Opinions on Brezhnev's Developed Socialism

[heiss93]

Brezhnev broke the stages of socialism into 4 eras.
1917-1936 Construction of socialism, with a Socialist superstructure over a mainly capitalist and pre-capitalist base

1936-1960 The Stalin Constitution marked the completion of socialism in the main. From this stage the primary task was to develop productive forces.

1960-1985 Developed Socialism The Soviet Union possessed advanced productive forces, and was transitioning slowly towards Communism. Brezhnev abandoned Khrushchev's promise for Communism by 1980. However he did say that Communism was being constructed under the state of the whole people, and certain elements of the state would wither away. So certain Communist structures were already beginning to emerge, although it would be a long historical process that could last centuries.

Stage IV Communism

This theory also reaffirmed the Soviet lead over the E. European People's Democracies which had reached socialism but not developed socialism. China was not even regarded as having completed the first stage.

You can find more info here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ezGGPIze4ZYC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=brezhnev+%22developed+socialism%22+1936+%22in+t he+main%22&source=bl&ots=sPPY25VV5G&sig=k9LebjfmE-NAtx-HTZMqm81TiCI&hl=en&ei=SA7MSrWuIMymlAe209zMBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=brezhnev%20%22developed%20socialism%22%201936%20 %22in%20the%20main%22&f=false

[Jethro Tull]

saying it creates hundreds of years to bring about communism is an obvious cop-out. most political states don't last hundreds of years. with the goal of creating communism generations in the future, we're freed of all present responsibility.

brezhnev's theory is obviously just another cynical pretense for bourgeois dictatorship. you could highlight some random positive aspect of the soviet union post-kruschev and claim it's a step towards communism. the same tactic could be deployed in defense of any bourgeois dictatorship.

brezhnev, kruschev, etc. are not sincere or legitimate communist theorists, the fact that this is even up for discussion is kind of sad.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I don't fully agree, Jethro. As a result of the law of uneven development, the process of world revolution will probably take an entire historical epoch. You are, however, correct in pointing out the cop-out character of the Brezhnev logic. Socialism is properly understood as a process of revolutionary transition into communism. Thus, continuing the revolution under socialism is a definite necessity in getting from the old society to the future one, as is taking bold steps to give flame to revolutions elsewhere in the world. The essential problems with the Brezhnev logic lay in its continuation of the Khrushchev logic that you can get to communism simply by peacefully competing with the capitalist world and by forcing the socialist camp into submission. In reality, this constituted a new form of imperialism. These revisionist conclusions flowed out of the whole wrong idea that class struggle ends with the basic achievement of socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For obvious reasons I disagree:


Brezhnev broke the stages of socialism into 4 eras.
1917-1936 Construction of socialism, with a Socialist superstructure over a mainly capitalist and pre-capitalist base

1917 until 1928 wasn't really a period of economic development. The Russian economy went downwards until the Bolsheviks took power, and during the civil war went down further, despite the necessary "War Communism" measures to stave off imperialist aggression. NEP, despite mainstream assertions of moderation, was in fact greeted with euphoria by many Bolsheviks, who saw NEP-style development as the road forward to socialism:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6976/is_4_7/ai_n28430632/pg_9/?tag=content;col1


The usual scenario is that the Bolsheviks started off rather realistically, got progressively blinded by doctrine in the excitement of the civil war, and returned to disillusioned sobriety at the commencement of NEP. This scenario is the reverse of the truth.

The next period, from 1928 until 1955 (encompassing five Five-Year Plans), was one of "socialist primitive accumulation," despite Anti-Revisionist apologetics on the one hand and screams of "Stalinist totalitarianism" on the other. Agricultural collectivization was employed to extract necessary surpluses to import machinery and other heavy industry equipment. The initial drop in wages for Soviet workers was the biggest in all history of industrial development, making similar drops in Western Europe and the US look mild. This drop affected the privileges of managerial bureaucrats, too. All this prevented any sort of consumer economy from developing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_ Union

The Khrushchev years marked the end of "socialist primitive accumulation" (minimum wage laws and lots of prefabricated apartment blocks) and the development of the consumer goods industry. In agriculture, collectivization began to give way to sovkhozization (bigger state-owned farms).

[heiss93]

According to The Soviet social contract and why it failed: welfare policy and workers By Linda J. Cook, the most egalitarian period of Soviet history was under Brezhnev's leadership. Under Stalin the wages between manual labor and skilled engineers was 100:155, under Brezhnev it was 100:111.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hDZoAMykzAMC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=brezhnev+egalitarian&source=bl&ots=uyN63rBbfP&sig=VizHPX7-UASDELb-qhKbkw6gboc&hl=en&ei=qWkVS6uZOM6MlAeWkMXEBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brezhnev%20egalitarian&f=false

[FSL]

According to The Soviet social contract and why it failed: welfare policy and workers By Linda J. Cook, the most egalitarian period of Soviet history was under Brezhnev's leadership. Under Stalin the wages between manual labor and skilled engineers was 100:155, under Brezhnev it was 100:111.



Skilled engineers were not scarce at that time and wage was supplemented by production bonuses that were all but equal.
No idea if the figures are correct or biased, (I can assume they're correct) but that life expectancy or child mortality rates started to worsen at this period, that alcoholism became a significant problem etc certainly tell us otherwise.



NEP, despite mainstream assertions of moderation, was in fact greeted with euphoria by many Bolsheviks, who saw NEP-style development as the road forward to socialism

When NEP was adopted as the soviet policy, the support was nearly unanimous among bolshevicks who saw the need of making peace with the large mass of peasants. Not as the road to a socialist economy. "Assertions" of moderation were usually made by moderates who opposed the revolution and wanted to discredit the communists.



The next period, from 1928 until 1955 (encompassing five Five-Year Plans), was one of "socialist primitive accumulation," despite Anti-Revisionist apologetics on the one hand and screams of "Stalinist totalitarianism" on the other. Agricultural collectivization was employed to extract necessary surpluses to import machinery and other heavy industry equipment. The initial drop in wages for Soviet workers was the biggest in all history of industrial development, making similar drops in Western Europe and the US look mild. This drop affected the privileges of managerial bureaucrats, too. All this prevented any sort of consumer economy from developing.


Consumption, public and private, as a percentage of income in 1928 was at 69.8%. In 1937 it was at 63% and in 1940 at at 60.9%. The trend remained downward but at a lower pace. The economy was expanding with a higher than 10% rate however, so production more than doubled. If you do the math, you 'll see that 60% of 2 is more than 70% of 1.

I have no idea whether the fall of real wages was as steep as you describe it (I have seen obscene claims) but I do know that industrial workers and consequently industrial products were very rare before 1928. It wasn't the workers that suffered the most but the urban unemployed or the rural proletarians/poor peasants. As they joined the working class their standard of living improved by more than a bit. If the number of the workers doubles (I can't check the numbers now but I think those employed in industry more than doubled during the first 5year plan) then you'd need a 100% increase in industrial production for real wages to not drop at all. Close to a 20% annual rate of growth. Hard. To let any worries you might have come to rest I'd say that many of those who were previously employed in industry had an upgraded role in their enterprises after 1928, since they were the ones with experience in production.

Lastly, there is no "consumer economy". That american investments don't create jobs in the american economy but in the chinese/south korean/you name it, doesn't mean that anything's changed or that capitalism has reached some higher level of production where we can sit and watch as our food gets served.
In socialism, just like it happens in capitalism, in order to achieve the highest possible long term growth, you give priority to production of means of production. Capitalists do it because it allows them to produce more of whatever they are producing and thus get a larger share of the market, workers will do it because that's how you prioritise the satisfaction of popular needs, in other words consumption. No one downplays the importance of consumption, but to confuse consumption with the production of means of consumption is a mistake that many people might do without realising it but a "mistake" done on purpose by people in the CCCP as history showed. Also, that's not a concept Stalin introduced. Marx distinguishes products to those used in production and those used for consumption. In Capital, he mentions of the first's special imporance.

If TOYOTA for example sees a rise in the demand for cars in the coming years, as the crisis ends and growth returns, its short term policy would be to have workers work overtime and maybe even hire a few more. But if the assumption is that this trend will persist, its reaction will be to go build more factories. Because that is what will allow it to be able to produce the cars in a couple of years when people will want them. That is what the Soviet Union aimed to do. With the difference that unlike in capitalism, there would be no anarchy in production, no crises of overproduction, no point in time where you lay off workers. Instead you just produce more until every need is satisfied.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, clearly this is not an objective history that has been produced by Brezhnev.

As for building Communism in a single country, that had not even abolished money or even started to demolish the state, that really is folly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm well aware of FSL's claims about consumption vs. "production of the means of production" which in mainstream terms is called capital investment or capital reinvestment. I am also aware that the Soviet economy grew at a much higher annual rate than even what was cited in the post above (a Trotskyist book puts the annual growth at 20% or more before the Nazi invasion).


When NEP was adopted as the soviet policy, the support was nearly unanimous among bolsheviks who saw the need of making peace with the large mass of peasants. Not as the road to a socialist economy. "Assertions" of moderation were usually made by moderates who opposed the revolution and wanted to discredit the communists.

I am aware of the falsehoods of the "moderation" argument, but if you read the Find Articles link above and scroll down further, you will find that there was more enthusiasm about NEP as the transition to "socialism" than you think.

[bailey_187]

Well, clearly this is not an objective history that has been produced by Brezhnev.

As for building Communism in a single country, that had not even abolished money or even started to demolish the state, that really is folly.

He never advocated Communism in one country (Not even, as far as i am aware in just the Warsaw Pact countries either).

Considering that 1/3 of the world was Socialist (and in the 70s many countries were in Revolution or had had Revolution), the idea of Socialism soon encompasing the whole world must not have seemed far of.

[Dimentio]

He never advocated Communism in one country (Not even, as far as i am aware in just the Warsaw Pact countries either).

Considering that 1/3 of the world was Socialist (and in the 70s many countries were in Revolution or had had Revolution), the idea of Socialism soon encompasing the whole world must not have seemed far of.

The lunatic interrupt_00h once claimed that Soviet forces were stationed in 45% of the world's countries at the early eighties. I do not know if that could be confirmed or not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

He never advocated Communism in one country (Not even, as far as i am aware in just the Warsaw Pact countries either).

Considering that 1/3 of the world was Socialist (and in the 70s many countries were in Revolution or had had Revolution), the idea of Socialism soon encompasing the whole world must not have seemed far of.

Well yes, if you think of the fact that 1/3 of the globe was proclaimed as Socialist, then perhaps it was not so far off.

But then if you think that in the remaining 2/3 was a USA that could probably not have been defeated by Socialism for many, many years, and also that within Socialism itself there were many splits (Sino-Soviet, for example), then it does seem pretty far off. I'm pretty sure that not many people, even within the CPSU, thought in the 1970s that world revolution would happen for a long, long time.