Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Celtiberian wrote:Some would argue that it became authoritarian out of geopolitical necessity, but that doesn't negate the fact that authoritarianism was one of the leading causes of the USSR's eventual downfall. The objective of socialism is, and has always been, the economic and political emancipation of the working class. These principles are incompatible with authoritarianism and militarism.

The downfall of the USSR has more to do with the murder of Stalin. I am for state socialism and a nation that values hard work, not bourgeois exploitation. Authoritarianism is needed to keep people in line and militarism is needed to defend the nation. Democracy allows capitalists and internationalists to thrive. I want a nation of middle and working class patriots. Due to the motivation and teamwork the average citizen will be richer then the average petite bourgeois individual in a first world nation.

What qualifies as "merit"? What's to prevent a party from selecting individuals who would advance the interests of the party to the detriment of the citizens' interests?

An individual would be judged on many things, his charisma, intelligence and patriotism for example. I want a government that is run by sincere ultra-nationalists and corrupt individuals would be harshly punished. I think a totalitarian state without corruption can exist and can continue to exist indefinitely without corruption.

In no sense was the Third Reich "socialist." To consider the NSDAP's expanded welfare state measures 'socialistic' would render every European social democracy in history as having been "socialist."

I would call European social democracies semi-socialist but they were/are not purely socialist as they allow capitalist opposition and their policies are not ridged enough. The NSDAP tolerated no opposition. They compromised with the bourgeois but it was for a reason. If the beer The Beer Hall Putsch was successful I would have seen them being purely state socialist.

A state religion would result in otherwise secular people being socialized into believing in the state's official faith. It serves absolutely no purpose, aside from exacerbating religious tensions within and between nations.

Good point, but religion can be used to motivate people. It is a double edged sword.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:The downfall of the USSR has more to do with the murder of Stalin.

First of all, it hasn't been conclusively determined that Joseph Stalin was murdered by Beria and/or Kruschev. Secondly, Kruschev's de-Stalinization campaign merely gave the Soviet satellite states more autonomy over their internal affairs, relaxed repression within the USSR, and changed directions in economic priorities away from the production of capital goods and toward consumer products. Only the economic reforms can be faulted with contributing to the Soviet Union's decline, in that they were partially responsible for the stagnation of the nation's economy. Nevertheless, the dissolution of the USSR is entirely attributable to the betrayal by the nomenklatura.

There is a consistent pattern in revolutions which establish dictatorships: The first generation of leadership usually partook in the revolution and is therefore highly dedicated to the cause, whatever it might be. Each successive generation of leadership, however, is less interested in the actual principles of the revolution and begins to instead identify with their status as state technocrats. Consequently, they come to view the state assets they control as their own property to use or dispose of as they see fit. It's no surprise, then, that many members of the nomenklatura benefited immensely by the privatization of the Soviet economy. In other words, unaccountable bureaucrats possess incentives which are fundamentally at odds with those of the citizenry in socialist societies.

Authoritarianism is needed to keep people in line

"In line" with what, exactly? Laws exist to punish criminals in democratic societies; we needn't sacrifice our right to privacy or our freedom of speech just to successfully construct a socialist commonwealth. And I assure you that any party running on a platform of "authoritarianism" has absolutely no possibility of gaining mass support today.

and militarism is needed to defend the nation.

A military is required to defend the nation; militarism, on the other hand, is not.

Democracy allows capitalists and internationalists to thrive.

No capitalist state has ever allowed a genuine democracy to manifest. Every hitherto existing capitalist republic has, at best, been a polyarchy. What allows "capitalists and internationalists to thrive" is the defense of private property rights, which are most definitely not democratic in nature.

An individual would be judged on many things, his charisma, intelligence and patriotism for example.

And why should the people agree with the bureaucracy's criteria, let alone their selections? What makes you think this process would be free of cronyism and corruption?

I think a totalitarian state without corruption can exist and can continue to exist indefinitely without corruption.

Then, once again, you're incredibly naïve.

The NSDAP tolerated no opposition. They compromised with the bourgeois but it was for a reason.

And that reason was attaining power so as to embark on Hitler's lebensraum policy—the only policy the NSDAP were seriously concerned with.

If the beer The Beer Hall Putsch was successful I would have seen them being purely state socialist.

What led you to that bizarre conclusion? Have you not read the NSDAP's 25 Point Program? Had the Third Reich hypothetically achieved every one of the program's demands, it still wouldn't have been a socialist state.

Good point, but religion can be used to motivate people. It is a double edged sword.

A gun pointed at someone's family can also "motivate" them, that doesn't mean it's ethically acceptable.

Celtiberian wrote:Nevertheless, the dissolution of the USSR is entirely attributable to the betrayal by the nomenklatura.

I've seen you make this statement before; I was just wondering what the evidence for this is. As I understand it, the greed of the nomenklatura was one of several causes of the USSR's fall, one of the greatest catalysts being a coup by more orthodox Bolsheviks.

RedSun wrote:I've seen you make this statement before; I was just wondering what the evidence for this is.

My source is David M. Kotz's Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, which is a very thorough treatment of the significant role the nomenklatura played in the dissolution of the USSR.

As I understand it, the greed of the nomenklatura was one of several causes of the USSR's fall

Another cause of the demise was separatist aspirations from various Soviet nationalities, stemming from the USSR's flawed approach to the national question. However, the leading factor was undoubtedly the counterrevolutionary decisions of the nomenklatura.

Ah. Thanks.