if USSR was not socialist..

[Black Sheep]

then how do you explain the way better living standards provided to everyone?

I mean, you can argue about democratic control of production and decision making, but the zero unemployment & illiteracy, great standards in education and the providing of housing etc to everyone is a well known fact.

According to the above:
1)Do you deny the above accomplishments? If yes provide some sources please.

2)If you dont, how do you explain these 'generosities' ,if you are of the view that USSR was an oppressive bureaucracy, state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc (a)
-Maybe from the reformist attitude of the masses below?Meaning that the masses having overthrown czar's rule, seeked not socialism, but material gains, something like a syndicalist short-sighted struggle.

what else?

[Misanthrope]

Just because a state's population benefits from an economic system (I don't even like saying that because there are tons of other factors.) doesn't mean that said economic system is socialism. Stalin turned a peasant society into a bureaucratic global super power. Obviously there would be more access to education and the like. Nazi Germany had almost full employment as well, is that a justification for the anti-worker oppression carried out by the Nazis? No.

Even when capitalism was first sprouting society benefited because they just transitioned from feudalism.

[h0m0revolutionary]

democratic control of production and decision making

I think it's you comrade who has to provide the sources.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

then how do you explain the way better living standards provided to everyone?

I mean, you can argue about democratic control of production and decision making, but the zero unemployment & illiteracy, great standards in education and the providing of housing etc to everyone is a well known fact.

According to the above:
1)Do you deny the above accomplishments? If yes provide some sources please.

2)If you dont, how do you explain these 'generosities' ,if you are of the view that USSR was an oppressive bureaucracy, state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc (a)
-Maybe from the reformist attitude of the masses below?Meaning that the masses having overthrown czar's rule, seeked not socialism, but material gains, something like a syndicalist short-sighted struggle.

what else?

It does not matter what you say about zero illiteracy or as you say supposedly everyone had a better quality of life. These factors don't constitute Socialism. If there is still private property, which there was in the USSR, if there is still a class system which there was, in the form of the party class, then there isn't socialism.

[Nwoye]

I believe you have to cite sources that back up your claims, and would appreciate if you would do so.

[Pogue]

Socialism isn't about a rise in living standards, its about a society democratically run by the people who live in it, worker control of workplaces, etc.

[x359594]

Then there is Khrushchev's statement in a 1960 speech that the USSR would achieve socialism by 1980 and communism by 2000. From this one is led to assume that the USSR was in transition from state capitalism to socialism.

[Dimentio]

then how do you explain the way better living standards provided to everyone?

I mean, you can argue about democratic control of production and decision making, but the zero unemployment & illiteracy, great standards in education and the providing of housing etc to everyone is a well known fact.

According to the above:
1)Do you deny the above accomplishments? If yes provide some sources please.

2)If you dont, how do you explain these 'generosities' ,if you are of the view that USSR was an oppressive bureaucracy, state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc (a)
-Maybe from the reformist attitude of the masses below?Meaning that the masses having overthrown czar's rule, seeked not socialism, but material gains, something like a syndicalist short-sighted struggle.

what else?

Hitler's Germany also improved standards of living. :(

[Pogue]

Hitler's Germany also improved standards of living. :(

It didn't, really.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I believe you have to cite sources that back up your claims, and would appreciate if you would do so.

I cannot see why this would help. These sources will be denounced by those think the USSR was a socialist state.

Nonetheless here are some personal highlights from The Bolsheviks and Workers Control:




January 15 - 21, 1918
First All - Russian Congress of Textile Workers held in Moscow.
Bolsheviks in a majority. The Congress declared that "workers' control is only a transitional step to the planned organisation of production and distribution". (32) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#32) The union adopted new statutes proclaiming that "the lowest cell of the union is the Factory committee whose obligation consists of putting into effect. in a given enterprise, all the decrees of the union". (33) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#33) Even the big stick was waved. Addressing the Congress. Lozovsky stated that "if the local patriotism of individual factories conflicts with the interests of the whole proletariat, we unconditionally state that we will not hesitate before any measures (my emphasis. M.B.) for the suppression of tendencies harmful to the toilers". The Party, in other words, can impose its concept of the interests of the working class, even against the workers themselves

March 26, 1918
Isvestiya of the All - Russian Central Executive Committee publishes Decree (issued by the Council of Peoples Commissars) on the "centralisation of railway management". This decree, which ended workers' control on the railways was "an absolutely necessary prerequisite for the improvement of the conditions of the transport system". (39) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#39)
It stressed the urgency of "iron labour discipline" and "individual management" on the railways and granted "dictatorial" powers to the Commissariat of Ways of Communication. Clause 6 proclaimed the need for selected individuals to act as "administrative technical executives" in every local, district or regional railway centre. These individuals were to be "responsible to the People's Commissars of Ways of Communication". They were to be "the embodiment of the whole of the dictatorial power of the proletariat in the given railway centre". (40) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#40)

April 11 - 12
Armed detachments of Cheka raid 26 anarchist centres in Moscow. Fighting breaks out between Cheka agents and Black Guardsmen in Donskoi Monastery. Forty anarchists killed or wounded, over 500 taken prisoner.

April 28
Lenin's article on "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" published in Isvestiya of the All - Russian Central Executive Committee. "Measures and decrees" were called for "to raise labour discipline" which was "the condition of economic revival". (Among the measures suggested were the introduction of a card system for registering the productivity of each worker, the introduction of factory regulations in every enter prise, the establishment of rate of output bureaux for the purpose of fixing the output of each worker and payment of bonuses for increased productivity.)
If, Lenin ever sensed the potentially harmful aspects of these proposals he certainly never mentioned it. No great imagination was needed, however, to see in the pen pushers (recording the "productivity of each worker") and in the clerks (manning the "rate of output bureaux") the as yet amorphous elements of a new bureaucracy.
Lenin went even further. He wrote: "We must raise the question of piece - work and apply and test it in practice . . . we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system (50) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#50) . . . the Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field . . . we must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system". Only "the conscious representatives of petty bourgeois laxity" could see in the recent decree on the management of the railways "which granted individual leaders dictatorial powers" some kind of "departure from the collegium principle, from democracy and from other principles of soviet government".
"The irrefutable experience of history has shown that the dictatorship of individual persons was very often the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes"
"Large - scale machine industry which is the material productive source and foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will . . . How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one".
"unquestioning submission (emphasis in original) to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large - scale machine industry .... today the Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will (emphasis in original) of the leaders of the labour process". (51) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#51)
The demand for 'unquestioning' obedience has, throughout history, been voiced by countless reactionaries, who have sought moreover to impose such obedience on those over whom they exerted authority. A highly critical (and self - critical) attitude is, on the other hand, the hallmark of the real revolutionary.

May 5
Publication of "Left wing childishness and petty bourgeois mentality". After denouncing kommunist's views as "a riot of phrase mongering", "the flaunting of high sounding phrases", etc, etc, etc, Lenin attempted to answer some of the points made by the left communists. According to Lenin 'state capitalism' wasn't a danger. It was, on the contrary, something to be aimed for. "If we introduced state capitalism in approximately 6 months' time we would achieve a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country". "Economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to the present system of economy ...the soviet power has nothing terrible to fear from it, for the soviet State is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured" (because a 'Workers' Party' held political power )
The "sum total of the necessary conditions for socialism" were "large - scale capitalist technique based on the last word of modern science . . . inconceivable without planned state organisation which subjects tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a single standard in production and distribution" and "proletarian state power". Lenin continues by pointing out that in 1918 the [I]"two unconnected halves of socialism existed side by side like two future chickens in a single shell of international imperialism". In 1918 Germany and Russia were the embodiments, respectively of the "economic, productive and social economic conditions for socialism on the one hand, and of the political conditions on the other". The task of the Bolsheviks was "to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort at copying it". They shouldn't "shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it". As originally published (53) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#53) Lenin's text then contained the interesting phrase: "Our task is to hasten this even more than Peter hastened the adoption of westernism by barbarian Russia, not shrinking from the use of barbarous methods to fight barbarism". This was perhaps the only admiring reference to any Tsar, in any of Lenin's writings. In quoting this passage three years later Lenin omitted the reference to Peter the Great. (54) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#54)
"One and the same road", Lenin continued, "led from the petty bourgeois capitalism that prevailed in Russia in 1918 to large - scale capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called national accounting and control of production and distribution". Fighting against state capitalism, in April 1918, was (according to Lenin) "beating the air". (55) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#55)
The allegation that the Soviet Republic was threatened with "evolution in the direction of state capitalism" would "provoke nothing but Homeric laughter". If a merchant told him that there had been an improvement on some railways "such praise seems to me a thousand times more valuable than twenty communist resolutions". (56) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#56)
When reading passages such as the above, it is difficult to: understand how some comrades can simultaneously claim to be 'leninists' and claim that the Russian society is a form of state capitalism to be deplored. Some, however, manage to do just this. It is crystal clear from the above (and from other passages written at the time) that the 'proletarian' nature of the regime was seen by nearly all the Bolshevik leaders as hinging on the proletarian nature of the Party that had taken state power. None of them saw the proletarian nature of the Russian regime as primarily and crucially dependent on the exercise of workers' power at the point of production (i.e. on workers' management of production).
It should have been obvious to them, as Marxists, that if the working class did not hold economic power, its 'political' power would at best be insecure and would in fact soon degenerate. The Bolshevik leaders saw the capitalist organisation of production as something which, in itself, was socially neutral. It could be used indifferently for bad purposes (as when the bourgeoisie used it with the aim of private accumulation) or good ones (as when the 'workers' state' used it "for the benefit of the many"). Lenin put this quite bluntly. "Socialism" he said, "is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people". (57) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#57) What was wrong with capitalist methods of production, in Lenin's eyes, was that they had in the past served the bourgeoisie. They were now going to be used by the Workers' State and would thereby become "one of the conditions of socialism". It all depended on who held state power. (58) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#58)
The argument that Russia was a workers state because of the nationalisation of the means of production was only put forward by Trotsky in 1936! He was trying to reconcile his view that ;the Soviet Union had to be defended' with his view that "the Bolshevik Party was no longer a workers' party".



That's just a little taster of the things happening in 1918. Here's the link: http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918

[Nwoye]

I cannot see why this would help. These sources will be denounced by those think the USSR was a socialist state.

Here is the pamphlet The Bolsehviks and Workers Control which details the workings of the Bolsheviks throughout 1917.

http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917
I was addressing the OP actually, and I'm familiar with that pamphlet. It's very good.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was addressing the OP actually

Sorry I thought you were talking to me.



and I'm familiar with that pamphlet. It's very good.

It definitely is, look I added highlights.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It didn't, really.

It did for people who were "Aryan". For everybody else it was crap.

[Pogue]

It did for people who were "Aryan". For everybody else it was crap.

I'd dispute even this. I don't think life got better, especially not for workers. It was probably compartively shit just in different ways from before.

[robbo203]

then how do you explain the way better living standards provided to everyone??

"Way better" compared to what? There is no question that average living standards did increase quite sharply in the Soviet Union in the 20s , 30s and 40s remember this was from quite a low baseline. You also need to remember that like other capitalist countries the Soviet Union was a highly unequal society . Indeed according to one report I came across "Inequalities of income in. Soviet Russia are possibly greater than in any country in the world" (http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1229567044_document_4-3_ussr_usa.pdf)
So average figures can be quite misleading and disguise the true extent of poverty

It might also be mentioned that the increase in average living standards slowed considerably in the post war years as the state capitalist system became increasingly unwieldy, cumbercome and uncompetive and were still far behind the average living standards of workers in say Western Europe or the USA

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'd dispute even this. I don't think life got better, especially not for workers. It was probably compartively shit just in different ways from before.

Actually life did get better for alot of people. Sure the regime was shit and oppressive, but at least the unemployment rate drastically decreased. People got jobs doing military production. It's obviously not the best, but the people were able to get food on the table. The "Non-Aryans" on the other hand...

[Dimentio]

I'd dispute even this. I don't think life got better, especially not for workers. It was probably compartively shit just in different ways from before.

Most really got an employment, paid vacation and stable living conditions. If you ask a German living through these days over a beer, scrap just a little under the surface and he or she would say that the thirties were "the good old days".

[Black Sheep]

I mean, you can argue about democratic control of production and decision making,
I mean you can use the lack of the above to argue that it is not socialist.

And yeah,you can extend the argument to Nazi germany as well (although its economic condition was terribly shitty due to the krach (how the F is it spelled?).

Any smart new ruling class group provides a better (at least in the beggining) life to its subordinates (and especially one that is self-described as revolutionary).But this is different in USSR - 0% illiteracy, and terrific standards in health care & education are far more than 'a few more crumbles to keep the mob quiet'.

Sources? I do not have any.Allow me to say that the validity of the above is quite clear to me,by my family and immigrants to USSR from the greek civil war>

Of course they are debatable,and i m not completely sure.Anyway i think anti-revisionist users in here can easily provide sources for them.

[redflag32]

I cant wait till the magic man clicks his fingers and "socialism" is created. Because thats how it happens ye know, instantly. Something is or isnt socialism, there is NO middle ground.:rolleyes:

Just because the USSR wasnt pure socialism doesnt make it a bad thing.

[Pogue]

I've heard the ideas of the 30s being good for germans being bollocks and i think people are to ready to believe it was good.

[ComradeOm]

Actually life did get better for alot of people. Sure the regime was shit and oppressive, but at least the unemployment rate drastically decreased. People got jobs doing military production. It's obviously not the best, but the people were able to get food on the table. The "Non-Aryans" on the other hand...Why is it that the first measure of economic progress that people think about when discussing Nazi Germany is the unemployment rate? Probably because this was the one statistic that the Nazi regime itself trumpeted time and time again

In reality the rise of the NSDAP was nothing short of a coordinated assault on the working class. Successive measures won by the German proletariat in the previous two decades - the forty hour work week, minimum wage, right to unionise... all were either directly abolished or simply ignored. In turn there was a drastic drop in gross wages (leading to a slightly less severe reduction in real wages) as the balance of workplace power shifted radically back to the bourgeoisie. The latter could always rely on government aid in the likes of union-busting, wage freezes and price controls, and a highly restricted labour market

As for the unemployment itself, it had peaked shortly after the NSDAP arrival in power as programmes initiated by the previous regime (Hitler actually stopped funding work programmes after 1934) kicked in and began to have an effect. Even then most of the economy recovery in the mid-1930s can be attributed to the easing effects of the Great Depression and the subsequent economic recovery (which saw unemployment similarly decline in the UK and USA). And no, I would not consider the mass conscription into the German war machine (either through labour battalions or directly into the Wehrmacht) to be a particularly positive measure

[Dimentio]

I've heard the ideas of the 30s being good for germans being bollocks and i think people are to ready to believe it was good.

Probably. But interview older Germans, and they will tell you a different story. It is a myth that Nazi Germany was a terror state where the Gestapo just wiretapped everyone and forced everyone to work 20 hours at war factories.

Gestapo was a quite small security service, and relied heavily on collaboration of the civilian population. About 90% of its arrests were made due to civilians calling their Gestapo office and asking for someone to be investigated (for suspected Jewish sympaties, homosexuality or other pseudo-crimes). And while the Germans certainly did not have it too well compared to current West European standards, they had it quite well compared to other West Europeans for that time (remember, no states in Europe could be considered welfare states except the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).

This is not to defend Nazi Germany, but to point out some common myths about how "the poor German people was repressed". Hitler could probably if he had wanted to keep some sort of managed democracy like Putin. The Germans would just have reelected him again, again and again.

[zerozerozerominusone]

then how do you explain the way better living standards provided to everyone?

In the USSR? Are you kidding? Ever been there? I'd been. It was horrible. Talk about widespread depression and fear.


I mean, you can argue about democratic control of production and decision making, but the zero unemployment & illiteracy, great standards in education and the providing of housing etc to everyone is a well known fact.

And gulags. Don't forget the gulags. Lessee... oh, and living where the government told you to live. And those flats were small, dank, and nasty... unless you were a big party member, in which case they were large dank and nasty. But you may have had a dacha on the Black Sea, which I guess made everything OK.


According to the above:
1)Do you deny the above accomplishments? If yes provide some sources please.

2)If you dont, how do you explain these 'generosities' ,if you are of the view that USSR was an oppressive bureaucracy, state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc (a)
-Maybe from the reformist attitude of the masses below?Meaning that the masses having overthrown czar's rule, seeked not socialism, but material gains, something like a syndicalist short-sighted struggle.

what else?

During the latter years of the occupation of Hungary there was quite a phenomenon occurring there. Soviet pilots would arrive on a 2 year stint. They were so blown away by the relative wealth of the Hungarians, who very quietly lifted the middle finger to Moscow and proceeded to install capitalist styled free markets, that when their tours were up many would kill their entire families - wives and children, then themselves, rather than return to the SU. Last time I was in Hungary during that time, in the 2 weeks I spent visiting Grandma, no less than four pilots murdered their wives and children and themselves to avoid a return to Russia. If that doesn't speak to the joys of the SU, then I suppose nothing else could. My uncle was a supreme court justice at the time and he knew all about these things and told me about them. Some even made it into the papers, which the Soviets were really pissed about and issued threats against those in charge. That isn't imagination and it isn't bullshit. It is fact. You may want to ask why so many pilots (hundreds of them did this in Debrecen alone) would do such a thing.