Why not democracy?

The only possible way the Lenin/Stalin Soviet leadership would embrace any form of liberalism is if the New Economic Programme was the only possible solution to mass starvation or foreign invasion.

And considering that Lenin relied on Herbert Hoover to combat the first scourge, while Stalin used famine as an instrument of policy and was blithely ignorant about the real threats posed to Mother Russia by the outside world, then no, I can't see these idealogues going for anything that weakens the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Though a Rump Soviet Union adopting enforced liberalism after a Nazi victory isn't that ASBish.
 
Maybe the success of the Kerensky government, by bringing in some key members of the Soviet into the parliament. Looking at the history of the Russian Revolution, I don't think Lenin's success was guaranteed at all, in fact Lenin was almost ASB.

Though a Rump Soviet Union adopting enforced liberalism after a Nazi victory isn't that ASBish.

I don't think the Nazis would enforce liberalism in the event of their victory. As I remember the Nazis were not too liberal themselves and their stated goal was the enslavement of the Slavic people.

I would see a USSR liberalizing earlier if Stalin was out the picture. But I wonder if there was not the bloody civil war after the revolution would Lenin feel confident enough to hold free elections?
 
also, weren't there some noticeable problems with capitalism/democracy at the time of Marx and Lenin, things like robber barons and monopolies? In OTL, the worst of these problems were done away with by worker unions and federal law, but Marx didn't see this coming.....

This is certainly true in the devleoped world, but what about the rest?

But the lack of reforms certainly engendered radicalism, at least in my opinion.
 
I'm not an economist, just an anarchist.

No reason an anarchist can't be an economist. We're against government, not the economy!

Unfortunately however toothbrushes have to be made in factories. And whoever controls those decides on the size, shape and price of the brushes. Thus communists do end up controlling your toothbrush.

But hey, they probably already kicked your teeth out.

The whole point of communism is that workers control the factories. Not the bosses, not the party, but the people who get up in the morning, go to work, and turn the machines. Now, of course, that's rarely happened, but we are talking about "theoretical, pure" communism.

I'm fairly sure the definition of peasant is someone who doesn't own their own land, but works on someone elses.

(but I could be wrong)

Not technically. However, in both Russia and China, such was often the de facto case. (it's also worth noting that when the serfs were "freed" in Russia, they were often charged for the land they were "given" so that the nobility could still profit off of it. This meant many of them were in debt their entire lives, which of course negatively affected the liberalization of the Russian economy)

The only possible way the Lenin/Stalin Soviet leadership would embrace any form of liberalism is if the New Economic Programme was the only possible solution to mass starvation or foreign invasion.

But Lenin did embrace the NEP. Stalin took it apart before it was supposed to be finished, of course. So really, it seems that Lenin became a Menshevik after the revolution. That's my analysis, anyway.
 
I think Lenin only intended for the NEP to be a temporary measure.

In one of the books I've read on the Revolution, the aftermath of the war (I think) was called "The False Thermidor"--false because the radicals were being less radical (for the moment), not because the radicals were beheaded.
 
I think Lenin only intended for the NEP to be a temporary measure.

In one of the books I've read on the Revolution, the aftermath of the war (I think) was called "The False Thermidor"--false because the radicals were being less radical (for the moment), not because the radicals were beheaded.

Yeah, it was temporary, but he enacted it because he thought (rather correctly, I think) that it was the only way Russia could recover from the Civil War. A bit like Reconstruction, really. Of course it was probably the least popular decision he ever made.
 
Scholars and political scientists have noticed that communism according to marx is the last form of system to be used in agrarian nations, like Russia and China at the time of their revolutions. So I wonder why couldn't Lenin and his buddies have decided that democracy or a republic was the way to go in stead? And for that matter why couldn't democracy have spread like Communism did in third world nations? I haven't done any research on this, so I could be completely ass-out on this one
Communism says that everyone is completely and utterly equal. People in poor nationns want the same power as the rich people, and even in America rich people influence middle and lower class people.
 
Top