to pass your power off to those who may not make the same decisions you believe is for their own good.

As we know, the vulnerability of a weak economy during such a transition, compounded with a concern over retaining their resources and property. I would suppose that because of such fears, a gradual progression towards anarchy would be more feasible in these circumstances.