The Soviet Union: It’s Socialist Lie and Subsequent Ideological Resonations in the U.S., Middle-Eastern Nations, and the World
By Dean Sayers

The United Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R.) has had a myriad of misconceptions, misinterpretations and outright lies associated with its name. This is both applicable to the overwhelming consensus in the United States as well as both the consensus and state claims prevalent in the U.S.S.R. Because of the Soviet Union’s colonial imperialism in the Middle East, countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have strong anti-socialist, anti-communist and anti-Marxist consensuses. I feel strongly that a realistic understanding of such issues would lead not only to more reasonable, widespread economic decision – making, sympathy for the ideas of Karl Marx, Marx’s words having more positive effect on people’s understanding of economic issues and a stronger, more reasonable Marxist movement.

Immediately upon the Bolshevik rise to power, they disposed of the interim government and the soviets (worker collectives), in what was called “war communism.” This was actually counter-revolutionary, as the objective interpretation of Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” is precisely what the term seems to in itself state: a dictation of legislation and legal activity by the proletarian class. The state was dubbed “soviet” after the illegalization of the soviets as well as independent labor unions. This state of things was called by Vladimir Lenin “state capitalism” and “socialism,” in addition to the soviet/labor union/dictatorship of the proletariat contradictions in a classic example of doublespeak that was to become an all – too familiar norm amongst the leaders of the U.S.S.R. To his credit, however, Lenin was the first leader to grant women and minorities suffrage – though it was only as realistic or effective as that enjoyed by women and minorities in the U.S. today.

Despite Lenin’s shortcomings and moral failings, he was one of the best leaders of the U.S.S.R., probably only surpassed by Gorbachev. Most other leaders who committed few atrocities still sought to maintain the status quo established by a mutuality between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and maintained strict controls over the populace similar to those present in China.

Marx’s is, essentially, a messianistic theory of social development. His messiah, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is clearly nothing like what has been seen in the U.S.S.R. (or for that matter in any “Leninist” state). The expected norm in such a state would be layers of government which are truly based in the people and truly responsive to the will of the people. The unionism and soviets outlawed in the U.S.S.R. are classic examples of mediums which would have been encouraged by figures like Karl Marx, not made illegal. There were, in fact, no elements of Marx’s “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” present in the so-called “Soviet” Union.

The major injustice here was done to Karl Marx’s name: Leninism, an authoritarian interpretation of an ideology actually based on socialist (control of the state by the proletariat) progress, was not only the policy of the U.S.S.R., but became synonymous with the terms “Marxism” and “Communism” themselves. This mindset was not only prevalent in the U.S.S.R., but prevalent – perhaps much more so – in the United States. As a bane to our knowledge of Marx, most states claiming to follow Marxist ideals (with the possible exception of Venezuela) have followed this “Leninist” state architecture. Both this gross misconception of the ideas of Karl Marx and the viability of Marx’s ideas have been further, severe banes to our own understanding of the cold war, the essence of capitalist, communist and libertarian ideologies and our basic understanding of our economic conditions, as well as those around the world.

When I was in tenth grade, my teacher made a comment that it was a wonder that the Communists and Nazis had so much disdain for each other, because they had so much in common. I have little doubt that he not only continues to teach this misleading rhetoric, that he has little knowledge of Marx’s true ideas, but most importantly that this happens on a daily basis in high schools, middle schools, and even universities around the nation. I have a strong feeling that a truly realistic and penetrating understanding of these issues would lead to much more humanistic sentiments amongst people, help people to understand the world and the mentioned ideologies much more (particularly Marxist development) and encourage people to think more critically not only about Marxism, communism, capitalism, the Soviet Union and the cold war, but about other issues and historical consensuses as well.

10/11/2005