What would be the Marxist argument t used by a military USSR?

One thing that legitimates a government is their ideological mindset if compared to the one of the funding father's, or in simpler therms, you cannot have e a open military dictatorship in the USA because it cannot be justified politically. The same goes with the USSR, as they had to keep a strong connection to Marxist beliefs, in fact one of the main reasons why Kruschev was couped was the accusations of revisionism.

Based on that, if the Soviet army for some unspecified reason had couped the party and adopted a military supremacy, like north korea but less hellish, how would they try to justify the stratocracy under a Marxist perspective?
 
Last edited:
One thing that legitimates a government is their ideological mindset if compared to the one of the funding father's, or in simpler therms, you cannot have e a open military dictatorship in the USA because it cannot be justified politically. The same goes with the USSR, as they had to keep a strong connection to Marxist beliefs, in fact one of the main reasons why Kruschev was couped was the accusations of revisionism.

By the time in question Soviet ideology more or less boiled down to the set of quotations from Marx, Lenin and whoever was current leader, used with a purpose of justify whatever the current leader is doing. There were professionals (and the whole institutions) responsible for digging them out and "interpreting" them to fit the current need. On the level of "population" the whole ideology boiled down to the set of the simplistic slogans posted everywhere, sometimes in rather funny combinations. For example, "forward to communism!" on a train station closely followed by "have a nice trip!" on a side of a railroad or "stengazeta" (set of articles glued to a big peace of paper and hang on a wall) of a medical laboratory having (side by side) headlines "In the light of Lenin's ideas" and "Burns'. Nobody really cared.

Nikita did not touch whatever could pass for Marxist "beliefs" in any form or shape and "revisionism" was just a convenient label to put upon his forehead: before and after his tenure the SU co-existed with the capitalist world and considerable resources had been spent on the communist parties functioning within the capitalist democracies without (IMHO) serious expectations of the communist revolutions in, say, France or Italy. Not sure that anybody on the top seriously wanted communist France or the US (where would you be getting the high quality goodies from? ;)).


Based on that, if the Soviet army for some unspecified reason had couped the party and adopted a military supremacy, like north korea but less hellish, how would they try to justify the stratocracy under a Marxist perspective?

Unlike the armies of the "Western world" the Soviet Army was a politicized institution from top to bottom with a requirement of the orders being co-signed by the corresponding political "deputies" and commanders of any noticeable rank being communists. Minister of Defense would be a member of the Communist Party Central Committee or even a member of Politburo (like Ustinov). So if somehow the "army" (Minister of Defense?) takes power there is no need to change anything in the area of ideology.
 
By the time in question Soviet ideology more or less boiled down to the set of quotations from Marx, Lenin and whoever was current leader, used with a purpose of justify whatever the current leader is doing. There were professionals (and the whole institutions) responsible for digging them out and "interpreting" them to fit the current need. On the level of "population" the whole ideology boiled down to the set of the simplistic slogans posted everywhere, sometimes in rather funny combinations. For example, "forward to communism!" on a train station closely followed by "have a nice trip!" on a side of a railroad or "stengazeta" (set of articles glued to a big peace of paper and hang on a wall) of a medical laboratory having (side by side) headlines "In the light of Lenin's ideas" and "Burns'. Nobody really cared.

Nikita did not touch whatever could pass for Marxist "beliefs" in any form or shape and "revisionism" was just a convenient label to put upon his forehead: before and after his tenure the SU co-existed with the capitalist world and considerable resources had been spent on the communist parties functioning within the capitalist democracies without (IMHO) serious expectations of the communist revolutions in, say, France or Italy. Not sure that anybody on the top seriously wanted communist France or the US (where would you be getting the high quality goodies from? ;)).




Unlike the armies of the "Western world" the Soviet Army was a politicized institution from top to bottom with a requirement of the orders being co-signed by the corresponding political "deputies" and commanders of any noticeable rank being communists. Minister of Defense would be a member of the Communist Party Central Committee or even a member of Politburo (like Ustinov). So if somehow the "army" (Minister of Defense?) takes power there is no need to change anything in the area of ideology.

Ele, Flawless explanation. Thanks a lot.
 
Top