How far off was USSR

[DanielASRP]

Maybe a stupid question, but just how far was the Soviet union from becoming a communist nation or even socialist under Lenin??

Did they even achieve a true socialist state?

[ArrowLance]

Quite away off. You see communism can never be secure until the global system favors it. Until then it must largely compete in the capitalistic system and international markets. This can mean all sorts of disgusting policies may be enacted by countries seeking communism. Imperialism and the such. This isn't necessarily an excuse for those actions but something that must be considered when making a judgment.

[DanielASRP]

So.. i think i understand, there has to be a "transition period" of gathering the resources?? so as to become self reliant??

[Kléber]

But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm


The perspective of Permanent Revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialismhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

[ArrowLance]

So.. i think i understand, there has to be a "transition period" of gathering the resources?? so as to become self reliant??

Well I would say a country alone can only do so much for socialism and democracy in a global capitalist market system. Since it is unlikely and, more so, likely impossible for a country to be terribly isolationist and still succeed in the global system of capitalist markets the completion of a communist revolution can only be seen with the completion of the global revolution. Until then the state will likely remain to some extent in order to stop external capitalist influences as well as internal ones exacerbated by those influences.

[ContrarianLemming]

this far off *indicates with arms*

quite far, further then the market capitalist nations.

[Black Sheep]

Great steps to industrialization, established powerlines and electricity-based production, but no workers control.

[GPDP]

this far off *indicates with arms*

quite far, further then the market capitalist nations.

I'm not a big fan of the USSR, but care to substantiate this?

[DanielASRP]

Yeah I agree, you cant just say they were off with out explaining why.

[Spawn of Stalin]

There is no way capitalist countries were closer to socialism than the USSR, I personally firmly believe that the USSR was socialist, some people say it wasn't, and I'm willing to accept that, but to say that the USSR was further than capitalist countries is a bold and absurd claim, it desperately needs backing up with some hard facts. Even if you believe in the state capitalist theory, state capitalism is miles closer to true socialism than market capitalism, and far more desirable too.

[Chimurenga.]

Great steps to industrialization, established powerlines and electricity-based production, but no workers control.

Actually, workers control did exist. It's just that there should have been much more of it.

[cska]

Maybe a stupid question, but just how far was the Soviet union from becoming a communist nation or even socialist under Lenin??

Did they even achieve a true socialist state?

They were clearly part of the socialist transition phase to communism at that point. They got lost somewhere along the way though, but were never anywhere near as bad as capitalism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Stalin turned a shit hole country into a proletarian superpower, in which I saw was part of the transition phase. Khrushchev became the rewind button.

[Kléber]

Stalin turned a shit hole country into a proletarian superpower, in which I saw was part of the transition phase. Khrushchev became the rewind button.
I don't know what you think is a "shit hole country," but imperialist superpowers are not necessarily socialist. JFK ruled one too. Great guy, made mistakes, so they say. Socialist though? If anything Khrushchev represented the USSR at the apex of its power, sending the first animals, men and women into space, holding the imperialist US hostage, spreading revolution to Algeria and Cuba, and the regime was comfortable enough to relax repression of dissidents, increase workers' wages, and cut bloated high salaries. That doesn't mean the USSR was socialist, or democratic.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't know what you think is a "shit hole country," but imperialist superpowers are not necessarily socialist. JFK ruled one too. Great guy, made mistakes, so they say. Socialist though? If anything Khrushchev represented the USSR at the apex of its power, sending the first animals, men and women into space, holding the imperialist US hostage, spreading revolution to Algeria and Cuba, and the regime was comfortable enough to relax repression of dissidents, increase workers' wages, and cut bloated high salaries. That doesn't mean the USSR was socialist, or democratic.

With his views of mixing capitalist-economical ideas under the Soviet power, his reformist views of "redesigning" the Soviet Union, & then him allying with U.S. relations & becoming friends with known Capitalist tyrants such as Richard Nixon? I wouldn't go that far to claim that he represented the USSR at the apex of its power. I will state that Khrushchev was a nice leader, but he was leading the Soviet Union downhill, rather than keep it emerging like the past leaders before him did. I'm not stating that the Soviet Union was completely socialist, but it was close enough where needed transitional periods were taking place. The fact that when Stalin was in power, no Capitalist power could touch them without being stomped to the ground. Khrushchev though, after doing his secret speech & the de-stalinization program, ended up reforming with U.S. relations & even Chairman Mao saw this as a detrimental problem to the Soviet Union & their rise to Socialism/Communism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The USSR of course was incredibly powerful under both Khrushchev and Bhrezhnev, but the simple fact is that it would not have been had it not been for the epic achievements that were made during the Stalin era. Khrushchev inherited the power, he did not build it, had Stalin lived for another ten years I'm certain he would have sent the first man into space, he would have supported Cuba, the Algerian NLF, and wielded enough power to rival the USA.

[Kléber]

With his views of mixing capitalist-economical ideas under the Soviet power, his reformist views of "redesigning" the Soviet Union, & then him allying with U.S. relations & becoming friends with known Capitalist tyrants such as Richard Nixon? I wouldn't go that far to claim that he represented the USSR at the apex of its power.
Khrushchev was allied to the US? Nikita Cuban missile crisis, tanks in Budapest, shoe on the table, "We will bury you" Khrushchev? Mao was the one who cozied up to Nixon. Khrushchev had an awkward "kitchen debate" with him. Profit incentives for managers were nothing new under Khrushchev, he actually cut salaries of overpaid officials (one of the reasons the old hats got rid of him). Khrushchev was the General Secretary, same position as Stalin, he made no fundamental changes to Soviet society. How the hell did him being elected change the social system from socialist to capitalist?

Khrushchev's great "revisionist" crime was actually to produce more consumer goods to improve the lives of workers. Besides, the Kosygin reforms and "peaceful coexistence" ended with re-Stalinization, so was Brezhnev the real authentic socialist?


Khrushchev though, after doing his secret speech & the de-stalinization program,What does Stalin's reputation have to do with anything? When someone criticizes Stalin you say "you weren't in his shoes! you don't know what he went through!" but hey, Khrushchev saw it as wise to destroy Stalin's reputation to restore trust in the Party. You weren't in Khrushchev's place, you have no idea what concerns he was facing when he made those decisions. Why cry for the reputation of one man? After Yezhov completed his task, he was erased (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lX2HZVZF4yI/Rv2iu_H3wnI/AAAAAAAAAQg/TZv9JTJmBlY/s400/Yezhov.jpg), so that hatred for him would be disassociated from hatred for the Party. Same with Stalin. He had done his task for the bureaucracy (eliminating the opposition) so well, and become known for it, that he had to be denounced so that the CPSU could disassociate itself from the purges. Khrushchev really owed everything to Stalin; if you read his memoirs, he saw Stalin as his political mentor, despite having some criticisms. He defeated the Molotov opposition using Stalinist techniques.


ended up reforming with U.S. relations & even Chairman Mao saw this as a detrimental problem to the Soviet Union & their rise to Socialism/Communism. Uh, Mao actually joined up with US imperialism, while North Vietnam was still being bombed. The PRC gave military support to Yahya Khan during the genocidal 1971 war in Bangladesh which killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers and farmers.


had Stalin lived for another ten years I'm certain he would have sent the first man into space, he would have supported Cuba, the Algerian NLF, and wielded enough power to rival the USA.
What's your point? If Beria hadn't slipped him a little cyanide, Stalin might possibly have been just as good as Khrushchev?

[Uppercut]

I don't know what you think is a "shit hole country," but imperialist superpowers are not necessarily socialist. JFK ruled one too. Great guy, made mistakes, so they say. Socialist though? If anything Khrushchev represented the USSR at the apex of its power, sending the first animals, men and women into space, holding the imperialist US hostage, spreading revolution to Algeria and Cuba, and the regime was comfortable enough to relax repression of dissidents, increase workers' wages, and cut bloated high salaries. That doesn't mean the USSR was socialist, or democratic.

Actually, Khrushchev enacted economic reforms which reduced the amount of workers' control in the workplace. Managers were no longer elected or held accountable to the masses, material incentives were increased for managerial positions, and state enterprises began to compete with one another, encouraging corruption and over-reporting quotas, thus increasing the salaries of the managers/planners of that enterprise. Gosplan had no idea what was going on so they basically said "fuck it, this is good enough", encouraging slothfulness in their work.

But to stay on topic, I'm gonna have to agree with the Vegan Marxist. Stalin wasn't perfect, but considering the historic construct in which he lived in, he was a pretty damn good leader IMO. In some cases, the party was more progressive than what the people wanted (abortion and legalizing homosexuality for example). There was still a strong cultural bias against certain measures.

[Kléber]

Actually, Khrushchev enacted economic reforms which reduced the amount of workers' control in the workplace. Managers were no longer elected or held accountable to the masses, material incentives were increased for managerial positions, and state enterprises began to compete with one another, encouraging corruption and over-reporting quotas, thus increasing the salaries of the managers/planners of that enterprise. Gosplan had no idea what was going on so they basically said "fuck it, this is good enough", encouraging slothfulness in their work.
All those things were there during the Stalin era - incentives, competition, strict managerial control ("Cadres decide everything"). Worse, Stalin's regime had fused the managers into the Party and abolished Partmaximum. Khrushchev actually cut down on excessive bureaucracy and purged redundant offices.

But I see that Gosplan execs said "fuck it" once and smoked a cigarette instead of working. Gee, what wreckers. That settles it, I guess the Soviet Union really did fail because of one darned old Khrushchev.


In some cases, the party was more progressive than what the people wanted (abortion and legalizing homosexuality for example). There was still a strong cultural bias against certain measures.So you support the illegalization of gay marriage and abortion, if "the people" are not yet ready? Besides, it is not like anal sex and abortion were banned by popular decision.

[The Vegan Marxist]

All those things were there during the Stalin era - incentives, competition, strict managerial control ("Cadres decide everything"). Worse, Stalin's regime had fused the managers into the Party and abolished Partmaximum. Khrushchev actually cut down on excessive bureaucracy and purged redundant offices.

But I see that Gosplan execs said "fuck it" once and smoked a cigarette instead of working. Gee, what wreckers. That settles it, I guess the Soviet Union really did fail because of one darned old Khrushchev.

So you support the illegalization of gay marriage and abortion, if "the people" are not yet ready? Besides, it is not like anal sex and abortion were banned by popular decision.

I don't know where you're getting your sources, but first of all, we're not saying that Khrushchev was the man who brought the hammer down on itself, but he sure as hell didn't help raise it any higher. He was the beginning, not the end. And when it comes to the gay marriage & everything, it would've eventually become legalized. The same was taking place in Cuba, but look at it now. It's highly pro-gay marriage.

[Kléber]

we're not saying that Khrushchev was the man who brought the hammer down on itself, but he sure as hell didn't help raise it any higher
Raising the red flag all the way up into space, and into Africa and the Caribbean, isn't higher?


And when it comes to the gay marriage & everything, it would've eventually become legalized.Anal sex was already legal from 1917 to 1934.

[Robocommie]

I do actually consider the Soviet Union socialist, even though I agree with much of Kleber's criticism. In truth, for as much as people think he was the devil, Khrushchev did a lot to try and improve the socialist model, expand the economy even further. Khrushchev's agricultural expansion in Kazakhstan was a massive success, and in the end it left the Soviet Union producing per capita twice the amount of wheat as the US. The land ploughed and sowed under the Virgin Land's campaign accounted for a massive portion of Soviet grain production in the 1960s.

The tragedy of course is that the inability to more widely distribute fertilizers necessary to keep up the fertility of the land, and the lack of adequate storage silos to store the grain caused the whole program to crash and burn. But it's completely unfair to say that Khrushchev wasn't trying to expand Soviet production. It's nonsense.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I do actually consider the Soviet Union socialist, even though I agree with much of Kleber's criticism. In truth, for as much as people think he was the devil, Khrushchev did a lot to try and improve the socialist model, expand the economy even further. Khrushchev's agricultural expansion in Kazakhstan was a massive success, and in the end it left the Soviet Union producing per capita twice the amount of wheat as the US. The land ploughed and sowed under the Virgin Land's campaign accounted for a massive portion of Soviet grain production in the 1960s.

The tragedy of course is that the inability to more widely distribute fertilizers necessary to keep up the fertility of the land, and the lack of adequate storage silos to store the grain caused the whole program to crash and burn. But it's completely unfair to say that Khrushchev wasn't trying to expand Soviet production. It's nonsense.

I'm not criticizing Khrushchev through all that. I stated that Khrushchev was a nice leader, but I will criticize him based on the de-stalinization programs & his alliance with U.S. relations. Yes, he did try & help build up the Soviet Union, in which he did in certain aspects, but when it came to others, he failed miserably in my opinion.

[Robocommie]

I'm not criticizing Khrushchev through all that. I stated that Khrushchev was a nice leader, but I will criticize him based on the de-stalinization programs & his alliance with U.S. relations. Yes, he did try & help build up the Soviet Union, in which he did in certain aspects, but when it came to others, he failed miserably in my opinion.

What was it you said to me about Stalin?

But I don't get where you're coming from with this stuff about alliances with the US.

[Zanthorus]

You're going to get different answers from different schools of thought.

Leninists generally believe that some kind of "socialism" is achieved under the dictatorship of the proletariat before the final push to communism and hence they would say that the Soviet Union was at some point during it's development a socialist nation.

The problem I have with this is there is basically no precedent for it in anything Marx says. For Marx, especially later on his life, "socialism" and "communism" were bother terms used to describe the classless society in which the public power loses it's political character and "money" becomes a claim against society rather than an expression of the value-form which regulates exchange between reciprocal producers.

Some anarchists and libertarian socialists will reduce socialism to "workers control" and criticise the soviet union from that perspective.


Even if you believe in the state capitalist theory, state capitalism is miles closer to true socialism than market capitalism, and far more desirable too.

If you believe in state-capitalist theory the same law of value exists under state-capitalism along with the laws of motion of capitalist society. And state-capitalism is a general tendency within capitalist societies.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What was it you said to me about Stalin?

But I don't get where you're coming from with this stuff about alliances with the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Early_relations_and_US_visit_.28 1957.E2.80.931960.29

And what do you mean about Stalin?

[NecroCommie]

There was a class that owned means of production, so it was capitalist. The actions of this class were dictated from the state, unlike in previous states, therefor it was state capitalist.

This is not a socialist policy, but it was adopted as a lesser evil. During the civil war the bolshevik party saw that state capitalism is preferable to invasion by foreign imperialists (whose armies were knocking on the door)

[Zanthorus]

There was a class that owned means of production, so it was capitalist. The actions of this class were dictated from the state, unlike in previous states, therefor it was state capitalist.

This is not a socialist policy, but it was adopted as a lesser evil. During the civil war the bolshevik party saw that state capitalism is preferable to invasion by foreign imperialists (whose armies were knocking on the door)

So you're a Marxist-Leninist who accepts State-Capitalist theory?

[Robocommie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Early_relations_and_US_visit_.28 1957.E2.80.931960.29

There's nothing wrong with Detente. I don't know about you, but one of the things I have always hated about the US the most is the obscene amount of money we spend on our military (itself an artifact of the Cold War and the Reaganite build-up) at the cost of human development. Khrushchev recognized that they were entering an era of nuclear weapons - MAD. It wouldn't matter whether the US or the Soviets had more or less tank brigades, because the nukes would make it all moot. Likewise, in an age of nuclear weapons, saber-rattling isn't just a bad idea, it's potentially suicidal.

Similarly, you said earlier that he built up a friendship with Nixon, but your article points out that when Nixon visited, Khrushchev and he got into an impassioned argument over the merits of socialism vs. capitalism.



And what do you mean about Stalin?You told me that Stalin wasn't perfect, but he still did good things. Same goes for Nikita, though I think Khrushchev's good outweighed the bad.

[The Vegan Marxist]

[QUOTE=The Vegan Marxist;1745707]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Early_relations_and_US_visit_.28 1957.E2.80.931960.29

There's nothing wrong with Detente. I don't know about you, but one of the things I have always hated about the US the most is the obscene amount of money we spend on our military (itself an artifact of the Cold War and the Reaganite build-up) at the cost of human development. Khrushchev recognized that they were entering an era of nuclear weapons - MAD. It wouldn't matter whether the US or the Soviets had more or less tank brigades, because the nukes would make it all moot. Likewise, in an age of nuclear weapons, saber-rattling isn't just a bad idea, it's potentially suicidal.

Similarly, you said earlier that he built up a friendship with Nixon, but your article points out that when Nixon visited, Khrushchev and he got into an impassioned argument over the merits of socialism vs. capitalism.



You told me that Stalin wasn't perfect, but he still did good things. Same goes for Nikita, though I think Khrushchev's good outweighed the bad.

I find myself defeated on the U.S. relations debate. I'll give you that. And yes, I would say they both had good & bad in them. But I wouldn't say one outweighed the other.

[NecroCommie]

So you're a Marxist-Leninist who accepts State-Capitalist theory?
The fact that the USSR was state capitalist does not mean that there were better alternatives. Lenin did not use state capitalism on equally negative tone with anarchists.

But yes, Lenin himself admitted that the USSR was state capitalist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The fact that the USSR was state capitalist does not mean that there were better alternatives. Lenin did not use state capitalism on equally negative tone with anarchists.

But yes, Lenin himself admitted that the USSR was state capitalist.

When did Lenin say that the USSR was state capitalist? Sources please.

[Uppercut]

All those things were there during the Stalin era - incentives, competition, strict managerial control ("Cadres decide everything"). Worse, Stalin's regime had fused the managers into the Party and abolished Partmaximum. Khrushchev actually cut down on excessive bureaucracy and purged redundant offices.

But I see that Gosplan execs said "fuck it" once and smoked a cigarette instead of working. Gee, what wreckers.

"The chief thing now is to start a broad tide of criticism against bureaucracy in general, against shortcomings in our work in particular. Only then can we count on waging a successful struggle against bureaucracy and on rooting it out." - Stalin

"Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress. It exists in all our organizations. The trouble is that it is not a matter of the old bureaucrats, it is the new bureaucrats, bureaucrats who sympathize with the Soviet Government, and finally communist bureaucrats. The communist bureaucrat is the most dangerous type of bureaucrat. Why? Because he masks his bureaucracy with the title of Party member." - Stalin

And by the way, could you show me a source showing how bureaucratic competition was actually encouraged?


That settles it, I guess the Soviet Union really did fail because of one darned old Khrushchev.

He did not ruin socialism single-handedly. If I remember correctly, Brezhnev's economic ideas caused a larger dent in the USSR than Khrushchev did. All I'm saying is that the degeneration started with him.


So you support the illegalization of gay marriage and abortion, if "the people" are not yet ready? Besides, it is not like anal sex and abortion were banned by popular decision.

LGBT rights did not exist back then, keep in mind. I personally don't agree with the USSR's stance on homosexuality, as almost any other leftist would argue. However, Soviet society was far more conservative minded back then and the party definately had a lot of work to do. But just to be clear, if a socialist revolution were to happen in this day and age, it's certain to recognize full LGBT rights. Even Cuba is pushing for same-sex marriage, currently, thanks to Fidel's daughter.

[Spawn of Stalin]

With regards to the LGBT question I would definitely agree that the USSR was less than perfect, but so was every other country, no excuse I know, just putting it in perspective. If a new Marxist-Leninist state was established tomorrow I am sure that it would be more socially liberal when it comes to things like gay rights than just about any capitalist country.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm not a big fan of the USSR, but care to substantiate this?

er, no, I shouldn't have to.

[GPDP]

er, no, I shouldn't have to.

Uh, yes, you should, if only for the benefit of the OP.

[ContrarianLemming]

Uh, yes, you should, if only for the benefit of the OP.

Well I feel the most important part of any "socialist state" (keeping in mind I'm an anarchist) is workers control and democracy. The USSR lacked both while the western nations where ahead in terms of democracy, not by far.

[NecroCommie]

When did Lenin say that the USSR was state capitalist? Sources please.
He accepts and defends the state capitalist system of the USSR on several occations. One of which is in chapter three of this article: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
Thanks for Devrim for providing me with an english translation.

One good quote would be precisely in chapter three:

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

[Chimurenga.]

Well I feel the most important part of any "socialist state" (keeping in mind I'm an anarchist) is workers control and democracy. The USSR lacked both while the western nations where ahead in terms of democracy, not by far.

The USSR DID have worker controls. I know that they had it in auto industry and (if I remember correctly) in the aeronautics industry.

[ArrowLance]

Well I feel the most important part of any "socialist state" (keeping in mind I'm an anarchist) is workers control and democracy. The USSR lacked both while the western nations where ahead in terms of democracy, not by far.

I disagree completely. I feel that the USSR worked very hard towards socialism and democracy. I also feel that bourgeois democracy is essentially no democracy at all for the working class.

[Kléber]

stalin quotes denouncing bureaucracy
The state punished a few small fish here and there for corruption, but bureaucratic privileges steadily increased under Stalin's regime, the most notable watermark was the abolition of Partmaximum, the salary cap for party members in 1931, which allowed bourgeois specialists to enter the party.


And by the way, could you show me a source showing how bureaucratic competition was actually encouraged?Read anything about the Soviet economy not written by the Stalin Society. Exploiting workers and farmers to pay for industrialization (a peculiar form of state capitalism under the control of a workers state) was the policy of the RSFSR/USSR from the very start.

The working class ended up being subdued and overthrown by the bureaucratic apparatus it had set up to put down the petty bourgeoisie and pay for industrialization. Stalin represented the interests of the conservative bureaucracy who defeated the proletarian internationalist vanguard that had accomplished the October Revolution.


He did not ruin socialism single-handedly. If I remember correctly, Brezhnev's economic ideas caused a larger dent in the USSR than Khrushchev did. All I'm saying is that the degeneration started with him.Brezhnev's ideas? A more productive social system was reverted to a reactionary, obsolete, social system whose representative class was nonexistent by ideas?

Brezhnev abandoned the Kosygin reforms, and restored the reputation of Stalin. Funny that you hate him more?

Really one great individual did not bring down a socialist society. It never was socialist to begin with, elements of capitalist exploitation and almost feudal types of privilege persisted, and it was the social inequality within the USSR that necessitated a divergence of interests between the bureaucracy and the proletariat, and led the former to roll back the gains of 1917 and capitulate to imperialism.


LGBT rights did not exist back then, keep in mind.So, when did LGBT people get rights in your opinion? Are you implying that the abolition of the anti-sodomy law in 1917 was a mistake, because the people weren't ready, and this error was corrected by Stalin's regime in 1934?

From Women in Russia and Ukraine by Rosalind J. Marsh:

During the 1920s, the situation for Soviet homosexuals was relatively bearable and many gays and lesbians (such as Kuz'min, Kliuev and Parnok) played a major role in Soviet culture, although the opportunity for an open, philosophical and artistic debate of the theme, which had opened up at the start of the century, was gradually whittled away. On 17 December 1933, however, the government brought out a bill which became law on 7 March 1934. Accordingly, 'buggery' once more became a criminal offence and this item was inserted into the criminal codes of all the Soviet republics. According to Article 121 of the currently operative Russian Criminal Code, 'buggery' is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years and, in cases involving physical force or the threat thereof, or in relation to a minor, or exploititng the victim's dependent status, a term of up to eight years.

The people's commissar for justice, Nikolai Krylenko, announced in January 1936 that homosexuality was a product of the decadence of the exploiting classes who knew no better; in a socialist society founded on healthy principles there was no place for such people. Homoexuality was, therefore, directly 'tied in' with counter-revolution. Subsequently, Soviet lawyers and medical specialists talked of homosexuality primarily as a manifestation of 'the moral decadence of the bourgeoisie', reiterating verbatim the arguments of the Nazis (such as in the article on homosexuality in the second (1952) edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Nobody knows the exact number of victims of this inhuman law. According to calculations made by Sergei Shcherbakov, an average of a thousand men fell victim every year. The only official information on the subject was that released after peresetroika had begun: in 1987, 831 men were found gilty uner Article 121; in 1988, 800 were sentenced; in 1989, 538; in 1990, 497; in 1991, 482; and, for the first half of 1992, 227, of whom only ten were actually sentenced under 121.1 (figures fore 1991-2 are for Russia only). The victims must have been far more numerous in previous years.

Article 121 was aimed not only at homosexuals. It was frequently employed for dealing with dissidents and augmenting labour camp sentences. Application of the law was selective. If eminent cultural or political figures kept out of trouble (for example, the British spy Guy Burgess or the world-famous pianist Sviatoslav Richter), they enjoyed a kind of immunity and the authorities often turned a blind eye to their homosexual proclivities. But they only had to fall afoul of an influential bigwig for the law to move into top gear. That was what destroyed the life of the great Armenian film-maker Sergei Paradzhanov, the Leningrad archeologist Lev Klein and the chief director of the Leningrad Iunii Zritel' Theatre, Zinovii Korogodskii.

A gloomy conspiracy of siilence intensified even more the psychological tragedy of Soviet 'blues' (homosexuals): they not only feared persecution and blackmail, they could not even develop an adequate self-awareness and comprehend exactly who they were. Medicine offered little help. When in the 1970s the first sexopathological books began to come out, homosexuality was treated as a pernicious 'sexual perversion', a disease that had to be treated. The first and only, at the time, manual on sex education for teachers, by Khripkova and Kolseov, published a million copies in 1982, defined homosexuality as a dangerous pathology and 'a violation of normal principles of sexual relationships'. It went on to say that 'Homosexuality is against both normal heterosexual relationships and society's cultural, moral attainments. It therefore merits condemnation both as a social phenomenon and as a person's mental mekup and behaviour.'

When AIDS appeared in the Soviet Union, those in charge of the state epidemiological programme blamed homosexuals for being carriers of the HIV virus. Even the liberal Ogonek Published its first article on an AIDS victim (the first Soviet man known to suffer from the disease - a gay engineer who caught hte virus in Africa) in tones of unconcealed disgust and condemnation.

[chegitz guevara]

The fact that the USSR was state capitalist does not mean that there were better alternatives. Lenin did not use state capitalism on equally negative tone with anarchists.

But yes, Lenin himself admitted that the USSR was state capitalist.

Yes, but what Lenin meant by state capitalist and what modern comrades mean by state capitalist are two utterly different things.

[chegitz guevara]

Exploiting workers and farmers to pay for industrialization (a peculiar form of state capitalism under the control of a workers state) was the policy of the RSFSR/USSR from the very start.

One wonders how the Soviet state was expected to generate a surplus in order to increase production without withholding some of what the workers produced. This is why Marx wrote that in a communist society, part of the workers product will be withheld, instead of the workers getting everything. Production needs to be expanded, people unable to work need to be fed, clothed, and housed. A surplus needs to be stored, in cease of disaster. All of this requires "exploitation."

[A.R.Amistad]

The RSFSR under Lenin was a worker's state, a state that was controlled democratically by the working class and the poorer peasants through the soviet councils. Communism cannot exist where there is a state, and socialism is a form of a state. If we define socialism as the first stage of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, than yes it was a worker's state, but no it wasn't communist. We won't see a communist society for a very, very long time, but we may yet, and we have seen some, socialist ones.

[Zanthorus]

One wonders how the Soviet state was expected to generate a surplus in order to increase production without withholding some of what the workers produced. This is why Marx wrote that in a communist society, part of the workers product will be withheld, instead of the workers getting everything. Production needs to be expanded, people unable to work need to be fed, clothed, and housed. A surplus needs to be stored, in cease of disaster. All of this requires "exploitation."

The question then becomes is this surplus expropriated by the public power which has lost it's political character or the public power which stands above society and acts to contain the contradictions of the current system.


Communism cannot exist where there is a state, and socialism is a form of a state. If we define socialism as the first stage of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, than yes it was a worker's state, but no it wasn't communist.

These sentences are highly confusing. You say "if we define socialism as the first stage of communism" then it was a workers state yet at the same time it wasn't communist. How can a society be both in the lower phase of communism and not communist at all?

This just demonstrates the typical Leninist confusion on this question. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not "socialism" nor is it any of the "phases" of communism. It is the form which the state takes in the transition period between capitalism and communism/socialism (The latter two being synonymous for Marx). The "first phase of communism" comes after the dictatorship of the proletariat.


We won't see a communist society for a very, very long time, but we may yet, and we have seen some, socialist ones.

Reminds me of Paresh Chattopadhay:


...this statist socialism based on wage slavery is the exact antipode of Marx's immensely emancipatory socialism conceived as a "union of free individuals" without private ownership of either variety - individual or collective - without state, without commodity production and without wage labour, which springs naturally from the "womb" of capital itself. These avowed disciples of Marx have indeed quasi-successfully turned his human-emancipatory post-capitalist project into a pure utopia.

http://libcom.org/library/socialism-marx-early-bolshevism-chattopadhyay

[NecroCommie]

Yes, but what Lenin meant by state capitalist and what modern comrades mean by state capitalist are two utterly different things.
How so?

I am not being rhetorical here I honestly think this is worth a bit of a pondering. I see it so that the state capitalism is basically the same no matter who speaks it, but modern comrades use it as a scarecrow in order to make it sound as if state capitalism would be "equally bad" with capitalism. Where as Lenin, and I, use it as a purely descriptive term without an oppinion in the tone. Capitalist because capital still has private ownership, and state capitalist because the owners are submissive to a worker's state.

Some anarchists might be willing to help us and give us their exact definition of "state capitalism". After all I do not claim 100% accurate knowledge when it comes to anarchist vocabulary.

[NecroCommie]

One wonders how the Soviet state was expected to generate a surplus in order to increase production without withholding some of what the workers produced. This is why Marx wrote that in a communist society, part of the workers product will be withheld, instead of the workers getting everything. Production needs to be expanded, people unable to work need to be fed, clothed, and housed. A surplus needs to be stored, in cease of disaster. All of this requires "exploitation."
Indeed, it is not "exploitation" in itself that is bad, but exploitation in favour of private elite in our society. If the surplus value is completely aimed at upkeeping and upgrading the entire society, I cannot see what is the problem in that.

The same applies to wage slavery. We cannot claim that the workers are free to not work in communism. We can only say that their mandatory work is used for the entire community instead of sustaining parasitic elite.

[robbo203]

There is no way capitalist countries were closer to socialism than the USSR, I personally firmly believe that the USSR was socialist, some people say it wasn't, and I'm willing to accept that, but to say that the USSR was further than capitalist countries is a bold and absurd claim, it desperately needs backing up with some hard facts. Even if you believe in the state capitalist theory, state capitalism is miles closer to true socialism than market capitalism, and far more desirable too.

I think not. I suspect state capitalism is more appropriate to a developing capitalist economy and the trajectory of capitalist devlopment, historically speaking, definitely shows a trend away from state capitalism and towards transnational corporatism. The wave of privatisations in the last few decades prepared the way for this and nationalisations will in future play an increasingly marginal role in most economies.

As a revolutuonary socialist too I seriously question that state capitalism can be said to be more advantageous or less disadvantageous than other forms of capitalism. Like Engels said the more the state takes over the means of production, the more does it become the "national capitalist" and the more workers does it exploit . The concentration of power in the hands of a state capitalist class as happened in the SU is concerning. Little wonder the state was able to crush working class resistance with relative ease. In one way, a bit of overt competition within the ranks of the capitalist class is no bad thing for us workers

But of course this is no an excuse to favour one form of capitalism over another. All forms must be decisively rejected

[Uppercut]

I suspect state capitalism is more appropriate to a developing capitalist economy and the trajectory of capitalist devlopment, historically speaking, definitely shows a trend away from state capitalism and towards transnational corporatism.

Almost every nation takes part in transnational corporatism, whether they were socialist (state capitalist) in the past or not.