Marx and USSR?

[cb9's_unity]

I have been reading around this site and I see a lot of people talking about how anarchists accurately predicted the results of a Marxist revolution. They seem to use the horrible failures and corruption of the USSR and China as proof that anarchists predicted the failure of Marx's ideas.

My problem with these statements is that is there any evidence that Marx would have supported these revolutions himself?

I understand Marx amended certain parts of the Manifesto but I believe this part of his theory has stayed relatively intact.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

These are basic conditions Marx required for revolution, none of the aforementioned countries fit this description. All of which had massive peasantry's, which would suggest that the country had clearly not reached the epoch of the bourgeoisie.

Basically my question is why do people seem to believe that Russia is in any way representative of Marx's beliefs? Can Marx really be blamed for the Totalitarian failures of countries that did not fit his mold for revolution?

[ZeroNowhere]

I actually haven't seen that anywhere on this site, only on the Anarchist FAQ. Of course, since it's about Marx, and from the Anarchist FAQ, it can be disregarded. Bakunin's criticisms of Marx were based mainly (though not all, though the others are issues such as historical materialism, which, I hope, nobody finds to be overly authoritarian) misrepresentations, though, to be fair, Engels made a fair few misconceptions about Bakunin's beliefs, but not as many. I had made a thread on this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/critique-anarchist-faq-t100349/index.html). Such arguments are generally based upon misrepresentations of Marx's beliefs (which I may not have taken so much time on, but leave them uncontested in a work generally used as an authoritative guide? No thanks), so it could be helpful, I guess. Anyways, Maximilien Rubel says this on the matter: "the triumph of Marxism as a State doctrine and Party ideology preceded by several decades the publication of the writings where Marx set out most clearly and completely the scientific basis and ethical purpose of his social theory."

Bakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"

Bakunin: "This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists' theory. By people's government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people." Bolded text by Marx.

Edit: In before 'That's bourgeois propaganda!'

[robbo203]

IBakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"

Bakunin: "This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists' theory. By people's government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people." Bolded text by Marx.

Edit: In before 'That's bourgeois propaganda!'


Without question, Marx would have completely recognised the USSR as based on a system of state capitalism. It exhibited all of the primary features of capitalism as he understood it - above all, generalised wage labour and commodity production. It was a highly unequal class-based society in which a tiny minority held the reins of power and used their absolute control of the economy to expropriate surplus value from the workers. That part of the surplus value that was not capitalised was conveninetly disguised in the form of huge bloated salaries and massive perks enjoyed by apparatchiks, some of whom were rouble millionaires. These parasites even had their own private retail outlets selling posh western goodies, from which ordinary workers were physically excluded.

How anyone can believe the USSR was anything than a capitalist society still amazes me. Traditional Marxists at the time all expected that Russia only had one way to go - towards developing capitalism - since the preconditions for a communist revolution simply did not exist: mass communist consciousness, a large working class and relatively developed technological infrastructure. Engels wrote to a Russian correspondent saying that what he knew of Russia was that it was approaching its 1789 - in other words, the Russian equivalent of capitalist French Revolution

Lenin at one point recognised this when he argued that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia but then he did a huge disservice to socialism by equating socialism with state capitalist monopoly. Also, to be fair to Lenin, he also at one point recognised the need for the self empowerment of the working class but then he shifted over to a vanguardist theory of revolution. Some of his statements are sheer transperant nonsense -like democracy is compatible with rule by a single individual. This is Big Brother talk.

Bakunin was wrong about Marx and the view he attributed to him of advocating rule by a minority. That was a Leninist view based on the vanguard theory, not a marxist view. Marx never strayed from the idea that emancipation of the working class had to be the work of the working class itself. He and Engels lambasted some among the German Social Democrats who like Lenin held a top-down view of revolution. They said in no uncertain terms that they would not cooperate with individuals who believed that the workers were incapable of carrying out a revoluition themselves - just as Lenin had believed

[Charles Xavier]

The soviet union wasnt ruled by a minority but a majority. The Bolshevik revolution wasn't a small coup or conspiracy but a revolution of the whole of the working class.

I fail to understand this whole idea that once a proletariat is a communist he is another class? No the Proletariat still is a communist.

[Post-Something]

The soviet union wasnt ruled by a minority but a majority.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Explain yourself please.


The Bolshevik revolution wasn't a small coup or conspiracy but a revolution of the whole of the working class.

I fail to understand this whole idea that once a proletariat is a communist he is another class? No the Proletariat still is a communist.

You also fail to understand that Socialism needs to be more democratic than capitalism to be worth the ordeal. Workers have more to lose than their chains now I'm afraid.

[BobKKKindle$]

When a country is "ready" for revolution was one of the main issues of contention between different sections of the Marxist movement in Russia prior to 1917, and even today there are still important theoretical differences within the revolutionary left on the same issue, precisely because it has such important implications for how we organize and evaluate past revolutionary experiments, such as that in Russia. The Mensheviks, for example, argued that Marxists should only organize for a democratic revolution, i.e. a revolution that would bring the bourgeoisie to power, as Russia would not be ready for a socialist revolution until after an extended period of industrial and political development. You are right in suggesting that Marx initially saw only advanced industrial societies such as Britain and the US as suitable "candidates" for socialist revolution, on the grounds that an essential precondition of socialism is the development of the productive forces, as this allows for the abolition of material scarcity, and industry had only advanced to the appropriate level in a small number of countries when Marx was writing, whereas countries such as Russia had only a small and weak industrial base. However, this simple picture becomes more complex during the age of imperialism, as the internationalization of production, as a result of trade and investment flows between countries, means that no single country, regardless of its level of development, is able to attain socialism within its own borders, and instead the material preconditions for socialism have only been established on an international scale, such that any revolution, regardless of where it breaks out, can only succeed if it spreads to other countries and ultimately the entire world. In addition, the age of imperialism also creates changes within the industrial countries, such as the emergence of a labour aristocracy which undermines the revolutionary potential of the working class, and therefore the most likely "candidates" for revolution are now underdeveloped countries such as Russia and China.

This, however, poses a further problem - as you point out, Russia had only a small proletariat, and the overwhelming majority of the population still worked on the land. This means that the proletariat, despite its concentration in large units of production, and political maturity, is too weak to seize power on its own, and can only carry out revolution as part of a united front involving other oppressed sections of the population, including the peasantry, and the petty-bourgeoisie, and this, in turn, means that the proletariat, even as the leader of this front, will have to adjust its demands in order to maintain the loyalty and support of its partners - instead of pursuing immediate collectivization, for example, the proletariat will have to promote land reform, and accept the creation of a new class of peasant small-holders.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are a couple of good texts on this subject which you might consider reading, most notably Trotsky's Results and Prospects (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm) and Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr-index.htm). My fellow Trotskyists may not agree with this, but Mao's 'On New Democracy' also has some interesting insights (in addition to various flaws)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anyone who can, should read James White's Karl Marx And The Intellectual Origins Of Dialectical Materialism (Macmillan, 1996), which shows from Marx's later writings and research, that he was changing his mind about Russia and the possiblity of a revolution there (in favour of it being entirely possible).

Here is part of Sean Sayers review of this book:


In the second part of the book, White goes on to show how Marx's ideas were transmitted via Engels, and taken up in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century. White gives a detailed account of Marx's studies of Russian society and his involvement with Russian socialists from the 1860s until his death in 1883. He then describes the reception of Marx's work in Russia up to and including Lenin's earliest works. This is the most valuable and successful part of this study, the book comes alive at this point.

The emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 and the social developments it set in train sparked an explosion of interest in social conditions in Russia. Modern Russian social science dates from this period. In order to study these social changes and to follow the Russian debate about them, Marx taught himself Russian. As White shows, his knowledge of conditions in Russia was remarkably extensive and deep. He kept up with the growing literature on Russian economic and social conditions, and maintained contact with a large number of Russian economists and social thinkers. In 1877, when Danielson invited Marx to write on the subject of Russian agrarian relations, 'he could do so in the confidence that [Marx] was as familiar with all the available sources on the subject as any scholar in Russia' (244). Yet the fruits of these studies, including the drafts for the piece that Danielson had requested, have not yet been published in English. Marx's voluminous notes and drafts are not even scheduled for inclusion in the 50 volumes of the English Marx-Engels Collected Works (1975- ). They are still available only in Russian.

A particular focus of controversy in Russia at the time concerned the traditional form of communal ownership among the peasantry. Would it survive the abolition of serfdom and the advent of capitalist relations in the countryside? Could it form the basis for a progressive social order in the future? Or did the imperatives of economic development mean that it must be swept away and that only capitalism could provide the basis for further social progress?

For Marx these questions related to his wider investigations of pre-capitalist societies. These included his extensive studies of the early anthropological work of Morgan, Maine and others, which Engels draws on and quotes from in Origin of the Family, Private Property and State (1884).

Marx had become increasingly aware that there were extensive survivals of pre-capitalist forms in capitalist societies. In a letter to Engels of 25 March 1868, of which White makes a lot, he says, `right in my own neighbourhood, on the Hunsrücken, the Germanic system survived up till the last few years. I now remember my father talking to me about it from a lawyer's point of view' (Marx 1868, quoted 206). Such survivals posed problems for the ideas of capitalist development which Marx was working on in the early 1860s in connection with the second volume of Capital. For the assumption which had guided Marx's thought in this period was the Hegelian one that historical development was a progressive process in the course of which earlier forms would be swept away.

According to the story that White tells, Marx's Russian studies, together with his anthropological investigations, led to a questioning of this view which resulted eventually in a crisis in Marx's thinking and a transformation of his whole approach to social and historical questions. Indeed, White maintains, they led to a veritable 'turning point in Marx's conception of socialism' (358). Marx came to reconsider his hostility to romanticism. Towards the end of the 1860s he adopted the view that ancient communal social forms, such as had survived among the peasantry in Russia and other parts of Europe, could provide the basis for an ideal future socialist society.

According to White, Marx


had not been able to see ancient society in this way before, because his judgement in this respect had been blinkered: he had always associated the search for a social ideal in the past with Romanticism, against which he and other Young Hegelians had campaigned in the days when the idea of the 'Critique [of Political Economy]' was first conceived. The letter [Marx 1868], therefore, signified a reorientation towards the Romantic movement, to which Marx had belonged in this youth. (358)

Marx's new outlook, White suggests, was the reason for his inability to complete the remaining volumes of Capital. The new approach contradicted the assumptions which had guided Marx's work in Volume 1 of Capital (1867), in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) and, indeed, in everything he had written since his early youth. A radical revision of his basic philosophy was called for which Marx was not able to accomplish before his death in 1883.

You can read the rest of that review here:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/articles/sayers/white.pdf

HTML version here:

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:F0KLPyqL_ksJ:www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/articles/sayers/white.pdf+Karl+Marx+And+The+Intellectual+Origins+O f+Dialectical+Materialism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

This shows that Marx was a genuine scientist, willing to change his ideas as the evidence demanded -- unlike most of his so-called 'followers'.

[robbo203]

The soviet union wasnt ruled by a minority but a majority. The Bolshevik revolution wasn't a small coup or conspiracy but a revolution of the whole of the working class.

I fail to understand this whole idea that once a proletariat is a communist he is another class? No the Proletariat still is a communist.


THe Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution but a capitalist revolution. Granted workers (some workers) took part in it but then workers , peasants and lumpen proles have always been the foot soldiers of capitalist revolutions, doing the dirty work for the capitalists. Look at the French revolution. The outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution was a system of state capitalism; that's what makes the Bolshevik revolution a capitalist revolution as Engels presciently predicted when he talked of Russia approaching its 1789 - the Russian equivalent of the French Revolution.

Once in power the Bolsheviks systematically crushed all opposition (remember Kronstadt) and installed their ruthless dictatorship over the proletariat. Lenin talked nonsensically of democracy being compatible with control by a single individual. The new ruling class in Russia his party ushered in (and which Stalin consolidated) consisted of the party apparatchiks, state managers and on on. This class collectively owned the means of production via its stranglehold on the state apparatus. They set about enriching themselves at the expense of the proletariat in whose name they pretended to govern. Surplus value was appropriated from the working class and that which was not capitalised was siphoned off by the Bolshevik bourgeoisie in the form of fat cat salaries, enormous dachas,and a vast range of perks of every kind. These bourgeoisie scum even had their own private retail outlets stocking western goodies, from which the ordinary Russian workers were completely excluded.

It still staggers me that, with all the massive accumulated evidence to the contrary, all the benefit of hindsight , some of my fellow workers can still swallow this utter crap about the Soviet Union being remotely socialist. Christ, why do you think the present day oligarch's in Russia got to where they are today? It was by using the well established network of croonies that dates back to the Soviet era. The Soviet form of capitalism was a preparation for and a prelude to the kind of mafia capitalism that operates there today in which 40% of the economy supposedly belongs to the mafia. In that sense, yes, the Soviet dictatorship over the proletariat was a transntional society of sorts

[Charles Xavier]

THe Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution but a capitalist revolution. Granted workers (some workers) took part in it but then workers , peasants and lumpen proles have always been the foot soldiers of capitalist revolutions, doing the dirty work for the capitalists. Look at the French revolution. The outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution was a system of state capitalism; that's what makes the Bolshevik revolution a capitalist revolution as Engels presciently predicted when he talked of Russia approaching its 1789 - the Russian equivalent of the French Revolution.

Once in power the Bolsheviks systematically crushed all opposition (remember Kronstadt) and installed their ruthless dictatorship over the proletariat. Lenin talked nonsensically of democracy being compatible with control by a single individual. The new ruling class in Russia his party ushered in (and which Stalin consolidated) consisted of the party apparatchiks, state managers and on on. This class collectively owned the means of production via its stranglehold on the state apparatus. They set about enriching themselves at the expense of the proletariat in whose name they pretended to govern. Surplus value was appropriated from the working class and that which was not capitalised was siphoned off by the Bolshevik bourgeoisie in the form of fat cat salaries, enormous dachas,and a vast range of perks of every kind. These bourgeoisie scum even had their own private retail outlets stocking western goodies, from which the ordinary Russian workers were completely excluded.

It still staggers me that, with all the massive accumulated evidence to the contrary, all the benefit of hindsight , some of my fellow workers can still swallow this utter crap about the Soviet Union being remotely socialist. Christ, why do you think the present day oligarch's in Russia got to where they are today? It was by using the well established network of croonies that dates back to the Soviet era. The Soviet form of capitalism was a preparation for and a prelude to the kind of mafia capitalism that operates there today in which 40% of the economy supposedly belongs to the mafia. In that sense, yes, the Soviet dictatorship over the proletariat was a transntional society of sorts


You need to brush up on your history on the Russian Revolution, there was 3 revolutions between 1905 to 1917, two occured in 1917. The Revolution in 1905 failed, the two in 1917 succeeded, the first being a bourgeiosie democratic revolution which the working class entered a temporary alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie and later in November there was the second proletarian revolution, when the bourgeiosie tried to crush the revolutionary movement.

The success of the Russian revolution was from the Petrograd and Moscow Soviet in an alliance with peasants and soldiers, industrial centres of Tsarist Russia.

No wealth was extracted to create a surplus value in the October Revolution to enrich party members, not even bourgeioisie scholars claim that. I really am confused where you get your information from, I believe its from a second hand source, the author that write stuff in your ass and you pull it out from there once and awhile. However I really don't think sourcing fact from your ass will stand the test of time because your ass doesn't read or study very hard.

[robbo203]

You need to brush up on your history on the Russian Revolution, there was 3 revolutions between 1905 to 1917, two occured in 1917. The Revolution in 1905 failed, the two in 1917 succeeded, the first being a bourgeiosie democratic revolution which the working class entered a temporary alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie and later in November there was the second proletarian revolution, when the bourgeiosie tried to crush the revolutionary movement.

The success of the Russian revolution was from the Petrograd and Moscow Soviet in an alliance with peasants and soldiers, industrial centres of Tsarist Russia.

No wealth was extracted to create a surplus value in the October Revolution to enrich party members, not even bourgeioisie scholars claim that. I really am confused where you get your information from, I believe its from a second hand source, the author that write stuff in your ass and you pull it out from there once and awhile. However I really don't think sourcing fact from your ass will stand the test of time because your ass doesn't read or study very hard.


I think you need to brush up on your reading skills! I did not say "wealth was extracted to create a surplus value in the October Revolution to enrich party members". I said the Bolshevik Revolution was fundamentally a capitalist revolution that established a state run system of capitalism and that all goes with that including the extraction of surplus value from the new ruling class which as any Marxist knows is the inevitable accompaniment of the wages system. Next perhaps you will denying there was a wages system in the USSR. There is no ends to the lengths that bourgeois apologists like you will go to to defend your rotten viciously anti-working class system of state capitalism that was the USSR. Indeed it laid the foundations of the mafia state of oligarchs that is the Russian Federation today yet you still defend it.

[ComradeOm]

THe Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution but a capitalist revolutionThis always confuses me. The Bolsheviks were the one party not to partake in the bourgeois Provisional Government and to actively oppose the reactionary tide during the Civil War; the party that eliminated the bourgeoisie as a class and attempted to create a moneyless economy; the party that legalised peasant land seizures and was the party of the proletariat... yet some people persist in labelling them as "bourgeois". This is a label that has no connection with reality (certainly it doesn't reflect the class composition of the party nor its programme) but I can accept that as simple sectarianism. What is not acceptable is the suggestion that the Russian proletariat was either a) stupid enough to be collectively duped by a crowd of charlatans, or b) not actually revolutionary. Both are insulting and both display a deep ignorance as to the actual events of 1917

I'm hoping that there is no need to rehash the entire history of that eventful year but its always useful to note the level of direct support enjoyed by the Bolsheviks in 1917. From the end of the summer they, the only party untainted by association with an actual bourgeois government, succeeded in winning soviet after soviet as their popularity soared. Despite the efforts of the Menshevik dominated soviet executive - no, that position was not a Bolshevik creation either - when the Second All-Russian Congress was called the Bolsheviks possessed more delegates than the other parties combined. This was seconded by the Constitutional Assembly which confirmed the RSDLP(B) as the de facto party of the Russian proletariat. Are you going to argue that this proletariat, which achieved a level of revolutionary activity and class conciousness that equals or surpasses anything seen in the West, was simply duped by a tiny elite of disguised capitalists?

Even a class analysis of the Bolshevik Central Committee of 1917-1919 reveals the bankruptcy of this analysis. Of its 18 full members* only two (Dzerzhinsky and Kollontai) could be said to be drawn from noble or bourgeois backgrounds. Compare to the ten who were drawn from either the proletariat or peasantry and the further six from petite-bourgeois families. So the Bolsheviks were not bourgeois in background, not bourgeois in support, and not bourgeois in action. In fact the only evidence that you have presented for this assertion is that the Bolsheviks failed. Unfortunate of course but no reason to suggest that they were liars from the start or really bourgeois in character

*The full (as opposed to candidate) members being: Artyom (Sergeyev), Berzin, Bubnov, Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, Zinovyev, Kamenev, Kollontay, Krestinsky, Lenin, Milyutin, Muranov, Smilga, Sokolnikov, Stalin, Trotsky, Uritsky and Shaumyan


Granted workers (some workers) took part in it but then workers , peasants and lumpen proles have always been the foot soldiers of capitalist revolutions, doing the dirty work for the capitalists. Look at the French revolutionThe differences between the French and Russian revolutions should be apparent enough for all to see. Apparently not

That the French Revolution was bourgeois in character is obviously not in doubt. Its leading figures were drawn from either the bourgeoisie or nobility and had virtually no contact with, never mind sympathy for, the proletariat or peasantry. Indeed the efforts of the various revolutionary leaders to marginalise the Commune are well documented. And this was easy to do for the declared goals of the Revolution were unquestionably liberal in tone - its famous declaration specifically defined and protected both individual rights and property ownership. The latter was only disputed by the most radical deputies (almost uniformly from Paris) but the proletariat was in no position to object as, contrary to your assertion, much of the Revolution's "dirty work" was carried out by the thoroughly bourgeois National Guard

The contrast to Russia should be obvious. Here was a revolution carried out exclusively by the proletariat seeking far reaching - and unquestionably socialist - social reforms. In doing so they rallied behind the Bolshevik banner and ultimately elected them to power. Where are the comparisons?

[manic expression]

I think you need to brush up on your reading skills! I did not say "wealth was extracted to create a surplus value in the October Revolution to enrich party members". I said the Bolshevik Revolution was fundamentally a capitalist revolution that established a state run system of capitalism and that all goes with that including the extraction of surplus value from the new ruling class which as any Marxist knows is the inevitable accompaniment of the wages system.

:lol: That's rich.

Anyway, if anyone wants to seriously deal with the "Russia wasn't ready!" argument, read this:

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded,[/URL] and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm#B"] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm#A) — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

- Lenin, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm