Have 20 years of capitalism been good for E Europe? [Archive]

View Full Version : Have 20 years of capitalism been good for E Europe?

RSS News

6th February 2009, 12:00

Post-Something

6th February 2009, 14:48

Yes!

robbo203

6th February 2009, 17:10

Twenty years after the Solidarity movement victory, is capitalism delivering for Polish workers?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

I think you will find there has been rather more than 20 years of capitalism that Poland has experienced ; prior to that, it took the form of state run capitalism. Whether private enterprise capitalism has delivered more than state run capitalism is a moot point. In some ways, yes, in other ways, no

JimmyJazz

6th February 2009, 20:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE49F5MX20081016

BERLIN (Reuters) - Two decades after the Berlin Wall fell, communism's founding father Karl Marx is back in vogue in eastern Germany -- thanks to the global financial crisis.

His 1867 critical analysis of capitalism, "Das Kapital," has risen from the publishing graveyard to become an improbable best-seller for academic publisher Karl-Dietz-Verlag.

...

"We read about the 'horrors of capitalism' in school. They really got that right. Karl Marx was spot on," said Thomas Pivitt, a 46-year-old IT worker from east Berlin.

"I had a pretty good life before the Wall fell," he added. "No one worried about money because money didn't really matter. You had a job even if you didn't want one. The communist idea wasn't all that bad."

...

"I thought communism was s ---- but capitalism is even worse," said Hermann Haibel, a 76-year old retired blacksmith, who was strolling near Alexanderplatz in the heart of old East Berlin.

"The free market is brutal. The capitalist wants to squeeze out more, more, more," he said.

Woland

6th February 2009, 20:13

Anyone who thinks that capitalism has been good for Eastern Europe should be given a tour of my hometown. And then a really good punch in the face.

skki

7th February 2009, 04:08

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 19:55

Eastern Europe was better under the Soviet system. The People did like it better now they lives are like crap.

Post-Something

7th February 2009, 20:06

Wait, just to clear any misconceptions up: I was obviously joking when I wrote that. It wassimply ironic that this would be posted on a website like this.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 20:08

Yeah it would be ironic. Still Capitalism is turning the Motherlands of Eastern europe to crap. We need communism in those motherlands.

Rjevan

7th February 2009, 20:38

If I suppose that this sick, untamed turbo-capitalism which turned Russia and the other Eastern European states into paradise for a few criminal capitalists and into hell for the people is something good? Certainly not!
I really think people were much better off with the Soviet system, at least they had free medical care and other advantages and weren't completely at the mercy of some ruthless exploiters and criminals.

robbo203

7th February 2009, 20:45

Russia, along with many ex-soviet countries were actually better off under Stalinism, of all things. Capitalist reforms pushed Russia back into the third world.

Source:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM&feature=related)

That may or may not be the case. It is very difficult to verify. However, why do we have to limit ourselves between one form of capitalism - soviet state capitalism - and the form of capitalism they have got now. This is a very backward conservative way of looking at things. Lets look to the future. There is an alternative to all forms of capitalism- communism!

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 20:57

The russian mob is was in hell in the Soviet Unoin now its in heaven in the Russian Federation.

Woland

7th February 2009, 21:09

That may or may not be the case. It is very difficult to verify. However, why do we have to limit ourselves between one form of capitalism - soviet state capitalism - and the form of capitalism they have got now. This is a very backward conservative way of looking at things. Lets look to the future. There is an alternative to all forms of capitalism- communism!

''Very difficult to verify''? Of course it would be sure as hell difficult for someone who has never seen what capitalism really is, and has the most infantile, unrealistic view of the world. The choice for the Russian worker is either death, or an adequate standard of living. If you would go to them with your ''state capitalism'', that all what existed was just somehow not important not any different, and try to tell them to start following your conception of socialism, all you'd get would be a few sad laughs, before being rightly ignored.

Davie zepeda

7th February 2009, 21:09

Capitalism is hell and there is no other alternative but socialism.
IF you wish to reform like the social Democrats did then you only strengthen the bourgeoisie errors of the cpusa in america.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 21:23

The People now want the Soviets back now. Eastern Europe needs to be libirated again.

Comrade B

7th February 2009, 23:42

My x-girlfriend was from Uzbekistan, her father said something like this to me once while we were talking about politics.
"During the Soviet Union things were hard, but after they left everything stopped working."
He has a very strong Russian accent (he was born in Russia) so I cannot give the direct quote, but he went on to tell a story about how the buses stopped their regular schedules and just sort of randomly showed up and left. No one had money or motivation to work.

Brother No. 1

8th February 2009, 00:52

The CCCP was good for all 15 Republics. They are really better off with the CCCP again then idvidual Republics.

Oneironaut

8th February 2009, 01:15

robbo203

8th February 2009, 01:16

''Very difficult to verify''? Of course it would be sure as hell difficult for someone who has never seen what capitalism really is, and has the most infantile, unrealistic view of the world. The choice for the Russian worker is either death, or an adequate standard of living. If you would go to them with your ''state capitalism'', that all what existed was just somehow not important not any different, and try to tell them to start following your conception of socialism, all you'd get would be a few sad laughs, before being rightly ignored.

My word we are touchy, arent we? But lets deal with with your little tantrum bit by bit, shall we?

"Of course it would be sure as hell difficult for someone who has never seen what capitalism really is". I live in a capitalist society. You live in a capitalist society. In case it has escaped your notice capitalism is a global system . So whats with this "Ive never seen what capitalism really is".

I have "the most infantile, unrealistic view of the world." Thats what I like - a nice pithy well-argued critique! I am a communist. What I want is a communist world. OK I accept that you are not a communist and dont want communism - thats your prerogative - but could you please present an argument that is a wee bit more mature and cogent than simply grunting vaguely about my view of the world being "infantile and unrealistic", eh?

"The choice for the Russian worker is either death, or an adequate standard of living". Really? So what happens if they dont have an adequate standard of living and havent died? Most workers, sweetheart, fall into this category in case you havent noticed this and not only in Russia. I mean c'mon what a daft thing to say. I think you are rather inclined to let your hysterical view of the world get the better of you .

"If you would go to them with your ''state capitalism'', that all what existed was just somehow not important not any different, and try to tell them to start following your conception of socialism". I did not say there was no difference whatsoever. I said that is not the only choice. There is another choice - communism - and that it is frankly rather conservative and backward looking to hanker after the good old bad old days of Soviet Rule which, lets face it, despite your pathetic attempts to romanticise it, was not good at all for the working class in Russia. Even the shrinking band of oddball stalinists that seem to populate lists like this would mostly concede that life was crap in the Soviet Union even if it is more crap now.

What exists now is the direct outcome of what existed in the past in Russia. If life was so great for the workers under the glorious state-run capitalist dictatorship they would still be living under it today wouldnt they? 'Nuff said

SocialRealist

8th February 2009, 01:52

This question would have to be for the Polish workers. Who am I to say what they think or feel?

This question is most likely in my opinion a very hard one. Most likely due to the fact of the different time periods the Soviet Union and the newly founded republics have gone through.

manic expression

8th February 2009, 04:58

So if I was to approach a worker in Russia and say my conception of socialism is all power to the soviets and here is how it could be done, as an alternative to the system of the old USSR, I would be laughed at? The USSR failed to establish a socialist state. It is time for an alternative where workers' councils are the supreme authority.

How did the USSR fail to establish a socialist state?

The point here is that trying to convince everyone that the USSR wasn't REAL socialism is unrealistic: such arguments seek to hide from the issue when they should face it. It ignores the historical context, its present relevance and its actual conditions. It's like all those capitalists* who say the present financial meltdown started because we don't have REAL capitalism. The Soviet Union was a valid socialist society, one that people are now turning to, and that is an advantage for us, not a disadvantage. There were many shortcomings, yes, but that is why we must account for them (historically and otherwise) and explain how they will be improved upon by communists.

Lastly, trying to drop any associations with the USSR signifies cowardice to most people, EVEN IF you had valid reasons for such a position (which I don't think you do).

*I'm not calling you a capitalist, it's just an example.

I did not say there was no difference whatsoever. I said that is not the only choice. There is another choice - communism - and that it is frankly rather conservative and backward looking to hanker after the good old bad old days of Soviet Rule which, lets face it, despite your pathetic attempts to romanticise it, was not good at all for the working class in Russia. Even the shrinking band of oddball stalinists that seem to populate lists like this would mostly concede that life was crap in the Soviet Union even if it is more crap now.

Communism isn't something you just choose, and it certainly isn't an alternative to socialism. This is basic stuff: communism can only exist after class conflict itself is eliminated. Seeing as Eastern Europe evidently had capitalists not only on its borders but within them, communism was an impossibility. Under these circumstances, the socialist society that was present in Eastern Europe (the abolition of private property, etc.) was necessary and beneficial. Therefore, it's just incorrect to present the Soviet Union as anything but progressive.

Also, there were certainly problems with life in the Soviet Union. However, much of this can be traced to WWII, not to mention mistakes which could have been fixed within the existing structures.

And, in spite of all of that, life was still much better for the majority under socialism than capitalism today. That is the question in front of us, not whether communism is better than the Soviet Union (which is the irrelevant dichotomy you have presented).

What exists now is the direct outcome of what existed in the past in Russia. If life was so great for the workers under the glorious state-run capitalist dictatorship they would still be living under it today wouldnt they? 'Nuff said

The reason socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe is far more complicated than "the workers didn't like it". The debates going on throughout the Eastern European nations in the run-up to socialism's collapse distinctly misrepresented capitalism, so that many of capitalism's "supporters" knew not what they were promoting. Indeed, many of the bureaucrats who thought they were going to make fortunes in a privatized economy suddenly found out they were really crappy businessmen. So, really, the question is now more clarified than it was in those days: the realities of both socialism and capitalism are known, and the workers of Eastern Europe increasingly favor the former.

"Glasnost", usually translated as "openness", should in this case be translated as "duplicity". Gorbachev and his clique had no interest in defending socialism, his reforms fundamentally opened the way for capitalism. Similarly, he did nothing as Yeltsin hoarded power, and Yeltsin promptly used Gorbachev to achieve his own horrific ends (ends which Gorbachev basically agreed with).

Listen, regardless of what you think of the Soviet system, its fall was MUCH more complicated than you're making it out to be.

robbo203

8th February 2009, 11:06

Communism isn't something you just choose, and it certainly isn't an alternative to socialism. This is basic stuff: communism can only exist after class conflict itself is eliminated. Seeing as Eastern Europe evidently had capitalists not only on its borders but within them, communism was an impossibility. Under these circumstances, the socialist society that was present in Eastern Europe (the abolition of private property, etc.) was necessary and beneficial. Therefore, it's just incorrect to present the Soviet Union as anything but progressive..

Insofar as the Bolsheviks had no choice but to introduce a system of state capitalism (which as Lenin himself admitted would be a "step forward") you could arguably make a case that that was "progressive". But what it certainly was not was socialist . The distinction between socialism and communism did not exist in marxian terminology. It was introduced by Lenin. I am a marxist ,not a leninist and I dont accept lenin's terminology and his equation of socialism with "state capitalist monopoly" (his words)

As a marxist I take a radically differnet standpoint to the one you take. I consider the USSR was a massive disaster from the standpoint of achieving communism. It diverted millions of workers down what was inevitably going to be a historic cul de sac. It tarnished the good name of socialism and communismn by associating it - lets face it - with a facisistic totalitarian state that murders or incarcerates its own citizens in gulags in the interests of the state. Such has been the power and orwellian influence of the Soviet propaganda machine that still, even to this day, it is able to sucker gullible workers like you into thinking that what the regime stood for was somehow good , noble, progressive and socialist. It was none of those things. It was a ruthless capitalist dictatorship, plain and simple. dressed up in the language of marxian emancipation

Also, there were certainly problems with life in the Soviet Union. However, much of this can be traced to WWII, not to mention mistakes which could have been fixed within the existing structures.

And, in spite of all of that, life was still much better for the majority under socialism than capitalism today. That is the question in front of us, not whether communism is better than the Soviet Union (which is the irrelevant dichotomy you have presented).
..

Yes you and others keep on saying this . Ah the good old days of the Soviet Union when life was so great and we only had to queue for a hour for our daily loaf of bread... Christ you are beginning to sound like a bunch of farty old pensioners in reminiscence mode. Raise your sights, man! The good old days of the soviet union were not good. I have actually been to Russia so I am not just talking idly. I ve spoken to Russian workers who dont take such a romanticisied view as you do from your comnfortable armchair perspective It may be the case the some things have got worse post soviet union . Im not disputing that. But for christ sake that is no reason to hanker after going back to the past is it now. Why do workers always always to limit themselves in this way

The reason socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe is far more complicated than "the workers didn't like it". The debates going on throughout the Eastern European nations in the run-up to socialism's collapse distinctly misrepresented capitalism, so that many of capitalism's "supporters" knew not what they were promoting. Indeed, many of the bureaucrats who thought they were going to make fortunes in a privatized economy suddenly found out they were really crappy businessmen. So, really, the question is now more clarified than it was in those days: the realities of both socialism and capitalism are known, and the workers of Eastern Europe increasingly favor the former. ..

Well that is a poor choice becuase they are only choosing between one form of capitalism and another. Of course the state capitalist regimes collapsed for reasons that are more complicated than that workers didnt like. But note you now accept that workers didnt like it. At last a concession! So what you are suggesting is that workers should go back to a system they didnt like as opposed to one they dislike more. Some choice! Ive got the revolutionary new idea - why not choose something you really like. Why put up with something you dont really like.

It is in any case a vain hope. State capitalism collapsed not just becuase the workers disliked it but because the nature of the Soviet economy was changing. To be more competitive in the global capitalist market it had to change. Capitalist centralised planning might have been workable to build up your basic infrastructure and laying the foundations of industrialisation. But diversification of the economy means inevitably that the centralised controls are bound to be relaxed. So there is no going back to a rigid system of state capitalism anyway. You have to move on and face the reality of a changing world. Conservatives such as yourselves like to insist that there is no alternative to capitalism in all it guises and that communism is just an irrelevant pipedream . We shall see. But at least now even you would have to concede that going back to the way things were in the Soviet Union cannoit in any meanigful sense of the word be considered "progressive"

Woland

8th February 2009, 11:07

So whats with this "Ive never seen what capitalism really is".

The point being you have not seen the effects of capitalism in Russia, a third-world scenario in most areas of the country, yet you make arrogant comments for things you know nothing about.

"The choice for the Russian worker is either death, or an adequate standard of living". Really?

Yes. Or do you think you know better than me?

So what happens if they dont have an adequate standard of living and havent died?

Dumb comment.

was not good at all for the working class in Russia.

Baseless and just false.

Even the shrinking band of oddball stalinists

Vast majority of all communists, workers, and communist parties in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union are pro-Stalin anti-revisionists, as is the majority of the general public. Most anti-Stalinists are anticommunists, the former nouveau-riche, now the established elite. Considering it is still one of the strongest communist movements, which is now stronger than ever, it is hardly ''shrinking''.

concede that life was crap in the Soviet Union

No. Another false and baseless comment.

If life was so great for the workers under the glorious state-run capitalist dictatorship they would still be living under it today wouldnt they? 'Nuff said

Another history-ignoring, dumb comment used by arrogant liberals.

Robbo, stop making the same post over and over and over again. Every single post I see from you is either about ''state capitalism'' or ''bureaucracy'' or that the workers lives were bad. Because you lack any sort of historical or contemporary evidence to any of these claims, you're no better than a troll and a spammer.

robbo203

8th February 2009, 11:49

The point being you have not seen the effects of capitalism in Russia, a third-world scenario in most areas of the country, yet you make arrogant comments for things you know nothing about..

I have been to Russia myself so take it from me I do know somehting about it quite apart from what I read. But that isnt the issue is it? Its about whether Russian workers should delude themselves into thinkimng that going back to the way things were - which is not possible anyway for all sorts of reasons - is somehow progressive. It is not. Life for workers in the old Soviet Union was crap. Conservative backwoodsmen like yourself narrow the options down to a stupid mindnumbing choice between what was and what is and then have the effrontery to pretend that you are somehow "progressive"

Yes. Or do you think you know better than me?
..

And this from someone who has the nerve to accuse others of making arrogant comments...

Vast majority of all communists, workers, and communist parties in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union are pro-Stalin anti-revisionists, as is the majority of the general public. Most anti-Stalinists are anticommunists, the former nouveau-riche, now the established elite. Considering it is still one of the strongest communist movements, which is now stronger than ever, it is hardly ''shrinking''.

..

I think you are living in a dreamworld. Where is the evidence to suggest that most workers in Russia and elsewhere are pro-stalinist? Cite your source. Mind you if that were the case that would be truly a disaster for the working class. It would demonstrate collective amnesia on a huge scale to want to go back to grim misery and oppresion of state capitalism. The horrible situation that workers find themselves in today cannot be overcome by limiting themselves to a sterile choice between two evils.

Robbo, stop making the same post over and over and over again. Every single post I see from you is either about ''state capitalism'' or ''bureaucracy'' or that the workers lives were bad. Because you lack any sort of historical or contemporary evidence to any of these claims, you're no better than a troll and a spammer.

So its OK for you to drone on about your glorious Soviet Union but its not ok for me as a communist to criticise it. Thats rich indeed. I have presented plenty of evidence and reasoned argument from the standpoint of Marxian economics to demonstrate that the Soviet Union was a system of state run capitalism. Ive cited sources - unlike you - to illustrate certain aspects of Soviet life - like the extent of inequality and the enormous wealth and privileges enjoyed by the Soviet bourgeoisie - to buttress my claims. You strike me as someone who has an almost religious fixation on an idea and is not prepared to lets facts or arguments get in the way. You dont like what you hear so the only response you can give is tell people to stop saying what they are saying. How pathetic. Its like a little child not wanting to be told there is no such thing as Father Christmas. How about actually addressing the arguments, for a change - and I dont mean with snide retorts - that are being presented to you instead of crawling into your comfortable little dogmatic shell as your only form of refuge

Brother No. 1

8th February 2009, 13:30

Crux

8th February 2009, 13:59

Crux

8th February 2009, 14:00

Life in the Stalin era of the CCCP was infact the best life styl for the citizens at that time. Even the citizens say that it was better with Stalin then all the other leaders.
No I am not a Anti-Revsionist I am just saying this.
That's despite of, not because of Stalin though. The Revolution betrayed does go into the positive aspects of the then Soviet state aswell.

Brother No. 1

8th February 2009, 14:01

it does. I so miss the CCCP and the Eastern bloc.

Crux

8th February 2009, 14:04

Nostalgia builds no revolution, comrade.

Brother No. 1

8th February 2009, 14:05

I know. But I just listen to this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9zBw03rpgw makes me feel all better.

manic expression

8th February 2009, 20:57

Insofar as the Bolsheviks had no choice but to introduce a system of state capitalism (which as Lenin himself admitted would be a "step forward") you could arguably make a case that that was "progressive". But what it certainly was not was socialist . The distinction between socialism and communism did not exist in marxian terminology. It was introduced by Lenin. I am a marxist ,not a leninist and I dont accept lenin's terminology and his equation of socialism with "state capitalist monopoly" (his words)

This argument twists Lenin's words. Lenin did NOT talk about the "state capitalism" you are attributing to the USSR, he talked of a controlled market within a worker state. The etymology of your "state capitalism" has nothing to do with what Lenin was talking about.

So that leaves us at square one: why wasn't the USSR socialist? Try to answer that without twisting words. Thanks.

As a marxist I take a radically differnet standpoint to the one you take. I consider the USSR was a massive disaster from the standpoint of achieving communism. It diverted millions of workers down what was inevitably going to be a historic cul de sac. It tarnished the good name of socialism and communismn by associating it - lets face it - with a facisistic totalitarian state that murders or incarcerates its own citizens in gulags in the interests of the state. Such has been the power and orwellian influence of the Soviet propaganda machine that still, even to this day, it is able to sucker gullible workers like you into thinking that what the regime stood for was somehow good , noble, progressive and socialist. It was none of those things. It was a ruthless capitalist dictatorship, plain and simple. dressed up in the language of marxian emancipation

Your analysis is hardly Marxist, for it ignores material conditions and social relations. First, almost nothing in history is inevitable, and certainly not the course of the USSR. You could argue that it was necessary, but that is quite different. Thus, most of your criticisms are null and void. Next, the USSR only tarnished the "good name" (!?) of socialism in the eyes of those either unwilling or unable to defend socialism. The USSR consistently fought imperialism and improved the lot of workers both within and without its borders. In South Africa, Afghanistan, Palestine, Korea, Eastern Europe and Latin America, the USSR served as a progressive and pro-worker force. Your denial of this lies at the basis of your anti-socialist mindset. Plus, the fact that you think socialism had a "good name" before 1917 just shows us that you're delusional anyway. Further, I see that you used the existence of gulags to define the USSR, whereas Marxists would look to property relations. Get back to me when you want to employ Marxism instead of repeating Robert Conquest and company.

By the way, using your argument, the Paris Commune was "a historic cul de sac". Of course, Marx would strongly disagree with you (to say the least), but don't let that stop you from slandering socialism.

Yes you and others keep on saying this . Ah the good old days of the Soviet Union when life was so great and we only had to queue for a hour for our daily loaf of bread... Christ you are beginning to sound like a bunch of farty old pensioners in reminiscence mode. Raise your sights, man! The good old days of the soviet union were not good. I have actually been to Russia so I am not just talking idly. I ve spoken to Russian workers who dont take such a romanticisied view as you do from your comnfortable armchair perspective It may be the case the some things have got worse post soviet union . Im not disputing that. But for christ sake that is no reason to hanker after going back to the past is it now. Why do workers always always to limit themselves in this way

This sort of argument is absurd, I've already explained why the USSR was and is relevant today. Life didn't just get kind of worse after the fall of socialism, it reached horrific depths of despair for the majority of the population. Unemployment, homelessness, crime, racism, public services and just about everything else went down the drain. We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about going from decency to a daily struggle to survive. And here you are, saying it was just as bad as today, if not worse. Pathetic.

Moreover, your mindless talk of "looking forward" ignores just about every circumstance we are dealing with. Revolution doesn't mean Gabriel comes down and carries you into the clouds, revolution means the establishment of an ENTIRELY new society, and that's not easy or simple or quick. If a revolution happened in India or Argentina tomorrow, I could forsee its citizens waiting on line for bread by March. If you pulled your head out of your utopian fantasies for five seconds, you'd see that the USSR was providing a vastly respectable standard of living to its people under difficult challenges (WWII, for one). Your perspective is nothing but patronizing and arrogant, not to mention completely incorrect and anti-Marxist.

This isn't surprising, since your argument rests on the assumption that the USSR was a fascistic capitalist dictatorship, which is beyond stupid.

Well that is a poor choice becuase they are only choosing between one form of capitalism and another. Of course the state capitalist regimes collapsed for reasons that are more complicated than that workers didnt like. But note you now accept that workers didnt like it. At last a concession! So what you are suggesting is that workers should go back to a system they didnt like as opposed to one they dislike more. Some choice! Ive got the revolutionary new idea - why not choose something you really like. Why put up with something you dont really like.

You, the idealist, may call it a "poor choice", but it's the choice before us.

The USSR wasn't capitalist. To say so means tossing aside Marxism itself, which you seem quite willing and eager to do.

My "concession" is the fact that workers today prefer socialism to capitalism, for they now see what capitalism actually is. Please go back and read what I wrote, big guy.

Oh, and the fact that you're stupid enough to think you can just choose what "you really like" again demonstrates your anti-Marxist idealism. You don't make a revolution by clicking your heels together three times and going back to Kansas. Your plan consists of about as much.

It is in any case a vain hope. State capitalism collapsed not just becuase the workers disliked it but because the nature of the Soviet economy was changing. To be more competitive in the global capitalist market it had to change. Capitalist centralised planning might have been workable to build up your basic infrastructure and laying the foundations of industrialisation. But diversification of the economy means inevitably that the centralised controls are bound to be relaxed. So there is no going back to a rigid system of state capitalism anyway. You have to move on and face the reality of a changing world. Conservatives such as yourselves like to insist that there is no alternative to capitalism in all it guises and that communism is just an irrelevant pipedream . We shall see. But at least now even you would have to concede that going back to the way things were in the Soviet Union cannoit in any meanigful sense of the word be considered "progressive"

More slander against socialism, more anti-Marxist utopianism, more straw-men.

Let me know when you're ready to respond to my points in a mature and reasoned manner. Until then, I'm glad you have an active imagination.

Crux

9th February 2009, 15:27

manic expression

9th February 2009, 16:56

So what about Hungary 1956? or Cszheckoslovakia 1968?
Since the worker's lacked actual control of means of production but rather this controleld was reserved to a small elite, the soviet union, post 1927, cannot be called socialist. it is what we would call a deformed worker's state.

What about it? We've talked about it before, and those uprisings were fundamentally reactionary. It's no surprise that the promoters of the "Prague Spring" later became important officials in the capitalist Czech Republic after 1989. The actions of the Soviet Union defended socialism; when Gorbachev didn't take action when Lech Walesa and his cronies were gaining power (just like Yeltsin), guess what happened.

Trotsky himself held that the Soviet Union was progressive and was, beyond any doubt, worth defending. He came to this conclusion because he looked at property relations and class dynamics, which Marxists should do. Many of his so-called followers forget this. The character of a society cannot be determined by looking at primarily political representation, the collectivized nature of the Soviet Union is most important here, and the victories of the October Revolution, which Trotsky recognized, indicate that the society remained socialist.

While democratic processes were lacking in the Soviet Union, we must again take the Marxist analysis and discuss the basis of this. Political environments do not create themselves, they draw their existence from the development of society. Thus, the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union must be seen in light of the material conditions of the time. We cannot expect democracy to thrive merely on its own accord, that is simply un-materialist.

And in spite of these imperfections, the Soviet Union remained a decidedly progressive force in the world. Was it perfect? No, but that has nothing to do with the immediate question before us. I think the experience of the working class in Eastern Europe after the fall of socialism vindicates this position quite strongly.

Crux

9th February 2009, 17:10

What about it? We've talked about it before, and those uprisings were fundamentally reactionary. It's no surprise that the promoters of the "Prague Spring" later became important officials in the capitalist Czech Republic after 1989. The actions of the Soviet Union defended socialism; when Gorbachev didn't take action when Lech Walesa and his cronies were gaining power (just like Yeltsin), guess what happened.
It is true some of the leaders of the opposition within the Communist Party had some illusions in market reforms. The mass of the people that took to the streets however did not. The demands were for socialism and democratic reforms, not for market reforms. It's not a coincidence that both defenders of the regime in the soviet union and the western media would try to portray it otherwise. Why things turned out as they did in the former soviet union was because of decades of stalinists dictaotship and the effect that has on the workingclass cosnciousness and the evry real lack of a revolutioanry party. It's these things that let's reactionaries like Walesa or yeltsin come forward.

Trotsky himself held that the Soviet Union was progressive and was, beyond any doubt, worth defending. He came to this conclusion because he looked at property relations and class dynamics, which Marxists should do. Many of his so-called followers forget this. The character of a society cannot be determined by looking at primarily political representation, the collectivized nature of the Soviet Union is most important here, and the victories of the October Revolution, which Trotsky recognized, indicate that the society remained socialist.
you are making a very selective reading of Trotsky here. Yes, the soviet union was a planned economy and therefore more progressive than the capitalist states and therefore worth defedning in WW2 and against other attacks from reactionaries. this does not take away the struggle for worker's democracy, and the retarding and counterrevolutioanry nature of th soviet bearucratic dictatorship.

While democratic processes were lacking in the Soviet Union, we must again take the Marxist analysis and discuss the basis of this. Political environments do not create themselves, they draw their existence from the development of society. Thus, the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union must be seen in light of the material conditions of the time. We cannot expect democracy to thrive merely on its own accord, that is simply un-materialist.
This is nothing but determinism. The revolution did not get betrayed by default.

And in spite of these imperfections, the Soviet Union remained a decidedly progressive force in the world. Was it perfect? No, but that has nothing to do with the immediate question before us. I think the experience of the working class in Eastern Europe after the fall of socialism vindicates this position quite strongly.
The progressiveness of the planned economy? Certainly. the fal of the soviet union was a great backlash for the workingclass internationally, not only through the elimination of the palnned economy, but also through the eprcieved "victory over socialism" that the capitalists claimed. this threw the major workingclassparties far, far to the right most of them losing their workingclass base in the process. So I don't really disagree with you as much as you think.

manic expression

9th February 2009, 17:28

It is true some of the leaders of the opposition within the Communist Party had some illusions in market reforms. The mass of the people that took to the streets however did not. The demands were for socialism and democratic reforms, not for market reforms. It's not a coincidence that both defenders of the regime in the soviet union and the western media would try to portray it otherwise. Why things turned out as they did in the former soviet union was because of decades of stalinists dictaotship and the effect that has on the workingclass cosnciousness and the evry real lack of a revolutioanry party. It's these things that let's reactionaries like Walesa or yeltsin come forward.

Solidarity made all kinds of declarations about socialism and democracy, but it wasn't difficult to see the truth of the matter. Waxing poetic about the "mass of the people" is wishful thinking, for the terms of debate were not hard to understand. The question was between reformers and hardliners, and the reformers obsessed themselves with talk of "freedom". Must I remind you what this rhetoric veils? You're asking us to believe no one knew the score, which just wasn't the case.

The real damning point here is that the working class was almost denied any influence in the nationalist and reformist campaigns. They were used when it was convenient, they were suppressed when it was convenient.

Contrary to your position, in reality this struggle was not some sort of battle between the workers and the mean old bureaucrats, it was between the much-maligned defenders of socialism and the proponents of capitalism. Again, the writing was on the wall, and you're asking me to believe that Walesa and Yeltsin diverted a genuinely revolutionary movement at the last moment.

you are making a very selective reading of Trotsky here. Yes, the soviet union was a planned economy and therefore more progressive than the capitalist states and therefore worth defedning in WW2 and against other attacks from reactionaries. this does not take away the struggle for worker's democracy, and the retarding and counterrevolutioanry nature of th soviet bearucratic dictatorship.Well, I am making a selective reading of Trotsky, only because I value his contributions while affording myself the right to disagree with him.

What, in your eyes, was this "struggle for worker's democracy"? Looking at the history of the thing, this movement didn't really exist.

This is nothing but solipsism and determinism.Looking at material conditions is not determinism, and I never said anything was inevitable. What I am saying, however, is that many of the USSR's flaws were necessary given the situation involved. Isolation, the growing threat of imperialism, the ravages of fascism, internal difficulties and other factors played a key role. Your position almost requires us to ignore these problems and focus solely on the imperfections as if they were an end to themselves. I'm saying they had reasons, reasons that went beyond the power of bureaucrats.

The progressiveness of the planned economy? Certainly. the fal of the soviet union was a great backlash for the workingclass internationally, not only through the elimination of the palnned economy, but also through the eprcieved "victory over socialism" that the capitalists claimed. this threw the major workingclassparties far, far to the right most of them losing their workingclass base in the process. So I don't really disagree with you as much as you think.I don't think we disagree that much either, only over some specific definitions.

Crux

9th February 2009, 17:50

Solidarity made all kinds of declarations about socialism and democracy, but it wasn't difficult to see the truth of the matter. Waxing poetic about the "mass of the people" is wishful thinking, for the terms of debate were not hard to understand. The question was between reformers and hardliners, and the reformers obsessed themselves with talk of "freedom". Must I remind you what this rhetoric veils? You're asking us to believe no one knew the score, which just wasn't the case.

The real damning point here is that the working class was almost denied any influence in the nationalist and reformist campaigns. They were used when it was convenient, they were suppressed when it was convenient.
But do you agree that there was a genuine demand for political democracy (rather than marketreforms) from the workingclass? In the case of 1956 the socialist demands was in even more full sight. As I said it was a case of failure of the organisation, or rather the lack of a revolutionary organisations.

Contrary to your position, in reality this struggle was not some sort of battle between the workers and the mean old bureaucrats, it was between the much-maligned defenders of socialism and the proponents of capitalism. Again, the writing was on the wall, and you're asking me to believe that Walesa and Yeltsin diverted a genuinely revolutionary movement at the last moment.

yes, I do believe, but much more so in the case of Czechoslovakia than the case of Russia that the potential for socialist revolution lay at hand. But as i said, in the case of the fall of the east bloc in the alte eighties early ninties these was certianly not porgressive events.
And the beareucrats soviet russia was certainly not "defenders of socialism", as you put it. They where however afraid to lose the priviligies they had under the then stalinist system, something that both worker's democracy and capitalist restoration pose a threat to. the former far more than the latter.

What, in your eyes, was this "struggle for worker's democracy"? Looking at the history of the thing, this movement didn't really exist.
it certainly did, however it is, for reasons I have already made clear, a much denied history. I have already given you some examples. the Tianmen square is another such example, it's absolutly horrible to see this resistance from the worker's and students be hijacked by some liberal historians. the truth of the matter is that almost all present were socialists, and indeed an independent union, fighting for worker's rights had been formed.

Looking at material conditions is not determinism, and I never said anything was inevitable. What I am saying, however, is that many of the USSR's flaws were necessary given the situation involved. Isolation, the growing threat of imperialism, the ravages of fascism, internal difficulties and other factors played a key role. Your position almost requires us to ignore these problems and focus solely on the imperfections as if they were an end to themselves. I'm saying they had reasons, reasons that went beyond the power of bureaucrats.
Which again does not dismiss the counterevolutionary role of bearocrats and the need for worker's democracy, something which could not have been won by mere concessions for the bearucrats but demanded a political revolution. The bearucrats were not a necessary evil, rather they were the gravediggers of the revolution. Of course the true liberation of the east bloc could only come when the revolutionary struggle sharpens in the rest of europe and the rest fo the world.

manic expression

9th February 2009, 21:27

But do you agree that there was a genuine demand for political democracy (rather than marketreforms) from the workingclass? In the case of 1956 the socialist demands was in even more full sight. As I said it was a case of failure of the organisation, or rather the lack of a revolutionary organisations.

You're talking about something that has no relevance to what happened. The movements that were going on were decidedly pro-imperialist, and there was little confusion about where Walesa or Yeltsin or Havel stood on those issues. This was not and never could be a movement that included any concerns of the working class, for its entire purpose was to strip away all the victories the working class had won.

Again, let me reiterate this: this was not a struggle between workers and privileged bureaucrats, it was a struggle between those who defended socialism and those who promoted capitalism. The capitalists oftentimes counted bureaucrats in their ranks, and we all know that the Soviet leadership's reforms clearly paved the way for the disaster that followed, a disaster they quite actively helped cause. On the other hand, workers found themselves outraged at the decisions of the reformers (one example that stands out in my mind is that of giving East Germany to the imperialists), and it is becoming more and more clear that the working class, having now been familiarized with both systems, favors socialism. That is the question we are facing and nothing less.

Those who fixate on some of socialism's flaws are, in this case, not contributing to the cause of progress. Likewise, pointing fingers solely at the bureaucracy is indicative of a viewpoint that denies the character of those struggles. I'll talk more on this later.

yes, I do believe, but much more so in the case of Czechoslovakia than the case of Russia that the potential for socialist revolution lay at hand. But as i said, in the case of the fall of the east bloc in the alte eighties early ninties these was certianly not porgressive events.
And the beareucrats soviet russia was certainly not "defenders of socialism", as you put it. They where however afraid to lose the priviligies they had under the then stalinist system, something that both worker's democracy and capitalist restoration pose a threat to. the former far more than the latter. So you actually believe the capitalists diverted genuine working-class movements? Don't be silly: those same capitalists were at the head of those unfortunate parties, they set the direction and they were very clear about where they were taking those countries. Again, people knew their agenda, and it was obvious the working class had no part in setting it.

Secondly, the bureaucrats of "Soviet Russia" were oftentimes as eager as anyone to restore capitalism. Indeed, a considerable portion of the bureaucracy directly or indirectly contributed to this eventual disaster. Again, your equation doesn't match the way things played out.

it certainly did, however it is, for reasons I have already made clear, a much denied history. I have already given you some examples. the Tianmen square is another such example, it's absolutly horrible to see this resistance from the worker's and students be hijacked by some liberal historians. the truth of the matter is that almost all present were socialists, and indeed an independent union, fighting for worker's rights had been formed.Yes, Tianamen Square can be given as one example, but to be honest Deng Xiaoping's reforms from 1976 to 1980 make the situation far more complicated and less relevant to your argument. The market reforms that Deng initiated after Mao's death were as much a part of the protests as other factors. Further, Deng's policies were taking the bureaucracy toward capitalism instead of the position we are discussing. That is a key difference you must account for.

For the record, I know very little about Tianamen, so my analysis could very well have shortcomings.

Which again does not dismiss the counterevolutionary role of bearocrats and the need for worker's democracy, something which could not have been won by mere concessions for the bearucrats but demanded a political revolution. The bearucrats were not a necessary evil, rather they were the gravediggers of the revolution. Of course the true liberation of the east bloc could only come when the revolutionary struggle sharpens in the rest of europe and the rest fo the world.The bureaucrats could be counterrevolutionary, as they were in the USSR, but they could very well be progressive, as they were in the USSR. My point is that squarely blaming the bureaucracy doesn't go far enough, and it stops just before the mother's milk of any scientific analysis. The material conditions surrounding the bureaucracy determines everything, that is why the (limited) bureaucracy in Cuba had a vastly different character than that of the USSR, which was different from that of post-Mao PRC. Again, the fixation on bureaucracy as an end to itself is mistaken.

The struggle to maintain the USSR was a struggle for socialism and for the victories of the October Revolution. There was no revolutionary potential in the reformer camp, you are again proposing a version of history that didn't happen. It was a battle between progressives and reactionaries, and as we are all too familiar with, participants who were not on one side were on the other. Which side do you support? That, and nothing else, is the very basis of this issue.

Again, isolation, aggression and backwardness helped drive the events after the early 1920's. The character and position of the party, and with it, the bureaucracy, followed this course, and socialism would have likely died without such developments. Are we to expect a non-industrialized country to withstand fascist invasions? The very real flaws inherent in such a besieged society cannot be ripped from the context in which they existed. In that context, many of those flaws were at least understandable, if not necessary. The leadership of the USSR was socialism's trench-digger far more than it ever was its grave-digger, and your view denies this distinction.

One last thing...if I'm getting too long-winded just say so, I shouldn't be making my responses longer than they need to be.

Crux

10th February 2009, 11:00

These protestmovement were not created from the "outside" by the reformers. Getting this is essential to understand what position you should take. And yes you are right, reforms within the east bloc could never have been taken far enough and would most likely been diverted in the wrong direction (if they were indeed on the right direction to begin with), hence our advocation of political revolution, rather than reforms.

And yes, as you say, parts of beaurocracy can sometimes be relatively progressive in these struggles, but as I also said it's seldomly very clear cut and in any case is just a launching apd at best. What could have saved socialism in the 1920's was not the beaurucracy, the call for international revolution. This is a bit of a catch 22 though considering, for this very reason the stalnists did quite a lot to stop such things from happening (China is a famous example).

manic expression

10th February 2009, 18:06

Mayakovsky, your points are well-taken. However, I still disagree with a few things.

The pro-capitalist leaders gained support by getting reactionary elements on their side (nationalists, bureaucrats who wanted to be businessmen, etc.). They sure did manipulate sections of the working class, but this wasn't a case of a genuine working-class movement being diverted by a handful of capitalists, such a thing is an impossibility IMO.

The political revolution you advocate has never happened and has never come close to happening. Yes, it would be nice, but it is unrealistic and un-materialist. The existence of bureaucratic mechanisms is not a purely political institution, it draws life from the material conditions of the time (conditions Trotsky pointed out clearly). Thus, these flaws will cease to be once the material basis for them has ended. We must look at the affliction and not the symptom.

"Relatively progressive" means progressive, and that's the point. Further, there were repeated calls for international revolution throughout the 20's, and even through the 30's. Stalin, for all the criticisms against him, was the person who pushed for invading Poland to spread Bolshevism to western Europe (which was probably a bad idea, ultimately). In addition, he lent considerable and crucial aid to the Spanish Republic. Lastly, the revolution in China was carried out by Stalinists, and the Chinese communists supported Stalin in spite of what happened at Shanghai two decades earlier. While the so-called Stalinists made many mistakes, they also won many victories, and we as Marxists must recognize this and support those victories.

robbo203

10th February 2009, 18:57

This argument twists Lenin's words. Lenin did NOT talk about the "state capitalism" you are attributing to the USSR, he talked of a controlled market within a worker state. The etymology of your "state capitalism" has nothing to do with what Lenin was talking about..

It seems to me you know very little about Leninism, let alone Marxism. To preempt any accusation from you that I am "twisting lenin's words" here they are in black and white

"...state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country"
Lenin, Collected works, Vol. 27 page 294.

Confusingly, Lenin also equated socialism with state capitalist monopoly albeit run in the interest of the people (allegedly).

You talk about twisting words. Well this exactly what Lenin did in the course of his political life. Socialism was originaly a synonym for communism. Lenin turned it the lower phase of communsim. Then he turned it into state capitalist monopoly. And you have the nerve to accuse me of twisting words!

So that leaves us at square one: why wasn't the USSR socialist? Try to answer that without twisting words. Thanks..

Duh. Because it was compelled, as Lenin himself conceded, to go for state capitalism , perhaps? Has that thought ever occured to you perchance?

Your analysis is hardly Marxist, for it ignores material conditions and social relations. First, almost nothing in history is inevitable, and certainly not the course of the USSR. You could argue that it was necessary, but that is quite different. Thus, most of your criticisms are null and void. Next, the USSR only tarnished the "good name" (!?) of socialism in the eyes of those either unwilling or unable to defend socialism. .

This is truly astonishing. I am the one according to you who ignores material conditions and social relations, When I point out as every Marxist knew at the the time, that the material conditions of backward and largely peasant economy ruled out socialism, you accuse me of putting forward an analylisis that is hardly marxist. Yet here we find you espousing idealist ignorant claptrap that nothing in history is inevitable. Well in the absence of certain absolutely necessary preconditions for socialism , I can confidently say that it is inevitable that you will not get socialism. And that is why you didnt get socialism in the Soviet Union

The USSR consistently fought imperialism and improved the lot of workers both within and without its borders. In South Africa, Afghanistan, Palestine, Korea, Eastern Europe and Latin America, the USSR served as a progressive and pro-worker force. Your denial of this lies at the basis of your anti-socialist mindset. .

Your gibbersih is now getting positively hilarious and entertaining to wit. The USSR constantly fought imperialism, huh? THe USSR was one of the biggest imperialist powers on the face of the earth but gullible workers like you are all too ready to fall for Orwellian double-talk than recognise the thing for what is. Ehen the tanks rolled into Hungary you would no doubt be on the side line cheering them on. You talk about South Africa. I come from South Africa. The Soviet capitalists were in cohoots with De Beers over diamond trade. Yes, very progressive indeed. And as for the support the capitalist and predictably disappointing ANC well the less said on that the better. You are not making your case any stronger by mentioning this meticulously bourgeois of organisations

Plus, the fact that you think socialism had a "good name" before 1917 just shows us that you're delusional anyway. Further, I see that you used the existence of gulags to define the USSR, whereas Marxists would look to property relations. Get back to me when you want to employ Marxism instead of repeating Robert Conquest and company..

This is pathetic. You can surely do better than this. When, pray, did I use the gulags to "define the USSR". The USSR was capitalist because capitalist relations of production applied there as I said repeatedly. The existence of wage labour imples capital and vice versa as any marxist knows. The system that operated in the Soviet Union was based on wage labour and THEREFORE on marxist grounds , a capitalist system. The gulags and all the rest were incidental features, though horrific in themselves and illustrative of the barbarity and callousness of this totalitarian state. Fundamentally, though, the Soviet Union was a capitalist state for the reasons cited.

By the way, using your argument, the Paris Commune was "a historic cul de sac". Of course, Marx would strongly disagree with you (to say the least), but don't let that stop you from slandering socialism..

The Paris Commune was far removed from the Bolshevik dictatorship OVER the proletariat and as a socialist it is state capitalist I attack not socialism.

This sort of argument is absurd, I've already explained why the USSR was and is relevant today. Life didn't just get kind of worse after the fall of socialism, it reached horrific depths of despair for the majority of the population. Unemployment, homelessness, crime, racism, public services and just about everything else went down the drain. We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about going from decency to a daily struggle to survive. And here you are, saying it was just as bad as today, if not worse. Pathetic...

I have not denied that conditions have got worse since the demise of the Soviet Union. Ive said it is pointless harking back to a period when , however much you want to put a romantic gloss on it from the comfort of your own armchair, life was crap for the working class. I have been to Russia and spoken to ordinary Russian workers and they will tell you that themselves. So get real and face the facts. Conservative backswoodsmen like youself and the diminishing band of stalinist die hards here who rattle on like a bunch of farty old pensioners about the good old days of Uncle Joe Stalin when all was hunky dory are not only deeply deluded but deeply reactionary. They constantly narrow down the choice to what weve got today and what we had in the past. Well Ive got news for you , sunshine. To be a revolutionary is actually to transcend all this bullshit and look forward to a new kind of society altogether. Now that really is progressive.

There is any case no chance in my opinion of Russia reverting to ythe highly centralised state capitalist regime it was in the past for the very reason that it was already becoming obsolete by the 1960s as the nature of the Russia economy altered and became more diversified. To compete effectively on the capitalist market it had to change or go under. Economic historians of the USSR can point to the fact that growth was slowing significantly and the cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus was impeding capitalist efficiency. The transition to a more mixed economy was inevitably going to cause hardship but going back to square one would almost certainly mean even further deterioration of an already bad situation.

The answer is not to call for one type of capitalism as against another but to workers push for a radically differnet kind of society altogether

Che_Guevara_

10th February 2009, 19:06

i have recently moved from the UK and to be honest it is flooded with poles..if capitalism had done a great deal for them then they wouldnt be using UK jobs to have a living..

Che_Guevara_

10th February 2009, 19:10

Yeah it would be ironic. Still Capitalism is turning the Motherlands of Eastern europe to crap. We need communism in those motherlands. not just in the 'motherlands' in africa it is desperate need of communism, the division between soweto and sandton in johannesburg in so vast now i believe it is needed here desperately too.
In fact apart from the G8 most countries are in some kind of form of poverty...soviet rule in eastern europe helped the public there vastly more than they are living in now.

Rousedruminations

10th February 2009, 19:16

I think in general most 3rd world countries need it ! .. as u mentioned before Africa and INDIA.. india needs it big time.. ! But Africa their culture is too complex with religious myths and customs that most are indoctrinated and are accustomed to go by... so a revolution in those countries is much harder, this is my educated scientific guess ... however much research in this area is needed in Africa !

Another one would be South Africa of course... the gap between rich and poor is so great there ! corruption ! .. and crime is a big time winner there .. which is why so many people there are evading a possible murder.... ie and therefore its not safe in South Africa at all.... it needs a complete revolutionized turn over ..... of its own political system ..(i think the country seems quiet messed up ! not sure if communism would do the trick ).. but a revolution maybe....

manic expression

10th February 2009, 19:38

It seems to me you know very little about Leninism, let alone Marxism. To preempt any accusation from you that I am "twisting lenin's words" here they are in black and white

You still fail to grasp my point. Please go back and read what I wrote.

You talk about twisting words. Well this exactly what Lenin did in the course of his political life. Socialism was originaly a synonym for communism. Lenin turned it the lower phase of communsim. Then he turned it into state capitalist monopoly. And you have the nerve to accuse me of twisting words!

Socialism was "originally" had a lot of connotations, most of which aren't used today. Socialism also has a lot of connotations which are incorrectly assigned. Yours is an entirely tangential point that has no bearing.

The meaning of the word socialism, in Lenin's time, was as we use it today: working-class control of the means of production. Thus, socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was in favor of such a dictatorship. Sorry, even on tangential stuff you're wrong.

And "state capitalism" is a nonsensical concept. There was no capitalist class in power, there was no group of people owning private property or employing workers. There was no group of people making profit through the exploitation of workers. Moreover, there was no private property, there was no commodity production. In conclusion, you're completely oblivious to the reality of the Soviet Union. Without a doubt, we'll see more of this soon.

Duh. Because it was compelled, as Lenin himself conceded, to go for state capitalism , perhaps? Has that thought ever occured to you perchance?

Again, go back and read what I wrote. You obviously didn't understand my point the first time.

This is truly astonishing. I am the one according to you who ignores material conditions and social relations, When I point out as every Marxist knew at the the time, that the material conditions of backward and largely peasant economy ruled out socialism, you accuse me of putting forward an analylisis that is hardly marxist. Yet here we find you espousing idealist ignorant claptrap that nothing in history is inevitable. Well in the absence of certain absolutely necessary preconditions for socialism , I can confidently say that it is inevitable that you will not get socialism. And that is why you didnt get socialism in the Soviet Union

Well, it's good to know you're also in favor of social democratic cowardice (in addition to not being a Marxist).

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, 1923

Your gibbersih is now getting positively hilarious and entertaining to wit. The USSR constantly fought imperialism, huh? THe USSR was one of the biggest imperialist powers on the face of the earth but gullible workers like you are all too ready to fall for Orwellian double-talk than recognise the thing for what is. Ehen the tanks rolled into Hungary you would no doubt be on the side line cheering them on. You talk about South Africa. I come from South Africa. The Soviet capitalists were in cohoots with De Beers over diamond trade. Yes, very progressive indeed. And as for the support the capitalist and predictably disappointing ANC well the less said on that the better. You are not making your case any stronger by mentioning this meticulously bourgeois of organisations

Obviously, you have no idea what imperialism is. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the term.

The Soviet intervention in Hungary was not imperialist. At all. It did, however, defeat a counterrevolutionary force bent on destroying socialism. The rioters lynched socialists, attacked minorities and carried out vendettas. They were attacking the institutions of collectivized property. There can be no doubt that the Soviet Union's actions saved socialism in Hungary.

The Soviets were not in cahoots with the De Beers. The De Beers had been entrenched in South Africa since the early 1900's. The USSR was supporting the anti-apartheid movement, and just about everyone was aware of this.

The ANC became out-and-out capitalist after apartheid ended in 1994. That was then they got rid of all the leftist portions of their charter. One of the reasons for this was because the Soviet Union had fallen in the meantime. One can hardly blame the Soviet Union for what commentators call "the Great U-Turn" in ANC politics.

I also suggest you also familiarize yourself with South African history.

This is pathetic. You can surely do better than this. When, pray, did I use the gulags to "define the USSR". The USSR was capitalist because capitalist relations of production applied there as I said repeatedly. The existence of wage labour imples capital and vice versa as any marxist knows. The system that operated in the Soviet Union was based on wage labour and THEREFORE on marxist grounds , a capitalist system. The gulags and all the rest were incidental features, though horrific in themselves and illustrative of the barbarity and callousness of this totalitarian state. Fundamentally, though, the Soviet Union was a capitalist state for the reasons cited.

What "capitalist relations of production" are you talking about?

Wages in the USSR was vastly different from the capitalist system of wage labor, that much is obvious. Workers were not selling their labor to a capitalist to survive. Further, property relations were decidedly socialist: private property had been abolished. No one owned private property, no one owned stocks and bonds, no one was making capitalist profit.

Clearly, you are either unwilling or unable to make a Marxist analysis.

The Paris Commune was far removed from the Bolshevik dictatorship OVER the proletariat and as a socialist it is state capitalist I attack not socialism.

If you're going to imply there's a difference, I suggest you support that assertion with reason and facts. Good luck.

I have not denied that conditions have got worse since the demise of the Soviet Union. Ive said it is pointless harking back to a period when , however much you want to put a romantic gloss on it from the comfort of your own armchair, life was crap for the working class. I have been to Russia and spoken to ordinary Russian workers and they will tell you that themselves. So get real and face the facts. Conservative backswoodsmen like youself and the diminishing band of stalinist die hards here who rattle on like a bunch of farty old pensioners about the good old days of Uncle Joe Stalin when all was hunky dory are not only deeply deluded but deeply reactionary. They constantly narrow down the choice to what weve got today and what we had in the past. Well Ive got news for you , sunshine. To be a revolutionary is actually to transcend all this bullshit and look forward to a new kind of society altogether. Now that really is progressive.

You seem to be fond of insipid attacks, but you still can't put together a mature argument.

No one here is "harking back" to anything. What we're doing is pointing out that life in socialism was far better for the workers than what exists today. What we're doing is recognizing that the fall of the USSR represented a defeat for the working class, and just about everything from elections to the present protests supports this claim. Your experiences as a tourist aren't exactly enough to disqualify the present position and organizing efforts of the workers.

What you see as progressive, everyone else sees as absurd. Again, you might have a very creative imagination, but in terms of material analyses you have none. The childish visions in your head simply don't match the reality that revolutionaries are dealing with. I think you should keep your fantasies, I'm sure they work for you, but don't be pretentious enough to call yourself progressive or revolutionary when all you've done is cluelessly parrot petty right-wing slander.

There is any case no chance in my opinion of Russia reverting to ythe highly centralised state capitalist regime it was in the past for the very reason that it was already becoming obsolete by the 1960s as the nature of the Russia economy altered and became more diversified. To compete effectively on the capitalist market it had to change or go under. Economic historians of the USSR can point to the fact that growth was slowing significantly and the cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus was impeding capitalist efficiency. The transition to a more mixed economy was inevitably going to cause hardship but going back to square one would almost certainly mean even further deterioration of an already bad situation.

It won't "revert" to state capitalism because it never was in the first place. Kind of tough to "revert" to something that didn't exist.

But yes, your analysis is completely Marxist. :lol:

The answer is not to call for one type of capitalism as against another but to workers push for a radically differnet kind of society altogether

That's nice.

Now go back and read my posts with at least a small degree of competence.

Thanks.

benhur

10th February 2009, 21:29

What "capitalist relations of production" are you talking about?

Wages in the USSR was vastly different from the capitalist system of wage labor, that much is obvious. Workers were not selling their labor to a capitalist to survive. Further, property relations were decidedly socialist: private property had been abolished. No one owned private property, no one owned stocks and bonds, no one was making capitalist profit.

Can you explain this a bit more? How can it be non-capitalist and yet have a wage system? And what do you mean when you say workers weren't selling their labor? Wasn't there trade with other nations? Wasn't there some profit? I am not challenging your views, just curious and want to know a bit more. Thanks in advance.

robbo203

10th February 2009, 21:58

The meaning of the word socialism, in Lenin's time, was as we use it today: working-class control of the means of production. Thus, socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was in favor of such a dictatorship. Sorry, even on tangential stuff you're wrong..

The classical and Marxian meaning of the word "socialism" was in fact synonymous with "communism". Yes Marx advocated a revolutionary transition period - not to be confused with the party dictatorship over the proletariat installed by the Bolsheviks - but never did he call it socialism. So you are wrong on that too Im afraid

And "state capitalism" is a nonsensical concept. There was no capitalist class in power, there was no group of people owning private property or employing workers. There was no group of people making profit through the exploitation of workers. Moreover, there was no private property, there was no commodity production. In conclusion, you're completely oblivious to the reality of the Soviet Union. Without a doubt, we'll see more of this soon...

State capitalism is hardly a nonsensical concept. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend to ignore it but it is not going to go away so obligingly.

You might take a liberal bourgeois view of economic categories by emphasising their de Jure characteristics; I prefer to take a marxian stance on this matter and look at the de Facto situation on the ground.

Firstly there was capitalism in the Soviet Union because there was amongst other things a generalised system of wage labour and commodity production. That implies the existence of capital just as capital implies the ecistence of wage labour. If youve read Marx at all you would understand this.

Who did the wage workers sell their labour power too? The state. What is the state? It is a social institution , a tool whereby one class rules over another. Are you following me so far? Good. Now who controls the state. In the Soviet Union it was the nomenklatura - the upper echelons of the party hierachy, the state managers and so on. This tiny group wielded enormous overwhelming power over economic decisionmaking. They constituted a de facto capitalist class - not a de jure capitalist class becuase we have already established, I hope, that it is the de facto situation that is ultimate and final determinant of class. This class in the Soviet Union exiercised its class ownership collectively as a class rather than through individual legal entitlement to capital as in the west and they did so via their absolute control over the state that owned the means of production. It was this absolute control that gave them - this tiny class of capitalists - the economic power to appropriate and allocate surplus value.

Most of that went towards the accumulation of capital over which the Soviet capitalist class exerted de facto collective ownership rights; some of it, however, went towards rewarding members of this class with positively enormous fat cat salaries (a strategem familiar to western CEOs) , a huge number of lucrative perks and a privileged lifestyle that the ordinary soviet wroker could only dream of. If your fantasy world of a classless soviet society had even a grain of truth , such things simply would not have existed. You wouldnt have such things as private retail store accessible only to the cardholding elite where they alone could buy decadent western goodies while preaching austerity to the workers. You would have such a thing as rouble millionaires - hundreds of them by the 1950s - while the majority had to eke out a life of crushing misery. For all you capacity to delude yourself not even you can get away with explaining this away.

One final point of clarification. You say there was no private property in the Soviet Union. Perhaps you would enlighten us to what you think state property is in that case? Marx at least was very clear on this. the state is not the same thing as "the public"; it is an institution or organisation separate from the civil society. State ownership of the means of production is not and cannot be equated with common or genuine public ownership of the means of production. That being the case there is only one conclusion you are ineluctably forced to draw from this: state ownership is a variant of private ownership. This makes sense both theoretically and from a practical point of view. A nationalised industry like the railways is supposedly owned by the public but you try boarding a train without buying a ticket and you will soon find out differently. The fact that you to pay for it in itself shows it is not yours. Why else did the Communist manifesto talk of the communistic abolition of buying and selling but no doubt you will dismiss that as bourgeois idealism. Ask the workers employed by a nationalised industry whether they feel their situation is any different to those employed by explicitly private concerns and you will soon see the truth of this

Obviously, you have no idea what imperialism is. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the term.

The Soviet intervention in Hungary was not imperialist. At all. It did, however, defeat a counterrevolutionary force bent on destroying socialism. The rioters lynched socialists, attacked minorities and carried out vendettas. They were attacking the institutions of collectivized property. There can be no doubt that the Soviet Union's actions saved socialism in Hungary..

Yeah yeah yeah . Blah blah blah This is about as plausible as the argument put forward by Bush and co that they were defending "freedom and democracy" by invading Iraq. Its a well known ploy. What you do is call all those who oppose your imperialist interests, "counter revolutionaries", "enemies of socialism" and so on and by this deft sleight of hand, you define the accusation of imperialism out of existence. Its called argument by definition . Spice it up with a few selectively worded bits of isolated and usually unsubstantiated or exagerated anecdotal evidence and - hey presto! - you can just about rationalise away anything you set your mind to. You still however cannot explain by what rights soviet tanks could roll into Hungary if this was not a case of just another thuggish imperialist power flexing its muscles and protecting its sphere of influence

The Soviets were not in cahoots with the De Beers. The De Beers had been entrenched in South Africa since the early 1900's. The USSR was supporting the anti-apartheid movement, and just about everyone was aware of this...

You obviously dont know much about the diamond trade and the collaboration between Oppenheimar and the Soviets but I will let that pass. It is a somewhat esoteric subject after all. As for the USSR supporting the anti-apartheid movement so did all sorts of other pro-capitalist states. I remember at the time my family could not even escape Canada from South Africa becuase Canada took a tough line on apartheid and refused south african emigres

The ANC became out-and-out capitalist after apartheid ended in 1994. That was then they got rid of all the leftist portions of their charter. One of the reasons for this was because the Soviet Union had fallen in the meantime. One can hardly blame the Soviet Union for what commentators call "the Great U-Turn" in ANC politics. I also suggest you also familiarize yourself with South African history....

The ANC was always a capitalist organisation even with the "leftist portions of their charter". It was not so much a great U turn that was effected as the esential nature of the organisation unfolding as the condition required. If you take on the task of running capitalism then you have to follow its rules. That is what the Soviet ruling class discovered too - that they had to change the nature of they way in which they managed capitalism to conform to the changing requirements of the economy for more flexibility

Wages in the USSR was vastly different from the capitalist system of wage labor, that much is obvious. Workers were not selling their labor to a capitalist to survive. Further, property relations were decidedly socialist: private property had been abolished. No one owned private property, no one owned stocks and bonds, no one was making capitalist profit.
Clearly, you are either unwilling or unable to make a Marxist analysis .

Well I am quite happy to quote Marx on the subject if you think that qualifies as "marxist analysis". No doubt you will be saying that when Marx asserted that wage labour implies capital and capital implies wage labour and on this basis called for the revolutionary "abolition of the wages system", that marx too was "either unwilling or unable to make a Marxist analysis". Your argumentation is so utter inept and pig-ignorant at times it postively enjoyable playing cat and mouse with it. It is clear that you have picked up a few half considered concepts and and a smattering of the appropriate terminology to go with it, just about enough to get away with posturing as marxist. But that is about it. So you come out with completely daft statements like the "Wages in the USSR was vastly different from the capitalist system of wage labor, that much is obvious." Well if it so obvious then clearly you will be in a position to explain what is so "obvious" about it. Marx would have laughed himself silly at such absurdities.

No one here is "harking back" to anything. What we're doing is pointing out that life in socialism was far better for the workers than what exists today. What we're doing is recognizing that the fall of the USSR represented a defeat for the working class, and just about everything from elections to the present protests supports this claim. Your experiences as a tourist aren't exactly enough to disqualify the present position and organizing efforts of the workers..

Strange ,. You say you are not harking back to the good old days of the USSR but then you witter on about its fall representing a defeat for the working class. Yes it represents a defeat in the same sense that continuing on with the same old oppressive system of state capitalism would represent a defeat for the working class. I shed no tears for the disappearance of that corrupt brutal ant-socialist regime. Good riddance to it. The point is to move on and organise militantly against capitalism in all its guises on both the industrial and political front. Not go back to an outdated form of capitalism that directly laid the foundations for the present misery the Russian workers find themselves in

quote=manic expression;1355435]
What you see as progressive, everyone else sees as absurd. Again, you might have a very creative imagination, but in terms of material analyses you have none. The childish visions in your head simply don't match the reality that revolutionaries are dealing with. I think you should keep your fantasies, I'm sure they work for you, but don't be pretentious enough to call yourself progressive or revolutionary when all you've done is cluelessly parrot petty right-wing slander.
.[/quote]

My word . What persuasive eloquence! Whar insightful turns of phrase you have!. Hmmm. I suppose if I was communist in your wonderful soviet dicta...er..utopia and you were the people's commissar, I would by now be facing charges of "cluelessly parroting petty right wing slander" with penalty of life imprisonment in the gulag. Or - no! no! no! - shouldnt that be "petty revisionist counter-revolutionary bourgeois sentiments". Or how about for being "objectively decadent and ideologically obfuscatory in giving ideological sustenance to bourgeous chauvinistic imperialistic aggression". Yes Yes Yes - I like that one!

Davie zepeda

11th February 2009, 03:24

Man...... fucking good debate there^ I like to add with what the comrade before said about Africa. That will be the next arena of struggle soon Africa will industrialize more and then the working class will be the majority. For now tribes reign in control soon workers will control!

manic expression

11th February 2009, 03:25

The classical and Marxian meaning of the word "socialism" was in fact synonymous with "communism". Yes Marx advocated a revolutionary transition period - not to be confused with the party dictatorship over the proletariat installed by the Bolsheviks - but never did he call it socialism. So you are wrong on that too Im afraid

Marx consistently used "socialism" to describe reactionary ideologies, including feudalists and utopians. Read the Manifesto. In contrast to these various usages, you keep trying to tell us Marx used "socialism" in one way and only one way: your way. Your point wouldn't be so ludicrous if you weren't so arrogant in your errors.

State capitalism is hardly a nonsensical concept. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend to ignore it but it is not going to go away so obligingly.

You might take a liberal bourgeois view of economic categories by emphasising their de Jure characteristics; I prefer to take a marxian stance on this matter and look at the de Facto situation on the ground.

Firstly there was capitalism in the Soviet Union because there was amongst other things a generalised system of wage labour and commodity production. That implies the existence of capital just as capital implies the ecistence of wage labour. If youve read Marx at all you would understand this.

There was no commodity production. You keep repeating the lie that there was when there clearly was not. Unlike you, I support my claims:

State ownership of all important industrial, transportation and financial enterprises (i.e. of the means of production and circulation), combined with legal (constitutional) suppression of the right to their private appropriation, centralized economic planning and state monopoly of foreign trade, imply the absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value in the USSR. This means that the economy is no longer capitalist. There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

From Ernest Mandel, someone who critiqued the USSR.

Who did the wage workers sell their labour power too? The state.

To have a system of wage-labor in any meaningful sense of the term, we musn't look far. Capital is the defining aspect of capitalism. Workers, then, would be chained to capital in capitalism. Capital, of course, would be used to directly exploit labor-power. However, this only occurred in marginal and illegal circumstances in the Soviet Union, the black market being a notable example. Thus, the wage system in the USSR cannot be compared to that of capitalism in any serious sense.

Now who controls the state. In the Soviet Union it was the nomenklatura - the upper echelons of the party hierachy, the state managers and so on. This tiny group wielded enormous overwhelming power over economic decisionmaking. They constituted a de facto capitalist class

Wonderful wishful thinking on your part, and quite anti-Marxist wishful thinking at that.

In modern society, social relations and property relations are validated by laws. A capitalist class establishes capitalist laws to protect capitalist property; a feudal nobility establishes laws based on the right of the crown and of noble titles and of the church. To ask us to believe that a class could somehow operate in direct opposition to the code of laws it fervently defended is absolutely laughable. The nomenklatura, after all, derived most of its authority from established legal codes, and what other authority it possessed it gained through abuse of office within the Soviet state.

Moreover, the nomenklatura objectively didn't act as a capitalist class. It owned no private property, it did not directly exploit workers. You cluelessly persist in repeating the fallacy that since they controlled the means of production, they must have owned the means of production and private property; such a statement is without support, and your nonexistent reasoning has made this more than apparent.

This class in the Soviet Union exiercised its class ownership collectively as a class rather than through individual legal entitlement to capital as in the west and they did so via their absolute control over the state that owned the means of production. It was this absolute control that gave them - this tiny class of capitalists - the economic power to appropriate and allocate surplus value.

This is hopelessly wrong. If we are to believe that those who have absolute control over the state which control the means of production are always capitalist, then the absolutist kings of Europe WERE capitalist classes! Even more stunningly if that were the case, the workers of Paris WERE the capitalist class! After all, they "collectively" controlled the means of production through their position in the state.

Obviously, those who control the state are not automatically capitalists, because capitalism is characterized by (gasp) privatized ownership of the means of production. This didn't exist in the Soviet Union.

Next time, try Marxism.

Most of that went towards the accumulation of capital over which the Soviet capitalist class exerted de facto collective ownership rights;

There were no "collective ownership rights", you're inventing institutions out of thin air.

some of it, however, went towards rewarding members of this class with positively enormous fat cat salaries (a strategem familiar to western CEOs) , a huge number of lucrative perks and a privileged lifestyle that the ordinary soviet wroker could only dream of.

To even suggest that Soviet bureaucrats lived lives of luxury comprable to capitalist CEO's, you're just in denial. Read some history, then get back to me.

If your fantasy world of a classless soviet society

I never said the USSR was classless. But thanks for trying to tell me what I think.

One final point of clarification. You say there was no private property in the Soviet Union. Perhaps you would enlighten us to what you think state property is in that case? Marx at least was very clear on this. the state is not the same thing as "the public"; it is an institution or organisation separate from the civil society.

The state exists because of class conflict. That's why it's there.

State ownership of the means of production is not and cannot be equated with common or genuine public ownership of the means of production.

So the Paris Commune didn't have working-class control over the means of production? Funny how you keep disagreeing with Marx.

That being the case there is only one conclusion you are ineluctably forced to draw from this: state ownership is a variant of private ownership. This makes sense both theoretically and from a practical point of view. A nationalised industry like the railways is supposedly owned by the public but you try boarding a train without buying a ticket and you will soon find out differently. The fact that you to pay for it in itself shows it is not yours.

Maybe the dumbest argument I've seen on RevLeft.

Even if the public does genuinely own the rail industry, that doesn't mean everyone owns the rail industry individually. There's quite a difference. If I pay for a ticket to Los Angeles in a socialist America, it doesn't mean there's a capitalist class, it simply means the worker state set a necessary price for that ride. Not everything is free in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and I defy you to find a passage from Marx that suggests such a thing. You won't because you can't, and that's partially because you're not a Marxist.

Obviously, you don't know what "private ownership" means. To have capitalist private property, the means of production must be taken in control by a private citizen, who then uses it to generate capital through the exploitation of labor. "Private ownership" doesn't mean you have to pay for stuff. Try reading up on some basic terms sometime.

Why else did the Communist manifesto talk of the communistic abolition of buying and selling but no doubt you will dismiss that as bourgeois idealism.

That's communism, big guy.

Read up on:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm

Yeah yeah yeah . Blah blah blah This is about as plausible as the argument put forward by Bush and co that they were defending "freedom and democracy" by invading Iraq.

Except Bush was doing it to promote profit for his pals. The Soviet Union did it to crush insurrectionaries who thought capitalist profit wasn't a bad thing. Keep avoiding history with allusions that make no sense.

Until you actually address what I said about Hungary in a meaningful way, you have nothing.

You still however cannot explain by what rights soviet tanks could roll into Hungary if this was not a case of just another thuggish imperialist power flexing its muscles and protecting its sphere of influence

Again, you have no idea what imperialism means. Please stop using it.

You obviously dont know much about the diamond trade and the collaboration between Oppenheimar and the Soviets but I will let that pass. It is a somewhat esoteric subject after all.

The bosses of the diamond industry were the ones who started apartheid in the first place. The first racist laws were established first in the mines, then by the colonialist British government, then adapted and expanded by DF Malan and his ilk. Perhaps it's an "esoteric subject" because no one takes it seriously. Your entire argument boils down to unsubstantiated slander, so it's not surprising.

As for the USSR supporting the anti-apartheid movement so did all sorts of other pro-capitalist states. I remember at the time my family could not even escape Canada from South Africa becuase Canada took a tough line on apartheid and refused south african emigres

Some capitalists support the Palestinian people, does that mean socialists should abandon them? Some capitalists support universal sufferage, does that mean socialists should oppose it? The above argument is as idiotic as it is worthless.

The ANC was always a capitalist organisation even with the "leftist portions of their charter". It was not so much a great U turn that was effected as the esential nature of the organisation unfolding as the condition required. If you take on the task of running capitalism then you have to follow its rules. That is what the Soviet ruling class discovered too - that they had to change the nature of they way in which they managed capitalism to conform to the changing requirements of the economy for more flexibility

Oh right, because historians of the ANC and of the anti-apartheid movement who talk about the Great U-Turn are just less knowledgable than you are. :rolleyes:

The ANC wasn't monolithic, first of all. Secondly, it did support many progressive stances on property which were forgotten or done away with after 1994. The ANC went to the right in part because the USSR had fallen.

Again, you should read up on South African history sometime, you really need it.

Well I am quite happy to quote Marx on the subject if you think that qualifies as "marxist analysis".

Sure, quote Marx on the USSR. That'll show 'em! :lol:

Strange ,. You say you are not harking back to the good old days of the USSR but then you witter on about its fall representing a defeat for the working class.

"Harking back" means glorifying the experience instead of pinpointing it. The actual Marxists here are doing the latter. You, on the other hand, are engaging in mindless slander.

My word . What persuasive eloquence! Whar insightful turns of phrase you have!. Hmmm. I suppose if I was communist in your wonderful soviet dicta...er..utopia and you were the people's commissar, I would by now be facing charges of "cluelessly parroting petty right wing slander" with penalty of life imprisonment in the gulag.[/quote]

Tell you what, when you have the slightest grasp of Marxism and history, come talk.

Just to underline my point, there were no gulags in the Soviet Union after 1960. Thus, your childish antics are based entirely on a complete misunderstanding of basic facts. The rest of your arguments are much the same.

manic expression

11th February 2009, 04:12

Can you explain this a bit more? How can it be non-capitalist and yet have a wage system? And what do you mean when you say workers weren't selling their labor? Wasn't there trade with other nations? Wasn't there some profit? I am not challenging your views, just curious and want to know a bit more. Thanks in advance.

First, let's cover wage-labor. Here's what I wrote on that:

To have a system of wage-labor in any meaningful sense of the term, we musn't look far. Capital is the defining aspect of capitalism. Workers, then, would be chained to capital in capitalism. Capital, of course, would be used to directly exploit labor-power. However, this only occurred in marginal and illegal circumstances in the Soviet Union, the black market being a notable example. Thus, the wage system in the USSR cannot be compared to that of capitalism in any serious sense.

We should go deeper than this. This is what Mandel had to say about it:

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power.

This brings up the point of commodity production and its relation to labor, which is key to understanding the nature of wages. The point is that while wages exist, their position, their purpose and their consequences are entirely different. As Mandel pointed out, so-called "partial commodity production" had not the potential to exploit workers. Marx saw the commodity as the "cell" of bourgeois society, it drives everything, centers everything upon itself. In the USSR, the economy was centrally planned by people who owned no property; in this case, how are we to believe commodity production was generalized, and therefore the "cell" of society? The commodity production formula put forth by Marx in Capital are nowhere to be found in the USSR.

From Capital:

"First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C. Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.
Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M."

This was simply nonexistent in the Soviet Union. Further, as Mandel put it briefly:

There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Due to this, wage labor, as it exists in capitalist society, had no basis with which to exist in the Soviet Union.

In terms of trade with other nations, there certainly was that. However, this does not imply capitalism. First, foreign trade predates capitalism by a long time, so the two are not necessarily intertwined. Second, the USSR's foreign trade was not based on any domestic market or the competition of private firms as in capitalism, but on central planning and a state monopoly of trade. Now, some would say that this state monopoly then indicates capitalism, because the bureaucracy is only profiting from trade collectively. This is incorrect, however, because the bureaucrats themselves had no direct means of profiting from this, not even as a collective unit. Again, as private property had been abolished since the early days of the October Revolution, no one could make capitalist profit from either production or trade, and historically no one did.

Lastly, on the issue of profit, there is a stark difference in how bureaucrats "profit" and how capitalists profit. Bureaucrats make their living not through the profit of private firms, and they do not extract surplus capital for their own benefit. They do, however, gain benefits from their government income. In many cases, they abuse their position to stretch this further. However, at no point do they reap the profit of labor through direct exploitation. After all, they can't, for as we know, labor isn't chained to capital or commodity production in the Soviet system. So really, to say that bureaucrats "profit" just like capitalists do is nonsense, their privileges come SOLELY through their offices in the state. If they were capitalist, would we not have seen a distinct influx in their income after Cuba or Vietnam aligned with the Soviet Union? There was no such correlation, at all, and so we can safely discard the mindless claim that Soviet bureaucrats made some sort of capitalist profit.

I hope I answered your questions.

Che_Guevara_

11th February 2009, 15:04