The fall of Russia?

[Teln3t]

Hey, I just got into an argument with my grandfather, who just so happens to be a huge republican/Glenn Beck fan(of course)...

He asked why Russia fell, and I told him it wasn't because of a communist government, that it was because of the division caused by stalin; but he didn't accept that. I told him that Russia was never fully communist, and they the people fought and died out of their own will for the "communist-cause"; that maybe one day the nations could unite under the best government for the people.

Can somebody give me a better argument to dish out for when people bring up the fall of Russia?

[khad]

Your argument is just as crappy and ignorant of Soviet history as the bourgeois one.

You're going to get a million and one answers from the people here in revleft. Take your pick.

FYI, the "division" of the USSR into semi-independent republics was part of Lenin's policy.

[Teln3t]

Your argument is just as crappy and ignorant of Soviet history as the bourgeois one.

You're going to get a million and one answers from the people here in revleft. Take your pick.

FYI, the "division" of the USSR into semi-independent republics was part of Lenin's policy.

Great, I hope I get good answers; the more I can learn the better. I hate arguing ignorance, so please do tell me the most detailed answers you can.

I'm a learner :)

[Spawn of Stalin]

Nikita Kruschev, there's your better argument.

[Teln3t]

Nikita Kruschev, there's your better argument.

thank you comrade, I'm looking into him.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Kruschev's speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm) was perhaps one of the most important events in the disfigurement of the Soviet Union, it was Gorbachev who destroyed the Soviet Union, but it would not have been possible without Kruschev's twisted revisionism. You might also want to read what Lenin had to say about revisionism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/apr/03.htm).

[Psy]

The USSR could not deal with the global crisis of capital in the 1980's of devaluation of commodities and declining rate of profit that started in the 1970's. The USSR's competitors "solved" this crisis with greater exploitation of workers, consumer debt and hiding capitalist debt through a explosion of fictitious capital (that has caused the current even bigger crisis as the capitalists didn't really solve the contradictions that existed in the 1980's). The capital the USSR got from exports dropped, the workers were already growing militant over stagnant living standards and the USSR's economy was based on manufacturing making it hard for the USSR to create fictitious capital so while other nations were able to paper over the crisis with speculation and debt the USSR couldn't.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I assume that by the "fall of Russia", you mean the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in the ex-Soviet republics.

There are many different reasons for it. There is the immediate cause - the trigger that started the chain of events which led to the fall - and then there are a bunch of underlying causes and social forces that made the trigger possible.

The trigger, the immediate cause, were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. After becoming leader of the Communist Party in 1985, Gorbachev pursued a series of stupid, disastrous, catastrophic reforms. I really do not have the words to describe just how horrific his reforms were. Before him, the USSR was facing stagnation, which is bad, but not that bad. It certainly wasn't enough to cause anything like the disaster that eventually befell the USSR. Gorbachev tried to fix the problem of stagnation by promoting market reforms in the economy (a policy known as perestroika), and attacking the political power of the Communist Party (glasnost). Instead of fixing the problem, his reforms turned a mildly inconvenient situation into a catastrophic nightmare spiraling out of control. The market reforms did not help the economy. On the contrary, they turned stagnation into recession and economic collapse. They put the Soviet economy into the deepest, most severe crisis of its history. And the political reforms, which were intended to promote free speech and democracy, caused a revival of violent nationalism and racism. They also allowed corrupt populist politicians like Boris Yeltsin to accumulate power for themselves and become a real threat to the Communist Party.

So, what you had in the Soviet Union in the late 80s was an incompetent central government pursuing market reforms that were destroying the economy, while at the same time allowing the nationalist opposition to speak and act freely. The result was predictable. A government, in order to stay in power, must satisfy the people and/or suppress the opposition by force. The Soviet government under Gorbachev did not satisfy the people, and it refused to suppress the opposition by force. So, eventually, it was overthrown by the nationalist opposition. The opposition managed to gain power at the republic level and simply declared that the all-union government was to be disbanded (the equivalent in US politics would be taking over all the state governments and declaring that the federal government is dissolved).

That was the sequence of events that led to the collapse. But this opens up many questions. How did an idiot like Gorbachev manage to become leader of the Communist Party in the first place? Why did he pursue market reforms? Why was the rest of the Party unable to stop him when it became obvious those reforms were a disaster? Why did a nationalist opposition arise? How did it grow so quickly?

One thing I did not mention in my description of the events is that the nationalist opposition was almost entirely composed of former Communist Party officials who switched their political views as soon as they were free to do so. This means that the pre-Gorbachev Communist Party contained many hidden anti-communists, and that is another thing that must be explained.

Different comrades have different answers to these questions. My answers are as follows:

The fundamental flaw of the Soviet system was its suppression of dissent. The problem with making it illegal to speak out against communism is that you'll get all the people to pretend to be communists - even when they are not. If membership in the Communist Party is the only avenue to political office, then everyone who wants to enter politics will join the Communist Party, even if they are in fact utterly opposed to communism. So you will have a ruling party containing large numbers of people who don't really support the existing system - or even outright oppose it - and you won't know who they are, because the ban on dissent forces them to pretend to be communists (rather than, say, forming a rival political party and fighting you in the open). This means that every time you elect a new Party leader, you run the risk of him being a secret anti-communist. Every time you elect a new leader, you roll the dice and take a risk. If you keep doing this, then eventually you will lose, and get an anti-communist in charge.

Worst of all, the Soviet system gave far too much power to the top Party leadership and made it very difficult to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. So, when you eventually get that anti-communist in charge and he's causing havoc, there is little you can do to stop him.

You can also look at economic factors and ask why the Soviet economy was stagnating in the 80s. But I don't think that has anything to do with the collapse. Many countries have faced economic stagnation in the past, yet did not collapse. I think the Soviet collapse was due to a political crisis, not an economic one.

Another, more interesting question is: Why did anti-communists still exist in the USSR 70 years after the Bolshevik Revolution? To answer this, you need to look at the class structure of Soviet society. Basically, the problem was that the USSR had a ruling class (largely thanks to Stalin), and ruling classes - of all kinds - are generally hostile to communism. But this is not essential for understanding the reasons for the Soviet collapse.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Here is a very good book about the collapse of the USSR:

Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union (http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Betrayed-Behind-Collapse-Soviet/dp/071780738X)

Unfortunately it seems to be sold out on Amazon.com, but if you find it somewhere else at a reasonable price, you should definitely buy it. I wouldn't call the Soviet system "socialism", but that doesn't really matter for the historical analysis.

[Lolshevik]

in my experience, a lot of right wingers have already made up their minds before they ask you such questions and they have a very short attention span. your argument has to be quick if you're to have even a chance of making an impact.

I suggest saying something to the effect of: the Soviet Union became a degenerated workers' state due to the isolation of the revolution & the civil war. A planned economy needs to be democratic to function properly. The bureaucratically planned economy functioned for a while but eventually reached an impasse where it would either have to be a political revolution in the USSR to restore socialist democracy or the whole workers' state would have to be dismantled. Due to the bureaucracy's greed the latter took place.

[Würzel]

Kruschev's speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party was perhaps one of the most important events in the disfigurement of the Soviet Union, it was Gorbachev who destroyed the Soviet Union, but it would not have been possible without Kruschev's twisted revisionism. You might also want to read what Lenin had to say about revisionism.

The goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens, eh? Well, 19th century philosophy of history is most refreshing but also quite naive and overly simplificated and especially not suitable for a socialist, who's supposed to have a somewhat scientific view on historical events.

"Stalin = good, Khrushchev = bad" kind of line of thinking may be comfortable considering you are a Marxist-Leninist, but these kind of trends never truly depend on only the Great Leader of the nation; or if it would, Soviet Union would've hardly been the jolly workers' democracy you so preach it was with such enthusiasm. Indeed, you should be pointing your angry little finger at the majority of Party, who accepted these reforms!

And really, Khruschev era was hardly that reactionary, it saw many good reforms getting implemented; political trials were quite rare during this quite short and cultural life was liberated. Of course, I know some of you won't see these reforms as progressive because they don't really serve the Party rule but the people instead. Geeze, horrible!

[FSL]

And really, Khruschev era was hardly that reactionary, it saw many good reforms getting implemented; political trials were quite rare during this quite short and cultural life was liberated. Of course, I know some of you won't see these reforms as progressive because they don't really serve the Party rule but the people instead. Geeze, horrible!

So, it's good for people when capitalist politicians are allowed to reach high positions in a *communist* party and it 'd be bad if the people advocating peaceful coexistence with imperialism were tried and -quite rightfully- found guilty of treason?

Also, one could prove -with data and facts- the rising standard of living during the period where more or less the economy functioned as socialist. Greater life expectancy, lower child mortality rate, lower illiteracy, a remarkable growth in production.
The only thing that seemed to "improve" during the era of the "pro-people" reforms was vodka consumption.

[Dimentio]

The Soviet Union ultimately fell because the vanguard turned too entrenched in material privilegies that they themselves dismantled the system to better enjoy the benefits of wealth.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens, eh? Well, 19th century philosophy of history is most refreshing but also quite naive and overly simplificated and especially not suitable for a socialist, who's supposed to have a somewhat scientific view on historical events.

"Stalin = good, Khrushchev = bad" kind of line of thinking may be comfortable considering you are a Marxist-Leninist, but these kind of trends never truly depend on only the Great Leader of the nation; or if it would, Soviet Union would've hardly been the jolly workers' democracy you so preach it was with such enthusiasm. Indeed, you should be pointing your angry little finger at the majority of Party, who accepted these reforms!

And really, Khruschev era was hardly that reactionary, it saw many good reforms getting implemented; political trials were quite rare during this quite short and cultural life was liberated. Of course, I know some of you won't see these reforms as progressive because they don't really serve the Party rule but the people instead. Geeze, horrible!
No, there were many positive aspects of the Soviet Union right up until Gorbachev's "Perestroika", I'll happily admit that, the Soviet Union was, to a certain degree, always progressive, even under revisionism. That said the idea that Stalin was good and Khrushchev was bad is still one I subscribe to, and it's something I'll defend to the death quite frankly. Khrushchev set the stage for capitalism to thrive in Russia, because if someone true to Lenin and Stalin had taken the reins instead, we might still have a Soviet Union today, who knows? Maybe we'd even have a socialist Europe. For that reason, yes, I think Khruschev is one of the most disgusting human beings to ever set foot on this planet, if Stalin had known of the trouble Khruschev would come to cause he would have had him killed, and he would have been quite right to do so.

I can understand why some people are in denial about Stalin and his countless achievements, when I first because a Marxist-Leninist I read a great deal of anti-Communist literature, Trotskyist literature, anarchist literature, just searching for a reason to hate Stalin, but I couldn't do it, because no matter how many Western Stalin biographies you read, the facts are still there, statistically, the vast majority of Russians enjoyed a better life under Stalin than they have under anybody else. I won't bother arguing my point in any great detail because I honestly think anyone who refuses to acknowledge Stalin as a great defender of the socialism has something very wrong with them, but like I said, the facts are there, I'm sure you've seen them, any self-respecting socialist who hasn't clearly isn't what they think they are, you just need to learn not to ignore them.

[Dimentio]

I would not claim it is particularily progressive to have a centralised state with a ruling elite which is ruling in the name of distributing wealth evenly.

In that case, ancient Egypt, the Incan Empire and the Indus Valley Civilisation were more progressive than most modern states. In all essence, GOSPLAN represented nothing more than a modern palace economy.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'll ignore the fact that you refer to the CC of the party as elite because I'm just so happy about the fact that someone here admits that the wealth was distributed evenly.

[Dimentio]

Even wealth is not all that socialism should be about. Not if the power to distribute lies in the hand of a vanguard which is impossible to overthrow or change. Socialism should be about popular control of the means of production.

[Dimentio]

I am honoured that Khad neg-repped me for my second latest entry by the way. It shows that I am on the right direction. ^^

[bailey_187]

Check out:

Socialism Betrayed by Roger Keeren and Thomas Kenny
http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Betrayed-Behind-Collapse-Soviet/dp/071780738X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255110062&sr=8-1

Heroic Struggle, Bitter Defeat by Bahman Azad
http://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Struggle-Bitter-Defeat-Contributing/dp/0717807266/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255110122&sr=1-1

Basically, poor economic policies of Krushchev and the ignoring of them by Breznev created a black market, creating a new class with interests in free markets and private property. If this theory interests you i will try to explain further but as Khad said you will get 100000 different reasons.

The fall of the USSR was not inevitable, labour productivity continued to rise right up to '87, infact it increased by even more than expected in this year. Yes there were problems with the economy, but the Market reforms really fucked shit up. It was not until 1990 that the soviet economy contracted, the first time (except in ww2) since the start of the five year plans.

Nor is it true that the restoration of Capitalism was what the Soviet people wanted. A poll in May 1991 (reported in Monthly Review 12/94) found that 54% of Russians wished to keep Socialism, 27% wanted a mixed economy and only 20% wanted Capitalism.
Also, 75% of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR in a referendum. The "democratic" capitalists, however, did not listen.

[bailey_187]

As a side note, i cant remember where i read it (its in my note book and written before i used to write down sources) but an extra 9 to 10 million Russians would be alive today were it not for the collapse of the Soviet Union, due to fall in life expectancy. Gorbachev/Yeltsin killed more people than Stalin.

[Teln3t]

I assume that by the "fall of Russia", you mean the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in the ex-Soviet republics.

There are many different reasons for it. There is the immediate cause - the trigger that started the chain of events which led to the fall - and then there are a bunch of underlying causes and social forces that made the trigger possible.

The trigger, the immediate cause, were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. After becoming leader of the Communist Party in 1985, Gorbachev pursued a series of stupid, disastrous, catastrophic reforms. I really do not have the words to describe just how horrific his reforms were. Before him, the USSR was facing stagnation, which is bad, but not that bad. It certainly wasn't enough to cause anything like the disaster that eventually befell the USSR. Gorbachev tried to fix the problem of stagnation by promoting market reforms in the economy (a policy known as perestroika), and attacking the political power of the Communist Party (glasnost). Instead of fixing the problem, his reforms turned a mildly inconvenient situation into a catastrophic nightmare spiraling out of control. The market reforms did not help the economy. On the contrary, they turned stagnation into recession and economic collapse. They put the Soviet economy into the deepest, most severe crisis of its history. And the political reforms, which were intended to promote free speech and democracy, caused a revival of violent nationalism and racism. They also allowed corrupt populist politicians like Boris Yeltsin to accumulate power for themselves and become a real threat to the Communist Party.

So, what you had in the Soviet Union in the late 80s was an incompetent central government pursuing market reforms that were destroying the economy, while at the same time allowing the nationalist opposition to speak and act freely. The result was predictable. A government, in order to stay in power, must satisfy the people and/or suppress the opposition by force. The Soviet government under Gorbachev did not satisfy the people, and it refused to suppress the opposition by force. So, eventually, it was overthrown by the nationalist opposition. The opposition managed to gain power at the republic level and simply declared that the all-union government was to be disbanded (the equivalent in US politics would be taking over all the state governments and declaring that the federal government is dissolved).

That was the sequence of events that led to the collapse. But this opens up many questions. How did an idiot like Gorbachev manage to become leader of the Communist Party in the first place? Why did he pursue market reforms? Why was the rest of the Party unable to stop him when it became obvious those reforms were a disaster? Why did a nationalist opposition arise? How did it grow so quickly?

One thing I did not mention in my description of the events is that the nationalist opposition was almost entirely composed of former Communist Party officials who switched their political views as soon as they were free to do so. This means that the pre-Gorbachev Communist Party contained many hidden anti-communists, and that is another thing that must be explained.

Different comrades have different answers to these questions. My answers are as follows:

The fundamental flaw of the Soviet system was its suppression of dissent. The problem with making it illegal to speak out against communism is that you'll get all the people to pretend to be communists - even when they are not. If membership in the Communist Party is the only avenue to political office, then everyone who wants to enter politics will join the Communist Party, even if they are in fact utterly opposed to communism. So you will have a ruling party containing large numbers of people who don't really support the existing system - or even outright oppose it - and you won't know who they are, because the ban on dissent forces them to pretend to be communists (rather than, say, forming a rival political party and fighting you in the open). This means that every time you elect a new Party leader, you run the risk of him being a secret anti-communist. Every time you elect a new leader, you roll the dice and take a risk. If you keep doing this, then eventually you will lose, and get an anti-communist in charge.

Worst of all, the Soviet system gave far too much power to the top Party leadership and made it very difficult to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. So, when you eventually get that anti-communist in charge and he's causing havoc, there is little you can do to stop him.

You can also look at economic factors and ask why the Soviet economy was stagnating in the 80s. But I don't think that has anything to do with the collapse. Many countries have faced economic stagnation in the past, yet did not collapse. I think the Soviet collapse was due to a political crisis, not an economic one.

Another, more interesting question is: Why did anti-communists still exist in the USSR 70 years after the Bolshevik Revolution? To answer this, you need to look at the class structure of Soviet society. Basically, the problem was that the USSR had a ruling class (largely thanks to Stalin), and ruling classes - of all kinds - are generally hostile to communism. But this is not essential for understanding the reasons for the Soviet collapse.

Wow, thanks for this response man. I've read it twice now, but it seems that there's some terminology I need to find the meaning of before I totally understand it. But I'll keep reading it until it becomes clear. :)

Thanks again comrade o/

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You are most welcome! :) Let me know if there's any terminology you'd like me to explain. I usually try to stay away from using too much Marxist jargon, because it confuses people.

[gorillafuck]

Also, 75% of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR in a referendum. The "democratic" capitalists, however, did not listen.
Source?

[pranabjyoti]

Hey, I just got into an argument with my grandfather, who just so happens to be a huge republican/Glenn Beck fan(of course)...

He asked why Russia fell, and I told him it wasn't because of a communist government, that it was because of the division caused by stalin; but he didn't accept that. I told him that Russia was never fully communist, and they the people fought and died out of their own will for the "communist-cause"; that maybe one day the nations could unite under the best government for the people.

Can somebody give me a better argument to dish out for when people bring up the fall of Russia?
In my opinion, the answer is that Russian have to face the world imperialist attack alone, one blow after another from 1917 to 1945 alone. Continuous sabotage, external attack and damage had caused huge amount of revolutionaries life and material cost to the emerging nation. All that will end up in gradual decrease of revolutionary internationalist leftism and increase of Russia based nationalism, which at the end will bring revisionists like Khrushchev into power and that too will gradually end in capitalism.
I being a citizen of a third world country, think that we, the oppressed people of the third world too is responsible for that. We had been unable to stand beside Russia, better say USSR, in mass at the time of its need.
Just think that millions of people from Asia, Africa, Latin America will flow to Russia i.e. USSR and fill up the human resource shortage at the time of its need, Hitler would be kicked back far away from Stalingrad, Leningrad. Probably he wouldn't dare to think of attacking USSR.
Kindly let me know the opinion of your grandfather about my answer.

[pranabjyoti]

Source?
Yes, I too have read it on newspaper. So far I can remember that the rulers of the republics just announced "freedom" without taking any kind of public opinion.

[Tatarin]

It is true that you would find different answers. I see it in five, more general, stages in where you could pick which one you seem to be the most believable. That is of course dependent on what your own view is;

A. The Soviet Union shouldn't have been created. It was too early for socialism in Russia (or the world), it hadn't developed enough (through capitalism), or the whole idea of a transition-stage is bunk and what people needs is a direct establishment of communism after a revolution. This would be what most Anarchists believe.

B. The Soviet system worked fine at least during Lenin's direction. The revolution was needed, or at least brought positive change to the people, and the system did work despite a raging civil war, let alone the terrible situation Russia was in in 1917. A variation is that the new system would have worked better with other people, better decisions, and so on. But it all ended when Stalin became leader, when the Soviet Union became a "degenerated workers' state". I believe Trotskyists are close to this point.

C. The Soviet system worked and was developing until Stalin's death in 1953, when Revisionists entered the stage (starting with Krutchev) which effectively stopped any development of socialism in Russia, and the world. Marxist-Leninists and Maoists would agree on this, for example.

From this point, you could go on, I would say, choosing two ways;

D. Mao Zedong, in a way, continued the development of socialism in China, introducing concepts of the Cultural Revolution, and breaking off with the Soviet Union to pursue it's own way. The "spirit of the Soviet Union" continued in China, so to speak.

E. The Soviet system worked - but had it's flaws and problems - until Gorbatchev (who today claims to be a social-democrat and appears in comedy shows on Russian television). I doubt the Soviet Union would get back on track even if Gorbatchev wasn't chosen as leader, the same situation would probably happen later anyway. (But it's a funny thought that there may have been a Soviet Union in 2009.)

It's really up to everyone to choose when the Soviet Union fell, and you would find endless discussions on each of these between all kinds of socialists.

[bailey_187]

Source?

http://soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1991march&Year=1991&Theme=4e6174696f6e616c6974696573&navi=byTheme

[narcomprom]

I assume that by the "fall of Russia", you mean the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in the ex-Soviet republics.

There are many different reasons for it. There is the immediate cause - the trigger that started the chain of events which led to the fall - and then there are a bunch of underlying causes and social forces that made the trigger possible.

The trigger, the immediate cause, were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. After becoming leader of the Communist Party in 1985, Gorbachev pursued a series of stupid, disastrous, catastrophic reforms. I really do not have the words to describe just how horrific his reforms were. Before him, the USSR was facing stagnation, which is bad, but not that bad. It certainly wasn't enough to cause anything like the disaster that eventually befell the USSR. Gorbachev tried to fix the problem of stagnation by promoting market reforms in the economy (a policy known as perestroika), and attacking the political power of the Communist Party (glasnost). Instead of fixing the problem, his reforms turned a mildly inconvenient situation into a catastrophic nightmare spiraling out of control. The market reforms did not help the economy. On the contrary, they turned stagnation into recession and economic collapse. They put the Soviet economy into the deepest, most severe crisis of its history. And the political reforms, which were intended to promote free speech and democracy, caused a revival of violent nationalism and racism. They also allowed corrupt populist politicians like Boris Yeltsin to accumulate power for themselves and become a real threat to the Communist Party.

So, what you had in the Soviet Union in the late 80s was an incompetent central government pursuing market reforms that were destroying the economy, while at the same time allowing the nationalist opposition to speak and act freely. The result was predictable. A government, in order to stay in power, must satisfy the people and/or suppress the opposition by force. The Soviet government under Gorbachev did not satisfy the people, and it refused to suppress the opposition by force. So, eventually, it was overthrown by the nationalist opposition. The opposition managed to gain power at the republic level and simply declared that the all-union government was to be disbanded (the equivalent in US politics would be taking over all the state governments and declaring that the federal government is dissolved).

That was the sequence of events that led to the collapse. But this opens up many questions. How did an idiot like Gorbachev manage to become leader of the Communist Party in the first place? Why did he pursue market reforms? Why was the rest of the Party unable to stop him when it became obvious those reforms were a disaster? Why did a nationalist opposition arise? How did it grow so quickly?

One thing I did not mention in my description of the events is that the nationalist opposition was almost entirely composed of former Communist Party officials who switched their political views as soon as they were free to do so. This means that the pre-Gorbachev Communist Party contained many hidden anti-communists, and that is another thing that must be explained.

Different comrades have different answers to these questions. My answers are as follows:

The fundamental flaw of the Soviet system was its suppression of dissent. The problem with making it illegal to speak out against communism is that you'll get all the people to pretend to be communists - even when they are not. If membership in the Communist Party is the only avenue to political office, then everyone who wants to enter politics will join the Communist Party, even if they are in fact utterly opposed to communism. So you will have a ruling party containing large numbers of people who don't really support the existing system - or even outright oppose it - and you won't know who they are, because the ban on dissent forces them to pretend to be communists (rather than, say, forming a rival political party and fighting you in the open). This means that every time you elect a new Party leader, you run the risk of him being a secret anti-communist. Every time you elect a new leader, you roll the dice and take a risk. If you keep doing this, then eventually you will lose, and get an anti-communist in charge.

Worst of all, the Soviet system gave far too much power to the top Party leadership and made it very difficult to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. So, when you eventually get that anti-communist in charge and he's causing havoc, there is little you can do to stop him.

You can also look at economic factors and ask why the Soviet economy was stagnating in the 80s. But I don't think that has anything to do with the collapse. Many countries have faced economic stagnation in the past, yet did not collapse. I think the Soviet collapse was due to a political crisis, not an economic one.

Another, more interesting question is: Why did anti-communists still exist in the USSR 70 years after the Bolshevik Revolution? To answer this, you need to look at the class structure of Soviet society. Basically, the problem was that the USSR had a ruling class (largely thanks to Stalin), and ruling classes - of all kinds - are generally hostile to communism. But this is not essential for understanding the reasons for the Soviet collapse.
Are you, perchance, Polish? if so, you should have known your dear Parteigenossen better. They might paraded themselves anti-communists when communism fell but I wouldn't entrust them any ideals at all.

The nomenklatura were sick of living like nuns. They envied the ruling classes of the west and so they went for liberalisation.

but why głasnsość? stupid, disastrous, catastrophic. i cannot find a better explanation either. not to say it wasn't nescessary; the time chosen was just worst possible.

[Soviet]

The USSR managed to resist nearly the whole bourgeouse world for 70 years.
Can you imagine the USA resisting nearly the whole socialist world for 70 years?I cannot.
Tell it your grandfather,I wonder what 'd he answer you.

[robbo203]

I assume that by the "fall of Russia", you mean the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in the ex-Soviet republics.

There are many different reasons for it. There is the immediate cause - the trigger that started the chain of events which led to the fall - and then there are a bunch of underlying causes and social forces that made the trigger possible.

The trigger, the immediate cause, were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. After becoming leader of the Communist Party in 1985, Gorbachev pursued a series of stupid, disastrous, catastrophic reforms. I really do not have the words to describe just how horrific his reforms were. Before him, the USSR was facing stagnation, which is bad, but not that bad. It certainly wasn't enough to cause anything like the disaster that eventually befell the USSR. Gorbachev tried to fix the problem of stagnation by promoting market reforms in the economy (a policy known as perestroika), and attacking the political power of the Communist Party (glasnost). Instead of fixing the problem, his reforms turned a mildly inconvenient situation into a catastrophic nightmare spiraling out of control. The market reforms did not help the economy. On the contrary, they turned stagnation into recession and economic collapse. e.



There was no "restoration" of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Capitalism was there in the Soviet Union from the very beginning as evidenced by the existence of generalised wage labour, production for the market, capital accumulation and so on on. In pre-war Soviet Union investment from abroad was actively solicited with the carrot of a very high rates of profit. In a review of the Soviet Union Year-Book of 1930, the Socialist Standard (September 1930) called Russia the "Land of High Profits and noted how "Russian capitalism, although administered by the Communist Party, reproduces almost down to the last detail the paraphernalia of the capitalist world as we know it here." According to Professor Steven Kotkin of Princeton University: "The list of capitalist firms which built Stalin's industrialized Soviet Union is a who's who of the most famous and advanced capitalist firms of the 20th Century. It includes not only American ones, but Italians and Germans, etcetera. Later on they would be embarrassed by this collaboration and remove this episode from their company histories, which were produced in the Cold War period after 1945."(Cited in http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_soviet_model_and_the_economic_cold_war_01331.h tml

You forget also there had been market reforms - perestroika of a kind - well before Gorbachev in the form of the NEP in the 1920s. In my view the Soviet system of state run capitalism collapsed because it simply became unsustainable. The hugely unwieldy bureaucratic apparatus imposed a growing cost burden on the economy and proved to be increasingly inflexible and inappropriate as the Soviet economy underwent diversification.

The fact that the Russian economy went into steep decline after the break up of the Soviet Union is neither here nor there. Politicians possess neither a crystal ball nor the ability to control events in the way you suggest. The writing was already on the wall for Soviet state capitalism- it had to go - and the red "fat cats" that had prospered under the old regime were well positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities available to them.

That in itself is enough to dispel the lie that capitalism was "restored" in Russia. Instead, of this reactionary conservative hankering after the old Soviet Union which - lets face it - was a pretty grim and shitty way of life for most workers - we should raise our sights higher and look towards a genuine socialist future.

[rednordman]

Source?I cannot give a source for it, but i thought that this was common knowledge. Also in the next general election (1996 I think?), the communist party of soviet union got the most votes, yet it was just ignoured by Yeltsin, and the rest of the world for that matter...no wonder people in Russia are known to have a synical view of democracy.

[robbo203]

I cannot give a source for it, but i thought that this was common knowledge. Also in the next general election (1996 I think?), the communist party of soviet union got the most votes, yet it was just ignoured by Yeltsin, and the rest of the world for that matter...no wonder people in Russia are known to have a synical view of democracy.

I dont think this is correct. Check this out http://www2.essex.ac.uk/elect/electer/rus_prelr.htm

[narcomprom]

I cannot give a source for it, but i thought that this was common knowledge.
I also heared that the less developed central asian republics (don't know about russia, would make sense, though) voted for retaining the ussr. the more prosperous regions preferred seccession.


Also in the next general election (1996 I think?), the communist party of soviet union got the most votes, yet it was just ignoured by Yeltsin, and the rest of the world for that matter...no wonder people in Russia are known to have a synical view of democracy.
indeed, the electoral campaign in 1996 was strongly rigged, the communists should have won.

[Chaves]

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

On this book, "Revolution Betrayed." Trotsky explains why the USSR under bureaucracy control is counter-revolution, and why there is a need to do another worker revolution, and how USSR under stalin control was destined to fail!

[Spawn of Stalin]

And he was right about everything except...everything, because the USSR didn't fail under Stalin, as we all very well know! In fact it failed under Gorbachev, you should look into him, I think you'd make a nice couple.

[bailey_187]

And he was right about everything except...everything, because the USSR didn't fail under Stalin, as we all very well know! In fact it failed under Gorbachev, you should look into him, I think you'd make a nice couple.

Is Harpal Brar's book on the collapse of USSR any good do you know?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Haven't read it myself mate but I have heard good things, Trotskyism or Leninism? and his most recent book, Imperialism and War are both excellent, so if they are anything to go by it should be very good.

[Ismail]

Focusing on the 80's, the USSR fell mainly because of four things:

1. The belief that socialism was a failure.
2. The nationalist belief that socialism (and the Union it represented) was holding Russia back. (Ditto for the Baltics, the Ukraine, and to a lesser extent the other Republics)
3. The inability of Gorbachev to improve the economy (it tanked under Perestroika) or quell nationalism.
4. The desire for the bourgeoisie to capitalize on said nationalism and leave the Union. (The Central Asian Republics were more hesitant, and generally would have been fine with a new Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UISR) but wouldn't mourn if it failed, which it did fail)

A good timeline-esque look is provided in Bill Bland's postscript to his book Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/PS-USSR.html (don't be alarmed by the opening capslock :D)

Of course actual study of its collapse goes back all the way to 1917, but yeah.

Also, check your PMs, Teln3t.

[Outinleftfield]

Gorbachev actually ended communist party rule on purpose. Gorbachev admitted in an interview in the early 2000s that I read recently but can't seem to find that he pretended to support communism in order to rise through the communist party and end its rule. However, he didn't intend a breakup. He intended a capitalist replacement for the Soviet Union. He also didn't want Russia to become as capitalistic as it did. He considered and still considers himself a social democrat.

He had good intentions. He noticed that the rule of the communist party was oppressive. What he didn't realize was that the solution is not capitalism or even a mixed economy but to actually give control to the working class. But that would've been a task he would've been unable to perform even if he wanted to. The ruling class never gives up powero voluntarily. If it wasn't for the fact that many communist party leaders became capitalist oligarchs after the end of communism in the USSR they would not have went along with it.

[Ismail]

Gorbachev actually ended communist party rule on purpose. Gorbachev admitted in an interview in the early 2000s that I read recently but can't seem to find that he pretended to support communism in order to rise through the communist party and end its rule.It's in my sig. "My Ambition was to Liquidate Communism."

However, he didn't intend a breakup. He intended a capitalist replacement for the Soviet Union. He also didn't want Russia to become as capitalistic as it did. He considered and still considers himself a social democrat.


He had good intentions.Does not compute with:

He intended a capitalist replacement for the Soviet Union.
He also didn't want Russia to become as capitalistic as it did.He was/is a Social-Democrat. Their goal is to keep public welfare up so people's needs are met, ergo the will to rebel is diminished because living stands have risen. In the USSR this itself was accomplished by the economic exploitation of the Central Asian states and Warsaw Pact from the 50's-80's. (For example, Khrushchev's "specialization" policies having the WP states focus on and to provide certain goods that are exported to the USSR in exchange for Soviet goods that the WP state needs, thus promoting dependence on the USSR)

As Lenin said:
"They [Social-Democrats] are just as much traitors to socialism... They represent that top section of workers who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie, those whom we Bolsheviks called 'agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement,' and to whom the best socialists in America gave the magnificently expressive and very fitting title: 'labour lieutenants of the capitalist class.' They represent the latest, 'modern,' type of socialist treachery, for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting 'gain' from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of 'their own' country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution."
(V.I. Lenin, Letter to the Workers of Europe and America, Pravda; No. 16, January 24, 1919.)

And as Hoxha said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/revisionists.htm):


If the former reformists avowed, even in words alone, that the establishment of socialism was their ultimate goal, present-day social-democrats have openly rejected this end. They preach that they are in favor of the so-called "democratic socialism", which has nothing in common with true scientific socialism. It is its negation, its replacement with certain bourgeois liberal reforms which do not tamper in any way with the basis of capitalist society. What kind of socialism is that when most of the social-democratic programs have discarded an elementary demand of socialism to abolish private property of the means of production?

Following the well-known statements of the socialist International "Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism" (1951), the new programs direct the working class not against capitalism as such but against "unsupervised" capitalism. Nationalization of a part of the enterprises by the bourgeois state, the establishment of state monopolist capitalism in the economic life of the country, the adoption of certain bourgeois-democratic reforms—all of these figure in the new programs and statements of the social-democrats as facts that go to prove that the basis of socialism has allegedly been laid in certain capitalist countries. At the same time, they deny the socialist character of transformations in the socialist countries. They repeat in this manner, openly or in a roundabout way, the bourgeois theories in vogue on "people's capitalism", "capitalism under control", "organized", "democratic" and so on....

Let us dwell even briefly on the activity of the French Socialist Party and its leader Guy Mollet, who has more than once taken part in and even headed the French government, and whom the revisionists consider a left-wing element and conduct hearty talks with. When at the head of the government, the French socialists set the dogs loose on workers on strike, incited the outbreak of the dirty war in Indo-China, undertook police repressions against the people of other colonies, carried on the fighting against the Algerian people with more ferocity, approved the North Atlantic Pact and the re-arming of Western Germany. Guy Mollet's government signed the agreements for "the European Common Market" and "Euratom", it was one of the organizers of the military aggression on Egypt, Guy Mollet's betrayal paved the way for personal rule in France and so on and so forth. Speaking of Guy Mollet's activity even the labourite weekly "Tribune" wrote at the beginning of 1957 that "Mollet is a disgrace to France as well as to socialism".

These are the true features of social-democracy today. Many representatives of the bourgeoisie have not been wrong in stressing the great role of the social-democratic parties in suppressing the revolutionary movement of workers and in defending the capitalist order, they have not been wrong in singing their praises. Thus, for instance, T. Junilla, director of a capitalist bank in Finland, has said: "In the struggle to win over industrial workers spiritually only the social-democrats can serve as a powerful force against the communists. If the social democrats lose this battle, it may very well be the end of democracy in Finland. This is why, being a bourgeois member of the conservative party, I feel obliged to state that we need a united, militant, social-democratic party which firmly upholds northern democracy". The English bourgeois newspaper Financial Times wrote in the same vein on June 28, 1963: ". . . the industrialists are scared less by the Labourites, and some of them cherish the opinion that a Labour government would open up better perspectives for development than the Tories.
He noticed that the rule of the communist party was oppressive.So do many other bourgeoisie. "... the march of freedom and democracy... will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history..." (Ronald Reagan, 1982)

[Random Precision]

I would not claim it is particularily progressive to have a centralised state with a ruling elite which is ruling in the name of distributing wealth evenly.

In that case, ancient Egypt, the Incan Empire and the Indus Valley Civilisation were more progressive than most modern states. In all essence, GOSPLAN represented nothing more than a modern palace economy.

LOL, palace economy was gone with the collapse of the Bronze Age. And neither Ancient Egypt, the Incan Empire, or the IVC (in which we have no idea what sort of economy there was, since we haven't deciphered the script) was a "palace economy" either.

Furthermore as I recall from my anthropology textbooks, wage labor never did feature in any palace economy either. So, stop talking out your ass.

[Dimentio]

The Soviet system could theoretically have scrapped the wage labour system since all tokens were symbolic (rent for example was about 10 copek). Moreover, most people worked for the state, and the state then redistributed their work. The Incan Empire and Ancient Egypt worked the same way. The only difference was that the Soviet system did not have a God-king (after Stalin so to say).

[BobKKKindle$]

The Soviet system could theoretically have scrapped the wage labour system since all tokens were symbolic (rent for example was about 10 copek). Moreover, most people worked for the state, and the state then redistributed their work. The Incan Empire and Ancient Egypt worked the same way. The only difference was that the Soviet system did not have a God-king (after Stalin so to say).

Why do you persist in making absurd comparisons? The thing that makes societies like the Incan Empire non-capitalist and fundamentally different from the USSR is the fact that the former were all societies in which it was possible to own human beings as slaves, instead of having to purchase their labour power on a continuous basis, which is what defines capitalism as a mode of production, with slaves, and not wage-labourers, to the extent that the latter even existed in slave-based societies, performing the vast majority of productive labour. This is what Engels wanted to draw people's attention to when he wrote "[the] slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly". In the Soviet Union, and all other so-called socialist countries, the majority of the population, having no access to or ownership of the means of production, engaged in wage-labour, by selling their labour power as a commodity to the state, which took the place of private capital, in exchange for a wage. The important thing here is that it was wage-labour, and not slavery. Despite the range of legal restrictions applied by the Soviet state on what workers were allowed to do, it was not the case that people were never allowed to change their jobs, or that job changes took the form of a worker being sold by one enterprise to another, or that workers could be made to work as long as the employer wanted without any constraints on the intensity or duration of exploitation, or that workers were only payed in kind, or that workers could be transmitted to the younger generation as inheritance in the same way as wealth and personal objects - simply put, there is no fitting comparison between the Incan Empire and the Soviet Union. This is not to say that there was nothing reminiscent of slavery in the latter, but that does not merit equating the Soviet Union's mode of production with that of slave-based societies.

A read through Engels' 'The Principles of Communism' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) would be helpful, point seven in particular.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The thing that makes societies like the Incan Empire non-capitalist and fundamentally different from the USSR is the fact that the former were all societies in which it was possible to own human beings as slaves, instead of having to purchase their labour power on a continuous basis, which is what defines capitalism as a mode of production, with slaves, and not wage-labourers, to the extent that the latter even existed in slave-based societies, performing the vast majority of productive labour. [...] The important thing here is that it was wage-labour, and not slavery. Despite the range of legal restrictions applied by the Soviet state on what workers were allowed to do, it was not the case that people were never allowed to change their jobs, or that job changes took the form of a worker being sold by one enterprise to another, or that workers could be made to work as long as the employer wanted without any constraints on the intensity or duration of exploitation, or that workers were only payed in kind, or that workers could be transmitted to the younger generation as inheritance in the same way as wealth and personal objects...

Wasn't there/isn't there some matter of controversy regarding the existance of wage labour in the USSR within the SWP? Has the the debate been settled or is this just your personal take on the question?

[Das war einmal]

There was no "restoration" of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Capitalism was there in the Soviet Union from the very beginning as evidenced by the existence of generalised wage labour, production for the market, capital accumulation and so on on. In pre-war Soviet Union investment from abroad was actively solicited with the carrot of a very high rates of profit. In a review of the Soviet Union Year-Book of 1930, the Socialist Standard (September 1930) called Russia the "Land of High Profits and noted how "Russian capitalism, although administered by the Communist Party, reproduces almost down to the last detail the paraphernalia of the capitalist world as we know it here." According to Professor Steven Kotkin of Princeton University: "The list of capitalist firms which built Stalin's industrialized Soviet Union is a who's who of the most famous and advanced capitalist firms of the 20th Century. It includes not only American ones, but Italians and Germans, etcetera. Later on they would be embarrassed by this collaboration and remove this episode from their company histories, which were produced in the Cold War period after 1945."(Cited in http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_soviet_model_and_the_economic_cold_war_01331.h tml

You forget also there had been market reforms - perestroika of a kind - well before Gorbachev in the form of the NEP in the 1920s. In my view the Soviet system of state run capitalism collapsed because it simply became unsustainable. The hugely unwieldy bureaucratic apparatus imposed a growing cost burden on the economy and proved to be increasingly inflexible and inappropriate as the Soviet economy underwent diversification.

The fact that the Russian economy went into steep decline after the break up of the Soviet Union is neither here nor there. Politicians possess neither a crystal ball nor the ability to control events in the way you suggest. The writing was already on the wall for Soviet state capitalism- it had to go - and the red "fat cats" that had prospered under the old regime were well positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities available to them.

That in itself is enough to dispel the lie that capitalism was "restored" in Russia. Instead, of this reactionary conservative hankering after the old Soviet Union which - lets face it - was a pretty grim and shitty way of life for most workers - we should raise our sights higher and look towards a genuine socialist future.


What a load of horsecrap. Frankfully I'm not even sure that you even know what capitalism is, let alone socialism. Capitalism relies on private ownership of capital. A state is not a individual or a small group of individuals. In capitalism the goal is to achieve a high profit, which is the income for the owner. The socialist state provided huge social benefits for workers. More so, thanks to the lack of (state) control on the working place, there was a lot of sabotage and lack of efficiency. This, combined with external pressure, eventually lead to the stagnation of the USSR's economy in the late 70's.

After the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe, the WHOLE left (including social-democrats) is experiencing a identity crisis and the difference in income has increased beyond limits.

Now some leftists claim they have been proven 'right all alone' by the fall of the soviet-union (even Chomsky naively thinks this 'opens' oppertunities for 'real socialism' to develop) but so far, there has not been an increase of influence by these leftists.

[Irish commie]

If stalin was such a magical man like some have been making out why is it that he quelled the spanish revolution destroying any potential for communism in spain and leading tot eh voctory of franco.
This clearly illustrates how stalin betrayed the proletariat and made himself and his cronies effectively the new bergoisie.

[bailey_187]

If stalin was such a magical man like some have been making out why is it that he quelled the spanish revolution destroying any potential for communism in spain and leading tot eh voctory of franco.
This clearly illustrates how stalin betrayed the proletariat and made himself and his cronies effectively the new bergoisie.

Homage to Catalonia is great isn't it. :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

If stalin was such a magical man like some have been making out why is it that he quelled the spanish revolution destroying any potential for communism in spain and leading tot eh voctory of franco.What revolution? I know there was a Republic supported by the people facing a Fascist threat and then Stalin sent arms, tanks, planes and hundreds of advisors and officers and organized the International Brigades though.

[bailey_187]

what revolution? I know there was a republic supported by the people facing a fascist threat and then stalin sent arms, tanks, planes and hundreds of advisors and officers and organized the international brigades though.

have u not read homage to catalonia!!!11!!!!!1

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What revolution? I know there was a Republic supported by the people facing a Fascist threat and then Stalin sent arms, tanks, planes and hundreds of advisors and officers and organized the International Brigades though.

And fought against the working class revolution by figthing on the side of bourgeois republican elements. Why did he not side with the working class in the name of revolution instead of sending arms to fight for bourgeois democracy.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Homage to Catalonia is great isn't it. :rolleyes:
This, basically. If people are really intent on accusing Stalin of counter-revolution, without backing it up with facts and figures, they don't deserve a response.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

All I can offer is my knowledge, based on texts I have read with a expressly pro-working class, Anarchist perspective. You will not think the same obviously.

The PSUC operated under the express interests of Stalin which were directly in conflict with the revolution and ultimately the interests of the Spanish working class. The PSUC denied the revolution had actually occured (see below). They repressed the revolution by crushing collectives which had been established in the name of restoring 'democracy' to Spain.

Russia was the only country supplying a major quantity of arms to the republicans and thhe Stalinists had a large influence in the dsitribution of these arms. Because of this they enforced militarisation and forced the CNT and POUM to abandon the militia system and ultimately crush their power as everything was now under the control of the war ministry.

Here is some more information about the crushing of working class struggle by the Stalinists:



On May 3rd 1937, three lorry loads of police led by the Stalinist Salas, Commissar of Public Order, attempted to take over the telephone exchange in Barcelona which had been controlled by a joint CNT-UGT committee since the outbreak of the war.
The police captured the first floor because of the surprise nature of their attack but got no further. Firing started. Word spread and within hours the local defence committees of the CNT-FAI went into action arming themselves and building barricades. Soon the workers were in control of most of the city.
In other areas of Catalonia action was also taken. Civil Guards were disarmed and offices of the PSUC were seized as a "preventive measure". There was no firing on the first night and by the second day the workers were spreading the barricades further into the suburbs.
The negotiations which went on, led to nothing as regards control of the telephone phone exchange. The workers were ordered off the barricades and unfortunately they went. On Thursday (May 6th) the building was vacated and the PSUC took it over. On the same day the railway station was taken over by the PSUC. The CNT had also controlled that. This happened throughout Catalonia.
On Friday 5,000 Assault Guards arrived from Valencia. The repression that followed was severe. The May Days left 500 dead and 1,100 wounded. Hundreds more were killed during the "mopping up" of the next few weeks. The counter-revolution broke out in earnest after May with decree after decree undermining the revolutionary committees. This was now possible as the backbone of the revolution, the Catalan workers, had been crushed.


What revolution?

Rural:


It was in the countryside that the Spanish revolution was most far reaching. The anarchist philosophy had been absorbed by large layers of the downtrodden peasants and the outbreak of revolution was the opportunity to put these ideas into practice.
Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives.
Collectivisation was voluntary and thus different from the forced ‘collectivisation’ in Russia. Usually a meeting was called and all present would agree to pool together whatever land, tools and animals they had. The land was divided into rational units and groups of workers were assigned to work them. Each group had its delegate who represented their views at meetings. A management committee was also elected and was responsible for the overall running of the collective. Each collective held regular general meetings of all its participants.
If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share.
Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. Food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.

Urban:

railways, traincars and buses, taxicabs and shipping, electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries were confiscated and controlled by workmens's committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance. Motion picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing, shops, department stores and hotels, de-lux restaurants and bars were likewise sequestered.

[Искра]

This, basically. If people are really intent on accusing Stalin of counter-revolution, without backing it up with facts and figures, they don't deserve a response.
No one accuses only Stalin for conter-revolution.
Lenin & Bolsheviks are the ones which are accused.

[Irish commie]

No one accuses only Stalin for conter-revolution.
Lenin & Bolsheviks are the ones which are accused. Explain this to me? this statement is baseless, what evidence do you have for this?

[Ismail]

Why did he not side with the working class in the name of revolution instead of sending arms to fight for bourgeois democracy.He sided with the working class, the majority of which voted for the Popular Front and were fighting the Fascists in defense of the Republic. The USA, UK, France and the obvious Germany-Italy-Portuguese interventions in Spain (the former three under the guise of "non-intervention") made it pretty obvious that they all viewed it as a threat even in its "moderate," petty-bourgeois "socialist" form.

The Anarchists were mostly confined to the poorest of agricultural areas where neither the Socialists nor Communists operated. They were obviously progressive at times, but their actions against the Republic endangered the anti-fascist cause, and their desire to essentially overthrow the entire government in the middle of its struggle against Fascism was ridiculous and the epitome of ultra-leftism; in the vein of Kronstadt and similarly upheld by opportunist rightists as an example of "Communist tyranny" crushing "innocent Anarchists." The words of Anarchist theoretician De Santillán saying that the Republic and Franco were equal threats should be patently ridiculous, for example.

No one doubts that the PCE collaborated too much with the reactionaries that obviously inhabited much of the PSOE. Arthur H. Landis, who wrote Spain! The Unfinished Revolution in 1973 and writes from a pro-PCE perspective, himself noted this. Regardless, it was done with the best of intentions; to secure unity against fascism. Had the Republic emerged triumphant, perhaps the PCE (and Anarchists, and POUM, etc.) could have focused the people on achieving socialism (or anarchism). To do this in the middle of a civil war, however, was not a good idea.


Because of this they enforced militarisation and forced the CNT and POUM to abandon the militia system and ultimately crush their power as everything was now under the control of the war ministry.For what it's worth, the militias themselves were significantly less efficient than organized command.

As Landis notes:

The ensuing great battles that swept the Iberian Peninsula across the span of two long years—battles which saw untrained militia units become battalions, brigades, divisions and Army Corps of the new People's Army...

On the Madrid, Guadalajara and Jarama fronts the government decree ending the unwieldy militia system had been met with enthusiasm. The need for a united and cohesive command had long been recognized. The existence of purely political units, owing allegiance to no one excepting their immediate superiors of the Anarchist, Socialist, and Communist parties, was a luxury that had, all too often, been paid for in blood and lives. It was a situation that could no longer be endured if the war was to be won.

[Искра]

Explain this to me? this statement is baseless, what evidence do you have for this?
Evidence is history.
Bolsheviks closed Soviets and took all power in their centralist hands, they destroyed revolution in Ukraine, because people there took slogan All power to soviets literally, and they massacred people in Kronstandt. To me that contrarevolutionary behavior, to suppress direct democratic organising of workers so that you can take power.
When you today talk with their 14 year old followers on revleft they make fun of those victims saying that people, which only wanted to liberate themselves - are reactionary.

But here you go:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html#seca54
http://libcom.org/library/the-kronstadt-uprising-ida-mett
http://libcom.org/library/the-russian-tragedy-alexander-berkman
http://libcom.org/library/russian-revolution-communist-party-alexander-berkman

[Spawn of Stalin]

I for one reject the idea that all Leninists are 14 year old internet jokesters.

[Искра]

I for one reject the idea that all Leninists are 14 year old internet jokesters.
I never said all.

[Irish commie]

They were by all means not perfect but fighting a counter revolution themselves, they organised the revoltion and had to fight the civil war under huge pressures they did the best they could under the circumstances of the civil war and ended the counter revoltionary acions of the bergoise mencshevocs in the provisional government. I also disagree with the actions in kronstandt but believe that lenin and the bolshevics where working under very difficult conditions especially due to the acts of france and britain to aid the white armies during the civil war and had to make some tough descisions especially considering their thoughts that the revoltion was to happen on a world scale which never materialised. However comparing them to stalin is very harsh at best. And i would also like to thank you for your helpful sources that will allow me to further increase my knowledge on the subject.

[Irish commie]

I also have one thing to add to that the bolshevics where the initiators of the revolution which was being hijacked by the bergoisie in the provisional government which refused to eliminate the problems that led to the february revolution. The bolshevics were so popular as they were revolutionary in their attitudes in contrast to the meshevicsadn the provisional government and without them russia would have merely became a capitalist bergoise revolution and country.