Old 'Communist' regimes

[Kyrite]

I often get into debates with friends about communism and anarchism. If the debate starts to swing in my favour they always use the same old thing: 'Well look at the attempt at communism in the past, they all ended horribly and caused mass amounts of suffering and death'. Whenever they say this i have no idea what to say back, i mean i am hardly going to defend the mass murders carried out under Stalin or the oppressive nature of the DPKR.

So my question is what would you say if you were in my position?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Stop debating with people who use pathetic strawmans like that.

[AnthArmo]

They weren't socialist. Socialism is an economy that is democratically controlled by the workers. There was no democracy in those old regimes, therefore they weren't socialist.

Simple logic even a right-wing Fox news pundit could understand. Never fails for me

[Soviet]

They weren't socialist. Socialism is an economy that is democratically controlled by the workers. There was no democracy in those old regimes, therefore they weren't socialist.

Simple logic even a right-wing Fox news pundit could understand. Never fails for me

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.
The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.
Is it clear?

[Kyrite]

'But these regimes were started by communist revolutions. What is to stop it keep happening again?'

I normally just say that there are lessons that have been learnt from history. What else should i say?

[mykittyhasaboner]

They weren't socialist. Socialism is an economy that is democratically controlled by the workers. There was no democracy in those old regimes, therefore they weren't socialist.

Simple logic even a right-wing Fox news pundit could understand. Never fails for me

Except your simple logic doesn't resemble historical reality, like that a FOX news pundit. You say there was no democracy, yet do you even know what a soviet is?

[Q]

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.
Tough for you.

If I get in this type of argument I normally take the time to patiently explain what happened in Russia (degeneration due to isolation, civil war and general backwardness of the country). You can only convince if you remain calm and take your time. Even if it is difficult, don't let yourself be dragged into a heated debate, especially not in a debate (a discussion is a little different from this as you only have to convince the person in question - as opposed to a debate where there is a public - but even in a discussion I would recommend to remain calm).

[Soviet]

Tough for you.

If I get in this type of argument I normally take the time to patiently explain what happened in Russia (degeneration due to isolation, civil war and general backwardness of the country). You can only convince if you remain calm and take your time. Even if it is difficult, don't let yourself be dragged into a heated debate, especially not in a debate (a discussion is a little different from this as you only have to convince the person in question - as opposed to a debate where there is a public - but even in a discussion I would recommend to remain calm).
I repeat especially for Trots:

The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.

What can you say against that?

[ArrowLance]

Completely discarding "old 'communist' regimes" is intellectually lazy. Saying that the USSR or the DPRK had/have no communist elements or goals is lying. We should point out where things went wrong, and possibly why.

Sometimes people won't listen, and then you just have to ignore them. Some people will never accept anything you say about them because they feel they are 'evil' states. And there is just nowhere to go.

[Kyrite]

Thanks for the responces :thumbup1:

[Q]

I repeat especially for Trots:

The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.

What can you say against that?
I would say that it is bullshit. All forms of workers democracy were actively killed off in the period of 1924-27. After that the soviets existed in nothing but on paper. Saying that North Korea has workers control is outright delusional.

[Tjis]

'But these regimes were started by communist revolutions. What is to stop it keep happening again?'

I normally just say that there are lessons that have been learnt from history. What else should i say?

This is a risk in any revolution. The only way to make sure this won't happen is if people don't accept any authority in the first place. So the revolutionary spirit must not only be anti-capitalist, but against all forms of authority.

[Lamanov]

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.

I'm sure you are.

Especially when it's not demagogy.

[khad]

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.
Just don't use the stupid Zizek defense of Stalin.

"Stalin saved the humanity of man! Lenin was a crazy utopian who wanted to abolish emotions and names and turn workers into machines!"

[rednordman]

They weren't socialist. Socialism is an economy that is democratically controlled by the workers. There was no democracy in those old regimes, therefore they weren't socialist.

Simple logic even a right-wing Fox news pundit could understand. Never fails for meBut there lies in the problem, You have every right to say that and you are not wrong, but even so, people will aways say that with even the best of intentions of socialism or even anarchism, it will end up as disaster. Some people really cannot be swayed on that no matter how obvious it is. I feel your pain on that one (though you have mentioned that it never fails for you, it does for me).

However, I think the point arrowlance makes is actually a valid one, there where still socialist elements to alot of these regimes. Despite the mistakes.

[rednordman]

Just don't use the stupid Zizek defense of Stalin.

"Stalin saved the humanity of man! Lenin was a crazy utopian who wanted to abolish emotions and names and turn workers into machines!"Please tell me he didnt actually say that!

[khad]

Please tell me he didnt actually say that!
Read it and weep:

http://ionalecsandru.blogspot.com/2009/03/lunch-with-ft-slavoj-zizek-by-john.html


What, after all, are we to make of Žižek’s apparently absurd argument in his recent book In Defence of Lost Causes (Verso Books) that Stalin, author of some of the most monstrous crimes of the 20th century, “saved the humanity of man”?

Clearly bruised by Kirsch’s assault, Žižek denounces his US critic as “stupid”. He then sets about trying to clarify his apparently ambiguous attitude towards Stalinism. First, he readily acknowledges all the human suffering that occurred in Stalin’s time and trots out a series of “nice, horrible” stories illustrating the exceptional cruelty of the times. But, he insists, we should make more efforts to understand Stalinism. “One can argue that there was more violence than under Hitler,” he says. “But Hitler was a bad guy who announced he would do bad things and did them. The true tragedy of Stalinism is that it started as a popular explosion of emancipatory equality. We don’t have a good theory as to why this turned into an even worse nightmare.”

What we often fail to understand, he argues, is how Stalinism was a counter-revolution, reacting against the extreme “post-human” utopian ambitions that were championed by Bolshevik leaders in the 1920s. Communist extremists predicted the day when workers would live in a perfect society with no need for emotions, or even names, and all sexuality and family life would be suppressed. But Stalin was far more conservative, reacting against experimental art and insisting on the sanctity of family life. “Stalinism reacted against these negative dystopias that were even more terrifying. Stalinism was, in that sense, a return to normal life. People forget that.”It's a wonder to me that people on the left still take this scatterbrained slob's opinions seriously. Not only does he defend Stalin on ideological grounds, but he also repeats the pernicious liberal lie that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ek-iran-time-t111851/index.html

[robbo203]

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.
The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.
Is it clear?

Its as clear as mud, dear. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on what input "the workers" had in the formulation and implementation GOSPLAN targets? And if these were "worker parties" at the helm of these regimes perhaps you would care to explain the MASSIVE inequalities in the distribution of wealth and power that existed in a state capitalist country like the USSR where the red bourgeosie did very nicely out of the rampant exploitation of Russian workers. These parasites - the upper echelons of the pseudo "communist party" - even had their own private retail outlets and other facilities from which the ordinary people were physically excluded. I would just love to hear how even a numbskull stalinist can explain away disconcerting little facts that

[n0thing]

I repeat especially for Trots:

The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.

What can you say against that?

So whilst the workers of North Korea live in absolute degrading poverty and starvation, it is their sincere wish that Kim Jong-il should be able to live in enormous palaces, send his children to private schools in Switzerland, and have servants fetch him expensive food and wine from all corners of the earth?

Is it also their wish to be thrown in jail for looking directly at foreigners? Is North Korea just a nation of extremely dedicated submissives?

Filthy propaganda amirite?

[rednordman]

Read it and weep:

http://ionalecsandru.blogspot.com/2009/03/lunch-with-ft-slavoj-zizek-by-john.html

It's a wonder to me that people on the left still take this scatterbrained slob's opinions seriously. Not only does he defend Stalin on ideological grounds, but he also repeats the pernicious liberal lie that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ek-iran-time-t111851/index.html I really do not understand how people can honestly say that communism in Russia turned out an even worser nightmare than nazism (infact, have i just misunderstood what he has said?).

Sure things where bad, and atrocities where commited but compared to what the nazis would have done, it seems to reign in insignificance. After all Hitler made it rather clear what he wanted to do to the jews and eastern europeans.

If Germany had of been the same size and population of the soviet union, then it could be argued that more people would have been killed. As a matter of fact, how many people are the Nazis accused of killing? I hear 6million, but i thought that was aimed at mainly jewish people. And judging the rate in which they executed people, surely it has to be much much more?

[khad]

I really do not understand how people can honestly say that communism in Russia turned out an even worser nightmare than nazism (infact, have i just misunderstood what he has said?).

Zizek is scatterbrained, so he tries to have it both ways. Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but ideologically, he had the right ideas, unlike those crazy Leninist "utopians" who wanted to take away emotions and workers' names. It's the most ridiculous defense of Stalin I've ever seen.

[rednordman]

In fact, under Stalin, the USSR experienced a dramatic population boom due to improved infrastructure and public health. The demographic effects of the deaths that occurred were overshadowed by the demographic effects of better health, higher birth rate, lower infant mortality, etc. This is in contrast to WW2, where the population was declining by 800,000 every year. This is actually something that gets 'white washed' from history a littlebit, especially nowadays. Its like people wanted communism to be what nazism ended up as, and that is the most nasty 'ideology' ever. Infact, i swear that if you where to speak to someone who is a supporter of capitalism (especially and american) about this, than they would not see anything wrong with saying communism was much worse. Before everyone jumps on me for saying that, I am saying it from my own experience.

You know somethings wrong when you hear about (and actually witness) the polish and other eastern europeans who suffered immensly under nazism, now supporting nazism. Something tells me that they are getting encourage to do it. After all they cannot blame their former socialistic governments for absolutly everything that goes wrong now, and use that as the sole reason.

[khad]

This is actually something that gets 'white washed' from history a littlebit, especially nowadays. Its like people wanted communism to be what nazism ended up as, and that is the most nasty 'ideology' ever. Infact, i swear that if you where to speak to someone who is a supporter of capitalism (especially and american) about this, than they would not see anything wrong with saying communism was much worse. Before everyone jumps on me for saying that, I am saying it from my own experience.

A little bit? People think that Stalin was killing so many people that the population was imploding. I think that anti-Semitic, colonialist weirdo Solzhenitsyn claimed up to 110 million dead at one point.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I'm fed up with antistalinist demagogy.
The only criterium of democracy is a state policy.The state policy in the USSR and in NKorea was in the iterests of the majority of the people -they were the only real democracies.
And there was workers control in form of control of ruling workers parties.
Is it clear?

But they were not democratic, and how the hell would anyone know whether the USSR or North Korean state policy are in the interests of their people, both North Korea and the USSR were run by dictators that were not interested in the people, but in consolidating and protecting their own power.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I would say that it is bullshit. All forms of workers democracy were actively killed off in the period of 1924-27. After that the soviets existed in nothing but on paper. Saying that North Korea has workers control is outright delusional.

Thank you comrade, I have been waiting for someone to speak sense.

[Robespierre2.0]

But they were not democratic, and how the hell would anyone know whether the USSR or North Korean state policy are in the interests of their people, both North Korea and the USSR were run by dictators that were not interested in the people, but in consolidating and protecting their own power.

I smell the blood of a liberal.

Stalin and Kim Jong-Il are not 'dictators'- They do not possess 'absolute authority' or whatever your bullshit totalitarian paradigm tells you to think about them. They were general secretaries, and had an executive function, but ultimately, power was held by the communist party, which represented the working class. These communist parties function according to the principle of 'higher organs learning from and helping lower organs'- there is a constant dialogue between the party and the masses, ensuring that the complaints of the workers were addressed.

When you argue that they're not 'democratic', the only way I could see that as being so is if you're still stuck in the bourgeois-democratic worldview where everyone is (at least in theory) allowed to take part in the political process, despite the fact that in the real world, this always manifests itself as one class monopolizing political discourse and excluding those which threaten class rule.

This will be the case under a socialist state, when the party of the working class monopolizes power, and I see nothing undemocratic about excluding those who would ruin workers' power and restore capitalism (capitalist roaders) or theoretically bankrupt utopian idealists (anarchists) from the political process.

[robbo203]

I smell the blood of a liberal.

Stalin and Kim Jong-Il are not 'dictators'- They do not possess 'absolute authority' or whatever your bullshit totalitarian paradigm tells you to think about them. They were general secretaries, and had an executive function, but ultimately, power was held by the communist party, which represented the working class. These communist parties function according to the principle of 'higher organs learning from and helping lower organs'- there is a constant dialogue between the party and the masses, ensuring that the complaints of the workers were addressed.

When you argue that they're not 'democratic', the only way I could see that as being so is if you're still stuck in the bourgeois-democratic worldview where everyone is (at least in theory) allowed to take part in the political process, despite the fact that in the real world, this always manifests itself as one class monopolizing political discourse and excluding those which threaten class rule.

This will be the case under a socialist state, when the party of the working class monopolizes power, and I see nothing undemocratic about excluding those who would ruin workers' power and restore capitalism (capitalist roaders) or theoretically bankrupt utopian idealists (anarchists) from the political process.

I am fascinated by the delusional mindset that come up with such outrageously ridiculous tosh as this. Like these weren't brutal one-party states in which political opponents were imprisoned, banned and even shot. Like they were not organised on ruthlessly authoritarian and top-down hieararchical lines. Like they were not massively unequal societies in which a privileged few enjoyed a degree of power and wealth that the vast majority could not even dream of.

I also fascinated by the claim that the so called communist parties running these oppressive regimes somehow represented the interests of the working class. Ive put this point several times before but have yet to receive even a sliver of a serious answer by those who support these regimes - if they did actually represent the working class as this contrubutor claims then that means there must be in existence also a capitalist class (since the one class implies the other). If that is the case then it would seem to follow, morover, that since the working class is by definition an exploited class that these regimes must therefore be presiding over a process of exploitation that constitutes the very essence of any kind of class soceity. In short, far from representing the interests of the working class these regimes must be the very capitalist roaders that exploit the working class. There wouldnt be a working class to represent if there was no exploitatoion taking place and since the private capitalists are suppresed it follows it must be the state that is doing the exploitation

It would be interesting to see if anyone among the steadily dwindling band of hard line Stalinists can rise to challenge and address these points directly but I suspect all you will get from them is the usual evasion and ad hominen sniping when faced with an argument to which they have absolutely no answer

[bricolage]

Stalin and Kim Jong-Il are not 'dictators'- They do not possess 'absolute authority' or whatever your bullshit totalitarian paradigm tells you to think about them. They were general secretaries, and had an executive function, but ultimately, power was held by the communist party, which represented the working class. These communist parties function according to the principle of 'higher organs learning from and helping lower organs'- there is a constant dialogue between the party and the masses, ensuring that the complaints of the workers were addressed.

Dictatorship of the person or dictatorship of the party, it's all the same bullshit.

[Q]

A smile at Mantis a day keeps the doctor away.

[Misanthrope]

To judge the practicality of socialism by observing a capitalist state doesn't make too much sense.

[Nwoye]

I smell the blood of a liberal.

Stalin and Kim Jong-Il are not 'dictators'- They do not possess 'absolute authority' or whatever your bullshit totalitarian paradigm tells you to think about them. They were general secretaries, and had an executive function, but ultimately, power was held by the communist party, which represented the working class. These communist parties function according to the principle of 'higher organs learning from and helping lower organs'- there is a constant dialogue between the party and the masses, ensuring that the complaints of the workers were addressed.

When you argue that they're not 'democratic', the only way I could see that as being so is if you're still stuck in the bourgeois-democratic worldview where everyone is (at least in theory) allowed to take part in the political process, despite the fact that in the real world, this always manifests itself as one class monopolizing political discourse and excluding those which threaten class rule.

This will be the case under a socialist state, when the party of the working class monopolizes power, and I see nothing undemocratic about excluding those who would ruin workers' power and restore capitalism (capitalist roaders) or theoretically bankrupt utopian idealists (anarchists) from the political process.
This kind of support for disgusting authoritarians like Stalin or Kim Jong fucking Il is part of the reason why the revolutionary left is irrelevant in the Western World.

[Robespierre2.0]

I am fascinated by the delusional mindset that come up with such outrageously ridiculous tosh as this.

Likewise, I am quite bored by the delusional mindset of those of you who can call themselves 'leftists' and yet pull this 'no true scotsman' BS whenever someone brings up the history of the socialist states.


Like these weren't brutal one-party states in which political opponents were imprisoned, banned and even shot.Why should I give a fuck? By nature, a state is a class dictatorship which holds a monopoly on the use of force. If the state is providing me with free education, medicine, and housing, why should I care if they throw those who would attempt to take this from me in jail?


Like they were not organised on ruthlessly authoritarian and top-down hieararchical lines. Ohh goody! More adjectives! Yes, they were 'ruthlessly authoritarian', but only in the sense that if you wanted to participate in the dialogue over how the state is to be run, you have to do so through the instruments of the communist party- in other words, you have to recognize the authority of the vanguard party of the working class, rather than forming an underground anti-socialist 'resistance group' and attempting to restore capitalism.

As for hierarchy, so what? Hierarchy is natural in any other activity in which many humans cooperate on a larger project. If a group of people are lost in the Amazon rainforest, isn't it natural that the one who has had survival training for this kind of situation should take a leadership role, at least until everyone else has picked up on the basics?


Like they were not massively unequal societies in which a privileged few enjoyed a degree of power and wealth that the vast majority could not even dream of. Proof? Where is the massive inequality? I'll agree with you in that 'some' enjoyed power over 'others' only in the sense that media was controlled by members of the communist party, who could be trusted to ensure that the media strengthens the cultural hegemony of the working class, rather than the average joe, who, while not necessarily an 'enemy of the people', by virtue of not having gone through the 'screening process' of joining the party, may in fact still have a muddled consciousness and take reactionary stands on several issues.


I also fascinated by the claim that the so called communist parties running these oppressive regimes somehow represented the interests of the working class. Ive put this point several times before but have yet to receive even a sliver of a serious answer by those who support these regimes - if they did actually represent the working class as this contrubutor claims then that means there must be in existence also a capitalist class (since the one class implies the other).And indeed there was a capitalist class- The remnants of the capitalism persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat, except they are now the class being suppressed, not the ruling class.


If that is the case then it would seem to follow, morover, that since the working class is by definition an exploited class that these regimes must therefore be presiding over a process of exploitation that constitutes the very essence of any kind of class soceity. In short, far from representing the interests of the working class these regimes must be the very capitalist roaders that exploit the working class. There wouldnt be a working class to represent if there was no exploitatoion taking place and since the private capitalists are suppresed it follows it must be the state that is doing the exploitationYour logic is ridiculous. Class struggle persists under socialism, with the aforementioned remnants of the bourgeois class, along with their international allies, using every means at their disposal to poison the minds of the masses. It is up to the vanguard party, made up of the most class-conscious members of the working class, to combat this. The problem with liberals like you is that you can't see the difference- You WANT to think that this vanguard party is by nature corrupt- you cry 'bureaucracy, bureaucracy'.

Well, news flash: Bureaucracy and careerism is going to be a problem under any state, and the correct response to this is not to reject the state, but to keep a close eye on the vanguard; to make sure that they are committed to serving the people instead of abusing their position for their own benefit, and to purge those who do fall into the latter category.


It would be interesting to see if anyone among the steadily dwindling band of hard line Stalinists can rise to challenge and address these points directly but I suspect all you will get from them is the usual evasion and ad hominen sniping when faced with an argument to which they have absolutely no answer
You're tooting your own horn- of course everyone is 'steadily dwindling' except for your noble band of 'libertarian socialists' or whatever dumbass pseudo-liberal ideology you adhere to.

[Qayin]

Why should I give a fuck? By nature, a state is a class dictatorship which holds a monopoly on the use of force. If the state is providing me with free education, medicine, and housing, why should I care if they throw those who would attempt to take this from me in jail?


:laugh:

Yeah those people starving to death in North Korea trying to escape are trying to take away your free services

[ComradeOm]

Why should I give a fuck? By nature, a state is a class dictatorship which holds a monopoly on the use of force. If the state is providing me with free education, medicine, and housing, why should I care if they throw those who would attempt to take this from me in jail?

EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)

Recognise a few names on this list? I'm sure you do. This is a very small sample of prominent Petrograd Bolsheviks who were active in the capital during 1917. Like I said, a tiny sample of Stalin's total victims. But I want to focus on these for a minute because I doubt you give a damn about the countless victims who have not had their names recorded. Each of the above furthered the revolutionary cause in 1917 (a few also were good Stalinists afterwards) and served with distinction on the various Bolshevik organisations and committees. The names above vary from party leaders* to those who worked tirelessly at grassroots level. Revolutionary heroes, one and all

Certainly they were responsible for a state that provided "free education, medicine, and housing". Their revolutionary credentials are impeccable yet they ended up murdered by a despot who cared for nothing but his own personal power. There is no excuse for these deaths and they, and the countless others of Stalin's personal political opponents, did not deserve the fate they ultimately received

Now you can talk all you want about about 'crypto-Trots' or whatever you like. That's bullshit and if you can't see that then its solely because of your own narrow-mindedness. But I'm not going to let you pretend that these names tried to 'step outside the Party' or try to destroy the USSR. They were the heroes without whom the latter would not have existed. To dismiss them as somehow 'legitimate targets' is a thundering disgrace and a damning indictment of your own ideology

*Interesting enough, of the nine-man Central Committee elected in April 1917 only one reached the 1940s. Three (Sverdlov, Lenin and Nogin) died of natural causes but the remaining five were executed on Stalin's orders

[robbo203]

Yes, they were 'ruthlessly authoritarian', but only in the sense that if you wanted to participate in the dialogue over how the state is to be run, you have to do so through the instruments of the communist party- in other words, you have to recognize the authority of the vanguard party of the working class, rather than forming an underground anti-socialist 'resistance group' and attempting to restore capitalism.
.

I like that - "participate in the dialogue over how the state is to be run". How exactly did the ordinary Russian worker do that then, eh? More to the point, what about the decisionmaking process itself? Who made all the important decisions and what possible recourse did ordinary Russian workers have to evicting those from power if they did not approve of what was supposedly decided in their name. You said itself - the only way in which you could even participate in the "dialogue" (let alone the actual decision making ) was not to question the authority of the vanguard. In other words, such participation could only ever be on their terms. This is a dictatorship, plain and simple,whatever weasel words you employ to wriggle your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself



Proof? Where is the massive inequality? .

There is abundant proof that the state capitalist economy of the USSR was massively unequal. I could quote you reams of the stuff. For example, according to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated and often multiple "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to retails outlets stocking western goods and other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the ratio between high and low earners was something like 1:100. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success. The many among the red bourgeoisie of the Soviet era could so easily morph into the oligarchs of the post soviet era highlights the essential continuity in the changeover from state capitalism to a more mixed model of capitalism



And indeed there was a capitalist class- The remnants of the capitalism persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat, except they are now the class being suppressed, not the ruling class..

Lets try make sense of this gobbledygook. The capitalist class still existed in the USSR you say. OK , so in order to still exist as a class they must therefore still be exploiting workers. Afterall, in Marxian terms you cannot be a capiltalist without exploiting workers. That is what makes you a capitalist in the first place - your capacity to extract surplus value from the working class in order to accumulate capital. It logically follows then, that Russian workers were still being exploited by Russian capitalist in your glorious "socialist" fatherland becuase. if they were not, there would be no capitalists and no workers. In short no exploitation. But since there were capitalists and workers - bY YOUR OWN ADMISSION - in the USSR then exploitation had still to be taking place there and that could only be because the capitalist were exploiting the workers. And it is these same capitalists who exist by exploiting the workers who you say were suppresed by these same workers!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:



Well, news flash: Bureaucracy and careerism is going to be a problem under any state, and the correct response to this is not to reject the state, but to keep a close eye on the vanguard; to make sure that they are committed to serving the people instead of abusing their position for their own benefit, and to purge those who do fall into the latter category.
.


This post is so hilariously daft and eccentric I had to to limit myself to just a few choice pickings. The above is another example. We need to "keep a close eye on the vanguard; to make sure that they are committed to serving the people instead of abusing their position for their own benefit, and to purge those who do fall into the latter category" . Oh so what went wrong then? Why, for example, did a small minority enrich themselves at the expense of the vast majority as the evidence so clearly shows. More to the point, how they hell do you "keep an eye" on the vanguard when your participation even in the mere dialogue concerning the running of the state - to say nothing of the actual decisionmaking itself from which the Russian working class were absolutely excluded - was predicated on recognising the absolute authority of the vanguard. In other words, the very people you are supposed to keep an eye on are the very people you cannot question. This is so ridiculous I can hardly believe anyone with the slightest bit of inteligance could swallow such guff.

[Soviet]

Listen,you Trots,the "old communist rgime" gave the people the right to work,the right to uducate,the right to medcine and so on and so on.All my grandpearants from generation to generation were peasants and only after 1917 the've got the ability for education and the freedom of occupational choice-the most important freedom.And all Russians can tell you the same about their families.Tell your tales about "state capitalism" ,about the "capitalist policy" in the USSR in the USA,in England etc.,but not in Russia if you dont want to look foolish.
Is it clear?

[Tjis]

Listen,you Trots,the "old communist rgime" gave the people the right to work,the right to uducate,the right to medcine and so on and so on.All my grandpearants from generation to generation were peasants and only after 1917 the've got the ability for education and the freedom of occupational choice-the most important freedom.And all Russians can tell you the same about their families.Tell your tales about "state capitalism" ,about the "capitalist policy" in the USSR in the USA,in England etc.,but not in Russia if you dont want to look foolish.
Is it clear?

Just because something is better than what came before it doesn't make it good.

[rednordman]

Listen,you Trots,the "old communist rgime" gave the people the right to work,the right to uducate,the right to medcine and so on and so on.All my grandpearants from generation to generation were peasants and only after 1917 the've got the ability for education and the freedom of occupational choice-the most important freedom.And all Russians can tell you the same about their families.Tell your tales about "state capitalism" ,about the "capitalist policy" in the USSR in the USA,in England etc.,but not in Russia if you dont want to look foolish.
Is it clear?You actually have point here, how do the trotskyists, left-communists or anarchists refute this? Im not saying that it was all perfect either, but its highly likely that things may have progressed in some ways from that of tzarism.

One thing I know for certain about the socialist states up to 1989 is that there was generally always alot of work around and people DID have choice of that, if little else. I have also heard how things where not that badly in supply either, the main problem was the black market. Shops where often empty, but people brought stuff under the counter. So the talk of production being poor was a little bit of an over exageration also.

[rednordman]

Just because something is better than what came before it doesn't make it good.Yep, but that aspect (work that is) isnt exactly a bad thing either is it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Just because something is better than what came before it doesn't make it good.
No, but it does mean we should spend more time criticizing the worse regimes rather than illogically focus on the better ones.

The Soviet Union was not a socialist state (and certainly not communist, for obvious reasons). Nevertheless, its economic system was reasonably similar to a socialist economic system - at least, it was far more similar to socialism than any other system in history - and it achieved remarkable progress in science, industry, medicine, living standards, and women's rights. The Soviet Union was by no means perfect. It had its dark side, particularly under Stalin. Many innocent people died in the USSR - but that does not erase its achievements.

It is important to have a balanced view of history, to recognize both the good and the bad done by Soviet-type societies. Especially now that the USSR is gone, infighting between communists on historical issues is entirely pointless, counter-productive, and beneficial only to our enemies.

[Tjis]

What is ridiculous about all this is that people in this thread (and other threads as well) are refuting any criticism by pointing out that there were great advances in both what people had and their freedom.

But what about capitalism then? Capitalism was a great advance compared to feudalism.
Instead of having one master in feudalism, capitalism allows people to choose their master, or even work for themselves. Also, people are no longer permanently stuck to the station they were born in. Unlike in feudalism, in capitalism there is a small chance to have success and become part of the ruling class.
But should we defend capitalism because it's better than feudalism? Of course not. Should we defend socialism in the USSR because it's better than feudalism? Again, of course not! You might have other reasons. You might actually think it was the ultimate workers paradise. But you'll have to come with arguments that show that, not with arguments that merely show that USSR socialism was better than the feudalism that precedes it.

[rednordman]

What is ridiculous about all this is that people in this thread (and other threads as well) are refuting any criticism by pointing out that there were great advances in both what people had and their freedom.

But what about capitalism then? Capitalism was a great advance compared to feudalism.
Instead of having one master in feudalism, capitalism allows people to choose their master, or even work for themselves. Also, people are no longer permanently stuck to the station they were born in. Unlike in feudalism, in capitalism there is a small chance to have success and become part of the ruling class.
But should we defend capitalism because it's better than feudalism? Of course not. Should we defend socialism in the USSR because it's better than feudalism? Again, of course not! You might have other reasons. You might actually think it was the ultimate workers paradise. But you'll have to come with arguments that show that, not with arguments that merely show that USSR socialism was better than the feudalism that precedes it.Well said, but no-one denies that capitalism is miles better than feudalism, theres nothing wrong with admitting that (imo). By saying the same about the positive sides of the USSR isnt exactly stating that is was a workers paradise either. Some people seem to think that if you defend some things of the USSR, then you think that it was heaven on earth or deny its crimes. Thats the impression that i'v been getting lately.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is ridiculous about all this is that people in this thread (and other threads as well) are refuting any criticism by pointing out that there were great advances in both what people had and their freedom.
We are not refuting criticism. We are merely pointing out that the criticism is one-sided and presents only half of the truth.


But what about capitalism then? Capitalism was a great advance compared to feudalism.
Yes, and if we lived in a world dominated by feudal regimes that viciously attacked capitalism, then it would be necessary to defend capitalism too! If I lived in, say, 1809 instead of 2009, I would certainly defend capitalism against reactionary attacks.

The point is this: As long as we live in a world dominated by a single economic system, we should defend any alternatives that are better than, or as good as, the current dominant system. Why? To show people that a better world - or at least a different world that is just as good as this one - is possible. To show people that positive revolutionary change is possible.

The biggest objection against revolution is the idea that it won't lead to any improvement in people's lives. We have to show that's not true.

[robbo203]

Listen,you Trots,the "old communist rgime" gave the people the right to work,the right to uducate,the right to medcine and so on and so on.All my grandpearants from generation to generation were peasants and only after 1917 the've got the ability for education and the freedom of occupational choice-the most important freedom.And all Russians can tell you the same about their families.Tell your tales about "state capitalism" ,about the "capitalist policy" in the USSR in the USA,in England etc.,but not in Russia if you dont want to look foolish.
Is it clear?


This is crap. Labour mobility - what you call freedom of occupational choice - was actually tightened up considerably under Stalin . Even so, state enterprises have always been able to exercise a degree of freedom in the matter of employing Russian wage slaves and setting wage rates (notwithstanding the myth of centralised planning). In any case other capitalist states besides the USSR have this nominal right to change jobs. Indeed the USSR compares very poorly by international comparisons. It would be far easier for a worker to change his or her job in, say, the USA or Sweden than in the USSR where a lot of bureaucratic red tape would be involved

Ditto, the so called right to work. There has always been unemployment in the USSR. The Soviet Union Year-book (1930) for example points out that the number of unemployed in 1924-5 was 848,000 , 1,353,000 in 1926-7 and 1,310,000 in 1930. More recently it tended to take the form of disguised unemployment, a ruse familiar enough to western governments who seek to massage their unemployment figures through various bogus job creation schemes. The USSR just went rather further down this road. I say nothing about the gulag archipelago and the slave labour camps in the USSR.

As for free medicine, education etc etc well again, big deal! - whats so special about the USSR, eh? Other capitalist states have their social welfare programmes funded out of general taxation. Marxian economic theory cautions us not to be conned by the appearance of so called freebies. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. To ensure an adequate rate of profit in capitalism what tends to happen is that the increased taxation to pay for social welfare programme is offset by a decline in the nominal wage (often disguised by a policy of inflation). The miserable wages that Russian workers got - in stark contrast to the luxurious existence that the Red fat cats in the pseudo communist party enjoyed - is adequate testimony of this

[NecroCommie]

I'll start listening to the anarchist critizism of the USSR when I see them do better. I know it's cons and I know it's pros. I will learn from the mistakes, and try to repeat the successes.

I could ofcourse criticize anarchist spain for not reaching utopia instantly, but I am of the reasonable sort.

Thats all.

[CommunityBeliever]

'Well look at the attempt at communism in the past, they all ended horribly and caused mass amounts of suffering and death'

They started off with massive amounts of suffering and death anyways so they just got back to where they started. Well revolution was still alive in those countries though a lot of good was done, such as the Russians withdrawing from WW1. Besides, there is still one country where revolution is alive - Cuba. And all that we have seen come from the Cuban revolution is good.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I'll start listening to the anarchist critizism of the USSR when I see them do better. I know it's cons and I know it's pros. I will learn from the mistakes, and try to repeat the successes.

I could ofcourse criticize anarchist spain for not reaching utopia instantly, but I am of the reasonable sort.

Thats all.

Just because they have not presented a feasible alternative in our minds does not make their criticism of the USSR any less valid. It seems like a cop-out dismissal of very legitimate concerns people have... If we dismiss the opinions of anarchists because they haven't come up with a better idea, do we dismiss the opinions of proletarians because they may not have developed a coherent theory? This leads to a very elitist position where only those who have the "most correct line" are worthy of being heard. I don't get down with that mentality.

[khad]

I don't get down with that mentality.
I don't get down with the mentality that whenever cappies bash the left, the left treats the issue as if it's something that it's the left's fault in the first place.

[NecroCommie]

Just because they have not presented a feasible alternative in our minds does not make their criticism of the USSR any less valid. It seems like a cop-out dismissal of very legitimate concerns people have... If we dismiss the opinions of anarchists because they haven't come up with a better idea, do we dismiss the opinions of proletarians because they may not have developed a coherent theory? This leads to a very elitist position where only those who have the "most correct line" are worthy of being heard. I don't get down with that mentality.
You are right that it does not succesfully counter any critizism of USSR, which was not my point. I only meant to point out the lack of real critizism of the october revolution. I have heard alot of: "In soviet union happened this and this" I wanted to provoke some people to give me alternative solutions to those problems, and not just bash it for the sake of bashing.

Constructive critizism is always welcome, albeit in this case it is long time ago received and understood. Most critics in this thread seem to concentrate their energy on calling the authoritarians stupid, and pointing out fallacies in the Stalin era and the later period. Most fail to tell what it was that originally made the degeneration possible, and how could it have been countered. The last two questions are the only ones that really matter politically, for it is with those questions that we can evolve our movement.

If we completely reject every single thing in the USSR history, it will be a propaganda victory for the right. No matter what we want to think, most of the population still see the USSR as some pinnacle of communism. Which it is not for even M-Leninists.

[robbo203]

And as Khad elaborately pointed out: If we completely reject every single thing in the USSR history, it will be a propaganda victory for the right. No matter what we want to think, most of the population still see the USSR as some pinnacle of communism. Which it is not for even M-Leninists.

It would be a "propaganda victory" for the right if we were to continue to go along with the complete fiction that the USSR had anything to do with communism in the first place. That is precisely what the right want us to believe so that the fall of the USSR can then be construed as a failure of communism. It was not. It was the failure of a particularly odious capitalist regime in which a tiny parasitic minority exploited the great majority - just like in the other capitalist states which claim the loyalty of these rightwingers

[NecroCommie]

It would be a "propaganda victory" for the right if we were to continue to go along with the complete fiction that the USSR had anything to do with communism in the first place. That is precisely what the right want us to believe so that the fall of the USSR can then be construed as a failure of communism. It was not. It was the failure of a particularly odious capitalist regime in which a tiny parasitic minority exploited the great majority - just like in the other capitalist states which claim the loyalty of these rightwingers
Now now... It is not good to think in black and white. Ofcourse we should condemn the mistakes that happened. That however is not synonymous with utter bashing. We should instead condemn the mistakes, while simultaneously promoting the goods that the october revolution achieved.

If we simply state that "the USSR was shit", someone might conclude that we communists also condemn the separation of church and state, that we are the same sexists like all others, and that we deny the nations the right to decide their own things. As it happens, some of the people on this forum insist that we either promote or condemn, without any in-betweens.

Besides: full rejection of the USSR is a propaganda victory for the right. If we too start bashing the soviet union, the conservatist go all over the world proclaiming how even the communists don't believe that communism works. Only with constructive and reasoned critizism of the USSR can we prove our intellectual superiority as a movement.

[robbo203]

Now now... It is not good to think in black and white. Ofcourse we should condemn the mistakes that happened. That however is not synonymous with utter bashing. We should instead condemn the mistakes, while simultaneously promoting the goods that the october revolution achieved.

If we simply state that "the USSR was shit", someone might conclude that we communists also condemn the separation of church and state, that we are the same sexists like all others, and that we deny the nations the right to decide their own things. As it happens, some of the people on this forum insist that we either promote or condemn, without any in-betweens.

Besides: full rejection of the USSR is a propaganda victory for the right. If we too start bashing the soviet union, the conservatist go all over the world proclaiming how even the communists don't believe that communism works. Only with constructive and reasoned critizism of the USSR can we prove our intellectual superiority as a movement.

No your reasoning is faulty here. You are missing the point altogether.

Look, I am not saying everything that ever happened in or was associated with the USSR was uniformly bad. Of course not. You can no more so that than you can of any other capitalist state. But implicit in your argument is still the vague idea that what happened in the USSR is some kind of imperfect apprpximation of what communists are striving for. It is emphatically not. This needs to be said loud and clear. THe USSR had fuck all to do with communism. It was unequivocally a system of state run capitalism. We should not mince our words about this....

You say if we go in for bashing the USSR the conservatives will think that even the communists do not believe that communism works. This is complete nonsense. How can they possibly infer this from a forthright statement to the effect that what happened in the USSR had nothing to do with communism and that genuine communists would no more lend their support to this capitalist state than they would to any other.

It is actually the people like you, I am sorry to say, who equivocate on the issue who think "yes the USSR did some bad things but was basically on the right lines" who actually give the Right reason to think that this is an admission on behalf of communists that communism failed with the collapse of the USSR.

In any case , who the hell cares if the Right thinks they have claimed a propaganda victory. As a communist I am primarily concerned about the establishment of a genuine communist society. That means I need to make it absolutrely clear that this has got nothing to with the state capitalism of the USSR

[NecroCommie]

But implicit in your argument is still the vague idea that what happened in the USSR is some kind of imperfect apprpximation of what communists are striving for. It is emphatically not. This needs to be said loud and clear. THe USSR had fuck all to do with communism. It was unequivocally a system of state run capitalism. We should not mince our words about this....

A-ha! I think I just found the root and stuff that makes our disagreement!

If I am right, you think that I think that the USSR was in all its essence a socialist society with minor flaws. This however is not what I am trying to say. It si true that I think Lenins intentions and goals were noble, and that communism was indeed wanted. However not all went as planned, and in the colhose leaders and their political supporters was born a new ruling class.

What I think is more like the USSR was not socialist, no for heavens sake. It was though a workers state, which means a state with important socialist features, embedded into the system with the revolutions authentic communist intentions.

Am I making any sense? :confused:

The second misunderstanding is to think that this oppinion is of the whole soviet union. The late era was completely capitalist. During the 80's the last vestiges of the revolutions were reformed away, and therefore I will not mix the late SU with the workers state of the first half of the century.



In any case , who the hell cares if the Right thinks they have claimed a propaganda victory. As a communist I am primarily concerned about the establishment of a genuine communist society. That means I need to make it absolutrely clear that this has got nothing to with the state capitalism of the USSR

Well basically I dont care about their oppinion either, but propaganda victories are important to further grow our movement, so that the revolution is even possible.


So, to put it simply: When discussing the october revolution with non-communists, it is important that we do not fully reject it. We should start our argument by pointing out how the next revolution too should stop religious, sexist and nationalist opression, and then proceed to reject the idea of colhose leaders or any other ruling group of people.

[robbo203]

A-ha! I think I just found the root and stuff that makes our disagreement!

If I am right, you think that I think that the USSR was in all its essence a socialist society with minor flaws. This however is not what I am trying to say. It si true that I think Lenins intentions and goals were noble, and that communism was indeed wanted. However not all went as planned, and in the colhose leaders and their political supporters was born a new ruling class.

What I think is more like the USSR was not socialist, no for heavens sake. It was though a workers state, which means a state with important socialist features, embedded into the system with the revolutions authentic communist intentions.

Am I making any sense? :confused:.

No I am afraid not. What I am interested in when it comes to examining the USSR is not what Lenin thought or what Bukharin thought or whether or not their thoughts were noble or well intentioned. I am interested primarily in the structural characteristics of the state that calls itself the USSR.

You say it was once a "workers state". This is wrong for reasons that I have elaborated upon elsewhere. The working class is by definition the exploited class in capitalist society and its very existence as a class implies the existence of a capitalist class that exploits it. It is logically incoherent to talk about an exploited class controlling the state in its own interests while suppressing the capiltalists who strangely enough continue to exploit the former. Every so called "workers state" there has ever been has been based on a lie. It is not , and never could be, the working class that is in control of the state but rather a so called "vanguard" which, while claiming to represent the workers, has effectively -and necessarily - become a substitute capitalist class


The second misunderstanding is to think that this oppinion is of the whole soviet union. The late era was completely capitalist. During the 80's the last vestiges of the revolutions were reformed away, and therefore I will not mix the late SU with the workers state of the first half of the century.
.

No you are wrong again. The early SU was just as much capitalist as the late SU (if we ignore the wider prevalence of precapitalist subsistence forms of production in the rural areas in the early SU). All of the basic features of capitalism were in place right at the start. Lenin even argued that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia and urged his comrades to look to the German war time economy as a model for Russia to emulate



So, to put it simply: When discussing the october revolution with non-communists, it is important that we do not fully reject it. We should start our argument by pointing out how the next revolution too should stop religious, sexist and nationalist opression, and then proceed to reject the idea of colhose leaders or any other ruling group of people.

The October Revolution was fundamentally a capitalist revolution. It heralded the arrival of a state capitalist society that threw off some of the features of the preceding tsarist society while incorporating others. Yes the October Revolution was carried out overwhelmingly by workers but that does not make it a working class revolution. The nature of a revolution is determined not by its agents but by its outcome. This was a point made by Marx but apparently lost on many admirers of the October Revolution
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality" , 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm)

[NecroCommie]

No I am afraid not. What I am interested in when it comes to examining the USSR is not what Lenin thought or what Bukharin thought or whether or not their thoughts were noble or well intentioned. I am interested primarily in the structural characteristics of the state that calls itself the USSR.
If one accuses the SU of intentionally doing anything, then the intentions are important. And Lenins intentions are not a matter of debate, being clearly expressed in his books, letters and journals. The peoples intentions are even less under the microscope.


You say it was once a "workers state". This is wrong for reasons that I have elaborated upon elsewhere. The working class is by definition the exploited class in capitalist society and its very existence as a class implies the existence of a capitalist class that exploits it. It is logically incoherent to talk about an exploited class controlling the state in its own interests while suppressing the capiltalists who strangely enough continue to exploit the former. Every so called "workers state" there has ever been has been based on a lie. It is not , and never could be, the working class that is in control of the state but rather a so called "vanguard" which, while claiming to represent the workers, has effectively -and necessarily - become a substitute capitalist class
Workers state by no means translates into a state run by the working class. It is merely a name given to a state with strong socialist background or features.


No you are wrong again. The early SU was just as much capitalist as the late SU (if we ignore the wider prevalence of precapitalist subsistence forms of production in the rural areas in the early SU). All of the basic features of capitalism were in place right at the start.
This is only if we go by the anarchist definition of capitalism. What you call capitalist, we all others call authoritarian. By no means was the early SU capitalist, for there was no private ownership of factories or farms, nor were there privately owned labour. These were owned by the state (clear difference there), and the private ownership were only introduced during tha latter years.

Lenin even argued that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia and urged his comrades to look to the German war time economy as a model for Russia to emulate
Strictly under the topic of industrializing, yes. It does not take a mastermind to realize that the SU was not gonna last without some industries.


The October Revolution was fundamentally a capitalist revolution. It heralded the arrival of a state capitalist society that threw off some of the features of the preceding tsarist society while incorporating others. Yes the October Revolution was carried out overwhelmingly by workers but that does not make it a working class revolution. The nature of a revolution is determined not by its agents but by its outcome. This was a point made by Marx but apparently lost on many admirers of the October Revolution
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality" , 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm)
By that remark, no revolution or society in the world has ever been even close to socialism, communism or anarchism. Not the Paris commune, not the brief Spanish communism. To be frank, I find that to be quite perfectionist.

Your Marx quote serves little purpose.
It is futile to compare the French Napoleonic revolution, and the October revolution. The French one was by its very plotters and objectives a bourgeois. The October revolution was run by the workers, for the workers. (speaking of the revolution itself, not the regime afterwards.) If the regime later on degenerated, it was due to other factors.

Saying that the material conditions were not ready for the revolution is speculating. Some say the conditons have been ripe for the past two hundred years, some say it still is not ready.

Saying that the USSR was never socialist because it never gave birth to perfect communism, is like saying you cannot be a communist because you have not given birth to perfect communism.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have no idea what 'colhose' means. So, what about the USSR made it proletarian class rule? As we know, the political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery, however, in the USSR, all that happened was that the state as capitalist producer was strengthened, and the existence of the proletariat was perpetuated rather than the state machinery losing any power as capitalist producer. One could point to nationalization, but Keynesian policies didn't make capitalist states any more or less the class rule of the bourgeoisie. In general, I don't really see any reason to believe that the USSR was going through a rather long revolution the whole time rather than just being capitalism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in a different form. While, of course, calling the USSR a "workers' state" does mean that it was capitalist, it also implies that the workers were using state power to expropriate the expropriators, when on the contrary the state was filled with said expropriators. As the existence of capitalism is accompanied by the existence of capitalists (and the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political form corresponding to revolution, revolution being the transformation from capitalism to socialism and therefore taking place under capitalism and ending as soon as capitalism does), and the USSR didn't really have a private sector to speak of, it would follow that the state took the position of capitalist producer, as expropriator, and there wasn't any expropriation of the expropriators going on. On the other hand, the state certainly did consolidate its power. It also suppressed strikes, with the labour laws of the 1930s ruling out the possibility of striking. For that matter, living standards dropped from 1928 to 1933, with pay cuts and production speed-ups in order to finance industrialization. There were laws involving the the blacklisting and firing of absentee workers, as well as banning them from getting apartments, which was later repealed in exchange for 'corrective labour' as punishment (ie. labour for six months at their current place of employment with 25% less wages), as well as the imprisonment of labourers who quit. Also propaganda involving Stekhanov (and made up achievments) in order to get workers to work harder and be more productive. It would seem that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is merely a more efficient dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. And, since you say that the later Soviet Union was not the class rule of the proletariat, how did that happen?


Well basically I dont care about their oppinion either, but propaganda victories are important to further grow our movement, so that the revolution is even possible.Perhaps, but promoting positions solely because they work better at getting 'propaganda victories' is a good way to descend into opportunism (Sorry, possibilism).


Workers state by no means translates into a state run by the working class. It is merely a name given to a state with strong socialist background or features.So what you're saying here is that a workers' state is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie instigated by a 'communist' revolution? After all, in socialism, there is no state, so there are no socialist features of a state. However, last I recall, the "workers' state" is a term used for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the political rule of the proletariat. In your definition, a "workers' state" can be a bourgeois state, which doesn't really seem to make much sense. Generally, if I were to refer to Daniel's coat or Robin's idea, it implies possession of some sort, whereas here the state can be run by the bourgeoisie and in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but still be a "workers' state" despite the state power being used against the workers rather than by the workers in order to expropriate the expropriators.
Also, there is nothing inherently socialist about nationalization, or Bismarck's Germany would be quite close to a workers' state.


This is only if we go by the anarchist definition of capitalism. What you call capitalist, we all others call authoritarian. By no means was the early SU capitalist, for there was no private ownership of factories or farms, nor were there privately owned labour.There's an anarchist definition of capitalism? Anyways, capitalism is not defined by de jure private ownership, it is determined by the relations of production, and Marx actually says, "Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a “commodity” and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity." But apparently the state being the sole capitalist producer means that somehow there is no capitalism? No doubt it's in some sort of limbo between capitalist and associated modes of production. It isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would mean the capitalist mode of production, nor is it socialism or feudalism, it's just some system with a proletariat (and hence a bourgeoisie), which we shall now call the fishy mode of production because I've always wanted to call something that.


Strictly under the topic of industrializing, yes. It does not take a mastermind to realize that the SU was not gonna last without some industries.The point here being that he saw capitalism as the means of doing so.


Saying that the USSR was never socialist because it never gave birth to perfect communism, is like saying you cannot be a communist because you have not given birth to perfect communism.Except that one is describing a viewpoint and the other a social system. The USSR wasn't 'never communist because it never gave birth to perfect communism', it was never communist because it wasn't classless.