At which point would you say the Soviet Union stopped being socialist?

[Anti-Social Socialist]

It's widely accepted on here that the Soviet Union operated under State-Capitalism for the majority of its history, right? Well, at what point would you say that it stopped being Socialist (if it was ever socialist at all)? I'm doing a paper on The Battleship Potemkin (which was made towards the end 1925), and I was wondering if this was made during the state-capitalist period or not. Sorry if this topics been made before.

[Yehuda Stern]

1. Socialism and capitalism are different modes of production; there is, then, little sense in asking if a state was socialist when it was state capitalist.

2. This has been distorted by many modern pseudo-Marxists, but no Marxist ever claimed before 1924 that a single state in which a socialist revolution has triumphed is socialist - it is but a workers' state, i.e. a state in which the proletariat manipulates the law of value (the operating rules of capitalism) to its favor.

3. I am a member of a group which holds that the USSR stopped being a workers' state and turned back into a capitalist state in the late 1930s, after the Stalinist counterrevolution finished destroying workers' power over the economy and smashed the Trotskyist left opposition, which signaled the destruction of revolutionary consciousness in the USSR.

[Tseka]

The USSR was never a Communist State, many innocent lives were ruined by Lenin and Stalin.

[Oktyabr]

Either after Lenin died, or when WW2 started.

[Dóchas]

once the soviets lost power

[SecondLife]

I was born and lived in USSR, but this talk that USSR wasn't socialist state is ridiculous bulshit. In USSR standard of living was very high. As in socialist states common, in USSR social services were practically for free, also food. USSR was the first socialist state where working class lives like hedonists (this was also the reason it's economic collapses)
I understand that someone don't like it because dictatorship. But this is also bulshit. This dicatorship was olny in Stalin period. Others periods were far from some military junta. Yes, communist party had bad management system, too tsentralised, autocracy,cult of personality. Controlled economy, bureaucracy and tsentralisation aren't at all bad things if they are managed professionally.
KGB isn't enough for that, even more institutions needed for better contacts organisation with people and people control of state management.
I live better in old USSR than in some capitalist state.
Also crime was very low in USSR.

[Cumannach]

It's widely accepted on here that the Soviet Union operated under State-Capitalism for the majority of its history, right? Well, at what point would you say that it stopped being Socialist (if it was ever socialist at all)? I'm doing a paper on The Battleship Potemkin (which was made towards the end 1925), and I was wondering if this was made during the state-capitalist period or not. Sorry if this topics been made before.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transition from capitalism to communism. The Soviet Union ceased to be socialist in the first sense, in the years around Stalin's death, when the control of the state fell out of the hands of the proletariat and their genuine marxist-leninist communist representatives. The Soviet Union was at that point a considerable distance along the transition to communism. It then started retracing it's steps, and moved back towards capitalism, completing the journey in the last years of Gorbachev.

Yehuda talks incredible nonsense.

[SecondLife]

It then started retracing it's steps, and moved back towards capitalism, completing the journey in the last years of Gorbachev.

Yeah, Gorbachev was hundred times worse than Stalin, also Boris Yeltsin of course. I completely understand those reforms, but I don't understand wish to give state to capitalism.
I think he was just stupid.

[Jack]

A little after the October revolution.

[revolution inaction]

The ussr was never socialist, there was the beginnings of a socialist revolution in 1917 but that was crushed by the Bolsheviks when they took power. I'm not sure when exactly the Bolsheviks had complete control and all hope of a successful revolution was over, but defiantly think before 1925. Probably before Kronstadt, although with better tactics maybe the Kronsadt rebels wouldn't have lost, and things would have been different.

If you haven't read these already then maybe it will be interesting

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

http://libcom.org/library/truth-about-kronstadt

[LeninBalls]

No point asking, you'll get a million different answers each with no proof.

Some say 1953, some say 1917, some say 1924 etc

[communard resolution]

As in socialist states common, in USSR social services were practically for free, also food.

What, food was free? Not too bad, although I doubt this is true.

As for the OP: I'm currently finding out.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Socialism is the transitory phase between capitalism and capitalism." So it doesn't matter when it stopped being socialist, since it was always intended to be capitalist in the end.
You mean "between capitalism and communism" right?

It matters when and how the Soviet Union began steering away from the path towards communism because it means they made mistakes. Now in order for us to not make these same mistakes, we should analyze and debate the mistakes made by Soviet leadership during (insert allotted time here). It was the intention for the revisionist leadership of the SU to revert back to capitalist relations, as evidenced by their massive borrowings from the west, and decentralization/privatization of the Soviet economy following the second world war. This is simple fact and shouldn't have to be debated.

The real question of "when the Soviet Union stopped being socialist" lies with whether or not you accept the Bolshevik revolution as a working class revolution and the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or whether or not you think the SU leadership (with Stalin at it's head) successfully implemented the DOTP.

Just thought I'd clear that up, since many responses in this thread border on anti-historical hearsay.

edit: Also, this is going to turn into another one of those threads, where the same discussion gets played out, again. and I think the OP is just trolling to stir up this specific discussion.

[More Fire for the People]

It was never socialist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Nope. Russia is capitalist now.
OK. So when you say "Socialism is the transition between capitalism and capitalism", your just trying to be witty?

Because I highly doubt it was "always the intention" of the Soviet Union's leadership to facilitate a counter revolution back towards capitalism; mind you that there was an active offensive towards abolishing capitalism in the SU from about 1917-1950's (give or take a few years), maybe you've heard of it. Your claim is simply irreverent.

[Hoxhaist]

The USSR stopped being socialist when Khruschev undermined Stalin's progress in building socialism and Brezhnev's policy of zastoy obliterated the economy with stagnation and rampant corruption

[LOLseph Stalin]

The USSR stopped being Socialist after Stalin became leader, and stopped any chances of world revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The USSR stopped being Socialist after Stalin became leader, and stopped any chances of world revolution.
I see, and how did you come up with this conclusion? I fail to see how Stalin stopped any chance of (an already not happening) world revolution; because I think little things like the defeat of fascism, and the Chinese revolution (both of which took place during Stalin's leadership) improved any slight chance of world revolution.

Also, the economic development in the SU which took place during his leadership actually developed the means to sustain the needs of the SU's population while increasing the standard of living; which is wasn't the case before 1934. So I don't see how the Soviet Union simply stopped being socialist after he became the leader.

[manic expression]

The Soviet Union stopped being socialist when private property and the rule of the bourgeoisie was reestablished; essentially, the USSR stopped being socialist when it fell. The Soviet Union's socialist character came from its property relations, its mode of production, its stance against imperialism. The achievements and conquests of November 1917 were still being felt and enjoyed in 1989. Capitalism cannot exist when the state has a monopoly on foreign trade, for example, but once the bourgeoisie seized its opportunity and abolished such revolutionary institutions, socialism itself was abolished, and the working class has suffered for it ever since.

The argument that Stalin and his supporters destroyed socialism in the USSR doesn't fit any scientific analysis. Far from ending revolutionary gains, the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership took a great risk in collectivizing farmland and carried out industrialization through mobilization of the workers. Stalin simply maintained the ban on factions and the method of factory management that had been in place since 1921. I think it's fair to say such measures were a response to the conditions the Soviet Union faced before WWII, in that it needed to modernize, and fast; in the same way, the conditions after the Nazi onslaught were little different. Centralization of decision-making, something that's often pointed to as the end of socialism, is just the best way to do that. Was it desirable? No. Could it have been done better? Of course, and in many cases dire mistakes could have been avoided. However, that doesn't change the character of the Soviet Union at this time.

While anti-revisionists say Khrushchev began the capitalist restoration, I'm not so sure about this, and I'd like to hear different perspectives on the issue. His first major decision was to smash the anti-socialist uprising in Hungary, and Mao was in agreement with him on this. What else did he do, materially? The agricultural drive in Uzbekistan? I honestly can't think of anything Khrushchev fundamentally changed about Soviet society, and only by shaking the foundations of a society can a revolution be made or broken IMO.

The biggest criticisms, it seems, are ideological ones. "Peaceful Coexistence" gets a lot more flak than it deserves: it just meant that the USSR wasn't going to force socialism upon other nations through military force, that revolution was to come through the workers of a given country. As for the "Secret Speech", I think it was important to say that not everything Stalin did was a-OK, because it wasn't. However, it may have been too much at once, and an open discourse on Stalin's (multiple and oftentimes crucial) shortcomings and mistakes would have been better than just declaring Stalin evil one night. If others would like to challenge or critique those views on Khrushchev, they're more than welcome to, because I admit I may be mistaken.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

1. Socialism and capitalism are different modes of production; there is, then, little sense in asking if a state was socialist when it was state capitalist.

2. This has been distorted by many modern pseudo-Marxists, but no Marxist ever claimed before 1924 that a single state in which a socialist revolution has triumphed is socialist - it is but a workers' state, i.e. a state in which the proletariat manipulates the law of value (the operating rules of capitalism) to its favor.

3. I am a member of a group which holds that the USSR stopped being a workers' state and turned back into a capitalist state in the late 1930s, after the Stalinist counterrevolution finished destroying workers' power over the economy and smashed the Trotskyist left opposition, which signaled the destruction of revolutionary consciousness in the USSR.

Quoting for truth since all the other posts are nonsense.

[Brother No. 1]

Quoting for truth since all the other posts are nonsense.

Are they nonsense or do you just not seek to read and accept them?




The USSR was never a Communist State, many innocent lives were ruined by Lenin and Stalin.

#1:There is no such thing as a "Communist state" thats a oxymoron for Communism=classless,STATELESS,society.
#2: Yes some lives were as good under those 2 leaders but have you forgotten the Revolution,Civil War, Allied invasion, and the trying to come back from all that? You havw to understand that during those times things were near the deep end. What were they to do? Do you have any ideas?




The Soviet Union stopped being socialist when private property and the rule of the bourgeoisie was reestablished; essentially, the USSR stopped being socialist when it fell. The Soviet Union's socialist character came from its property relations, its mode of production, its stance against imperialism. The achievements and conquests of November 1917 were still being felt and enjoyed in 1989. Capitalism cannot exist when the state has a monopoly on foreign trade, for example, but once the bourgeoisie seized its opportunity and abolished such revolutionary institutions, socialism itself was abolished, and the working class has suffered for it ever since.


This is my view on when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stoped being Socialist in its life.







The USSR stopped being Socialist after Stalin became leader, and stopped any chances of world revolution.

Please tell me when was the World Revolution happing at that time? All other Revoltuions had failed and the CCCP was all alone. It was the only Socialist state out there in the world and why is Stalin blamed? Yes Stalin made success and failures but so does every leader. How did he destroy the Socialism there? can you give proof?

[SecondLife]

What, food was free? Not too bad, although I doubt this is true.

As for the OP: I'm currently finding out.

You was understand me little wrong, I was meant food was _almost_ free. There wasn't never problem that money isnt enough for food, for rent, for transport, for medical preparates etc. More money was needed for electronics, car etc.

i.e.
There isn't need to suspect that capitalism restoration begans before Gorbachev, no, he was just Gorbachev. But he did not this deliberately. Gorbachev was just simple man, little stupid, like some entrepreneurial businessman who just want to realise his "good" ideas, but he wasn't communist (and this was bad).
But of course this guilt bear on also to people, et. working class of ussr. Belief to communism was fallen, especially in non-russians (because Stalin's deportations program), and this was also guilt of communist party who can't make itselt enough popular for people. Peole live like in paradise and stop thinking about money and economy at all. People who were responsible of

controlled economy management, make very bad job, they just don't care.
But the corruption wasn't as high as all think. In my opinion in Latin-America corruption is higher, and also high corruption (even mafia) exist in capitalist countries. Corruption in ussr was of course very bad, because if corruption exist in socialist state, then it can destroy socialism, in capitalist state corruption don't destroy capitalism. But I remember, when ussr collapses and starts privatisation, then corruption was many times higher than in ussr ever. Practically mafia bogarts all private property for itself. Yes, nowadays private owners and capitalists are previous criminals.

[el_chavista]

Socialist wrote: "What were the material conditions that led to capitalism being re-established in the Soviet Union?"
There weren't, unless you mean the leadership's concerning in augmenting the productivity like in the capitalistic economies, which leads the leadership to make treats with the world's financial capitals.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The soviet union was never socialist. During the revoluion they may have had socialist ideals but once Lenin took over the control of production never went to the workers and instead became state controlled.

[ZeroNowhere]

When did you stop beating your wife?

[SecondLife]

The soviet union was never socialist. During the revoluion they may have had socialist ideals but once Lenin took over the control of production never went to the workers and instead became state controlled.

Look, socialism is not the same thing as anarchism and also anarchism is not communism, altough all are in left-side. Socialism is more economic term. Mostly it means that in state don't exist private ownership, economy is nationalized, exist controlled economy and people are granted full social support. Communism is not exactly the same thing as communes (in anarchy). Ok, this is more Leninism. But centralizantion don't mean necessarily dictatorship. If it becomes, then somewhere was mistake in management system, but it stays anyway socialism or even communism. In communism economy and state management tsentralisation is more complex than just "up to down" direction.

[ZeroNowhere]

Mostly it means that in state don't exist private ownership, economy is nationalized, exist controlled economy and people are granted full social support.I was under the impression that the OP was not using 'socialism' to refer to capitalism.


Look, socialism is not the same thing as anarchism and also anarchism is not communism, altough all are in left-side.
Anarchism is communism. Or, for our 'anarcho-communist' buddies, at least some anarchists are communist. :D

[Comrade Anarchist]

Look, socialism is not the same thing as anarchism and also anarchism is not communism, altough all are in left-side. Socialism is more economic term. Mostly it means that in state don't exist private ownership, economy is nationalized, exist controlled economy and people are granted full social support. Communism is not exactly the same thing as communes (in anarchy). Ok, this is more Leninism. But centralizantion don't mean necessarily dictatorship. If it becomes, then somewhere was mistake in management system, but it stays anyway socialism or even communism. In communism economy and state management tsentralisation is more complex than just "up to down" direction.

what i meant was that there was that workers werent in control like in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but instead every thing was nationalized and taken from the workers instead of given to them. So they technically never were socialist

[SecondLife]

......but instead every thing was nationalized and taken from the workers instead of given to them.

:D, ok, but how you know _who_ is worker (or who is whole working class). If you don't nationalize complete economy, production facilities, land, then immediately starts capital accumulation, private ownership and capitalism.
Example first you all starts to live in communes. But this is only while beginning. Soon communes becomes enterprises and then corporation. And when money is enough, then automatically accumulates also power, legally and also illegally (mafia).

[mosfeld]

The USSR stopped being Socialist after Stalin became leader, and stopped any chances of world revolution. You do realize the SU was state capitalist under Lenin and even he admitted this?

[Glenn Beck]

Probably when people started asking this question

[manic expression]

You do realize the SU was state capitalist under Lenin and even he admitted this?

Lenin was using that term in a completely different way than it is used today, at least in this context. Lenin referred to "state capitalism" as a controlled market under the direct control of the working class. That's much (much) different than having a capitalist class in power in a nationalized economy, which is the way the anti-Soviets here are using that label.