What if the USSR had worked differently?

[Dimentio]

What if the Soviets had been kept as the highest organs of the state? What if all positions, from a general secretary to a sovkhoz boss, had had a maximum term of five years? What if the judiciary had been completely independent from the state?

[robbo203]

What if the Soviets had been kept as the highest organs of the state? What if all positions, from a general secretary to a sovkhoz boss, had had a maximum term of five years? What if the judiciary had been completely independent from the state?


I dont quite see the point you are driving at. You would still end up wih a system of state capitalism no matter if the political form had been different. Capitalism was the only option available to the Bolsheviks - given the politicial and economic backwardness of Russia at the time -and Lenin understood his when he advocated state capitalism and declared that it would be a "step forward for Russia". And it was not as if the original Soviet system was that democratic anyway

[Dimentio]

I dont quite see the point you are driving at. You would still end up wih a system of state capitalism no matter if the political form had been different. Capitalism was the only option available to the Bolsheviks - given the politicial and economic backwardness of Russia at the time -and Lenin understood his when he advocated state capitalism and declared that it would be a "step forward for Russia". And it was not as if the original Soviet system was that democratic anyway

You are maybe correct. But I think the system would maybe have survived, or at least given the workers more influence.

[FreeFocus]

I don't buy the Marxist position that every society has to suffer through capitalism before it can reach socialism.

If the soviets had remained the highest organ of rule and retained their grassroots, democratic character, the Soviet Union would have likely been invaded by the imperialists and occupied. Whether or not they (the imperialists) would have been defeated is up in the air, but certainly they would have had their interests harmed. Let's not forget that at the end of WWI, the imperialist states still found a way to send thousands of troops to fight alongside the White Army.

[Dimentio]

I don't buy the Marxist position that every society has to suffer through capitalism before it can reach socialism.

If the soviets had remained the highest organ of rule and retained their grassroots, democratic character, the Soviet Union would have likely been invaded by the imperialists and occupied. Whether or not they (the imperialists) would have been defeated is up in the air, but certainly they would have had their interests harmed. Let's not forget that at the end of WWI, the imperialist states still found a way to send thousands of troops to fight alongside the White Army.

I don't think the imperialists were ready for a large-scale war in the 1920's. They were barely capable of it in 1939. Their intervention in Russia was generally quite ineffectual.

[FreeFocus]

I don't think the imperialists were ready for a large-scale war in the 1920's. They were barely capable of it in 1939. Their intervention in Russia was generally quite ineffectual.

The United States certainly wasn't in a compromised position from the war, and invading/attacking the soviets isn't exactly on the scale of a world war. I think they would have managed it.

[Poppytry]

This is just counter factual.... you can never no what the outcome would have been if x happened instead of y ..

[Dimentio]

This is just counter factual.... you can never no what the outcome would have been if x happened instead of y ..

We could say that likeliness patterns would have changed...

[Pogue]

The point is, they couldn't. The Bolshevik theory and practice led to the USSR becoming as it did. I'm sure however that if they hadn't have carried out an coup, and instead the workers themselves developed their revolution further and overthrew the state and capitalism, things would have turned out better, and we could take more inspiration from Russia.

[Psy]

The point is, they couldn't. The Bolshevik theory and practice led to the USSR becoming as it did. I'm sure however that if they hadn't have carried out an coup, and instead the workers themselves developed their revolution further and overthrew the state and capitalism, things would have turned out better, and we could take more inspiration from Russia.
The Bolsheviks were overthrown by Stalinists so I don't see how you can blame Bolsheviks for what the USSR became when the Bolsheviks were striped of power, if anything it was the inaction of the Bolsheviks that led to the USSR becoming as the Bolsheviks didn't see Stalin as a counter-revolutionary force till it was way too late, if Lenin exiled Stalin after Stalin yelled at Lenin's wife the deteriarion of the Russian revolution probably have been much slower.

[Pogue]

The Bolsheviks were overthrown by Stalinists so I don't see how you can blame Bolsheviks for what the USSR became when the Bolsheviks were striped of power, if anything it was the inaction of the Bolsheviks that led to the USSR becoming as the Bolsheviks didn't see Stalin as a counter-revolutionary force till it was way too late, if Lenin exiled Stalin after Stalin yelled at Lenin's wife the deteriarion of the Russian revolution probably have been much slower.

The Bolsheviks attacked workers power from the beginning. What I am saying is their ideology and tactics fundamentally led to a state-capitalist Russia.

[gorillafuck]

if Lenin exiled Stalin after Stalin yelled at Lenin's wife
That's a joke, right?

I'm no fan of Stalin but why on earth would someone be exiled for yelling at someone?:confused:

[Random Precision]

Moved to Learning.

[Psy]

That's a joke, right?

I'm no fan of Stalin but why on earth would someone be exiled for yelling at someone?:confused:
Because it showed Stalin was a the world's biggest jerk (at this point) as by then it wasn't a isolated incident and it would have made life at lot easier for the Bolshivks even without getting into what Stalin did later. Stalin even then never admitted he was wrong even when he adopted the opposite view he previously argued against.


The Bolsheviks attacked workers power from the beginning. What I am saying is their ideology and tactics fundamentally led to a state-capitalist Russia.
Not really, the Bolsheviks were victims of circumstance they consolidated power to fight the civil-war after which they admitted they had a dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat as Russia's industrial base was smashed. Where the Bolsheviks tactics failed was revolution didn't take hold in the industrial heart lands of Europe leaving Russia isolated and backwards.

[NecroCommie]

What if I would need to breathe sulfur instead of oxygen to survive?

[NecroCommie]

That's a joke, right?

I'm no fan of Stalin but why on earth would someone be exiled for yelling at someone?:confused:
He's Stalin!

[Dimentio]

I still think that it would probably have been a bit more accountable with less democratic centralism and a little more division of powers. No single institution should have too much power.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ha, another "what if" thread, which of course has little to do with the "what if" scenario and more with what actually happened; according to the content of this thread thus far.

How surprising!

Unfortunately nothing can be done to save it from the black and white perspective of history that as already been put forward, but it might be worth point out that soviets losing power was simply a matter of time. The way I see it, soviet power was a great accomplishment as well as kind of a suicide mission; because you can't hope to maintain such a young and developing political system when your in a country as backward as Russia and have imperialist armies up your ass. But maybe I'm wrong, and it was all the Bolsheviks fault! :lol:


I still think that it would probably have been a bit more accountable with less democratic centralism and a little more division of powers. No single institution should have too much power.
Perhaps your right, but the real question is: was such a separation of powers possible during the period of the Civil War?

[Pogue]

Yes, you are wrong, yes, it was the Bolshevik's fault and intentions from the beginning to destory workers democracy, after they'd used it as a means to gain state power.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes, you are wrong, yes, it was the Bolshevik's fault and intentions from the beginning to destory workers democracy, after they'd used it as a means to gain state power.

OK, thanks for the correction. I'll be sure to believe this from now on.

[Pogue]

Not really, the Bolsheviks were victims of circumstance they consolidated power to fight the civil-war after which they admitted they had a dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat as Russia's industrial base was smashed. Where the Bolsheviks tactics failed was revolution didn't take hold in the industrial heart lands of Europe leaving Russia isolated and backwards.


Yes, they consolidated Bolshevik power. This does not equal socialism, and thus my point still stands. Lenin, in 'consolidating' power for the new Russian bourgeoisie, destroyed any potential for workers democracy in Russia. The Bolsheviks were hardly secretive about their intentions, although they did cover them up with opputunistic statements like 'All power to the Soviets', something Lenin did the opposite of.

[Pogue]

OK, thanks for the correction. I'll be sure to believe this from now on.

You wont, because you still only believe the historical line your fellow brainwashed state apoligists peddle to you.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You wont, because you still only believe the historical line your fellow brainwashed state apoligists peddle to you.

No, really HLVS, I believe you.

[Dimentio]

Perhaps your right, but the real question is: was such a separation of powers possible during the period of the Civil War?

I know several deeply torn societies, often very new as well, which has overcome severe obstacles and yet kept some sort of division of powers within themselves.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I know several deeply torn societies, often very new as well, which has overcome severe obstacles and yet kept some sort of division of powers within themselves.

Mind sharing which societies you speak of so I can actually understand your comparison?

[NecroCommie]

I still think that it would probably have been a bit more accountable with less democratic centralism and a little more division of powers. No single institution should have too much power.
As I understand Stalin only managed to centralize power because the colhose (is that the english word?) "owners" were... well... owners. They held too much material power and thusly formed a class of its own. Stalin gained the support of this class, and with the colhose owners demanding more industrialization even at the expense of their workers it was a Stalins game from there on after.

So to put it simply, Soviet Union degenerated not due to democratic centralism, but due to undemocratic centralism. This added to the factors that Mykittyhasaboner already provided the degeneration of USSR was a matter of time.

Now, we can ofcourse speculate all we want, but even with the most "orthodox" forms of Leninism different areas would produce different kinds of workers states, and thusly we can only do our part and see what is to be.

[Psy]

Yes, they consolidated Bolshevik power. This does not equal socialism, and thus my point still stands. Lenin, in 'consolidating' power for the new Russian bourgeoisie, destroyed any potential for workers democracy in Russia. The Bolsheviks were hardly secretive about their intentions, although they did cover them up with opputunistic statements like 'All power to the Soviets', something Lenin did the opposite of.
They didn't consolidate power for a new bourgeoisies class (if they did they wouldn't have supported workers revolutions in Europe) they consolidated power to fight the civil-war, after the civil-war they used their power to rebuild and put Russian in a holding pattern till there was a revolution in a major industrial nation. In other words if there was a successful revolution in say Germany then the Bolsheviks plan would have worked as they would have defended the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces long enough for said major industrial power to lift Russia out of its backwardness.

[Pogue]

They didn't consolidate power for a new bourgeoisies class (if they did they wouldn't have supported workers revolutions in Europe) they consolidated power to fight the civil-war, after the civil-war they used their power to rebuild and put Russian in a holding pattern till there was a revolution in a major industrial nation. In other words if there was a successful revolution in say Germany then the Bolsheviks plan would have worked as they would have defended the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces long enough for said major industrial power to lift Russia out of its backwardness.

They apparently supported workers revolutions in Europe, whilst crushing strikes and factory committees in Russia? Odd.

I suppose Ukraine isn't in Europe, then?

[More Fire for the People]

There would have been a different political atmosphere most def. But, that's no guarantee for socialism is CONSTANT VIGILANCE.

[Pogue]

No, really HLVS, I believe you.

Good to see you've developed an intelligent way of responding to criticism there.

[Niccolò Rossi]

You would still end up wih a system of state capitalism no matter if the political form had been different. Capitalism was the only option available to the Bolsheviks - given the politicial and economic backwardness of Russia at the time -and Lenin understood his when he advocated state capitalism and declared that it would be a "step forward for Russia".

I disagree with this completely and anyone who isn't a modern day Menshevik would do the same. The Russian revolution was not a bourgeois revolution. It did not have to go through a protracted period of modernising and capitalist development before the material conditions could be ripe for socialism. This is a national perspective, in contradiction to internationalism and world revolution which you advocate.

The Russian Revolution was a moment in the world proletarian revolution. Capitalism had risen and developed globally as a unified system. The onset of capitalist decadence was world wide. The bourgeois revolution was off the agenda of history for the entire globe, WWI ushered in the beginning of the era of proletarian revolution of which the October revolution was the first.

What doomed the Russian revolution to defeat and the new horrors of state capitalism was the defeat of the international revolution.


And it was not as if the original Soviet system was that democratic anyway

This is arguable and I think a very interesting discussion. Maybe you could elaborate on this point in the recent thread made by GustavHK here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-problems-soviets-t109372/index.html?t=109372)


I don't buy the Marxist position that every society has to suffer through capitalism before it can reach socialism.

This is not a marxist position.


The point is, they couldn't. The Bolshevik theory and practice led to the USSR becoming as it did.

This is a false deduction from a correct premise. Why couldn't 'Bolshevik theory and practice' have been changed? (Besides, it was not fundamentally the actions of the Bolsheviks that lead to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. This is an idealistic analysis.

HLVS does get something right though as I said. The question posed by the OP "What if..." is pointless because these weren't real options. The failure of the world proletarian revolution, particularly in Germany, inevitably meant the degeneration of the October revolution, even if revolutionaries did fight valiently against this process.


I'm sure however that if they hadn't have carried out an coup, and instead the workers themselves developed their revolution further and overthrew the state and capitalism, things would have turned out better, and we could take more inspiration from Russia.

It surprised me that after so many threads of you repeating this myth and having it dispelled you are still able to continue it. The October Revolution was not a coup. The workers themselves did make their own revolution and implemented their own class rule. However, this is another topic for another time.


The Bolsheviks were overthrown by Stalinists so I don't see how you can blame Bolsheviks for what the USSR became when the Bolsheviks were striped of power, if anything it was the inaction of the Bolsheviks that led to the USSR becoming as the Bolsheviks didn't see Stalin as a counter-revolutionary force till it was way too late, if Lenin exiled Stalin after Stalin yelled at Lenin's wife the deteriarion of the Russian revolution probably have been much slower.

This isn't much better than the explanation given by HLVS. The process of degeneration had been long underway before Stalin took the helm. The idea that the bolsheviks could simply have been more active in stopping Stalin earlier on is pure idealism and 'Great men' history.

[FreeFocus]

This is not a marxist position.

How is it not? Marxist theory posits that societies "progress" from more primitive societies to feudalism to capitalism to communism. You can even see it in this thread, people calling Russia "backwards" because it was an agricultural country and not industrialized.

[Psy]

This isn't much better than the explanation given by HLVS. The process of degeneration had been long underway before Stalin took the helm. The idea that the bolsheviks could simply have been more active in stopping Stalin earlier on is pure idealism and 'Great men' history.

The Bolsheviks could have stopped Stalin easily as they were in charge of the state, of course stopping Stalin would have only slowed down the deterioration but doing so would have given Russia more time in hopes a another revolution in a advanced industrial nation would save the gains of the Russian revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

How is it not? Marxist theory posits that societies "progress" from more primitive societies to feudalism to capitalism to communism. You can even see it in this thread, people calling Russia "backwards" because it was an agricultural country and not industrialized.

This is all true. However saying that capitalism was progressive in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries and the necessary prerequisite for communism is not synonomous with saying that "every society has to suffer through capitalism before it can reach socialism".

The outbreak of WWI definitely showed that capitalism had become a decadent social system, to paraphrase Marx, from means of the development of the forces of production, capitalist social relations had become there fetters. Capitalism had generalised itself globally and unified the whole world under its social relations. As a unified world system capitalism enters its era of decadence internationally. Thus from this point onward it was not possible to speak of the need for the bourgeois revolution and the development of capitalism, only socialism could be progressive, the conditions for its existance now brought into existance internationally.

Yes, Russia in 1917 was backward, dominated by peasant agriculture and generally low levels of industrial development (of course the large cities also had some of the largest factories in the world at the time, but this is besdie the point), but this did not mean anything for the possibility of socialism. Socialism even today can not be achieved in even the most highly developed nations, the pre-conditions for socialism exist only internationally. Thus the victory of the revolution in Russia was ultimately a question of the victory of the revolution worldwide and not the fullest and fastest development of capitalism in Russia.


The Bolsheviks could have stopped Stalin easily of course stopping Stalin would have only slowed down the deterioration but doing so would have given Russia more time in hopes a another revolution in a advanced industrial nation would save the gains of the Russian revolution.

I understand and appreciate the point you are making, but I would be wary about it sliping into 'great men' history. The deterioration of the revolution was most certainly accelerated by the policies of Stalin as well as some of those of the Bolsheviks even from as early as 1917 itself. The problem is that these policies where not simply the brain child of an evil mastermind, they reflected social forces. 'Stopping Stalin' was not a realistic measure that could have changed the entire course of the revolution.

[Psy]

I understand and appreciate the point you are making, but I would be wary about it sliping into 'great men' history. The deterioration of the revolution was most certainly accelerated by the policies of Stalin as well as some of those of the Bolsheviks even from as early as 1917 itself. The problem is that these policies where not simply the brain child of an evil mastermind, they reflected social forces. 'Stopping Stalin' was not a realistic measure that could have changed the entire course of the revolution.

The deterioration under the Bolsheviks were the side effects of the physical defense of the Russia from hostile armies as the Bolsheviks were determined to not let the Russian revolution become another Paris commune and be defeated on the battlefield.

Stalin represented a counter-revolutionary force within in Russia, a force that was amplified by Stalin allowing them to take power far sooner. The Bolsheviks were an obstacle to this counter-revolutionary force thus why Stalin purged the Bolsheviks.

[Outinleftfield]

I don't buy the Marxist position that every society has to suffer through capitalism before it can reach socialism.

Neither do I. Of course being an anarchist I disagree with a lot of Marx's ideas but do agree with some of his observations. In fact didn't Marx say that while historical materialism could be used to understand the progression of history that it wasn't an exact science and that changes were ultimately brought about my human action?

I also question the idea that a society can be said to be fully in one period and not in another. Russia was already partly capitalist. It had industry and it had wage labor. There were a lot of peasants subsisting on farms usually paying rent to landlords, but serfdom had been abolished so one aspect of feudalism had already been removed. Russia had both capitalist and feudalist elements. If you think about it even the United States has feudal elements. Take any small farmer who sells produce at the farmers market and must pay money to landlords(usually mortage to banks). There aren't that many but they're here. In fact go back further in history and you find capitalism coexisting with slavery which Marx said was before feudalism.

I see no reason why handing control over to the proletariat over their means of production would've been impossible just because there weren't that many. Worker-owned factories must be able to develop industry just as much as a capitalist can, otherwise economic development will simply halt under any true socialist society. I could see workers deciding they need more of certain resources meeting at a conference and agreeing to send resources to build another factory and seeing workers deciding to work there and taking control of it.

As for the peasants I think the principles of democratic ownership should apply there too. Subsistence is fine, but the people working it should be ones who own it. If its just one person, leave him alone but if its one person working above another person it should be collectivized. Over time the benefits of industrialization would lead the peasants to join in more large-scale production.

Ultimately though I think the nature of the state would've perverted even this. However, it would've been better than present day American capitalism which can't be said for most 'communist' regimes. Free association as long as you don't engage in coercion or exploitation must be respected or power will be abused either by a small clique or by the majority. The majority is not always right as we've seen several times in capitalist countries. The ability to leave an organization, any organization must be respected. It gives people an outlet in case the rest of the organization is doing something unconsciable to the person or even if they just prefer to live a simple life of subsistence or consider another organization to be better overall.

[Black Sheep]

Unfortunately nothing can be done to save it from the black and white perspective of history that as already been put forward, but it might be worth point out that soviets losing power was simply a matter of time.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif


The way I see it, soviet power was a great accomplishment as well as kind of a suicide mission; because you can't hope to maintain such a young and developing political system when your in a country as backward as Russia and have imperialist armies up your ass. But maybe I'm wrong, and it was all the Bolsheviks fault!
And there i was thinking,foolishly, that socialism's core is exactly that "suicide mission", workers' democracy, and absolute + directo control of economy and management.

So in your way of thinking,building up & mantaining the core of socialism, especially in underdeveloped countries (quite the majority in our planet) and especially when the entire imperialist block is ready to charge (which is a certainty, considering the bourgeoisie's class councioussness and solidarity), is a suicide mission. So we had better rely on the glorious and all-wise vanguard.

Those damn peasants and workers will destroy the revolution after all.

[Charles Xavier]

The point is, they couldn't. The Bolshevik theory and practice led to the USSR becoming as it did. I'm sure however that if they hadn't have carried out an coup, and instead the workers themselves developed their revolution further and overthrew the state and capitalism, things would have turned out better, and we could take more inspiration from Russia.


The Duma sent the army to crush the Petrograd soviet, what could the Bolsheviks do? Wait until things matured more? Things already matured to a revolution, and their failure to act would have put the working class movement 50 years back. They had sufficient strength to launch a revolution, you don't hold that strength forever, when you have it you use it, if you don't use it the class forces will change quickly and for the worse. If the Bolsheviks didn't do what they did you ultra leftists would be saying "The Bolsheviks held the workers back!!!!" The Bolsheviks who represented the needs and desires of the working class rose to the occausion and prevailed, that my friend is what I hold as heroic.