Fuedalist society straight to socialist society.

[Death By Starbucks.]

I was wondering if you thought one of the reaseons the soviet union collapsed is because they went from fuedalism to socialism without experiencing bourgeisie society.
Was it a contributing factor.
Let me know.

[Revy]

No, I don't.....
But I think the isolation was a major factor, if German Revolution in 1919 had succeeded, perhaps things would be different.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Things didn't start going downhill until Stalin's death, so no, I don't think the lack of capitalism had anything to do with it. Khrushchevite revisionism didn't come into full effect until 1956, by which time the socialist system was well established. The downfall of socialism can be attributed to Gorbachev, there were still some positive aspects of society and the economy under revisionist leaders like Khrushchev and Brezhnev, but Gorbachev's mission from the very beginning was to destroy socialism.

[revolution inaction]

I was wondering if you thought one of the reaseons the soviet union collapsed is because they went from fuedalism to socialism without experiencing bourgeisie society.
Was it a contributing factor.
Let me know.

the soviet union was never socialist, it was state capitalist.

[chegitz guevara]

I was wondering if you thought one of the reaseons the soviet union collapsed is because they went from fuedalism to socialism without experiencing bourgeisie society.
Was it a contributing factor.
Let me know.

No, because capitalism was already a major factor in Russia in the 1890s. In fact, Lenin wrote a book about it, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, published in 1898. While the vast majority of Russian society was engaged in semi-feudal agrarian relations, the capitalist segment of Russia society accounted for 25% of the economy (while being something less that 15% of the population). The major imperialist countries, especially France, were pouring billions of rubles of investment into Russia.

As Stancel points out, it was the isolation of the revolution that caused the USSR to degenerate. Had the revolution been successful in Germany, it probably would have been a whole different ball game. Red Son makes the claim that things didn't start to go bad until after Stalin's death, and there's truth to that statement, as the economy of the USSR didn't slow and even suffer recessions until the 1970s, some two decades after Stalin went to his grave (after sending millions before him).

Ultimately, the USSR collapsed because it was trying to build socialism without also democratizing society and spreading the revolution. That's the definition of Stalinist society.

[Outinleftfield]

The means to put worker's ownership of the means of production into practice were definitely there. The historical stages only shows how ideas were created by material conditions. These ideas once created can be exported around the world. Japan was feudalist and not even close to a bourgeois revolution but then it was occupied and turned into a capitalist country. So if the idea is there and the resources are there to do it it can be done. All it takes is for people to adopt the idea and be willing to put it into practice.

Still I don't think Russia could've had socialism in the way most of us think with all production handled by groups of people in industrial settings. There were quite a few people working alone, especially peasants. The thing to do would've been to have labor-based ownership for those people, just make it so that work=ownership. If you work alone you own alone. If you work in a group you own with the group. No more landlords, or people hiring farm hands and not giving them a stake in the farm. This still would've helped speed up industrialization since solitary owners would find it in their interests to merge together to be able to produce things in mass quantities. As an anarchist I think exchange should've been based on free association. Groups and individuals who own their own means of production entering into voluntary relations to trade. Most likely only groups would be forming federations. Individuals would go sell their things at farmer's markets. It would've been similar to Proudhonian mutualism, and would've still had one element of capitalism, competition. Different worker enterprises especially the small-scale ones would compete, though this would slowly go away as more organized groups form to increase productivity to free themselves from some of their labor.

In this day and age though there are no peasants in America and not very many in the rest of the world even in rural areas. There would probably be a few solitary workers after the revolution, but not very many.

[chegitz guevara]

Japan was feudalist and not even close to a bourgeois revolution but then it was occupied and turned into a capitalist country.

The Meiji Restoration in 1868, was a bourgeois revolution. Japan may have had (and still has) feudal aristocracy, but they have no political power (though the Emperor was effectively a dictator until 1945). This is why Japan was able to kick Russia's ass in 1904, because Japan was far more industrialized and further along in capitalist development.

[Revy]

If primitive communism could have existed, why not post-feudal communism? We need to think outside the box. Some see the Marxist theory of historical development religiously as a means to develop society everywhere. Which I don't think was the intention.