Why did the USSR fall?

[nightazday]

I read the right's bias explanation, what's yours?

[Dust Bunnies]

This is a topic which has been thrown back and forth.

Anti-Revisionists say that Khrushchev brought a bunch of reforms which helped lead to its collaspe until Gorbachev finally killed it.

Trotskyiests say that Stalin began to kill it via his authoritarianism.

The rest say that the Vanguard Party (a Party leading a revolution rather than the masses) lead to its inevitable downfall.

[Yehuda Stern]

That's not really how Trotsky put it - Trotsky thought that the isolation of the revolution was what facilitating the growth of the bureaucracy, which expressed the pressures of imperialism on the USSR. I belong to a Trotskyist group which believes that this bureaucracy killed the revolution in the late 1930s and that afterwards it became state capitalist, and collapsed eventually because its capitalism was less viable than that of the west.

[mikelepore]

Here's my version. The people of the USSR were made so miserable by the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, police spies everywhere, people being imprisoned for making minor comments, that they were anxious to get rid of the government. The ruling class of the USSR took advantage of that situation to make a conversion to mafia gangster capitalism, where they could make more money than they had earlier made as the self-appointed leaders of the party.

[Trystan]

It was because of Saint Ronald of Reagan.

































Well actually it had been disintegrating since Stalin's death.

[Woland]

It was because of people like robbo. The end.

[Hoxhaist]

Khruschevite revision and Gorbachev's sabotage combined with Brezhnev's zastoy destroyed the Soviet economy built by Stalin and ethnic chauvinism struck the final blow to the Party

[Unregistered]

Isolation killed the revolution,just as Lenin predicted it would.

[Dimentio]

I read the right's bias explanation, what's yours?

Its elite claimed its legitimacy on its ability to distribute wealth. When they saw that they could become even more powerful by slaughtering the entire country's economic infrastructure, they did not hesitate in bringing it about.

The USSR fell because most of its own bureaucracy lost faith in it.

All other explanations are subservient to this one. If the Soviet elite had been fanatical believers in their own ideology, they would have kept the Soviet Union and smashed the dissent. Probably with hundreds of thousands dead and several eastern European countries levelled to the ground.

As for the Soviet Union in itself, I am not too fond of it to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy

I define the Soviet Union not as a socialist country, but as an oligarchic state built on what could not be described as anything else but a palace economy.

[Hoxhaist]

Gorbachev was convinced by Reagan of the "failure" of socialism that was really the failure of revisionism

[Dimentio]

Gorbachev was convinced by Reagan of the "failure" of socialism that was really the failure of revisionism

Gorbachev would never have "achieved" what he had, unless a lot of the bureaucracy was either indifferent to the USSR or hostile to it, as it denied them the right to plunder the resources as much as they wanted.

[Cumannach]

The Soviet Proletariat finally lost control of the state in the years around Stalin's death.

[robbo203]

It was because of people like robbo. The end.


Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful! Its communists like me that brought about the collapse of soviet state capitalism ,that system that besmirched the good name of socialism. Im still chuckling at the very thought. Jeez, i wish it was true to even a small extent because that would mean there are a lot of more of us around than I ever imagined. Still nevertheless , good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One more obstacle removed on the long road to communism - the myth that that foul capitalist dictatorship ever had anything remotely to do with communism

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

The Bolsheviks never abolished the commodity relationship and therefore never realised true socialist or communist forms. Leninism is essentially social democratic in character concentrating the provision of social goods in the hands of the state and preserving capitalist modes of commodity exchange. Political dictatorship and a protracted and costly imperialist struggle between the US and USSR only insured that this was a particularly uncompetitive form of capitalism. Ultimately the USSR failed to control the social forces inherent in a capitalist (be it state-capitalist or otherwise) system - class antagonism and the struggle between the individual and the state for autonomy. Liberal democracy has only triumphed in the West in the sense that it allows for the co-option of emerging social struggles and through this can effectively dampen the fires of class struggle. Ultimately management mechanisms like the electoral apparatus you find in representative democracies and the reformist trade unions are far more sustainable in disciplining workers than the barrel of a gun. None are more chained than those who think they are free.

[Dimentio]

The Bolsheviks never abolished the commodity relationship and therefore never realised true socialist or communist forms. Leninism is essentially social democratic in character concentrating the provision of social goods in the hands of the state and preserving capitalist modes of commodity exchange. Political dictatorship and a protracted and costly imperialist struggle between the US and USSR only insured that this was a particularly uncompetitive form of capitalism. Ultimately the USSR failed to control the social forces inherent in a capitalist (be it state-capitalist or otherwise) system - class antagonism and the struggle between the individual and the state for autonomy. Liberal democracy has only triumphed in the West in the sense that it allows for the co-option of emerging social struggles and through this can effectively dampen the fires of class struggle. Ultimately management mechanisms like the electoral apparatus you find in representative democracies and the reformist trade unions are far more sustainable in disciplining workers than the barrel of a gun. None are more chained than those who think they are free.

Yes. But this does'nt explain why the USSR fell.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Yes. But this does'nt explain why the USSR fell.

It fell because it's socio-political system was economically unsustainable (following from that analysis). This took a number of years to happen but ultimately the USSR's command economy was unable to compete with the free market models of the West (exacerbated by unsustainable military expenditure and costly imperialism such as in Afghanistan). Perestroika and Glasnost were the communist party's last attempts to adapt to a competitive international market but ultimately they could no longer control the new social and political forces that these reforms unleashed.

[Dimentio]

It fell because it's socio-political system was economically unsustainable (following from that analysis).

I think that economically unsustainable systems could be altered if a state is collapsing. What I think the main reason was, was that the CPSU establishment was indifferent to the state they had created.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

What I think the main reason was, was that the CPSU establishment was indifferent to the state they had created.

Personally I wouldn't state that as a major causal factor although bureaucratic stagnation clearly did play a part in the state's unwillingness to adapt and ultimately was the cause of a generalised crisis of the party's legitimacy. However, it is also important to be clear that we are talking at this point about a split in the party between two capitalistic economic models - strict command economy and quasi-free market. In modern terms, the difference between North Korea and China.

[NecroCommie]

USSR didn't fall. It just pretended dissolving so that the western powers would lower their guard. Soon, when the western militaries are sufficiently weakened by our soviet funded insurgent operations in Iraq we will bring forth the hidden red army, and resurrect Lenin, and conquer the entire world!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Oh Noes!! Not Zombie Lenin! :crying:

[el_chavista]

Workers didn't own the means of production so apparatchiki could become capitalists.

[Tower of Bebel]

IMO, in analogy with Karl Marx, the Russian Revolution already had its Thermidorian Reaction during the Russian civil war while the "great purges" resembled the revolution's 18th Brumaire. Geopolitical and internal pressures kept the USSR functioning much longer than many could have ever expected. However, that didn't keep the USSR from degenerating (with important periodic changes like during the Civil War, the great purges, World War Two, Khruschev's policy, Gorbatchev's policy, the late 80's).


Khruschevite revision and Gorbachev's sabotage combined with Brezhnev's zastoy destroyed the Soviet economy built by Stalin and ethnic chauvinism struck the final blow to the Party
How was it possible that within an alleged socialist society there were material and social forces strong enough to make a steady turn towards capitalism? Wasn't there any workers' (and peasants') rule (the majority of society) through socialized ownership of the means of production? What made revisionism so succesful?

[Cumannach]

How was it possible that within an alleged socialist society there were material and social forces strong enough to make a steady turn towards capitalism? Wasn't there any workers' (and peasants') rule (the majority of society) through socialized ownership of the means of production? What made revisionism so successful?

A socialist society is one in which the proletariat hold state power and use it to repress the bourgeoisie, while changing the relations of production and constructing and developing socialist production.

If the proletariat fail to repress the bourgeoisie and lose their hold on state power, that power will then be wielded for the opposite purpose, reversing the advances of socialism towards communism and moving back towards capitalism. It took the Soviet revisionists about 30 years to do this, before they could throw off the mask.

The bourgeois, petty bourgeois and kulak classes were never exterminated in the USSR. They were liquidated as classes, but were not mass-murdered in purges. They were 'rehabilitated' as well and allowed to participate in Soviet society, including in the state apparatus. There was all too ample breadth for corruption of the party and state. As Marx said of Socialism;

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

To run a large state in a vast country, against the hostility of the world, and keep the it free from degeneration, infiltration and subversion all the while abolishing capitalist relations and creating socialist production is no easy task. The efforts of the communists in the Soviet Union ultimately failed in the task of repression. What's most remarkable is how long the Soviets were able to stay above water, and their astounding achievements in the sphere of socialist construction.

[Tower of Bebel]

A socialist society is one in which the proletariat hold state power and use it to repress the bourgeoisie, while changing the relations of production and constructing and developing socialist production.

If the proletariat fail to repress the bourgeoisie and lose their hold on state power, that power will then be wielded for the opposite purpose, reversing the advances of socialism towards communism and moving back towards capitalism. It took the Soviet revisionists about 30 years to do this, before they could throw off the mask.

The bourgeois, petty bourgeois and kulak classes were never exterminated in the USSR. They were liquidated as classes, but were not mass-murdered in purges. They were 'rehabilitated' as well and allowed to participate in Soviet society, including in the state apparatus. Their was all too ample breadth for corruption of the party and state. As Marx said of Socialism;

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

To run a large state in a vast country, against the hostility of all the capitalist powers, and keep the it free from degeneration, infiltration and subversion all the while abolishing capitalist relations and creating socialist production is no easy task. The efforts of the communists in the Soviet Union failed in the task of repression. What's most remarkable is how long the Soviets were able to stay above water, and their astounding achievements in the sphere of socialist construction.
The part in bold is a little vague. How was this internal counterrevolution established? What made the working class lose state power when in fact the republic alledgely represented their power (formally)?
It's socialism we write about. Which means that the means of production are not only owned by workers but also that the working class, the only class in society, is the state. A counterrevolution would need to smash that state. It would need to smash the working class, putting up a fight against the majority of society (for the first time in history), but I don't see any evidence of it (unless you claim the USSR was a workers' state untill the implosion of 1989/91). I only hear or read of a conspiracy or betrayal. The workers are reduced to passive elements. Some corrupted elements are the active part. But bourgeois elements...? If they don't belong to a class, what forms the basis for their power (to change a society ruled by a majority with well established powers)? If such tactics like conspiracy and coups succeed then there must be something fundamentally wrong with the workers' state. Was it a power game of bureaucrats? But there are no bureaucracies or corruption within a workers' state.

[Black Sheep]

That's not really how Trotsky put it - Trotsky thought that the isolation of the revolution was what facilitating the growth of the bureaucracy, which expressed the pressures of imperialism on the USSR. I belong to a Trotskyist group which believes that this bureaucracy killed the revolution in the late 1930s and that afterwards it became state capitalist, and collapsed eventually because its capitalism was less viable than that of the west.
I have never heard of a local capitalist economy collapsing due to its inefficiency in competition.

[Yehuda Stern]

I have never heard of a local capitalist economy collapsing due to its inefficiency in competition.

That's strange. I've heard of capitalist economies collapsing even when they weren't inefficient and badly run.

[robbo203]

A socialist society is one in which the proletariat hold state power and use it to repress the bourgeoisie, while changing the relations of production and constructing and developing socialist production.

If the proletariat fail to repress the bourgeoisie and lose their hold on state power, that power will then be wielded for the opposite purpose, reversing the advances of socialism towards communism and moving back towards capitalism. It took the Soviet revisionists about 30 years to do this, before they could throw off the mask.

The bourgeois, petty bourgeois and kulak classes were never exterminated in the USSR. They were liquidated as classes, but were not mass-murdered in purges. They were 'rehabilitated' as well and allowed to participate in Soviet society, including in the state apparatus. There was all too ample breadth for corruption of the party and state. As Marx said of Socialism;

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

To run a large state in a vast country, against the hostility of the world, and keep the it free from degeneration, infiltration and subversion all the while abolishing capitalist relations and creating socialist production is no easy task. The efforts of the communists in the Soviet Union ultimately failed in the task of repression. What's most remarkable is how long the Soviets were able to stay above water, and their astounding achievements in the sphere of socialist construction.

The first thing to note is that Marx did not distinguish between communism and socialism but only a lower and a higher phase of communism (or socialism). The idea that socialism was the "lower phase" of communism was purely Lenin's invention and then he further distorted the meaning of socialism by equating it with state capitalism albeit supposedly run in trhe interests of the proletariat

The second thing to note is that socialism did not collapse because the kulaks etc were insufficiently repressed. Socialism was never established in the first place unless by socialism you mean Lenin's definition of it - state capitalism. State capitalism collapsed basically because as a variant of capitalism it was inappropriate to the changing structure and composition of the Soviet Economy as it moved away from reliance on heavy industry and become more integrated into the global capitalist economy. The "astounding achievements" of the Soviet economy was of course mainly in the area of heavy industry and giant infrastructural projects like dams (often massively damaging in environmental terms and making use of slave labour) but as the economy matured and diversified, growth slowed significantly as was to be expected. In light industry for example the Soviet economy did not fare that well against other capitalist economies

Finally,of course, regarding the bourgeoisie what happened was that while the original de jure owners of capital were mostly removed, a new class of de facto bourgeoisie arose on the basis of the new state capitalist relations of production which the the Bolshevik revolution brought into being - the nomenklatura. The minoriity who controlled the state in fact collectively owned the economy in de facto terms - via their control of the state. You cannot separate ultimate control and ownership in reality. All the other primary features of capitalism - above all, wage labour - were to be found in the Soviet Economy. Indeed it was Stalin who argued passionately for greater wage inequality in the 1930s to overcome the incentive problem as he saw it and in so doing overturned the earlier Bolshevik policy of (attempted) wage levelling called uravnilovka. The Soviet Union was thus not only a capitalist economy in Marxian terms but an an increasingly exploitative and unequal one which in the 1950s could boast of several hundred rouble millionaries

[Brother No. 1]

It fell for after Stalin Nika implanted Revisionism to REVISE Stalin's rule and implant his own personal rule. After Nika same thing happened they revised the others rule and implanted their own. the Revisionism also made the Sino-Soviet split happen, made many Anti-Revisionist sattiltes argue or go against the Soviet Union, it also gave a little Nationalism to the CCCP as seen in the 1977 anthem. The contsant changes made the people doubt the goverment and when gorby finally came it was the end for the CCCP. He allowed Capitalsim to enter and destroy it. Troskyists say its most about the "Stalinist rule" that was passed down from leader to leader after Stalin. Others say that it was the "State Capitalism" of the CCCP the brought it down and thta the CCCP was never a Socialist state and was always a Capitalist state. Revisionism basicly brought the CCCP down and Nika was never a good leader. He gave cuba nulcear missles and never helped them when they were in need. This Revisionism that revised the leadership also revised what the people were to do to.

Bottom line: Revisionism brought the CCCP down as Reform brought the true Peoples Republic down.

[Hoxhaist]

USSR didn't fall. It just pretended dissolving so that the western powers would lower their guard. Soon, when the western militaries are sufficiently weakened by our soviet funded insurgent operations in Iraq we will bring forth the hidden red army, and resurrect Lenin, and conquer the entire world!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!
We can only hope!

So thats why Lenin is so well preserved!!

[LOLseph Stalin]

USSR didn't fall. It just pretended dissolving so that the western powers would lower their guard. Soon, when the western militaries are sufficiently weakened by our soviet funded insurgent operations in Iraq we will bring forth the hidden red army, and resurrect Lenin, and conquer the entire world!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Exactly. That's why I have my fellow KGB agents monitering the west... ;)

[Hoxhaist]

Revisionism was successful because of the infiltration of the Party by bourgeois elements that blended in until they happened upon leadership positions and they wrested control of industry away from workers and created corporations and bosses in all but name

[robbo203]

Revisionism was successful because of the infiltration of the Party by bourgeois elements that blended in until they happened upon leadership positions and they wrested control of industry away from workers and created corporations and bosses in all but name


This is absurd. The Soviet Union was a capitalist state right from the start. But just for the sake of the argument lets run with this claim. The "bourgeois elements" in order to have existed at all must have had some basis in socio-economic reality. In other words, this is an admission that there were capitalist relations of production inside the soviet union. Then you have to ask yourself how did they "wrest control of industry away from the workers" if the workers really did in fact control industry. According to Leninist theory it was the workers who ran the state - it was a so called proletarian state" - so where did these bourgeois elements get the power to "wrest control"? Soviet apologuists never ever explain this. Their attempted explanations are simplistic and incredible in the extreme. Did they play a hoax on the workers (or a Hoxhaist:D ) . If so, what sort of workers control was it that allowed itself to be so easily hoaxed?

Leninist theory makes no sense at all. It just does not square with the facts. The only sensible explnation is that the SU was a state capitalist system and the party nomenklatura performed a role analogous to the bourgeoisie in other capitalist countries. They as a small class effectively owned the means of propduction in de facto terms via their control of the state. State capitalism collapsed becuase it was basically becoming more and more inefficient as a model of capitalist accumulation - it had outlived its usefulness to the soviet capitalist class. Which is why so many of them made the easy transition to de jure capitalists along western lines in the post soviet era

[ZeroNowhere]

Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful! Its communists like me that brought about the collapse of soviet state capitalism ,that system that besmirched the good name of socialism. Im still chuckling at the very thought. Jeez, i wish it was true to even a small extent because that would mean there are a lot of more of us around than I ever imagined. Still nevertheless , good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One more obstacle removed on the long road to communism - the myth that that foul capitalist dictatorship ever had anything remotely to do with communism
Hey, things are looking up for you. From you, the WSM and such apparently being some tiny irrelevant cult, you've suddenly gone to taking down the USSR. ;)


A socialist society is one in which the proletariat hold state power and use it to repress the bourgeoisie, while changing the relations of production and constructing and developing socialist production.
Other than the use of the word 'socialism' (which even contradicts Lenin's rather random use of the term to refer to Marx's initial stage of communism), the bourgeoisie seem to have been pretty fucking skillful there.


USSR didn't fall. It just pretended dissolving so that the western powers would lower their guard. Soon, when the western militaries are sufficiently weakened by our soviet funded insurgent operations in Iraq we will bring forth the hidden red army, and resurrect Lenin, and conquer the entire world!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"Oh, right! No wonder the October Revolution failed, we didn't have heavy fucking metal! Drat." ("Also, are people still fucking themselves to death?")


Did they play a hoax on the workers (or a Hoxhaist )
Eh, doesn't work. Hoxha is pronounced 'Hodga', and was far too dull to go in the same sentence as the :D smiley (Yes, I know).


Revisionism was successful because of the infiltration of the Party by bourgeois elements that blended in until they happened upon leadership positions and they wrested control of industry away from workers and created corporations and bosses in all but name
As always, Eric Adams > Stalin. If Eric Adams had told them revisionists to leave the hall, they would have left the fucking hall.


It fell for after Stalin Nika implanted Revisionism to REVISE Stalin's rule and implant his own personal rule.
After reading that paragraph, I have no idea what you mean by the word 'revise' there.


The idea that socialism was the "lower phase" of communism was purely Lenin's invention and then he further distorted the meaning of socialism by equating it with state capitalism albeit supposedly run in trhe interests of the proletariat
Well, technically, he did imply that others around him used the term 'socialism' in that sense already. Also, as far as I know, he didn't refer to state capitalism as 'socialism', moreso was just overly optimistic about the NEP leading to socialism.


The bourgeois, petty bourgeois and kulak classes were never exterminated in the USSR. They were liquidated as classes, but were not mass-murdered in purges.
Class: It's in your genes.
Ehm. So, in other words, they were eliminated as classes, but still had to be repressed as a class. It all makes sense now.

[Cumannach]

It's socialism we write about. Which means that the means of production are not only owned by workers but also that the working class, the only class in society, is the state.

Well, the socialist state is the organization of the proletariat as the ruling class. You could say that the working class is the state if you want, but it's being a bit metaphorical, and vague for our purpose. The socialist state is certainly made up of working class people, and is controlled by the whole working class together, but it's not completely accurate in every sense to say that a class is a state. A state is the tool of one class for the repression of another class.


A counterrevolution would need to smash that state. It would need to smash the working class, putting up a fight against the majority of society (for the first time in history), but I don't see any evidence of it (unless you claim the USSR was a workers' state untill the implosion of 1989/91).

The Soviet Union was originally a socialist state, that is, the dictatorship of the working class. It started off in 1917 with a capitalist society. It immediately began to change that society, that is move it towards communism, by changing the old relations of production and forging new ones and constructing socialist production. By the time the working class lost their hold on state power, the Soviet Union was far advanced towards communism (socialist). The state, now in control of capitalist restorationists was now used as a tool not to advance society further towards communism, but back towards capitalism. It didn't become truely capitalist until all the work of socialism had been undone.


I only hear or read of a conspiracy or betrayal. The workers are reduced to passive elements. Some corrupted elements are the active part. But bourgeois elements...? If they don't belong to a class, what forms the basis for their power (to change a society ruled by a majority with well established powers)? If such tactics like conspiracy and coups succeed then there must be something fundamentally wrong with the workers' state. Was it a power game of bureaucrats? But there are no bureaucracies or corruption within a workers' state.

No, there should be no bureaucracies or corruption in a socialist state. It's not ordained that there won't be. The Soviet communists and the proletariat failed to defend their state from these threats.

[robbo203]

Well, the socialist state is the organization of the proletariat as the ruling class. You could say that the working class is the state if you want, but it's being a bit metaphorical, and vague for our purpose. The socialist state is certainly made up of working class people, and is controlled by the whole working class together, but it's not completely accurate in every sense to say that a class is a state. A state is the tool of one class for the repression of another class.



The Soviet Union was originally a socialist state, that is, the dictatorship of the working class. It started off in 1917 with a capitalist society. It immediately began to change that society, that is move it towards communism, by changing the old relations of production and forging new ones and constructing socialist production. By the time the working class lost their hold on state power, the Soviet Union was far advanced towards communism (socialist). The state, now in control of capitalist restorationists was now used as a tool not to advance society further towards communism, but back towards capitalism. It didn't become truely capitalist until all the work of socialism had been undone. .


Jesus my head is spinning trying to follow the logic of this such as it is. Lets try and make some sense of this.

The Soviet Union was originally something called a dictatorship of the proletariat, goes the argument. Now even Leninists must know that a proletariat is someone who works for a wage or salary and is exploited by someone called a capitalist who makes a profit out of employing said proletarian. I have asked this many times before but have never got so much as a sniff of a direct answer to this question - how can the proletariat operate a proletarian dictatorship and yet allow themselves to continue to be exploited in this way? I mean, come on, this is very lackadaisical not to say downright careless on the part of the proletariat surely? If you had the power to get the capitalists off your back then surely you would want to use it. If you dont do that then it would seem that you dont really have the power to do it and that what you have is not really a "proletarian dictatorship" but a capitalist one. That is why you continue to be a proletariat and the capitalists continue to exploit you - becuase they have the power to do that!

But, never mind. You will never get a sensible answer from a leninist on this so we move onto the next poiint. It appeares that the SU busily set about constructing something called "socialism" but then the working class or proletariat lost power at a time when the SU was well on the way to communism. Why did it lose power and who were these mysterious "capitalist restorationists" that sought to return the SU to the capitalist fold. Again you will not get anything sensible out of a leninist or stalinist on this subject. If the workers controlled industry then it would be reasonable to assume that there would be a democratic mandate on behalf of the workers to run industry in this way. The capitalists having been stripped of political power would not have been able to move the SU back to capitalism - they would have to capture the power of the state to do that and this is supposedly what they did according to the above. So how did they manage to capture the power of the state to do that if the state was democratically run by the workers in the proletarian democracy? Was it an armed coup? Obviously not So according to this batty theory the capitalist restorationists must have persuaded the workers that it would be a good thing to go back to capitalism and the proles duly agreed and handed over their position of power to the capitalists restorationist.

This on the face of it is what we are asked to believe happened. It is so daft , so full of holes, that even the slightest shove can bring the whole edifice of this contrived argument tumbling down.

Is it not so much easier ,so much more in accord with the facts, to simply accept that the SU never was a socialist society or had anything called a proletarian dictatorship and that the CPSU hierarchy in fact became the basis of a new ruling class - a dictatorship over the proletariat - operating a system of state capitalism. At least then we have a credible explanation as to why state capitalism collapsed - becuase it no longer suited the soviet capitalist class to operate capitalism in this rather cumbersome and increasingly uncompetitive manner.

This explanation tallies with the facts; claiming that the SU was hijacked by "capitalist restorationists" is strictly alice in wonderland stuff

[ZeroNowhere]

I have asked this many times before but have never got so much as a sniff of a direct answer to this question - how can the proletariat operate a proletarian dictatorship and yet allow themselves to continue to be exploited in this way?
Because the class rule of the proletariat is the expropriation of the expropriators (as this expropriation involves the subjugation of one class' interests to another's), and as soon as said exploitation is over, and the capitalist class abolished (as opposed to 'capitalist class destroyed and ex-capitalists killed'), so is the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the DotP, we have a classless and stateless society, that is, socialism.


Why did it lose power and who were these mysterious "capitalist restorationists" that sought to return the SU to the capitalist fold.
More interesting is how a few bourgeois revisionists or whatever managed to, by acting like socialists, gain the power to abolish this supposed 'socialism' against the will of the apparently ruling proletariat. The apparently ruling proletariat which was most certainly larger than the bourgeoisie... Former bourgeoisie... Well, yeah, whatever. Unless they just hoodwinked this large socialist working class for some decades... So, y'know, fuck the working class gaining a strong understanding of socialism, we'll just hope that our leaders are awesome and eat revisionists (and capitalists, in order to speed up the abolition of the capitalists-that-are-not-capitalists-but-evil-manifest (Terry Goodkind is crap)) for breakfast.
One wonders how they got this chance for rule over the proletariat handed over to them on a silver platter.


Was it an armed coup? Obviously not
Revisionist lies.


This on the face of it is what we are asked to believe happened. It is so daft , so full of holes, that even the slightest shove can bring the whole edifice of this contrived argument tumbling down.
But... But... The proletariat are useless drones, right? In that case, it stands to reason.
...
Why are you looking at me like that? No, I'm not Trotsky, what? Oh, right, you thought that that was serious. In that case, your suspicions were fully justified.


This explanation tallies with the facts; claiming that the SU was hijacked by "capitalist restorationists" is strictly alice in wonderland stuff
'Alice in Wonderland'? Bullshit, it's more along the lines of 'Twilight'.

[robbo203]

Because the class rule of the proletariat is the expropriation of the expropriators, and as soon as said exploitation is over, and the capitalist class abolished (as opposed to 'capitalist class destroyed and ex-capitalists killed') so is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Sure, I understand that but I am really referring to the time factor involved. You can talk about the working class capuring political power thereby effectively making itself a ruling class and setting about getting rid of capitalism more or less at the same time. If you like, the DoP in this sense is just a verbal formula. The problem comes when you literally begin to talk about a proletarian dictatorship as an institutional reality over time

For the sake of argument i would be prepared to say the DoP might operate for a week or two as a kind of administrative vehicle attending to the winding of capitalism. But months, years, decades? No way! By then I think it is pretty clear we would not be talking about a DoP but the continuation of capitalism in another guise. Because the continued existence of a proletariat and hence class relations can only mean the continued existence of capitalism itself.

[nightazday]

what I can get from most people is that the reason it fell is because it simply wasn't communist (it was mini-america)

[Brother No. 1]

because it simply wasn't communist

Comrade no country in the Cold War has been Communist. Not Mao's China,Not Castro's Cuba,Not Hoxha's Albanina,ect. Their implying that is wasnt Socialist which I find hard to believe.

[robbo203]

Comrade no country in the Cold War has been Communist. Not Mao's China,Not Castro's Cuba,Not Hoxha's Albanina,ect. Their implying that is wasnt Socialist which I find hard to believe.


Well then all that remains is to get you and the the rest of the leninists here to see that actually socialism and communism are no different and that the distinction between them was introduced by Lenin. It was lenin who equated socialism with state capitalism run in the interests of the workers (as if this is remotely possible!). But the word is not important; it is what it stands for that is. If you think going down the route of state ownership of the means of production is the way to go then you are dead wrong. That whole statist approach has proved an unmitigiated disaster from the standpoint of achieving communism/socialism

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure, I understand that but I am really referring to the time factor involved. You can talk about the working class capuring political power thereby effectively making itself a ruling class and setting about getting rid of capitalism more or less at the same time. If you like, the DoP in this sense is just a verbal formula. The problem comes when you literally begin to talk about a proletarian dictatorship as an institutional reality over time
K. Which is why referring to it as 'socialism' or whatever (well, generally, I don't think that anybody who claims to be doing it actually does, and are generally talking about 'repressing the ex-bourgeoisie' or something, rather than the DotP, but anyways) is misleading, as it lasts only during revolution.
Anyways, to summarize, the DotP is the enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators, as opposed to expropriating the expropriated.

[Cumannach]

Jesus my head is spinning trying to follow the logic of this such as it is. Lets try and make some sense of this.

The Soviet Union was originally something called a dictatorship of the proletariat, goes the argument. Now even Leninists must know that a proletariat is someone who works for a wage or salary and is exploited by someone called a capitalist who makes a profit out of employing said proletarian. I have asked this many times before but have never got so much as a sniff of a direct answer to this question - how can the proletariat operate a proletarian dictatorship and yet allow themselves to continue to be exploited in this way? I mean, come on, this is very lackadaisical not to say downright careless on the part of the proletariat surely? If you had the power to get the capitalists off your back then surely you would want to use it. If you dont do that then it would seem that you dont really have the power to do it and that what you have is not really a "proletarian dictatorship" but a capitalist one. That is why you continue to be a proletariat and the capitalists continue to exploit you - becuase they have the power to do that!

But, never mind. You will never get a sensible answer from a leninist on this so we move onto the next poiint. It appeares that the SU busily set about constructing something called "socialism" but then the working class or proletariat lost power at a time when the SU was well on the way to communism. Why did it lose power and who were these mysterious "capitalist restorationists" that sought to return the SU to the capitalist fold. Again you will not get anything sensible out of a leninist or stalinist on this subject. If the workers controlled industry then it would be reasonable to assume that there would be a democratic mandate on behalf of the workers to run industry in this way. The capitalists having been stripped of political power would not have been able to move the SU back to capitalism - they would have to capture the power of the state to do that and this is supposedly what they did according to the above. So how did they manage to capture the power of the state to do that if the state was democratically run by the workers in the proletarian democracy? Was it an armed coup? Obviously not So according to this batty theory the capitalist restorationists must have persuaded the workers that it would be a good thing to go back to capitalism and the proles duly agreed and handed over their position of power to the capitalists restorationist.

This on the face of it is what we are asked to believe happened. It is so daft , so full of holes, that even the slightest shove can bring the whole edifice of this contrived argument tumbling down.

Is it not so much easier ,so much more in accord with the facts, to simply accept that the SU never was a socialist society or had anything called a proletarian dictatorship and that the CPSU hierarchy in fact became the basis of a new ruling class - a dictatorship over the proletariat - operating a system of state capitalism. At least then we have a credible explanation as to why state capitalism collapsed - becuase it no longer suited the soviet capitalist class to operate capitalism in this rather cumbersome and increasingly uncompetitive manner.

This explanation tallies with the facts; claiming that the SU was hijacked by "capitalist restorationists" is strictly alice in wonderland stuff

robbo I'm not feeding you. about 50 threads ago you were asked to actually make a substantive argument as to why the SU wasn't socialist, since then you've made about 500 posts filled with slogans and catchphrases.

[STJ]

I think it had to do with the people of the Soviet Union losing faith in it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i believe it was the war in afghanistan which may have been the final blow to the soviet people. for nearly 10 years they have been there. also, the economy form what i understand was not that great. also, dealing with the pressures from outside powers influences and propaganda. Perestroika and glasnost had a profound effect also

and of course... Ronald fucking Reagan.

[Alex Libman]

I was born in Moscow, and left as soon as my family was able in 1992 (I was 10). In my opinion, the following five causes were most significant:



(5) Christianity. It was very easy for the Soviet leaders to debunk and ridicule religious faith, but it gave strength and conviction to millions in spite of that. (I'm an atheist, but I have to give credit where credit is due.)



(4) Radio technology that got past the jammers to give some curious fraction of the Soviet youth a taste of what the west was really like.



(3) The dissidents - the particular heroic individuals who were to visible to squash, and too brave to shut up.



(2) Peace appeal - dictatorships gain their power fighting defensive wars they can justify, and lose power in wars they cannot (i.e. from Czechoslovakia to Afghanistan).



(1) Vodka, depression, suicide. Millions of Soviet citizens chose to drink themselves into stupor rather than use their minds to advance a system they instinctively knew was evil.


People like Ronald fucking Reagan are the reason why USSR didn't collapse within a couple decades of its founding. America saved Russia / USSR in two World Wars, provided tremendous quantities of economic aid, and kept the Cold War delusion going, which is what kept the Soviet hard-liners in power. When you have an external threat you can demonize, the sheeple will believe and endure anything...

[manic expression]

I was born in Moscow, and left as soon as my family was able in 1992 (I was 10). In my opinion, the following five causes were most significant:



(5) Christianity. It was very easy for the Soviet leaders to debunk and ridicule religious faith, but it gave strength and conviction to millions in spite of that. (I'm an atheist, but I have to give credit where credit is due.)

Not really. Papal support was important to Solidarity, but to the other anti-Soviet opportunists it was only marginal. Yeltsin's rhetoric wasn't religious, and to be honest Walesa's wasn't all that religious either.




(4) Radio technology that got past the jammers to give some curious fraction of the Soviet youth a taste of what the west was really like.

Or what it wasn't like. Do you really think radio media was an accurate representation of what the west was like?




(3) The dissidents - the particular heroic individuals who were to visible to squash, and too brave to shut up.

"Heroes" like Yeltsin the drunk? Walesa the liar? They were self-serving reactionaries and nothing more.




(2) Peace appeal - dictatorships gain their power fighting defensive wars they can justify, and lose power in wars they cannot (i.e. from Czechoslovakia to Afghanistan).

All governments follow much the same pattern, from capitalist regimes to socialist republics. Imperialist aggression in Afghanistan, for instance, did hurt the Soviet Union, but the Soviet defense of progress and human rights in Afghanistan is about the most powerful confirmation of the socialist cause as you can imagine. While the Soviets were helping the anti-apartheid fighters in Angola and South Africa, the imperialists were sending weapons to right-wing reactionaries around the world.




(1) Vodka, depression, suicide. Millions of Soviet citizens chose to drink themselves into stupor rather than use their minds to advance a system they instinctively knew was evil.

Yeah, good thing that doesn't happen anymore...:rolleyes: Since you're too lost to figure it out for yourself: alcoholism has gotten much worse since the fall of the USSR. Thanks for playing.

[robbo203]

robbo I'm not feeding you. about 50 threads ago you were asked to actually make a substantive argument as to why the SU wasn't socialist, since then you've made about 500 posts filled with slogans and catchphrases.


I have offered you a substantive argument as to why the SU could not possibly be considered socialist - ever. If this is the best you can come up - airily dismissing the argument put to you - then it is quite clear to me that no argument is ever going to induce you to shift your dogmatic stance on the matter

[nightazday]

[/LIST]
Thanks for playing.

because its easy to argue with a person who lived in russia when you didn't:rolleyes:

[Brother No. 1]

(5) Christianity. It was very easy for the Soviet leaders to debunk and ridicule religious faith, but it gave strength and conviction to millions in spite of that. (I'm an atheist, but I have to give credit where credit is due.)


Strength? I see no Strength in their Religion at the Soviet times. They still beleieved in Religion is wasnt illegal but you just couldnt ware Religious objects. Same thing in Poland.



(4) Radio technology that got past the jammers to give some curious fraction of the Soviet youth a taste of what the west was really like.

this was the prime source for Capitalist propaganda. They know now that this isnt to be trusted besides how can you trust someone through a radio thats getting paid to talk?


(3) The dissidents - the particular heroic individuals who were to visible to squash, and too brave to shut up.
Like Yelstin the Capitalist and anyother reactionary? They served them selfs only and never the people.



(2) Peace appeal - dictatorships gain their power fighting defensive wars they can justify, and lose power in wars they cannot (i.e. from Czechoslovakia to Afghanistan).

Many, apon many goverments do this. Afghanistan was tough for not only did this hurt the CCCP but its the fact they werent only in Afghanistan. They tried to do more then one thing and they tried to fight off the Capitalist supplied Facist fedalists but couldnt. They exited and let the country its long awaited "freedom" as the westerns said. But mostly this was all during the Revisionist Eras of the CCCP.




(1) Vodka, depression, suicide. Millions of Soviet citizens chose to drink themselves into stupor rather than use their minds to advance a system they instinctively knew was evil.

Sure..and its a good thing the the people dont do that anymore in any of the former Republics.http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-did-ussr-t106269/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
Also is there such a thing was "evil" or is it just another word to catigorize us in another box?

[Weezer]

Oh Noes!! Not Zombie Lenin! :crying:

Why do you think they preserved his body so well? :ohmy: