[legatus]

>So what what is left there?

You are referencing countries which were either part of the USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), or countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact. While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed) I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate; the history of the Soviet Union (together with its worst aspects, such as Stalinism and the Gulag system) should be understood in the context of Russian society. Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war.

>Those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West.

I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general. The legacy of Stalinism is such that the USSR (and its puppet states) are rightfully criticized, apart from a few small and unpopular groups (even in the left as a whole).

>You can say that about every society.

Republican Spain was challenged by a military general, leading to a conflict (the Spanish Civil War) which ravaged its economy and population. While the democracies (UK, France and US) decided not to intervene (partly because their interests were threatened by many policies of nationalization in Republican Spain), Franco received military help, both in terms of weapons and in terms of personnel from Germany and Italy. The USSR formed as a consequence of the extreme conditions faced by the general population in the aftermath of the First World War, followed by years of Civil War with an ever-decreasing availability of food. Once the Civil War was over, the USSR found itself in a state of constant panic of "capitalist intervention", the Five Year plans (and their horrible consequences) themselves a consequence of Stalin's fear of enemy attack. The Free Territory of Ukraine formed in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, and lasted only a few years, being destroyed by a Red Army offensive. I'm sorry, but many societies haven't faced such extreme situations, and those that did usually had some kind of allies.

I'm sorry if you (as I am, maybe mistakenly, inferring) fled from an East Block country. I'm not arguing the USSR has a positive legacy. I'm simply arguing the western world (and the US in particular) has an extreme bias when it comes to left-wing politics (both the Red Scares come to mind), and that we should attempt to evaluate societies based on what they were, not what they claimed to be. Alternative societies (in particular Republican Spain and the Free Territory of Ukraine) should be evaluated differently from authoritarian countries such as the USSR: one of their main ideals were complete democracy. The fact that they aren't that well known is, in my view, a result of the bias I talk about above.

P.S. as for the comment above, my knowledge mostly comes from books, Sheila Fitzpatrick's being one. For the Spanish Civil War there is both Thomas' and Preston's. The historiography of the FTU is, unfortunately, mostly lacking.

[Krasnol]

> While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed)

The US is no good example for anything related with Socialism besides the paranoia maybe. Free healthcare and education is not something unusual on the continent. No matter what political/economic system you have.

> I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate

This is because you assume that the SU was in control everywhere. In the Warsaw Pact countries it was the local government that was to blame here primary. Their versions of the ideology were what caused the problems. Not often they were even in conflict with the SU line.

> Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war.

The first existed for 3 years the second was an anarchist movement. Both fall much better in your category of societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations and did not show to be a relevant model to run a country.

> I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general.

I was able to vote for at least 2 parties who either completely or represented by a strong wing do cheer the DDR pretty much (die Linke, MLPD). There is a strong and relevant movement within the left in Germany to do just that.

[legatus]

I don't want to make this longer than needed; I don't know anything about die Linke and MLPD to speak about those. I would disagree about the relationship between the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, since while they definitely had some autonomy, in any case where they were against the USSR interests their leaders were promptly changed. What I find most unclear is your third point. I already noted they lasted for really short periods, and I agree, the FTU was an anarchist state (Republican Spain, with the CNT-FAI can be considered an in-between). Why did they, however, show not to be a relevant model to run a country? The fact that both were grassroots based, and democratically organized would make me think the opposite. Is it because they weren't able to defend themselves?

[Krasnol]

FYI: die Linke is what remained of the former DDR ruling party. Today they are "THE left party" in Germany The MLPD is...well weird but they have wealthy supporters so they've been there quite a while now.

> Is it because they weren't able to defend themselves?

No, it's because they did not run a state. Running a state is the whole thing. Sure protecting your borders is one thing but: economy, law, diplomacy, etc. you know, all the stuff you do as a country if you exist long enough.

What the anarchists did (and yes, I think there is a huge difference if you are an anarchist or someone who calls himself socialist) is something that already works on small scale in several projects or small regions. If this works out on a country-scale remains unproven yet.

[legatus]

Then you can agree with me when saying that it is something worth attempting. It may be a great alternative, or another failure. We won't know unless we try!

(It was nice to have this discussion with you :) )

[iguy]

> it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate

Clearly not all of them will be invaded by the germans, but there are nevertheless strong similarities, and quite general lessons to be learned about human behavior. Just concluding that that Russia does bad things misses the point.

Political control of the economy inevitably means an enormous concentration of power. Instead of your boss, your landlord, your mayor (and your priest) being independent forces, if they are all one person, then that person has tremendous, almost total, power over your life. The history of what people do to others when they have total power is not pretty.

The US founding fathers were keenly aware of this, although they lived too early to imagine that economic control was really something ought to be included in the list. Their concerns about un-opposed power have not been proven ill-judged.

[legatus]

Political control of the economy by a vanguard party leads to an enormous concentration of power, I agree. But I also disagree that is about all socialist nations: I can only argue that countries based on the ideals of both Republican Spain and the Free territory of Ukraine should be attempted again, this time without the extreme conditions that characterized them the first time. If they really end up as you say, then we shall conclude that socialism as a political theory is irreparably flawed, but until then it's wrong to conclude that.