It was a totalitarian state, but I the label communist was adopted by both internally and externally.

I guess much like China is now, where anyone can say "yeah but look at how they've embraced global capitalism"...but I can see China, or Vietnam or Cuba or places like that, waving a hammer-and-sickle banner around with at least a reasonable claim to good intentions and actually working toward a socialist economic system, with the understanding that everyone is forced to live under a de facto capitalist hegemony, and it would really never be possible to have "true communism" unless and until it's a unified global movement, a "one world government" and so on, the ultimate nightmare for any kind of nationalist.

But Putinists waving a hammer and sickle flag around? That's almost like MAGAts waving a U.S. flag...it doesn't make any sense to me.

Again these are simply convenient labels attached. After the Czar was deposed and the civil war it just replaced one strong man type of government for another type.

being imposed by said authoritarian government.

Unless everyone agrees about everything, or there is a system in place to enforce whatever behaviors are arrived at as the societal standards and everyone agrees to be a good sport about that, there is always going to be a governmental body that enforces things by means of violence or the threat of violence.

Putin's totalitarian regime enforces an economic model of "all wealth intentionally gets routed to a small group of elite old men" and private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

In the U.S., we have capitalism written into our laws and firmly established as the enforced economic system; despite conservatives getting bent out of shape about things like basic human needs ever being subsidized by the state in any way, this is under no threat of being changed by either of the main political parties, nor is it really threatened in any meaningful way by any third party contenders at this point. And "corporate rights" are always prioritized over human needs--we have arranged things to serve the constant circulation of capital and accumulation of wealth rather than serving the needs of the population, and it's enforced by violence whenever challenged.

So just assuming there's always some kind of authoritarianism, and assuming good intentions on at least the original founders of communist movements in Russia, there was some point when the USSR could reasonably claim to be aiming toward a communist society--obviously it didn't work out that way, but I think at least there was some evidence that they were trying and had non-selfish intentions.

You can't say that about the current regime. It is plainly kleptocratic, and ostensibly capitalist at any rate (the West "won the Cold War" after all).

Yet some people still refer to Russia as if it were the USSR. Why?

If you want to call them communist or kumquats really makes no difference. It is just a label chosen by you or others.

I will refer to Putin and his playmates as despicable excuses for human beings and leave it at that.

I don't want to call him a communist; it pisses me off that people do.

by privileged elites. Always ruled over by terror.

Private businesses were nationalized. Farmland was nationalized.

When Soviet Russia took over Ukraine, its farmland and wheat belonged to Russia, not to Ukraine.

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2022, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

That's what socialism is about, and communisim was a form of socialism.

The thing is though, pure socialism/communism has never been successful in any country for any length of time. What works always comes back to various combinations of capitalism with socialist aspects...see the Nordic model, the US, the European democracies, China's state capitalism and post-Soviet Russia with it's oligarchs. None strictly socialist or communist.

or it belonged at any rate to the collective USSR, not to Ukraine.

If Putin gets what he wants, it will all belong to him and not the people of anywhere.

But that's what I mean--I guess it's just a two-edged sword of propaganda; you have the strong-man/fascist appeal to the MAGAts, and then the appeal to leftists of re-establishing the power of at least supposedly communist systems of control, whereas really both approaches are just appealing to some sort of will to power.

I dunno. Anyway, Putin's crusade is assuredly not about communism; it's more like an attempt to go back to the time of the Czars, except with him as the main Czar.

more "special" than others! The result is corruption and crime of one sort or another - murder, violence, theft, abuse, and heresy.

I'm talking about economic systems, and the basic intent thereof, and how annoying it is to me that people associate the current Russian regime with any kind of socialist/communist intent as far as managing the economy.

Socialism (and its intended end-state of communism) is not a system of government, but an economic philosophy intended to provide for everyone in society on an equal basis, and including public ownership of means of production and distribution. You can have that under a democratic system of government, or you can have it imposed under some kind of authoritarian junta; regardless there is a basic difference between socialism and capitalism that is the thing I am talking about here--and this current conflict has nothing to do with a disagreement about these economic systems; it is between capitalist entities and just about control of resources and territory, and global power.


I guess it's also frustrating to me that people equate communism with authoritarianism, but that's the result of decades of propaganda during the Cold War.

do people really think Russia is still a communist country?

and is that because of some kind of organized effort to maintain that belief?

Yes, and yes. IMO- The information that we see has a limited exposure, its range of influence is a viewer. It's more the intent of the message, and to promote spread of that message that's important. Whether we call it propaganda or effective marketing doesn't matter. Its intended purpose is to create a movement to effect an outcome; influence. On a community scale it can be done without media. On a national scale a political machine would best be able to control the various departments of the organizaiton, including the media.

The rest is just us people being people. along with these people:

Unless they are just far-out accelerationists or something, like people who were excited about the orange nightmare being installed as POTUS here, b/c they thought it might finally push the population into open rebellion and bring on the People's Revolution and so on.

As far as the broadcaster, etal being in on it, nah. They're just doing their jobs. It's those in echo chambers carrying that targeted message, feeling bonded and motivated by it. There is no point in any discussion and victories have time limits and a very short shelf life

And finally,

how the fuck does anyone think current Russia is a communist country?

Beats me? These people think Senators show up at the Capitol wondering what they're going to do today with a lunch box under their arm.

I thought Putin had continued the 'communist' regime just in a smaller condensed version of the soviets. Took me a while to realize the kleptocracy and oligarchic arrangements that had either crept in or were just finally acknowledged to be present.

However, I never saw them as 'not an adversary' to our national interests or our democracy though.