Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

[Havet]

I have seen in some threads that when, ahem, "reactionaries" use the Soviet Union example as how the dictatorship of the proletariat couldn't work, some of the users here claimed the USSR wasn't communist at all.

So i'd like to ask people here what are, in your opinion, the basic characteristics that the Soviet Union lacked or had (that shouldn't have) that make it, in your opinion, not fall under the communist definition.

And in case you think the Soviet Union was Communist, how would you answer those who claim that it wasn't, and how would you explain its demise?

[Nwoye]

well it by no means was an example of "public ownership of the means of production" and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. i mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm - the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO's.

[Il Medico]

One, the USSR was a nation-State, and communism can not exist in a nation-state form. Two, the USSR never had anything near a dictatorship of the proletariat, rather a dictatorship of Stalin. Three, communism is a post-class society and form of living. The USSR clearly had a class system. The "communist" elite at the top and the workers at the bottom. Just because the means of production wasn't in the hands of individual capitalist, doesn't mean that it was in the hands of the people. Four, communism is based on rule of the people, or democracy (not bourgeois democracy mind you). The soviet Union was a totalitarian system, the power did not rest with the people (workers). That is the basics, however, if you are really interested, read The Revolution betrayed. Trotsky wrote in it both why the USSR under Stalin was not communist and why it would fall. (he wrote it in the 30's, 50 years before the fall of the USSR)

[New Tet]

I think the USSR was not communist because the workers lacked democratic control of the economy and there existed a political state that exploted and oppressed them, to put it as succintly as I can.

[Havet]

and what do you guys think will prevent any revolution with the purpose of implanting communism won't end up creating a communist elite and a dictatorship of a state?

[RGacky3]

and what do you guys think will prevent any revolution with the purpose of implanting communism won't end up creating a communist elite and a dictatorship of a state?


Not allow it to begin with, the same way any revolution would stop that from happening, infact a communist revolution should be the workers taking over the means of production, so as long as they don't give their power over to someone its fine.

[JimmyJazz]

You're not going to get good answers to this in a single thread of course, because it's not a simple question. Try sticking around the board for six months or so and reading (not posting) if you're really curious; I suggest concentrating on the history and theory fora. Maybe then you'll be able to formulate a pointed question.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It was not a stateless or classless society. The USA called them communist state while the most of the world called them socialist state. TomK is known to be a victim of the former.

[RGacky3]

It was not a stateless or classless society. The USA called them communist state while the most of the world called them socialist state. TomK is known to be a victim of the former.


Even calling it Socialist is kind of sketchy, its like Calling the United states a real democracy.

I'm actually of the opinion that Norway is more Socialist than the USSR was, as far as being in line with actual socialist principles.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Even calling it Socialist is kind of sketchy, its like Calling the United states a real democracy.

I'm actually of the opinion that Norway is more Socialist than the USSR was, as far as being in line with actual socialist principles.
However you view them, they do call themselves socialist. Talking about how socialism they were is entirely different subject.

[Communist Theory]

Well the USSR strived for the achievement of Communism at first but with each new leader they lost the drive it seems. It seemed like they were on track under Lenin and for awhile under Stalin to Communism. Socialism is defined as the government owning the means of production so I'm sure that the USSR would be defined as Socialist RGacky. The demise of the USSR was the fault of Gorbachev he was a indecisive and ineffective leader.

[RGacky3]

Well the USSR strived for the achievement of Communism at first but with each new leader they lost the drive it seems.

That bold part negates your whole point.


Socialism is defined as the government owning the means of production so I'm sure that the USSR would be defined as Socialist RGacky.

Technically speaking yeah, but unless the government is directly accountable to the people (which is arguable how accountable the USSR was), the government owning them is more or less meaningless.

Now I'm not gonna sit here and say the USSR was not accountable at all, because the USSR did have democratic institutions (just like the US), however I'd argue how much power those institutions had as opposed to non or less democratic institutions.

Whereas a country like Norway, the government controls less, but at least the government is a lot more accountable to the people, so what the government controls, the people have a lot more say in.

[ArrowLance]

I would say the USSR was on the right track until the death of Stalin. After that it starts to curve back in the direction of capitalism. But obviously it was not 'communist,' perhaps not even 'socialist' at the time of Stalins death. Things do not happen instantly. And as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong, and give examples) no country has claimed to achieve communism.

[RGacky3]

I would say the USSR was on the right track until the death of Stalin.

I have to disagree, the stage was set for what happened under stalin well before Stalin came into power. The murdering of Anarchists and other political dissidance, the centralizing of real power into the hands of the party rather than the soviets, the authoritarian structure of democratic centrism, and so on, all happend under Lenin.

You can't go from an authoritarian structure to another authoritarian structure and hope to get communism out of it.

[Hiero]

well it by no means was an example of "public ownership of the means of production" and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. i mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm - the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO's.

You mean production and distribution were carried out by profit and consumer demands?

That is just not true. There was a coordination of production from a national level based on the needs of the population. The national planing commitees worked with regional levels and local levels of planing all the way done to the actual production of goods. Ofcourse this is a centralised way of producing things, but it is neccassary to eliminate the anarchy of production seen under capitalism.

I know that Krushchev's reforms gave more autonomy to local levels to decide what they should produce, and this was based on profit. But at least under a Stalin there was some national coordination based on socialist priniciples not capitalist.

[RGacky3]

I know that Krushchev's reforms gave more autonomy to local levels to decide what they should produce, and this was based on profit. But at least under a Stalin there was some national coordination based on socialist priniciples not capitalist.

So are you saying less autonomy is more socialist?

[New Tet]

Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

My first guess is that because of the reduced number of workers in 1917 (many had perished in the German trenches--WWI, remember?) communism was an impossibility
(no to mention their social and industrial backwardness).

My second guess is that the workers there never controlled the means of production beyond their day to day operation and maintenance...

Read After The Revolution, Who Rules? in downloadable pdf format from the SLP's web site: slp.org

[Hiero]

So are you saying less autonomy is more socialist?
Your using autonomy as an abosolute term. Less autonomy can mean more socialism, less autonomy for the bourgieosie is more socialist.

Anyway, by allowing the local levels or factory managers to decide quotas without any direction from a national level removed from the goals of production the need to accomendate people's needs first. They began producing goods based on profit, so working out how many whatevers would be bought, rather then how many whatevers was need. This can only be done at a national level where all major production is taken into consideration.

[RGacky3]

Your using autonomy as an abosolute term. Less autonomy can mean more socialism, less autonomy for the bourgieosie is more socialist.

Autonomy for the bourgieosie is not less socialist. The bourgieosie get their power from ownership, not autonomy, NO ONE has more power from autonomy. Autonomy is simply freedom. If the autonomy for the "bourgieosie" is even a question, guess what, they arn't bourgieosie anymore.


Anyway, by allowing the local levels or factory managers to decide quotas without any direction from a national level removed from the goals of production the need to accomendate people's needs first. They began producing goods based on profit, so working out how many whatevers would be bought, rather then how many whatevers was need. This can only be done at a national level where all major production is taken into consideration.

Without property laws and democratic control production for profit would'nt have been a problem. Also with everyone essencially with the same say over production, producing whatever would be bought would be pretty much producing whatever was needed.

The problem is was essencially that it was'nt democratic control.

[Misanthrope]

The Soviet Union was not communist because the Soviet Union was a state, and the Soviet Union had a ruling social class (the state). That is no communism nor socialism. The USSR was state capitalist.

[laminustacitus]

The Soviet Union was not communist because the Soviet Union was a state, and the Soviet Union had a ruling social class (the state). That is no communism nor socialism. The USSR was state capitalist.
That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

[laminustacitus]

The demise of the USSR was the fault of Gorbachev he was a indecisive and ineffective leader.

By that do you mean that Gorbachev loosened the totalitarian control enough that nations were actually able to finally throw off the chains of tyranny?

[mykittyhasaboner]

That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

:lol::lol:

I cannot believe I'm actually agreeing with you!


On "state-capitalism" in the Soviet Union, I think this is a shady concept that really misses the main point when trying to ascertain the specific character of a given society, ownership of the MOP: if there is no private ownership of the means of production, and instead the means of production are owned by society as a whole, then you simply can't have capitalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Short answer: Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society of abundance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...the USSR has neither property rights...
Actually, it did. Private individuals owned many household objects, as well as things like cars.

And state ownership of the means of production is no different from ownership by a private corporation that does not want to sell any of its property to you.

If a single corporation, in which every citizen was an equal shareholder, somehow managed to buy all the means of production and then refused to re-sell them to anyone else, I would call that socialism. The key feature of socialism is that a single entity, representing all the people in equal measure, must own all the means of production. Whether or not this entity also happens to be the state, is irrelevant.

[trivas7]

Lenin initiated and Stalin implemented a re-definition of socialism. In the initial flush of revolutionary fervor, buoyed up by Lenin's State and Revolution, all was supposed to be transparent. Government was to be accessible to the masses and exercised by them. Socialism was then interpreted as a condition which all were (or potentially were) participants in their own self-administration. Here how the government and administration were to be conducted were of the essence of the socialist government. Socialism here was understood to be a radical restructing of relationships of domination and subordination within society -- an end to bosses.

That was exactly what the Kronstadters were claiming as their revolutionary birthright in 1921. By this time, however, Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin were reformulating the foundation mythology of the regime, and, in the process, dramatically redefining socialism. By the late spring and summer of 1918, Lenin was orchestrating a respecification of the nature of soviet socialism. He (and Trotsky and Bukharin) became increasingly convinced that the people's lack of culture, their impoverishment due to internal industrial breakdown and international isolation, and their brutalisation during the civil war, made the dream of self-administration an impossible one to realize. Socialism was redefined as maximal efficiency and productivity. The elemental goals of re-establishing industry, transport and exchange bt town and country were placed at the top of the agenda for the party and the state. All that promoted these objectives was now hailed as progressive and revolutionary; even if it meant the subjugation of the unions and the soviets to the dictates of the communist commissar; even if it meant that coercion had to be applied to the working class itself. One-man management, discipline, and a patterned hierarchy of control and power were now acknowledged to be necessary to meet the newly redefined goals of socialism. Here was the entry point for what was to develop into Stalinism.

Lenin himself, in response to Karl Kautsky, said: "The form of government has absolutely nothing to do w/ it (i.e., socialism). He insisted upon a purely productivist definition of socialism:



In the last analysis, productivity of labor is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system [...] Communism is the higher productivity of labor -- compared w/ that existing under capitalism.

[laminustacitus]

Actually, it did. Private individuals owned many household objects, as well as things like cars.
Property rights would mean that the government cannot just arbitrarily confiscate property, which the USSR had no problem with doing. There is more to the concept of property rights than owning trivial items, it is the idea that the individual can utilize his property as he sees fit, without aggressing against others.




And state ownership of the means of production is no different from ownership by a private corporation that does not want to sell any of its property to you.
False, a private corporation that does not want to sell any property to me cannot hold a gun to my head, a state can do that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Note it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rather than The Union of Soviet Communist Republics. :) That pretty much says everything. Ok, not really, but seriously it did still have a state. It got as far as the transition to Communism before degrading into a bureaucracy.

[Trystan]

The USSR was Communist insofar as it had as its (official!) "goal" the creation of a stateless, classless society in which the means of production were commonly owned - i.e. a communist society. Note that the "state ownership" of the USSR does not necessarily mean "common ownership", because in the Soviet Union there were two classes: Party and non-Party. (Interestingly, by the way, this seems to have been due to power, rather than property relations.) The fact that a communist society did not develop, is, in my opinion, because of the major flaw in Marxist (or Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist) ideology - the Marxist gang looked primarily at property relations, and neglected power relations, thinking that producing this or that amount of stuff will make the state "wither away" (a theory refuted by history). The "bureaucracy" the Trots always bang on about is a consequence of the orthodox Marxist ideology, not some "bad eggs" like Stalin. Rotten system = rotten people.

[Trystan]

That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

"Market economy" and capitalism perfectly facilitated the slave trade. People don't have to be "free" in order for there to be capitalism (i.e. a system of private ownership and profit-making). I think that you are confusing "capitalism" with modern "libertarianism" - as "libertarians" always do.

[RGacky3]

if there is no private ownership of the means of production, and instead the means of production are owned by society as a whole, then you simply can't have capitalism.

I agree, however society as a whole =/= the government, especially if the government is non democratic.

I still maintain that simply becaues it has a more functioning democracy, and more general and workplace freedoms, norway is more socialist than the USSR.


Note it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rather than The Union of Soviet Communist Republics. :) That pretty much says everything. Ok, not really, but seriously it did still have a state. It got as far as the transition to Communism before degrading into a bureaucracy.

Excactly. on the USSR part, the USSRs claim to Socialism is really as good as Americas claim to democracy, and that is'nt argued.

As far as degrading into bureaucracy what exactly do you mean by that, other than bureaucracy being a buzzword which avoids the real issue, which was centralized un accountable power.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. i know name doesnt mean everything. but, well, i think this is a bit obvious.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The USSR was a totalitarian State no better than it's Nazi counterpart. The Tsar was shit but we must be honest and admit that once the Bolsheviks took over, things didnt improve. All the USSR did was give Russian leaders more toys to play with and more people to kill.

[Havet]

Not allow it to begin with, the same way any revolution would stop that from happening, infact a communist revolution should be the workers taking over the means of production, so as long as they don't give their power over to someone its fine.

i just remmembered somethings:

Why didn't the communist revolution in Russia prevent that?

What mechanisms will there be to prevent that the dictatorship of the proletariat gets stuck in a dictatorship, so it can move towards a stateless society?

Why didnt those mechanisms act in the USSR?

[RGacky3]

Why didn't the communist revolution in Russia prevent that?

Because the russian people (enough of them) trusted the Bolsheviks with (supposed to be temporary) power in the face of the fear of counter revolution.


What mechanisms will there be to prevent that the dictatorship of the proletariat gets stuck in a dictatorship, so it can move towards a stateless society?

Don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat in the firstplace, which is really just a vague term to justify actual dictatorships. I dont' believe any government would just willingly give up power like some leninists believe.


Why didnt those mechanisms act in the USSR?

Because they wern't there, the people just had to go on trust.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree, however society as a whole =/= the government, especially if the government is non democratic.
This is another fallacy, and it excludes the fact that state owned property was not the only type of property, there was 'collective' property as well, which was most likely agricultural property that was owned by those who worked at the collective. The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy. You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.


I still maintain that simply becaues it has a more functioning democracy, and more general and workplace freedoms, norway is more socialist than the USSR.
:lol: Norway is a bourgeois state. There is not control or ownership of the means of production by the workers, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, isn't worker's democracy my friend. The USSR had a much more functioning version of democracy, because the fruits and wealth of society already belonged to the people. If you think that Soviet democracy, is much less "functioning" than your average parliament, then I'm glad your restricted, because that's rubbish.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm


The USSR was a totalitarian State no better than it's Nazi counterpart. The Tsar was shit but we must be honest and admit that once the Bolsheviks took over, things didnt improve. All the USSR did was give Russian leaders more toys to play with and more people to kill. You are probably the worst troll on this forum, mostly because of your sheer ignorance that you've demonstrated time and time again; and the above is a gem of just that. Piss off.

[mel]

The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy.

No they didn't. Only approved members of the party could be nominated for political offices and elections were uncontested. Workers had no constitutional right to recall if they felt their representatives were not representing their interests in any level of government, and while the workers had "ownership" of the means of production through the proxy of the state, they did not have control because they did not have control of that state.


You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.

Not wholly undemocratic, but the USSR's democracy was about as much of a sham as bourgeois democracy is, which is to say that it was wholly ineffective at protecting the interests of workers in light of overwhelming state power and central party control. This situation was slightly improved with Stalin's 1935 constitution, but the introduction of secret ballots didn't really do much to improve the state of things when there was still only one name on the ballot, and that name was a stamped and approved member of the party, with its own interests that was not always in line with the interests of the workers. Party members were in a position of power and privilege, and only they could nominate and approve candidates for sham elections.

[Bud Struggle]

:lol: Norway is a bourgeois state. There is not control or ownership of the means of production by the workers, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, isn't worker's democracy my friend. The USSR had a much more functioning version of democracy, because the fruits and wealth of society already belonged to the people. If you think that Soviet democracy, is much less "functioning" than your average parliament, then I'm glad your restricted, because that's rubbish.

The SU was less "democratic" than Russia is today. For all of the use of the word "soviet" the soviets had little to no actual power--every important decision was made through and by the Communist Party.

But the REAL problem with the SU is that the people lived in constant distrust and fear of their own government. I had been there a number of times--and have some very good friends that my wife and I stayed with when we were there--and you learned very quickly what you could make fun of and what you couldn. who you could trust and who you couldn't--and even then you weren't quite sure.

There was an over all feeling of always having to look over your sholder constantly. I've never been tp Norway--But I have been to Demmark and Sweden and if Norway is similar to those countries then is has a much, much freer climate than the SU. Freedom is a more important to the quality of life than who technically owns what factory.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No they didn't. Only approved members of the party could be nominated for political offices and elections were uncontested. Workers had no constitutional right to recall if they felt their representatives were not representing their interests in any level of government, and while the workers had "ownership" of the means of production through the proxy of the state, they did not have control because they did not have control of that state.

Not wholly undemocratic, but the USSR's democracy was about as much of a sham as bourgeois democracy is, which is to say that it was wholly ineffective at protecting the interests of workers in light of overwhelming state power and central party control. This situation was slightly improved with Stalin's 1935 constitution, but the introduction of secret ballots didn't really do much to improve the state of things when there was still only one name on the ballot, and that name was a stamped and approved member of the party, with its own interests that was not always in line with the interests of the workers. Party members were in a position of power and privilege, and only they could nominate and approve candidates for sham elections.http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm


Watching that election close at hand it struck me as being curious that in all the discussions of Soviet Democracy and its comparison to democratic practices in other countries one rarely got a picture of how the channels of democratic expression of the people operated in their new electoral process.

Looking at it from 3,000 miles away it appeared as if there was one electoral ticket and the people were given the chance to vote ‘yes or no’ on it. This was indeed true of Nazi elections but it is completely a false picture when applied to the Soviet Union.

To start with, in the Soviet Union politics and elections are not the special duties of a political party. If one does not understand that paramount fact everything else is likely to be unclear. Nominations to public office are not made by a political party alone. The Communist Party does indeed put forward many candidates but so do the trade unions nominate independent candidates for political office; so do the cooperatives, the cultural organizations, the scientific academies, the youth organizations, whatever special women’s organizations exist and every other organization or institution that desires to. In short, nominations for office, which in our country stems only from political parties, in the Soviet Union stems from every possible people’s organization.
The second thing that must be understood about Soviet elections which give them their special democratic quality is that the emphasis in the selection of candidates does not lie in the final vote but lies in the choosing of the nominees.


I had the privilege of observing the nominations and elections in the district in which I lived and worked from beginning to end. The particular election which I referred to was the All-Union elections for selecting of delegates to the All-Union Soviet Congress, that being equivalent of our choosing of members of the United States House of Representatives in Washington. Each institution in the congressional district in which I resided and worked held meetings of the people to nominate candidates. Meetings were held in factories. The Moscow university, which was in this district held a meeting. The Great Lenin Library held a meeting of its staff to put forward candidates. So did all of the cooperative stores associations that operated there. So did the trade union organisations, the Communist Party, the youth organisations, etc. etc. A great many candidates were put forward in each meeting. The procedure for each candidate was to stand up and give a brief biography of his life and reasons why he should or should not be nominated. It was considered a lack of civic responsibility for a candidate to decline out of hand. If he thought he should not be elected it was has duty to take the platform, provide a brief biography of his life, and give the reasons why he should not be accepted. Two whole weeks were set aside for this procedure. Some organisations met every night for the entire period and examined thousands of people who were put forward as candidates there. Each candidate had to submit to questions from the floor. At the end of that time one or more nominees were put in nomination for the entire district with the endorsement of the body choosing him or her.


In addition to putting forth nominees each group chose a number of delegates on a proportional representation basis to a congressional district conference. The congressional district conference also met for a period of about two weeks. The nominations were put before that body. The same procedure was gone through there, each nominee was examined, his or her qualifications weighed against other nominees and finally a vote taken by the delegated body for the final choice.


Frequently the body decided to accept not one nominee but two or three or even more. These nominees, after this thorough process of distillation were then submitted to the electorate for final voting. And the electorate thus, by popular majority, judged one of the candidates in that congressional district they desired to have represent them in the All-Union Soviet Congress.


From this it can be seen that far from lacking in democracy this process is a very democratic one in that it gives the common people a very direct hand in who is nominated and we know from our own electoral system that in the last analysis the selection of the nominee is the critical thing in any election.


In the election which I witnessed I saw nominees ‘put through the mill’ in a manner which would be very wholesome if applied to our own country. Their contributions and social service, their own interest in public affairs, their record of unselfish service, their own schooling and education and the degree to which they took advantage of self-improvement and social betterment were all gone into. Men of bad personal and moral conduct who offered themselves as candidates had their neighbors, friends and fellow workers who knew them well, discuss them right on the floor. It was in some respects our New England Town Meeting used on a colossal national scale covering an election in which 170 million peop1e were involved. It is this process which provides the incentive for social service and social striving and interest in the public welfare by people throughout their country. In that election, for example, about half of the previous members of the All-Soviet Congress were not reelected. Many a smug big-wig including numerous Communists were surprised at the end of that election campaign to find themselves unwanted and many a person who was not even a member of the Communist Party who had given no thought to politics but who had served the public weal well out of sheer devotion to the people in their own professions or occupations or in some volunteer organisation found themselves members of the highest governing body, the new Congress of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. It is a new type of democracy and I would say it serves them very well.

The SU was abbout as "democratic" as Russia is today. For all of the use of the word "soviet" the societs had lottle to no actual power--every important decision was made through and by the Communist Party.
False.


But the REAL problem with the SU is that the people lived in constant distrust and fear of their own government. I had been there a number of times--and have some very good friends that my wife and I stayed with when we were there--and you learned very quickly what you could make fun of and what you couldn. who you could trust and who you couldn't--and even then you weren't quite sure.Great evidence.


There was an over all feeling of always having to look over your sholder constantly. I've never been tp Norway--But I have been to Demmark and Sweden and if Norway is similar to those countries then is has a much, much freer climate than the SU. Freedom is a more important to the quality of life than who technically owns what factory.Hahahahah.

[mel]

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Even if I trust your source fully (and after skimming it and reading your posted selection I still have no idea who this person is or what qualifications they have to comment on Soviet democracy) this still only speaks of the USSR being wonderfully democratic after Stalin's 1935 constitution, which still leaves the undemocratic period from 1917 until 1936 (the first time the 1935 constitution took effect) suspect. Before 1935 nominees could only come from the communist party (not from trade unions, youth organizations, etc.) and ballots were not secret. Even your source says that


Until then nominations and elections to Communist Party posts had always been openly made. By this practice such members as might dislike some powerful office-holder often felt limited in expressing their opposition for fear of reprisal

So you must admit that the USSR only became a "worker's state" after the workers seized democratic control in 1936. I am still skeptical, though, of the effectiveness of the soviet system, as I have read accounts that are far less optimistic about the system after Stalin's constitution than the one you just posted.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Even if I trust your source fully (and after skimming it and reading your posted selection I still have no idea who this person is or what qualifications they have to comment on Soviet democracy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamiment_Library_and_Robert_F._Wagner_Archives



this still only speaks of the USSR being wonderfully democratic after Stalin's 1935 constitution, which still leaves the undemocratic period from 1917 until 1936 (the first time the 1935 constitution took effect) suspect. Before 1935 nominees could only come from the communist party (not from trade unions, youth organizations, etc.) and ballots were not secret. Even your source says that
First and foremost, lack of secret ballots does not necessitate lack of democracy, although I agree that open elections are inferior to secret ballots. I'm not entirely sure about the method of candidacy pre-1936, as I haven't a handy source lying around for that. I'll probably get back to you on this one. Although the candidates were all must likely approved by the CP, this method was obviously put in place for security reasons during the Civil War, and probably made sense at that time; but again, I'll dig up some stuff and form a better argument later.




So you must admit that the USSR only became a "worker's state" after the workers seized democratic control in 1936. I am still skeptical, though, of the effectiveness of the soviet system, as I have read accounts that are far less optimistic about the system after Stalin's constitution than the one you just posted.

OK, then remain skeptical, I could care less.

I don't have to admit that the USSR only was a workers state after 1936, becuse that would be false. The USSR became a worker's state when the factories and farms were expropriated from the capitalist class, and taken over by worker's soviets, which formed the basis for the new proletarian state.

[Bud Struggle]

False.

Great evidence.

Hahahahah.

You obviously had never been there. :(

[mel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamiment_Library_and_Robert_F._Wagner_Archives

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't tell me who Sam Darcy was, where he lived, worked, how long he lived in the Soviet Union, when he did so, or anything else that would be relevant in me determining the author's particular qualifications to speak on this subject.


The USSR became a worker's state when the factories and farms were expropriated from the capitalist class, and taken over by worker's soviets, which formed the basis for the new proletarian state.

A worker's state is only a worker's state if the workers have control over the state apparatus. If it was only Communist Party members that could be nominated (and it was, before 1935, because the constitution only provided for trade unions and other workers organizations to nominate candidates in that year) then it was the communist party state. Sometimes the communist party had the best interests of the workers at heart, but sometimes they did not because they had become a privileged class and as such had some interests which were diametrically opposed to working class interests.

The most important thing in any socialist society is worker autonomy, and direct democratic control is sometimes necessary for that. There were some things that the Soviet Union did well, such as rapid industrialization, and the Russian Revolution was in many ways a great success. However, due to the power structures involved, and the lack of direct democratic control by workers of some of the most important areas in which workers need control (like their places of work) it also had a great many failings insofar as creating an ideal socialist state. The soviet union showed some great promise, but there were a number of mistakes made which we should be aware of, and work hard to correct against, in any future socialist experiment. A socialist state NEEDS to be a worker's state, and to do so the workers need to exert their autonomous control over the state apparatus, not have it exerted by a relatively small party on their behalf, because inevitably that party will develop interests and a class of its own, which will lead to the exploitation of the worker for the benefit of the few, in the name of the masses.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't tell me who Sam Darcy was, where he lived, worked, how long he lived in the Soviet Union, when he did so, or anything else that would be relevant in me determining the author's particular qualifications to speak on this subject.

Try google, its not that hard.

http://dlib.nyu.edu/eadapp/transform?source=tamwag/darcy.xml&style=tamwag/tamwag.xsl&part=body




A worker's state is only a worker's state if the workers have control over the state apparatus....and they did.


If it was only Communist Party members that could be nominated (and it was, before 1935, because the constitution only provided for trade unions and other workers organizations to nominate candidates in that year) then it was the communist party state.A communist party state? I thought we 'classified' a nature of a given state by what class it represents, and what a state constitutes in it's formation and actions. The Bolshevik party was the vanguard of the 1917 revolution, without the Bolshevik's it's likely that the abolition of the provisional government, and the securing of state power by the worker's and peasants would never have happened. Before the 1936 constitution, the Bolshevik party were not the only organization that formed the government: http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm.


Sometimes the communist party had the best interests of the workers at heart, but sometimes they did not because they had become a privileged class and as such had some interests which were diametrically opposed to working class interests. Really? Go on, explain and prove this, don't waste time if your just going say things with nothing behind them.


The most important thing in any socialist society is worker autonomy, and direct democratic control is sometimes necessary for that. There were some things that the Soviet Union did well, such as rapid industrialization, and the Russian Revolution was in many ways a great success. However, due to the power structures involved, and the lack of direct democratic control by workers of some of the most important areas in which workers need control (like their places of work) it also had a great many failings insofar as creating an ideal socialist state. The soviet union showed some great promise, but there were a number of mistakes made which we should be aware of, and work hard to correct against, in any future socialist experiment. A socialist state NEEDS to be a worker's state, and to do so the workers need to exert their autonomous control over the state apparatus, not have it exerted by a relatively small party on their behalf, because inevitably that party will develop interests and a class of its own, which will lead to the exploitation of the worker for the benefit of the few, in the name of the masses.

Instead of wasting even more time typing all this, and repeating the same thing you've already claimed, but yet not substantiated in any real way; why don't you concretely explain how the Soviet state was "diametrically opposed" to the workers and peasants? Or that the Soviet state was in no way influenced by worker's control? Since it wasn't a worker's state right?

[mel]

Try google, its not that hard.

http://dlib.nyu.edu/eadapp/transform?source=tamwag/darcy.xml&style=tamwag/tamwag.xsl&part=body



I did try google and hadn't found anything, thanks though. Your source seems a bit biased.


Or that the Soviet state was in no way influenced by worker's control? Since it wasn't a worker's state right?

It's not that the workers had no control, they just did not have substantially more control than workers do in a bourgeois state. Candidates are selected from a pool of pre-approved possibilities from the party and then are voted on in a wondrous sham of an election. If you can't understand that the class which a state claims to represent (the working class) is not necessarily the class whose interests a state actually works for (in the case of the soviet union, party members who had taken on the responsibilities of the capitalists by extracting surplus value from the working class and re-investing it to accumulate more capital) then I don't really know what else I can say, but we've been in this argument before, and I'm sure we'll be in it again sometime in the future so we'll get another chance to hash this one out.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I did try google and hadn't found anything, thanks though. Your source seems a bit biased.
I'm sorry it seems too biased to you, but get used to it, because every source is biased, and subjective. If you want to try and find the objective truth and completely neutral and un-biased sources then good luck. Like it or not, historical sources are all based on one's observations and pre-conditioned interperatation of any given event; and if you don't like someone else's, and therefore want to discredit it, because it's not your own, then I can easily do the same to your perception's or views.






It's not that the workers had no control, they just did not have substantially more control than workers do in a bourgeois state.Wow, a worker's revolution which abolished private ownership of capital and production; a worker's state governed by a federal organization of worker's soviets, which by it's nature, defends worker's ownership of production and attains the value of their labor, as well as the social and economic security and benefit of the working population ingrained as a priory......how much more significant do you want? For the first steps of the first worker's society, the CCCP was pretty damn significant; and to claim that there was no significant change from the relations of production that we see in bourgeois society, is simply ridiculous.


Candidates are selected from a pool of pre-approved possibilities from the party and then are voted on in a wondrous sham of an election.You have not proved, in any way, how any election in the Soviet Union was a sham. Whether it's true or not, its irrelevant, because your just parroting the same thing over and over again.


If you can't understand that the class which a state claims to represent (the working class) is not necessarily the class whose interests a state actually works for (in the case of the soviet union, party members who had taken on the responsibilities of the capitalists by extracting surplus value from the working class and re-investing it to accumulate more capital)No party member or Soviet deputy 'extracted' surplus value from anyone, because they didn't have the means to do so. You again, claim a bunch of things without any substantial historical accuracy or simple evidence.


then I don't really know what else I can say, but we've been in this argument before, and I'm sure we'll be in it again sometime in the future so we'll get another chance to hash this one out.No, probably not; because for some reason vigourous left or libertarian communists are so quick to jump and critique every last aspect of the Soviet Union, mostly based on their own words and thoughts, rather than history. Not all 'communists' who proclaim their opposition to the USSR are like this, however it's a common occurrence for people to state their criticism without actually critiquing it, or to simply spew common slander (like a good portion of the posts in this thread) and it never gets resolved, even when evidence is given to suggest a different view.

[mel]

I'm sorry it seems too biased to you, but get used to it, because every source is biased, and subjective. If you want to try and find the objective truth and completely neutral and un-biased sources then good luck. Like it or not, historical sources are all based on one's observations and pre-conditioned interperatation of any given event; and if you don't like someone else's, and therefore want to discredit it, because it's not your own, then I can easily do the same to your perception's or views.

I'm not looking for a completely unbiased source, but to take the unsubstantiated observations of a biased source, and the only source I have ever seen of its kind which suggests that elections in the USSR were democratic (even the most glowing accounts of soviet "democracy" I have read that were not party propaganda were critical) would be a folly to say the least.

Elections which are not secret, which have only one candidate, and in which there is an implicit threat of force if you do not comply (which even your source suggested was the case before the introduction of the secret ballot in 1935-36) is a sham. If you disagree with that, then once again, I really don't have anything to say to you.


Wow, a worker's revolution which abolished private ownership of capital and production;

But retained the capitalist mode of production.



a worker's state governed by a federal organization of worker's soviets,

In which the representatives of the workers were hand-picked by a central party authority, and in which the workers had no right to recall representatives who they felt did not represent them, and which did not convene often, which when out of session did not actually control the state as the power was shifted whenever the organization of soviets was not in session to a single person.


which by it's nature, defends worker's ownership of production and attains the value of their labor, as well as the social and economic security and benefit of the working population ingrained as a priory

Says you. I don't see how a federation of soviets, with representatives elected in a similar fashion as in bourgeois elections where the candidates are hand-selected by the ruling party and which has limited control over the running of the state, rarely convenes, and whose power is turned over to a single party member when out of session "by its nature defends workers ownership of production and attains the value of their labor"


......how much more significant do you want? For the first steps of the first worker's society, the CCCP was pretty damn significant; and to claim that there was no significant change from the relations of production that we see in bourgeois society, is simply ridiculous.

Then I guess I"m ridiculous.


You have not proved, in any way, how any election in the Soviet Union was a sham. Whether it's true or not, its irrelevant, because your just parroting the same thing over and over again.

See above. If you think that an election in which a ruling party hand-selects candidates, presents them for "election", gives no alternative candidate, and in which there is an implicit threat of retaliatory action if you do not vote "yes" for the candidate presented (as your source pointed out was the case before the introduction of the secret ballot) is NOT a sham, then we have a very different conception of what makes a democratic election and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.


No party member or Soviet deputy 'extracted' surplus value from anyone, because they didn't have the means to do so.

You again, claim a bunch of things without any substantial historical accuracy or simple evidence.


No, probably not; because for some reason vigourous left or libertarian communists are so quick to jump and critique every last aspect of the Soviet Union, mostly based on their own words and thoughts, rather than history. Not all 'communists' who proclaim their opposition to the USSR are like this, however it's a common occurrence for people to state their criticism without actually critiquing it, or to simply spew common slander (like a good portion of the posts in this thread) and it never gets resolved, even when evidence is given to suggest a different view.

And vigorous leninists often get so caught up in combating liberalism and left-communist critique that they forget to take a critical approach themselves and recognize that the Soviet Union had failures as it did successes, and that despite that it was likely a step forward for workers, was not a shining example of socialism, but had more in common with capitalism due to the unique historical circumstances in which it developed and the fact that it never removed the capitalist mode of production or transferred control over it to the workers, because the workers were not always well represented in government, for the variety of reasons I've outlined below.

I am not anti-stalin or anti-ussr (except to which degree is required to be critical of places where it failed), which you'd know if you read other threads in which I've posted, I just think it's important not to pretend that it was under worker control when it VERY CLEARLY was not. To pretend that it had aspects which it did not is to do socialism a disservice, because when we are uncritical of our own failings we cannot use those experiences to grow. We should learn from the lack of democracy in the USSR and use it to organize better in the future.

[Nwoye]

No party member or Soviet deputy 'extracted' surplus value from anyone, because they didn't have the means to do so. You again, claim a bunch of things without any substantial historical accuracy or simple evidence.
does forced labor count as worker exploitation?

[RGacky3]

This is another fallacy, and it excludes the fact that state owned property was not the only type of property, there was 'collective' property as well, which was most likely agricultural property that was owned by those who worked at the collective.

So your telling my this collective property was autonomous and did'nt have to answer to the state?


The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy. You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.


I'm not saying it was wholely undemocratic, the soviets were democratic (some what), however what I am sayin gis that the real power law in the party elites hands. You can say the state is their state all you want, but without actual accountability and direct control of the people, its just hot air.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-you-t109852/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif Norway is a bourgeois state. There is not control or ownership of the means of production by the workers, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, isn't worker's democracy my friend. The USSR had a much more functioning version of democracy, because the fruits and wealth of society already belonged to the people. If you think that Soviet democracy, is much less "functioning" than your average parliament, then I'm glad your restricted, because that's rubbish.

Norway is a bourgeois state yes, However-
1. You can form an independant union
2. Workers have a lot more say over the funtioning of the workplace
3. Democracy IS more funtioning in Norway considering you have much more freedom of speach.
4. The wealth in the USSR belonged to the state, which was influenced by the peoples will however fun by the communist party elite.
5. Unions in Norway actually have a strong influence on the government, probably more than independant business.


...and they did.

How? Were the 5 year plans, the NEP, the nuclear buildup, the perges, the gulags the workers ideas?


Really? Go on, explain and prove this, don't waste time if your just going say things with nothing behind them.

International influence is one example that benefits them as leaders but not nessesarily the workers.


a worker's state governed by a federal organization of worker's soviets

I supopse the soviets ALWAYS agreed with the communist party leaders.

[Havet]

Don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat in the firstplace, which is really just a vague term to justify actual dictatorships. I dont' believe any government would just willingly give up power like some leninists believe.

K just 1 more question:

- What mechanisms exactly will there be to prevent a state from re-emerging? I mean, what will actually be done, by whom and with what?

[mel]

K just 1 more question:

- What mechanisms exactly will there be to prevent a state from re-emerging? I mean, what will actually be done, by whom and with what?

Most marxists understand that "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not mean any sort of dictatorship, but rule of the proletariat (as a class) over the bourgeoisie, which will no longer be a dictatorship of anything once the classes are finally abolished entirely.

Most intelligent anarchists, when pressed, realize that some form of social organization is necessary, and they just refuse to call this social organization a "state", even if it resembles one, because that makes them feel queasy and less cool and rebellious.

Of course I kid...there's no such thing as an intelligent anarchist :rolleyes:

[eyedrop]

Norway is a bourgeois state yes, However
1. You can form an independant unionNot much to say on that.

2. Workers have a lot more say over the funtioning of the workplaceOnly in places there are a strong union presence, basically some of the industries and the public sector. The degree shouldn't be overestimated. The whole service sector got terrible worker conditions. The point is that the say has all to do with unionizing and very little with hich country it is in.

3. Democracy IS more funtioning in Norway considering you have much more freedom of speach.The democracy here is a sham, as it is everywhere else. Sure we can have a "socialistic government" and they can make grandiose statements like the soria moria (abolish all poverty before 2012, if i remember correctly), but everytime they attempt to do something concrete that goes against big capitalist interests.

For example the ship industry just trumped through a (through courts) an 11 billion tax excempt for taxes they should have payed through the last 10 years. Or countless other examples that shows that big capital interests still reign supreme when it is a conflict between it and the state. In other which doesn't consern large interests regular folks doesn't really have that much say either.

We should be able to do much better these days

4. The wealth in the USSR belonged to the state, which was influenced by the peoples will however fun by the communist party elite.I don't see how it is better when it is owned by private parties, as in Norway. Norway also has a gigantic oil fund, but it has a track record of human rights breaches as long as Sognefjorden. Noone of these options are satisfactorily.


5. Unions in Norway actually have a strong influence on the government, probably more than independant business.
Unions here have a big influence, but "independant" business have countered that be creating business unions, which has more influence than the unions, no matter which political parties are in power. It would be naive to believe that "independant" business wouldn't gang together. Check out NHO, for example, which is one of the largest business unions.


It should also be noted that big business always always win when going up against the state while, the unions tend to loose. When the government has to do budget decreases, they can't take it from big business, so they are forced to take it from union gains.

Recently the unions lost a fight with the state about a restructuring of the pension system, and generally everyone got worse pension conditions, while all the cases involving big capital I've read about lately big capital won.

[Havet]

Most marxists understand that "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not mean any sort of dictatorship, but rule of the proletariat (as a class) over the bourgeoisie, which will no longer be a dictatorship of anything once the classes are finally abolished entirely.

Most intelligent anarchists, when pressed, realize that some form of social organization is necessary, and they just refuse to call this social organization a "state", even if it resembles one, because that makes them feel queasy and less cool and rebellious.

Of course I kid...there's no such thing as an intelligent anarchist :rolleyes:

You didn't answer my question. I'm rather curious of the mechanisms in a society advancing towards communism that will prevent a state from re-emerging (perhaps you could post a definition of state as well), by telling me what will be done, who will do it and with what.

[mel]

You didn't answer my question. I'm rather curious of the mechanisms in a society advancing towards communism that will prevent a state from re-emerging (perhaps you could post a definition of state as well), by telling me what will be done, who will do it and with what.

I didn't really intend to answer your question, because it wasn't directed at me, and I know I won't convince you anyway. I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the post you were criticizing made a suggestion (no Dictatorship of the Proletariat) which is not widely held by Marxists.

Somebody more knowledgeable than me, if they so desire, can explain the mechanisms which would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in which there is a state) has passed.

[New Tet]

This is another fallacy, and it excludes the fact that state owned property was not the only type of property, there was 'collective' property as well, which was most likely agricultural property that was owned by those who worked at the collective. The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy. You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.

I disagree. If you read Isaac Deustcher's (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deutscher/index.htm) Stalin, Or E.H. Carr's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr) History of the Soviet Union you will experience a totally different account of the formation of the Soviet state and its political composition.

[New Tet]

I didn't really intend to answer your question, because it wasn't directed at me, and I know I won't convince you anyway. I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the post you were criticizing made a suggestion (no Dictatorship of the Proletariat) which is not widely held by Marxists.

Somebody more knowledgeable than me, if they so desire, can explain the mechanisms which would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in which there is a state) has passed.

Without presuming to be more knowledgeable than you, I'd like to take a stab, as it were, to the last question, to wit, by what "mechanism[s]...[we] would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society"?

I would argue that the organization that takes control of the state in behalf of the working class must be the one to destroy it. Destroy it and immediately disband (mission accomplished). At the same time, the workers must establish at their workplaces a democratic network that links up all the industries of the land for the purposes of managing the economy. That will keep the political state from coming back into existence.

Socialist Industrial Unionism (http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/siu_ism.html)

[Havet]

Without presuming to be more knowledgeable than you, I'd like to take a stab, as it were, to the last question, to wit, by what "mechanism[s]...[we] would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society"?

I would argue that the organization that takes control of the state in behalf of the working class must be the one to destroy it. Destroy it and immediately disband (mission accomplished). At the same time, the workers must establish at their workplaces a democratic network that links up all the industries of the land for the purposes of managing the economy. That will keep the political state from coming back into existence.

Socialist Industrial Unionism (http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/siu_ism.html)

why didn't the organization that took control of the state in behalf of the working class destroy the state in the soviet union?

[mel]

why didn't the organization that took control of the state in behalf of the working class destroy the state in the soviet union?

The soviet union was a dictatorship of the communist party, not a dictatorship of the proletariat. The bolsheviks did not hand over the reigns of the state to the workers but kept them for themselves and nominally transferred "ownership" to the workers, whatever that means, and kept control and the profits of labor to themselves.

A proper revolution would be a movement of the working class, by the working class, and not a movement of professional revolutionaries on the behalf of the working class.

[robbo203]

Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

My first guess is that because of the reduced number of workers in 1917 (many had perished in the German trenches--WWI, remember?) communism was an impossibility
(no to mention their social and industrial backwardness).

My second guess is that the workers there never controlled the means of production beyond their day to day operation and maintenance...

Read After The Revolution, Who Rules? in downloadable pdf format from the SLP's web site: slp.org

All true. And also the fact that there is simply was no widespread support for or understanding of socialism (communism). Even Lenin conceded this. You cannot have socialism without convinced socialists. The Russian proletariat by and large (and despite that some Boslshies certainly understood what communist meant) were drawn to the Bolshies by their REFORMIST programme. The Bolshies were in short a capitalist political outfit with socialist sounding pretensions

[Bud Struggle]

You didn't answer my question. I'm rather curious of the mechanisms in a society advancing towards communism that will prevent a state from re-emerging (perhaps you could post a definition of state as well), by telling me what will be done, who will do it and with what.

As a previous poster (LSD) stated a while ago: The Soviet Union is what Communism is when it is tried in the real world. It looks one way on paper, it looks like the Soviet Union in real life. There's no escape from it.

I don't know if I totally agree with that point but every time that Communism (Socialism) has been tried it always has that similar look.

[mel]

As a previous poster (LSD) stated a while ago: The Soviet Union is what Communism is when it is tried in the real world. It looks one way on paper, it looks like the Soviet Union in real life. There's no escape from it.

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolution. Your claim that there is "no escaping it" isn't grounded in reality. Communism wasn't tried in the Soviet Union, a particularly restrictive version of state capitalism was. The failure of the USSR is not an indictment of communism. The state wasn't created along socialist lines, and the workers did not control the means of production, not even on paper.

[Green Dragon]

The most important thing in any socialist society is worker autonomy, and direct democratic control is sometimes necessary for that. There were some things that the Soviet Union did well, such as rapid industrialization, and the Russian Revolution was in many ways a great success. However, due to the power structures involved, and the lack of direct democratic control by workers of some of the most important areas in which workers need control (like their places of work) it also had a great many failings insofar as creating an ideal socialist state. The soviet union showed some great promise, but there were a number of mistakes made which we should be aware of, and work hard to correct against, in any future socialist experiment. A socialist state NEEDS to be a worker's state, and to do so the workers need to exert their autonomous control over the state apparatus, not have it exerted by a relatively small party on their behalf, because inevitably that party will develop interests and a class of its own, which will lead to the exploitation of the worker for the benefit of the few, in the name of the masses.

This always seems to be the conundrum which socialists face, when faced with actually having to deal with socialism on its own terms: having to actually build socialism.

Here you are praising the USSR for its rapid industrialisation, yet condemning its established political structure. Does the latter deserve any credit for the former? It would be tough to say "no."

[mel]

Here you are praising the USSR for its rapid industrialisation, yet condemning its established political structure. Does the latter deserve any credit for the former? It would be tough to say "no."

The former could arguably have been achieved without the latter. The latter having had a structure that was actually socialist, even if it would have taken longer to achieve the former, would have been a far preferable scenario.

It is possible to form a socialist society along different political lines than what the Soviet Union's failed attempt, and that we have not yet done so is reflective of the views and attitude of present society and overall backwardness of the world in general.

[Bud Struggle]

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolution. Your claim that there is "no escaping it" isn't grounded in reality. Communism wasn't tried in the Soviet Union, a particularly restrictive version of state capitalism was. The failure of the USSR is not an indictment of communism. The state wasn't created along socialist lines, and the workers did not control the means of production, not even on paper.

But those are just excuses. What about the Revolutions in China and Vietnam and Cambodia and Eastern Europe? Only a Zealot would think they were any utopia of the Workers. They all were hum drum worker states that supported a Feudal like bureauotracy and sometimes with a real life 11th century-esque despot in charge. North Korea and Cuba don't even pretend that there isn't a blood line of succession.

Where after all these tries has Communism really worked?

[Green Dragon]

[
QUOTE=melbicimni;1477252]The former could arguably have been achieved without the latter. The latter having had a structure that was actually socialist, even if it would have taken longer to achieve the former, would have been a far preferable scenario.

The former DID occur without the latter- indeed without socialism of any stripe. From 1900-1914 Russia was the fastest growing country on earth.



It is possible to form a socialist society along different political lines than what the Soviet Union's failed attempt, and that we have not yet done so is reflective of the views and attitude of present society and overall backwardness of the world in general.
[/QUOTE]

What a bitter comment! The world is not mature enough for socialsm for thrive. Which is yet another conundrum for the socialist to overcome- wait and pray the world advances beyond its backwardness (gradually and slowly), or ram socialism down its throat. Both of which themselves face major hurdles and conundrums.

[ComradeOm]

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolutionReally? I suppose that thousands of soldiers and armed citizens could, just possibly, be considered the "military". But I'm having a problem squaring the popular masses that organised and carried out the October Revolution with a coup - a concept that implies, almost by definition, a small minority of the establishment acting to restore/save existing state structures

As always of course its easier to pronounce political judgement on the Russian proletariat (ie, what you think was possible) as opposed to studying actual history (what they thought was possible)

[mel]

Really? I suppose that thousands of soldiers and armed citizens could, just possibly, be considered the "military". But I'm having a problem squaring the popular masses that organised and carried out the October Revolution with a coup - a concept that implies, almost by definition, a small minority of the establishment acting to restore/save existing state structures

Considering that the population of Russia in 1917 was upwards of 160 million, I'd say that several thousand is a "small minority", but that's probably just me. Even if by "thousands" you meant upwards of 100,000 that would still be 0.1% of the population.


As always of course its easier to pronounce political judgement on the Russian proletariat (ie, what you think was possible) as opposed to studying actual history (what they thought was possible)

I think that state capitalism, or whatever it is that you want to call the USSR was probably a major step forward for the Russian proletariat, but you can't ignore that backwardness took its toll on the historical development of the USSR and the result was something absolutely NOT socialist.

[ComradeOm]

Considering that the population of Russia in 1917 was upwards of 160 million, I'd say that several thousand is a "small minority", but that's probably just me. Even if by "thousands" you meant upwards of 100,000 that would still be 0.1% of the populationWell I'm sure there were practical difficulties encountered when trying to assemble several million workers on the streets of Petrograd streets on the night of the 25/26 October. Certainly those numbers on the streets that night comfortably outnumbered the government forces arrayed against them

But, please do explain how the soviets, and the workers/soldiers who stood behind them, were part of the existing state apparatus? See, generally when a popular rising overthrows a government and demolishes the existing state structures it is referred to as a 'revolution'. Yet you have categorised the events in Russia 1917 as a "military coup"; as if a few NCOs marched into the Winter Palace and elected one of their number as Generalissimo


I think that state capitalism, or whatever it is that you want to call the USSR was probably a major step forward for the Russian proletariat, but you can't ignore that backwardness took its toll on the historical development of the USSR and the result was something absolutely NOT socialist.And why exactly is the nature and composition of a revolution dependent on its result? The failed Revolutions of 1848 produced little but harsh counter-reaction but would you similarly deny their class (in this case bourgeois) character? Again, you are reshaping history to fit your own political expectations - socialism in Russia 1917 was impossible and therefore there could be no attempted socialist revolution. The problem with this is that an actual reading of the history (which is the base of historical materialism) reveals reality to have been very different

Ultimately of course the Russian Revolution failed but to claim that it never occurred in the first place is a statement of the highest arrogance

[mel]

I see your point. There was a socialist revolution in 1917, but socialism was impossible in Russia at that time, and so ultimately it was a failure. I see how my word choices may have been affected by some revisionist history on my part.

[Havet]

The soviet union was a dictatorship of the communist party, not a dictatorship of the proletariat. The bolsheviks did not hand over the reigns of the state to the workers but kept them for themselves and nominally transferred "ownership" to the workers, whatever that means, and kept control and the profits of labor to themselves.

A proper revolution would be a movement of the working class, by the working class, and not a movement of professional revolutionaries on the behalf of the working class.

And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?

I understand your point of a proper revolution. But in some unsuccessful cases (China, Cuba, USSR), why wasnt the revolution proper? What will prevent some representatives of the working class to become a state? What will prevent the people who actually lead the revolution from becoming a state ?

[mel]

And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselves. In a genuine workers revolution the workers would be in control from the beginning, so there would be no small group to take power in their place.

In addition, the government would be set up to give the workers power from the beginning, instead of setting up a party dictatorship. In a revolution where the workers were class conscious, they would not have allowed the bolsheviks to take power and set themselves up as a new capitalist class.


I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).I understand your point of a proper revolution. But in some unsuccessful cases (China, Cuba, USSR), why wasnt the revolution proper? What will prevent some representatives of the working class to become a state? What will prevent the people who actually lead the revolution from becoming a state ?

I explained above what made the revolutions "improper" they were not movements of the working class as a whole but a small group who took power in their place. I think you misunderstand...the stateless society does not come immediately after the revolution. In the transitional period, there would be a state, the control of which would need to be directly in the hands of the workers (implying a different political structure than what was present in the other revolutions you mentioned) and which would cease to have a functional purpose after there were no longer different classes and production had shifted away from the capitalist mode.

[robbo203]

Again, you are reshaping history to fit your own political expectations - socialism in Russia 1917 was impossible and therefore there could be no attempted socialist revolution. The problem with this is that an actual reading of the history (which is the base of historical materialism) reveals reality to have been very different

Ultimately of course the Russian Revolution failed but to claim that it never occurred in the first place is a statement of the highest arrogance

It was not a socialist revolution because it did not result in socialism. It resulted in state capitalism. The nature of a revolution is defined by its outcome and not its agents (most capitalist revolutions have not been carried out primarily by actual capitalists) . The Russian revolution resulted in the establishment of a system of state capitalism (just as Lenin wanted)

Ergo, the Russian revolution was a capitalist revolution

[Havet]

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselves. In a genuine workers revolution the workers would be in control from the beginning, so there would be no small group to take power in their place.

In addition, the government would be set up to give the workers power from the beginning, instead of setting up a party dictatorship. In a revolution where the workers were class conscious, they would not have allowed the bolsheviks to take power and set themselves up as a new capitalist class.

1. Which workers would be in control from the beginning?
2. How would they not allow the bolsheviks to take power? And why didn't that happen in the USSR? because the people were not "class conscious"?



I explained above what made the revolutions "improper" they were not movements of the working class as a whole but a small group who took power in their place. I think you misunderstand...the stateless society does not come immediately after the revolution. In the transitional period, there would be a state, the control of which would need to be directly in the hands of the workers (implying a different political structure than what was present in the other revolutions you mentioned) and which would cease to have a functional purpose after there were no longer different classes and production had shifted away from the capitalist mode.

What mechanisms (who will do it and with what) will prevent that state from exploiting the population?

[ComradeOm]

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselvesYou're to be commended for seeking historical answers to historical questions but unfortunately you are incorrect on almost every count (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html)


And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?You're asking the wrong question. In Marxist class analysis the "group of individuals" that rises to power cannot be divorced for the wider class from which they are drawn and in turn supported by. The Bolsheviks in 1917 were a vibrantly democratic party that unquestionably enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the proletariat. The state constructed in the initial months and years after October 1917 reflected this with real power being delegated to local district soviets and genuine democracy being exercised in the 'halls of power'. The real question is just how this degenerated into a state of 'one-party rule' and ultimately 'no-party rule'

If I were to answer my own question, I'd draw attention to the severe regression suffered by Russia during the Civil War years. There's no question that pre-Revolution Russia was backwards but it was also a highly contradictory (almost schizophrenic) society in which a feudal peasants coexisted with extremely well developed capitalist relations and a large modern proletariat. It was from the latter that both the Bolsheviks and the Soviet structures drew their strength but it was also the proletariat that suffered the most hardship during these years. The figures are startling (I can dig for them if you want) and the number of workers employed, together with production indices and urban populations, simply drop like a stone between 1917 and 1924. It was this collapse of its class support that ultimately finished off the Soviet experiment

[mel]

You're to be commended for seeking historical answers to historical questions but unfortunately you are incorrect on almost every count (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html)

I haven't read that article yet, but if it was a mass movement then the question of why the class-conscious working class allowed the communist party to establish a form of government which gave them no power over the means of production is a valid one. Do you have an answer for this? The early constitutions did not actually provide for democratic rule in any true sense, but a sort of deformed representative democracy. I've seen little to indicate that democratic rule had any significant effect on the day-to-day workings of the state or the means of production, it appears that from the beginning there was a top-down hierarchy with "open", uncontested elections for representatives (where they were elected at all) and a state apparatus that functioned against the best interests of the working class.

People who visited the USSR in the first several years of its inception seemed to me to almost universally have both high hopes and lowered expectations because the workers were not really aware of what was going on in the state. It was a period marked by forced labor, food shortages, transportation issues, limited mobility, and guided tours meant to keep visitors from seeing the way things "really were" in other areas of the Soviet Union. A lot of my knowledge of the USSR in its early years comes from a reading of its constitution at that period and a couple of books I've read on the subject, one of them being "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" by Bertrand Russell.

If you have reading recommendations I'd be happy to hear them, though I can't guarantee I'll have the time to read them in the near future. I understand the historical necessity of a lot of the measures that the leaders of the communist party took in the USSR, but I've never seen any indication that the workers had any really significant degree of control over their circumstances.

[ComradeOm]

I haven't read that article yet, but if it was a mass movement then the question of why the class-conscious working class allowed the communist party to establish a form of government which gave them no power over the means of production is a valid one. Do you have an answer for this?I gave my answer as to the degeneration of the Revolution above. As for the specific charge as to the "means of production", neither the Bolsheviks nor the Russian proletariat were syndicalists and neither advocated (at least in the immediate term) direct worker control over factories or the like. Rather the proletariat was to exercise political control through the system of soviets that would both draw from and manage local districts

It should be noted of course that the soviets were not a Bolshevik (or RSDLP) design but rather an indigenous and spontaneous form of worker political expression that rose out of both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. And yes, the question of whether these soviets, and indeed the Bolsheviks, were a mass movement is a matter of historical record


The early constitutions did not actually provide for democratic rule in any true sense, but a sort of deformed representative democracy. I've seen little to indicate that democratic rule had any significant effect on the day-to-day workings of the state or the means of production, it appears that from the beginning there was a top-down hierarchy with "open", uncontested elections for representatives (where they were elected at all) and a state apparatus that functioned against the best interests of the working classIn which case you are projecting the Stalinist state backwards to 1917. Elections within both the state apparatus and party itself remained relatively 'free and fair' until the mid-twenties

As for "democratic rule in any true sense", I'm not sure just what you mean. The 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/) explicitly spells out, in Article 1 no less, that "All the central and local power belongs to [the] soviets". It further goes on to say (Chapter 4) that "The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representatives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies". And so forth and so on, you can read it yourself at your leisure. Its a remarkably progressive document that lays out the goals and structures of the "transition period" and is all the more so for being formulated at a time when the country was plunging into civil war

What it doesn't mention is the degree to which district soviets (of which there might be up to a dozen below the level of city soviets) stepped into the power void during the last months of 1917 and effectively set themselves up as units of local administration following the demise of the municipal dumas. Obviously the constitution pays more attention to 'top level' affairs, as do most commentators since, but to focus exclusively on that ignores the vibrant local democracies that sprung up following October as the workers set about managing their own communities


People who visited the USSR in the first several years of its inception seemed to me to almost universally have both high hopes and lowered expectations because the workers were not really aware of what was going on in the statePeople who visited the USSR during its early years were almost uniformly Western intellectuals with their own preconceptions and very definite ideas as to how society should be ordered; of which Russell is a prime example. These did not always correspond to those shared by the Russian proletariat. Such accounts are useful but must be taken with a pinch of salt and should be used to complement (not replace) observations from within the country itself

For example, the idea that the Russian workers were not 'class-conscious' or 'aware' is nonsensical when you study their accomplishments both before and after October 1917 (seriously, read that article). They performed feats and reached a level of class awareness that Western societies, for all their supposed superiority, have only briefly glimpsed in the past two centuries. Just who are the likes of Russell to judge these? Its notable that during the German Revolution it was to their Russian counterparts, and not their own intelligentsia, that the German proletariat initially looked to for a model of worker governance

[mel]

neither the Bolsheviks nor the Russian proletariat were syndicalists and neither advocated (at least in the immediate term) direct worker control over factories or the like.

I guess I disagree with the idea that soviets can adequately represent the interests of the working class then, but I have a problem with and distaste for representative republics generally.


In which case you are projecting the Stalinist state backwards to 1917. Elections within both the state apparatus and party itself remained relatively 'free and fair' until the mid-twenties

Fair enough, I can't really speak to this, or anything you mention afterward. My knowledge of history is limited and most of what I know of the USSR is from the Stalin years when things had obviously already taken a turn for the worse.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=robbo203;1477712]It was not a socialist revolution because it did not result in socialism. It resulted in state capitalism.

In other words, socialism can never fail.

[Green Dragon]

You're asking the wrong question. In Marxist class analysis the "group of individuals" that rises to power cannot be divorced for the wider class from which they are drawn and in turn supported by. The Bolsheviks in 1917 were a vibrantly democratic party that unquestionably enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the proletariat. The state constructed in the initial months and years after October 1917 reflected this with real power being delegated to local district soviets and genuine democracy being exercised in the 'halls of power'. The real question is just how this degenerated into a state of 'one-party rule' and ultimately 'no-party rule'

If I were to answer my own question, I'd draw attention to the severe regression suffered by Russia during the Civil War years. There's no question that pre-Revolution Russia was backwards but it was also a highly contradictory (almost schizophrenic) society in which a feudal peasants coexisted with extremely well developed capitalist relations and a large modern proletariat. It was from the latter that both the Bolsheviks and the Soviet structures drew their strength but it was also the proletariat that suffered the most hardship during these years. The figures are startling (I can dig for them if you want) and the number of workers employed, together with production indices and urban populations, simply drop like a stone between 1917 and 1924. It was this collapse of its class support that ultimately finished off the Soviet experiment

However, there are problems with that analysis:

1. It requires the workers to continue to support a particular socialist party (Bolsheviks).
2. It requires no real division in the community.
3. It ignores how to respond to the "reactionaries" or other counter-revolutionaries.

[ComradeOm]

I guess I disagree with the idea that soviets can adequately represent the interests of the working class then, but I have a problem with and distaste for representative republics generallyYou can disagree but be aware that the Russian proletariat thought otherwise. And in the grand scheme of things they are the only ones who mattered or indeed continue to matter

[MikeSC]

In other words, socialism can never fail.Considering that socialism is the goal of these struggles- if it's socialism, then by definition it has succeeded. An experiment that brings us closer to the cure to a disease is not the cure it's self, if the end result didn't fulfill the conditions of a cure then you wouldn't call it a cure.

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE]

In other words, socialism can never fail.

And just about here is where this thread should be moved to the "Religion" Forum.

[mel]

It was not a socialist revolution because it did not result in socialism. It resulted in state capitalism. The nature of a revolution is defined by its outcome and not its agents (most capitalist revolutions have not been carried out primarily by actual capitalists) . The Russian revolution resulted in the establishment of a system of state capitalism (just as Lenin wanted)

Ergo, the Russian revolution was a capitalist revolution

Although I was expressing your opinion not too long ago, I feel it is important that we note that a revolution by socialists, with the intention of forging socialism is a "socialist" revolution, regardless of whether or not they were successful in that attempt.

Otherwise we all into a form of the "No True Scotsman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy where we redefine a socialist revolution to make a desired conclusion about such revolutions true.

We can have a discussion about whether or not the intention of the Russian revolution was to create socialism (or if that was just the rhetoric used to justify it) but if its actual intention was the creation of socialism, then we have to concede that it was a socialist revolution, albeit a failed one.

[MikeSC]

And just about here is where this thread should be moved to the "Religion" Forum.

No one is saying that socialists can't fail. No one is saying that there can't be failures on the path to socialism. Socialism is the goal. We say the Soviet Union failed because it didn't fulfil it's goal of creating socialism.

Explain how socialism can fail, given that socialism is the goal. If it's socialism then evidently it has not failed in it's goal of creating socialism. If it has failed in it's attempt to create socialism then evidently it's not socialism.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I have seen in some threads that when, ahem, "reactionaries" use the Soviet Union example as how the dictatorship of the proletariat couldn't work, some of the users here claimed the USSR wasn't communist at all.

I don't think it was Communist to begin with, it may have had Communist intentions. As for the reactionaries saying it was a failed example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, tell them it wasn't one, so how could it be a failed one. :)

[Bud Struggle]

No one is saying that socialists can't fail. No one is saying that there can't be failures on the path to socialism. Socialism is the goal. We say the Soviet Union failed because it didn't fulfil it's goal of creating socialism.

Explain how socialism can fail, given that socialism is the goal. If it's socialism then evidently it has not failed in it's goal of creating socialism. If it has failed in it's attempt to create socialism then evidently it's not socialism.

My point is that as long as you think Socialism is a possibility, or a goal or it can happen someday I have no problem. I think there is a very good chance myself that it will happen. But once you say that it CAN'T fail that it is inevitable and certain it stops becoming economics and it becomes religion as much as the second comming of Jesus.

I do agree about the Soviet Union also. I think the Revolutionaries had the best intentions, but too many problems along the way crashed the program. And while I think Lenin might very well have been the right man to carry out a Communist system I think the moment Stalin too over--any chance of the SU evolving into Communism was dead.

Stalin was a Tsar by other means. What followed him was just 40 years of slow painful death of a dream.

[mel]

But once you say that it CAN'T fail that it is inevitable and certain it stops becoming economics and it becomes religion as much as the second comming of Jesus.

Even Marx himself eventually backed down on the fatalistic position that socialism is a historical inevitability. Eventually the capitalist system will fall, due to its inherent contradictions. What stands in its place will either be socialism or some sort of regression, depending on the circumstances of that collapse.

[RGacky3]

The point is that the say has all to do with unionizing and very little with hich country it is in.

I agree, which is why, having a socialist nation that restricts unions in anyway is an oxymoron.


The democracy here is a sham, as it is everywhere else. Sure we can have a "socialistic government" and they can make grandiose statements like the soria moria (abolish all poverty before 2012, if i remember correctly), but everytime they attempt to do something concrete that goes against big capitalist interests.

I agree it is (I'm here too), democracy is a sham everywhere, but unions here have a lot more say than workers did in the USSR, and the government IS more accountable to the poeple, than both the USSr and the US.


For example the ship industry just trumped through a (through courts) an 11 billion tax excempt for taxes they should have payed through the last 10 years. Or countless other examples that shows that big capital interests still reign supreme when it is a conflict between it and the state. In other which doesn't consern large interests regular folks doesn't really have that much say either.

We should be able to do much better these days

Of coarse, I'm not saying its perfect at all. Of caorse big capital wins, but when you compared worker influence here vrs the USSR and the US, there is more here. In the US the governmetn is way way mor accountable to Capital, in the USSR it was pretty much juts accountable to itself.


I don't see how it is better when it is owned by private parties, as in Norway. Norway also has a gigantic oil fund, but it has a track record of human rights breaches as long as Sognefjorden. Noone of these options are satisfactorily.

Its not better, but state ownership is only better when its accoutnable to th epeople. BTW I'm not familiar with the human rights breaches?

50% government ownership with a government thats somewhat accountable is better than 90% with a governement that is not imo.


Unions here have a big influence, but "independant" business have countered that be creating business unions, which has more influence than the unions, no matter which political parties are in power. It would be naive to believe that "independant" business wouldn't gang together. Check out NHO, for example, which is one of the largest business unions.

Ok, perhaps I hav'nt been here long enough :).


It should also be noted that big business always always win when going up against the state while, the unions tend to loose. When the government has to do budget decreases, they can't take it from big business, so they are forced to take it from union gains.

Recently the unions lost a fight with the state about a restructuring of the pension system, and generally everyone got worse pension conditions, while all the cases involving big capital I've read about lately big capital won.

Of coarse, but look at the rest of the world. Seriously.


Where after all these tries has Communism really worked?

Did those "tries" give control over to the workers? No, then they wern't tries.


Really? I suppose that thousands of soldiers and armed citizens could, just possibly, be considered the "military". But I'm having a problem squaring the popular masses that organised and carried out the October Revolution with a coup - a concept that implies, almost by definition, a small minority of the establishment acting to restore/save existing state structures

As always of course its easier to pronounce political judgement on the Russian proletariat (ie, what you think was possible) as opposed to studying actual history (what they thought was possible)

The "coup" happened after the revolution with the Bolsheviks siezing political power and securing it with the excuse of "defending the revolution". It was a real revolution, the bolsheviks stole it.


1. Which workers would be in control from the beginning?
2. How would they not allow the bolsheviks to take power? And why didn't that happen in the USSR? because the people were not "class conscious"?

1. All of them, over their respective industries/areas
2. I suppose they were naive / afraid of loosing the revolutionary gains.


What mechanisms (who will do it and with what) will prevent that state from exploiting the population?

Without a state there are not mechanisms to TAKE power.


In other words, socialism can never fail.

No, its not socialism, if its not controled by the workers.


I guess I disagree with the idea that soviets can adequately represent the interests of the working class then, but I have a problem with and distaste for representative republics generally.


The Soviets DID'nt have the real power in the USSR.

[Patchd]

False, a private corporation that does not want to sell any property to me cannot hold a gun to my head, a state can do that.

I'm confused, why would anyone or an institution react violently to someone who wanted to purchase something off them, when if they didn't want to, they could easily just refuse?

Unless you meant individual owners of private property (not personal property, but private, as in the means of production, distribution and services) wouldn't, or cannot react violently ... in which case, you're very very very wrong there. You just have to look at what everyone's favourite brand of soft drink (Coca Cola for anyone who didn't get it) is doing in India, Mexico and other exploited and oppressed LEDCs in the world to realise that.

[eyedrop]

RGacky;
I agree with your points. Norway is pretty much better than most other places, but it's important not to glorify it.

Also in my time I've only seen decline in the workers power, and conditions, here, as the rest of the western world probably has for the last 25 years.

Btw, the oil fund is critizised for investing in dozens of corporations which commits human rights breaches, while it counsciously has a policy of only controlling less than 4% of differing corporations so it can't control policy.

[Green Dragon]

No one is saying that socialists can't fail. No one is saying that there can't be failures on the path to socialism. Socialism is the goal. We say the Soviet Union failed because it didn't fulfil it's goal of creating socialism.

Explain how socialism can fail, given that socialism is the goal. If it's socialism then evidently it has not failed in it's goal of creating socialism. If it has failed in it's attempt to create socialism then evidently it's not socialism.

Maybe the USSR failed because the goal cannot be reached...

[RGacky3]

RGacky;
I agree with your points. Norway is pretty much better than most other places, but it's important not to glorify it.

I agree, my point was'nt to glorify Norway at all. Its still a Capitalist state, where workers are exploited, and where Capital still rules.

My point was to show that when comparing examples of states incorporating (for whatever reason) principles of socialism, a bourgeois country like Norway does so more than a country like the USSR (the principles being worker control of industry, democracy, and the such). So saying the USSR is socialist, thus it failed, is a rediculous argument.


Btw, the oil fund is critizised for investing in dozens of corporations which commits human rights breaches, while it counsciously has a policy of only controlling less than 4% of differing corporations so it can't control policy.

Aha, that makes sense politically, i.e. you want to reap the benefits of international corporate cut throat capitalism without the responsibility.

However at least that oil fund is public rather than private, and subjet to relative democratic influence.


Also in my time I've only seen decline in the workers power, and conditions, here, as the rest of the western world probably has for the last 25 years.


Well I've only been here for a short while and I know that compared to where I was before workers here have much more rights. But, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in social-democracy, and understand that its not sustainable even in Norway.

But a functioning social democracy, I would say is more socialistic than the USSR, just based on democratic and worker power principles.


Maybe the USSR failed because the goal cannot be reached...

Maybe you hav'nt been paying attention to anything anyone here has said, and insist on spouting baseless claims while plugging your ears.

[Green Dragon]

Maybe you hav'nt been paying attention to anything anyone here has said, and insist on spouting baseless claims while plugging your ears.

Sure I have- the argument has been made that the USSR failed because it made poor decisions in reaching for socialism. I would suggest the failure is in its attempt to reach for socialism.

[Qayin]

Maybe the USSR failed because the goal cannot be reached... It began with the "Stalinist" bureaucracy. The USSR swayed from its goals and eventually had a capitalist restoration due to the soviet bureaucracy wishing to enrich itself. Pick up a revolution betrayed.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1478543]I agree, which is why, having a socialist nation that restricts unions in anyway is an oxymoron.


The purpose of a labor union in a capitalist community is to represent labor against the capitalist. Its an adversarial relationship, no matter how benign the relationship otherwise is in pratice.

Since the workers own and control the means of production in a socialist community, the role of a labor union there is different. It is far more plausible that labor unions face greatre restriction in communities reaching for socialism, than in capitalist communities. And since that has been the historical record...






The "coup" happened after the revolution with the Bolsheviks siezing political power and securing it with the excuse of "defending the revolution". It was a real revolution, the bolsheviks stole it.


The revolution will have to be defended. Not even all the workers will agree on a particular path to be followed.

[RGacky3]

The purpose of a labor union in a capitalist community is to represent labor against the capitalist. Its an adversarial relationship, no matter how benign the relationship otherwise is in pratice.

Since the workers own and control the means of production in a socialist community, the role of a labor union there is different. It is far more plausible that labor unions face greatre restriction in communities reaching for socialism, than in capitalist communities. And since that has been the historical record...

In the USSR the workers did not own and control the means of production, if they did, essencially, it would be unions (or workers councils, or whatever worker organization) controling the means of production. If an entity is banning those worker organizations clearly its not socialist.


The revolution will have to be defended. Not even all the workers will agree on a particular path to be followed.

It was'nt being defended against itself, it was being defended against the white army.


Sure I have- the argument has been made that the USSR failed because it made poor decisions in reaching for socialism. I would suggest the failure is in its attempt to reach for socialism.

The main argument was that the USSR was'nt socialistic, and it was'nt an attempt, it replaced a class system with another class system.

[Nwoye]

It began with the "Stalinist" bureaucracy. The USSR swayed from its goals and eventually had a capitalist restoration due to the soviet bureaucracy wishing to enrich itself. Pick up a revolution betrayed.
how about it began with Lenin's authoritarian suppression of worker movements and the left opposition?

[Green Dragon]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;1478610]In the USSR the workers did not own and control the means of production, if they did, essencially, it would be unions (or workers councils, or whatever worker organization) controling the means of production. If an entity is banning those worker organizations clearly its not socialist.

All workers were members of a labor union in the USSR.





It was'nt being defended against itself, it was being defended against the white army.


It defended itself against the rebellion of the Kronstadt sailors...




The main argument was that the USSR was'nt socialistic, and it was'nt an attempt, it replaced a class system with another class system.
[/QUOTE]

The argument is that the USSR failed in its attempts for socialism. What you are doing is arguing that because it did not reach for socialism in the manner in which you preferred, it was not socialist at all.

[RGacky3]

All workers were members of a labor union in the USSR.

Do I have to explain this? A State Union that is controled by the state and not the workers, IS NOT a real union.


It defended itself against the rebellion of the Kronstadt sailors...

This was before the Bolsheviks consolidated power.


What you are doing is arguing that because it did not reach for socialism in the manner in which you preferred, it was not socialist at all.

It was not socialist at all because it was not a society where the workplace was controlled by the workers and where the people controlled the society, wihch by definition, means it was not socialist.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1478651]Do I have to explain this? A State Union that is controled by the state and not the workers, IS NOT a real union.


YOU are defining a "real" union based upon how unions function in a capitalist environment. It has to be based upon how it would function in a socialist community.




This was before the Bolsheviks consolidated power.


To prevent other such threats to the revolution...



It was not socialist at all because it was not a society where the workplace was controlled by the workers

No such community can exist. The workplace is controlled by the consumers of the product which is produced. Their demands, and not the opininions of the workers, is what controls how goods and service are produced and distributed.

[RGacky3]

YOU are defining a "real" union based upon how unions function in a capitalist environment. It has to be based upon how it would function in a socialist community.


A real union, is a union that is controlled by the workers by definition.


To prevent other such threats to the revolution...

Your an idiot. THEY were the threat to the revolution by consolidating power, by the time they did, they had destroyed the revolution.

Thats like saying to prevent threats to democracy we are going to set up a dictatorship.


The workplace is controlled by the consumers of the product which is produced. Their demands, and not the opininions of the workers, is what controls how goods and service are produced and distributed.

What is consumer is controlled by the consumers, and obviously thats what decides what is to be produced, however, the internal workings of a workplace should be a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.

[mel]

What is consumer is controlled by the consumers, and obviously thats what decides what is to be produced, however, the internal workings of a workplace should be a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.

That sounds like syndicalism.

[RGacky3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-you-t109852/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-you-t109852/showthread.php?p=1478657#post1478657)
What is consumer is controlled by the consumers, and obviously thats what decides what is to be produced, however, the internal workings of a workplace should be a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.
That sounds like syndicalism.

Yes sir.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1478657]A real union, is a union that is controlled by the workers by definition.


Which is meaningless. What does it do? What is its function?




Your an idiot. THEY were the threat to the revolution by consolidating power, by the time they did, they had destroyed the revolution.


What do you think the function of a labor union is, in a socialist community?






What is consumer is controlled by the consumers, and obviously thats what decides what is to be produced, however, the internal workings of a workplace should be a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.


The community needs 100 items of X. The workers can deocratcally decide to produce 100 items of X, or they can decide to produce some other amount. The former means the workers do not control; the latter would be a ridiculous.

[mel]

The community needs 100 items of X. The workers can deocratcally decide to produce 100 items of X, or they can decide to produce some other amount. The former means the workers do not control; the latter would be a ridiculous decision.

The community needs 100 items of X by Friday. The workers can democratically decide what hours to work on which days of the week, and who will do what tasks, in order to ensure that the community gets 100 items of X by Friday in whichever way best suits the workers.

The workers can have control over the internal operations of the workplace and still produce exactly what the community needs.

[RGacky3]

Which is meaningless. What does it do? What is its function?

What do you think the function of a labor union is, in a socialist community?

Make collective desicions about the workplace, in a Capitalist society that means making the desicions and trying to get the Capitalist to accept it.

In a state socialist society its to make the state accept it, in a true socialist society its just to make the desicion and do it.


The community needs 100 items of X. The workers can deocratcally decide to produce 100 items of X, or they can decide to produce some other amount. The former means the workers do not control; the latter would be a ridiculous.

Why would anyone produce something no one needs is the real question.

[Green Dragon]

The workers can have control over the internal operations of the workplace and still produce exactly what the community needs.
[/QUOTE]

Their "control" is simply responding to what somebody else wants.

They are not deciding what to do. The community is.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1478684]Make collective desicions about the workplace, in a Capitalist society that means making the desicions and trying to get the Capitalist to accept it.

In a state socialist society its to make the state accept it, in a true socialist society its just to make the desicion and do it.


In the capitalist community, the power is indeed diffused.

In the state socialist community (as you describe), the power is more concentrated.

In the "true" socialist society, the power is concentrated even more so.

[mel]

Their "control" is simply responding to what somebody else wants.

Only if you completely ignore the rest of my post in which I describe the type of control which is actually important for workers to have (not what to produce, or in what quantity, but how to produce it, which hours to work to produce it, and who should be responsible for which aspects of producing it). These types of decisions are important because they directly influence worker autonomy: the power of a worker to decide where they are and what they are doing and why at any given moment. If a person has a job producing something, in any given week they will have to produce it, that is what they agree to when they choose that work. However, there should be no directives from the top down about which days they have to come in, how many hours they have to work, or when to work them. This is something that can be decided by the workers as a whole. If everyone needs to be there at the same time to get it done, they decide when to do it. If each individual can work on parts separately without effecting other peoples ability to get their work done (if it is sufficiently modularized without inter-dependencies on other constituent parts, the types of tasks which can be parallellized) then they should be able to decide which hours to come in and when in order to best get their portion done by the time which it needs to be done.

[MikeSC]

My point is that as long as you think Socialism is a possibility, or a goal or it can happen someday I have no problem. I think there is a very good chance myself that it will happen. But once you say that it CAN'T fail that it is inevitable and certain it stops becoming economics and it becomes religion as much as the second comming of Jesus.

I do agree about the Soviet Union also. I think the Revolutionaries had the best intentions, but too many problems along the way crashed the program. And while I think Lenin might very well have been the right man to carry out a Communist system I think the moment Stalin too over--any chance of the SU evolving into Communism was dead.

Stalin was a Tsar by other means. What followed him was just 40 years of slow painful death of a dream.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Every one of us here probably has at least a slightly different vision of what socialism will be like, but we're all completely certain that it will come to pass and last for ever and ever!

[Green Dragon]

Only if you completely ignore the rest of my post in which I describe the type of control which is actually important for workers to have (not what to produce, or in what quantity, but how to produce it, which hours to work to produce it, and who should be responsible for which aspects of producing it). These types of decisions are important because they directly influence worker autonomy: the power of a worker to decide where they are and what they are doing and why at any given moment. If a person has a job producing something, in any given week they will have to produce it, that is what they agree to when they choose that work. However, there should be no directives from the top down about which days they have to come in, how many hours they have to work, or when to work them. This is something that can be decided by the workers as a whole. If everyone needs to be there at the same time to get it done, they decide when to do it. If each individual can work on parts separately without effecting other peoples ability to get their work done (if it is sufficiently modularized without inter-dependencies on other constituent parts, the types of tasks which can be parallellized) then they should be able to decide which hours to come in and when in order to best get their portion done by the time which it needs to be done.

Ok. It does not matter what the workers produce, just how they produce it.

The community needs 100 units if Item X. You wish to say it is up to the workers to decide how those items will be produced.

I say hogwash. You are saying the workers can produce those items at their convenience. Wrong. It is produced at the convenience of the consumers.

[mel]

Ok. It does not matter what the workers produce, just how they produce it.

The community needs 100 units if Item X. You wish to say it is up to the workers to decide how those items will be produced.

I say hogwash. You are saying the workers can produce those items at their convenience. Wrong. It is produced at the convenience of the consumers.

I am saying that if the community needs 100 units of item X in a given time frame (say one week) and producing 100 units of item X takes a total of 100 hours of work from all 5 employees of a given workplace (20 hours per worker), that said workers can decide, depending on the type of work and whether or not it can be modularized, if one worker will come in each day to produce said item, if all 5 workers will come in for 4 hours every day, and which four hours will come in, if all 5 workers will come in for only two days and work 10 hours, if 3 workers will come in and work their hours the first three days and the last two workers will come in and work their hours the last two, who will be responsible for which tasks relating to the production of item X, etc. etc. etc. There is a great amount of freedom possible with democratic worker control of the internal operation of their specific workplace, even if the input and output of the workplace is set.

The workplace takes, as input, materials and a request for 100 items of product X, the workplace outputs 100 items of product X. For every step in-between the input and output, the workers should have absolute direct democratic control.

[RGacky3]

Their "control" is simply responding to what somebody else wants.

They are not deciding what to do. The community is.

If you go to a party, you call the host and ask him what the party needs, and you bring it, are you being controlled?

the reason people produce is for other people to use.


In the capitalist community, the power is indeed diffused.

In the state socialist community (as you describe), the power is more concentrated.

In the "true" socialist society, the power is concentrated even more so.

Are you talking about unions here or what?

[MikeSC]

I say hogwash. You are saying the workers can produce those items at their convenience. Wrong. It is produced at the convenience of the consumers.

In an egalitarian society, every worker would be as much of a consumer as every other worker. It'd be up to the worker-consumers to decide, democratically, whether increased goods are worth increased working hours- or whether it's worth it to decrease working hours considering it would mean decreased goods.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1479520]If you go to a party, you call the host and ask him what the party needs, and you bring it, are you being controlled?


No. But its an inorrect analogy.



the reason people produce is for other people to use.


Yep. And what those people want is what controls, not what the workers want.

[Green Dragon]

In an egalitarian society, every worker would be as much of a consumer as every other worker. It'd be up to the worker-consumers to decide, democratically, whether increased goods are worth increased working hours- or whether it's worth it to decrease working hours considering it would mean decreased goods.

This is simply not true. A person who does not consume steak is simply not as much of a consumer of steak as the person who does.

[Green Dragon]

I am saying that if the community needs 100 units of item X in a given time frame (say one week) and producing 100 units of item X takes a total of 100 hours of work from all 5 employees of a given workplace (20 hours per worker), that said workers can decide, depending on the type of work and whether or not it can be modularized, if one worker will come in each day to produce said item, if all 5 workers will come in for 4 hours every day, and which four hours will come in, if all 5 workers will come in for only two days and work 10 hours, if 3 workers will come in and work their hours the first three days and the last two workers will come in and work their hours the last two, who will be responsible for which tasks relating to the production of item X, etc. etc. etc. There is a great amount of freedom possible with democratic worker control of the internal operation of their specific workplace, even if the input and output of the workplace is set.

The workplace takes, as input, materials and a request for 100 items of product X, the workplace outputs 100 items of product X. For every step in-between the input and output, the workers should have absolute direct democratic control.

In order for that to be true, the workers must have have absolute control over their input (what they receive) and output (what they produce).
But none of that can be true, since they cannot dictate to their suppliers what to ship to them, not can they, or should they, dictate to their consumers what it is they (those workers) will produce.

[Tower of Bebel]

The Soviet Union even produced or created a bureaucracy for which communism wasn't even a goal. In general, the peasant majority from that country formed the basis for a highly centralized and coercive statepower (needed to extract any surplus it would need) which had interests that run contrary to the principles of communism.

[Nwoye]

lol at the tags for this thread.

anyway, here's why they weren't communists:

While the revolution in Germany is slow in "coming forth," our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter [the Great] hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting against barbarism.that's from Vladimir Lenin.

[Blake's Baby]

It wasn't communist, because Lenin wrote some stuff down about Peter the Great?

It wasn't communist because communism cannot be established in one place while capitalism exists in the rest of the world. Communism must be worldwide and cannot even be built until capitalism has been defeated worldwide (and even then there will a period of transition to communism, it won't just spring fully formed...)

So, the Soviet Union wasn't communist because the Social Democrats in Germany uses proto-fascist militias to murder the German workers, Communists and Anarchists, thus preventing the revolution spreading; because the bourgeoisies of France, Britain and America seperated their workers from the German and Russian workers, preventing effective working class action against the capitalist class spreading world wide in a short time; because those same bourgeois used the most vicious methods against strikes and mutinies in France, Britain, Canada and the US; because the bourgeoisie's war (and the betrayal of the fake 'socialists' who acted as recruiting sergeants for their own ruling classes) had shattered the confidence of the international working class; and for a hundred other reasons which boil down to:

the world revolution failed to topple capitalism everywhere and without that there was no possibility of implementing communism.

[Havet]

lol at the tags for this thread.


btw just want to say i didn't add those tags. I went to check them out and it said they were not added by me (which i never remmember putting in the first place). but now there are more suitable tags (until someone remmembers to edit them again that is).

[Nwoye]

btw just want to say i didn't add those tags. I went to check them out and it said they were not added by me (which i never remmember putting in the first place). but now there are more suitable tags (until someone remmembers to edit them again that is).
yeah they are gone now dammit.

[Pol Pot]

When most people say that some state is "communist" they think that it's lead by a communist dictatorial party. By those standards North Korea is a "communist" country although it is by the ay people live much more close to an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY run by communist nepotist oligarchy.

There never was a communist country and we will have to wait for one to come. Although i think a communist society will only be possible when technology goes so far that only thing that is valued in human work is the creative work, not the physical cuz it'll all be done by robots and machines powered by eternal source of power like sun, sea, wind or whatever. Only then communism will be established -IF- the bourgoasie would let go the power and allow things to reform.

[RGacky3]

nly then communism will be established -IF- the bourgoasie would let go the power and allow things to reform.

your an idiot.