materialist conception of the collapse of Communism in USSR, China, Laos, Vietnam etc

[leninpuncher]

Stalinists and Maoists tend to blame the collapse of all these Communist states on certain men; Deng, Gorbachev and so on. This is pretty clearly a form of Great Man Theory, an un-marxist and idealistic way of viewing history. Wouldn't it be much more marxist to see the collapse of Communism as a result of class struggle?

[Ismail]

"... had I not been present in 1917 in St. Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place—on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring—of this I have not the slightest doubt."
(Leon Trotsky, Trotsky's Diary in Exile, trans. Elena Zarudnaya (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 46.)

Also no, Deng and Gorbachev represented the interests of market capitalism in China and the USSR. Don't employ strawmen. When we talk about Khrushchev and such, they were the "front men" for state or market capitalism. They were the ones in charge of the state; announced its policies, etc. You yourself use the label "Stalinist," yet according to your criteria that would apparently be applying "Great Man Theory" to cram the entire history of the USSR from 1924-1953 (and the policies of various states across the world from 1953-1991 and even onwards) into the figure of Stalin, the "betrayer of the revolution."

As far as class struggle goes, there was certainly some struggle within both states, albeit in both cases it was state-capitalists versus market-capitalists. Do the Cultural Revolution (which discredited Deng for a while) and August 1991 Soviet coup ring a bell?

[Valeofruin]

Isn't the whole idea that capitalism, and the capitalist class was restored in the USSR and China due to Soviet and Chinese policies?

The problem is not the men themselves per se, but the material conditions and consequences of the periods of time which they represent that are to blame.

This fully recognizes materialism, and class struggle, not any notion of a 'great man'. Further as has been mentioned the leaders were just pitch men. The criticism is not just of Khruschev but of the 'Khruschevites' which includes Khruschev and all his lackeys and supporters.

[spaßmaschine]

I would imagine that a proper 'materialist' approach would be to look at the actual social relations of production that went on in these countries (i.e. wage labour, commodity production, separation from class property...not that these are necessarily different things) and then question to what extent communism is able to 'collapse' if it hasn't been implemented in the first place!

[robbo203]

I would imagine that a proper 'materialist' approach would be to look at the actual social relations of production that went on in these countries (i.e. wage labour, commodity production, separation from class property...not that these are necessarily different things) and then question to what extent communism is able to 'collapse' if it hasn't been implemented in the first place!


Thats right. What collapsed was not communism but state run capitalism and those primarily instrumental in this were none other than state capitalist ruling class. A good proportion of your present day oligarch's - 43% (though the percentage was much higher in the early years of the post soviet era) were once high ranking members of the so called Communist party. Ask yourself why.

[Lenin II]

Thats right. What collapsed was not communism but state run capitalism and those primarily instrumental in this were none other than state capitalist ruling class. A good proportion of your present day oligarch's - 43% (though the percentage was much higher in the early years of the post soviet era) were once high ranking members of the so called Communist party. Ask yourself why.

Indeed, whereas veterans of the CPSU lived in relative poverty into the 80's and 90's, like Molotov and Kaganovich.

[robbo203]

Indeed, whereas veterans of the CPSU lived in relative poverty into the 80's and 90's, like Molotov and Kaganovich.


Sure. Not all members of the old state capitalist ruling class gained by the switch to corporate capitalism but what is clear is that without the support of members of this class the whole thing would almost certainly not have happened. The governing elites - particularly in the regions - were key players in the transfer of power and the redirection of tax receipts from soviet to republican institutions. It was a "revolution from above"

[Ismail]

Sure. Not all members of the old state capitalist ruling class gained by the switch to corporate capitalism but what is clear is that without the support of members of this class the whole thing would almost certainly not have happened. The governing elites - particularly in the regions - were key players in the transfer of power and the redirection of tax receipts from soviet to republican institutions. It was a "revolution from above"He meant that Molotov and Kaganovich lived in relative poverty from the 1970's onwards because they were backlisted for being "Stalinists." They accused the bureaucracy of anti-communism, etc. Neither lived to see the fall of the USSR (although Kaganovich died at like age 95 just a few months before it did).

But your general analysis is correct. By the 1980's it was quite easy for the state-capitalist USSR, which had an obvious struggle between state and market capitalists (e.g. Ligachev vs. Gorbachev and Yeltsin), to turn openly capitalist.

As once noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/albind/socalb2.htm):
"'The Soviet Society,' said Comrade Enver Hoxha at the 7th Congress of the party, 'has become bourgeois down to its tiniest cells, capitalism has been restored in all fields.'"