So, after requesting a few people to help me out on this, here we go.
This should be straight forward enough. As we all know, this OP will be wholly fair and balanced.
I will be arguing for freedom and peace loving workers of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. These are not necessarily representative of my own views, but are an attempt to present the "other" side of the argument. The lackeys of western imperialism, @Terese , @David1967 , and @metis will be arguing for the USA and the West. Metis will be arguing a "Neo-Marxist" position, giving a little extra scope to the discussion, but it is still (probably) still an anti-Soviet revisionist lapdog who is opposes to the "Marxist-Leninist" model of Communism/Marxism.
It will probably come up some time along the way of defining whose was on whose side. it boils down to pro-USSR and pro-USA but after that it's a bit more open. As a rough guide for which countries that definition of "communism" covers, I have included a map from wikipedia below which shows all countries identifying as Marxist-Leninist and Maoist at their maximum extent (1979-1983). There were divisions within the Communist bloc (notably the Sino-Soviet Split between the USSR and China), but they share roughly the same system which I will be trying to *cough* "defend" to the best of my ability as a devils advocate.
.
My hope is that we will focus on defending the governments as they actually were rather than how they were presented in offical propaganda. this is so we debate them on the basis of recognising both systems had their share merits and faults. This is only a rough guide and I hope by the end of it, we will have had an intresting discussion that will have covered more than just the theory of how both systems should have worked.
I'll keep it light and just see where we go with this. So, here's a reason why you should be on the side of the USSR and the eastern Bloc;
The Moscow Metro system was built in 1935 with one 11 kilometre (6.8 mile) line and 13 stations, making it the first underground railway system in the USSR. Construction began during the Second Five Year Plan (1933-1937) including improvements to urban infastructure, as Moscow population grew from 2.16 million in 1928 to 3.6 million in 1933. this gives some illustration of how sudden (and disruptive) many of the socio-economic changes were in the 1930's. The Metro was one of the USSRs most ambitious architectual projects, involving many artists and architects. It was designed based on Grants Hill tube station in the London Underground and was built with expertise from Britain (many of these specialists were also arrested by the NKVD on charges of espionage because they now had a knowledge of the layout of the Soviet Capital). The Metro is still running today.
I'm bringing it up as an example of Stalinist Architecture and also because it was a show case for "socialist realism" in the arts, which are quite stunning. This includes several public sculptures of idealised portraits of the "soviet" people (which are actually inside the tube station themselves). you have to admit, these people had "taste".
This should be straight forward enough. As we all know, this OP will be wholly fair and balanced.
I will be arguing for freedom and peace loving workers of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. These are not necessarily representative of my own views, but are an attempt to present the "other" side of the argument. The lackeys of western imperialism, @Terese , @David1967 , and @metis will be arguing for the USA and the West. Metis will be arguing a "Neo-Marxist" position, giving a little extra scope to the discussion, but it is still (probably) still an anti-Soviet revisionist lapdog who is opposes to the "Marxist-Leninist" model of Communism/Marxism. It will probably come up some time along the way of defining whose was on whose side. it boils down to pro-USSR and pro-USA but after that it's a bit more open. As a rough guide for which countries that definition of "communism" covers, I have included a map from wikipedia below which shows all countries identifying as Marxist-Leninist and Maoist at their maximum extent (1979-1983). There were divisions within the Communist bloc (notably the Sino-Soviet Split between the USSR and China), but they share roughly the same system which I will be trying to *cough* "defend" to the best of my ability as a devils advocate.
My hope is that we will focus on defending the governments as they actually were rather than how they were presented in offical propaganda. this is so we debate them on the basis of recognising both systems had their share merits and faults. This is only a rough guide and I hope by the end of it, we will have had an intresting discussion that will have covered more than just the theory of how both systems should have worked.
I'll keep it light and just see where we go with this. So, here's a reason why you should be on the side of the USSR and the eastern Bloc;
The Moscow Metro system was built in 1935 with one 11 kilometre (6.8 mile) line and 13 stations, making it the first underground railway system in the USSR. Construction began during the Second Five Year Plan (1933-1937) including improvements to urban infastructure, as Moscow population grew from 2.16 million in 1928 to 3.6 million in 1933. this gives some illustration of how sudden (and disruptive) many of the socio-economic changes were in the 1930's. The Metro was one of the USSRs most ambitious architectual projects, involving many artists and architects. It was designed based on Grants Hill tube station in the London Underground and was built with expertise from Britain (many of these specialists were also arrested by the NKVD on charges of espionage because they now had a knowledge of the layout of the Soviet Capital). The Metro is still running today.
I'm bringing it up as an example of Stalinist Architecture and also because it was a show case for "socialist realism" in the arts, which are quite stunning. This includes several public sculptures of idealised portraits of the "soviet" people (which are actually inside the tube station themselves). you have to admit, these people had "taste".
