Talk:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Why do we have 2 pages for the Soviet Union?--Elamdri 16:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Successor State(s)

Thjazi and I have differing opinions on which nation(s) should be viewed as successor states to the USSR. Would it just be Russia, or all 14-odd nations in the CIS? GodlessLiberal 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Socialist State

Communist state is an oxymoron, and even the formal name is "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Stop changing this back. Thjazi 22:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I would think the Soviet Union was a communist state. The fact that it was called socialist is irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise all states with the epithet 'democratic' should be considered to be democratic, which is of course a rather ludicrous statement. Arctic Nation 12:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I am in complete agreement with Arctic Nation. What's in a name anyway? Truth of the matter is, the USSR was much, much more extreme than all of the nations in existence that are closer to real Socialism (like most of Scandanavia), so to say it was simply socialism is a bit naive and academically irresponsible. Jros83 01:04, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

One must make the distinction between social democracy and pure socialism. Countries like Sweden are social democracies, employing elements of socialism but not all of them. It's a contradiction to call the Soviet Union a 'communist state' since communism can only exist worldwide. Calling the Soviet Union 'communist' goes strictly against the way the word 'communism' is defined. Just because a country is ruled by a Communist Party does not make the country communist. Communist Parties work towards communism. Never do they themselves claim their countries to be 'communist countries' or 'communist states'. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi] 15:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)