Questions about the Soviet Union and other stuff

[superborys]

Ok, so I have a few questions that I'll ask in this thread, a few of them being about the Soviet Union, and a few just general questions.

1. When, if ever, did the Soviet Union actually act in the favor of workers? As far as I know when Lenin 'temporarily' put a ban to a big part of the democratic process in the Soviet Union and formalized the soviets and the in-between forces and made them a police-force that just terrorized the country. Did the Soviet Union ever act in the real favor of the workers?

2. Even though people know this, some still say that the Soviet Union was pro-worker. How can this be if they actively oppressed the rights of the worker? Could someone explain this to me?

3. What are some ways to counter it when people accuse communism of being a utopia? It seems to be a prevalent argument here where I live, and instead of a huge convoluted argument explaining all of the intricacies of it and why it would work, I would rather have some quick way to dismiss that, because it's quite frankly difficult to dislodge from someone's mind.

4. Were the people in the Soviet Union generally poor? That's the perception that's widely diffused into the media, but were the people really that poor? I know from reading Crime and Punishment that during Tsarist reign some people were horrifyingly poor (such as Raskolnikov), but how can this be if the populace was so poor?

5. What was the standard of living like in Russia? During the early times of computers, did people have them?

6. People NEVER focus on the luxuries that people enjoy while in the Soviet Union, is that because there weren't any to be had? People, especially East Germans that I talk to, always talk about how there weren't any designer clothes, there weren't any consumer goods. You wore low-grade clothing and drove awfully-made cars (i.e. the Trabant). How was the daily-life system in the USSR run? I'm trying to bring the people in my community over to communism, and I can usually explain theory, and they agree, but object to practice. Now, even as bad as it was, some people say that the USSR wasn't all bad, that it was the 'correct implementation of communism, and Stalin did it right', which I whole-heartedly disagree with. In my opinion it was authoritarian and repressive, but were the people taken care of?



This next question, or rather a series of statements and questions, is a little difficult to explain, so I'll go ahead and do it in paragraph-form.

As you all know, council communists such as myself believe that society should almost be anarchist in style, with each community deciding things for itself, and then the whole system being federated up to the top. How is it to be decided when town-laws overrule national laws? How is this decided? Are there certain types of laws that can only be passed at certain levels? I know corruption and elitism can be avoided simply by election limits, and I understand that if a city votes its rep to the regional, and the regional votes one of their guys to zone, and zone votes guys to top-level (i.e. national), what laws are they deciding up there? If each council from the top-down passes laws that apply to each zone and only that zone, who could stop the national council from passing laws that invalidate the town laws, or the regional laws? In a communist society, who continues the work that is done now by people for profit that's entirely entertainment-based, like making professional movies, or designing video games? Who continues this? Is it just assumed that people will continue doing what they're doing now, and society will progress as normal? Back to my tendency statement, I know that council communism can seem impossible due to the lack of centralization and cohesiveness of the government, so what are some other options? If we have a series of committees that deliberates on things, and then a president to lead the nation, how could we avoid the things from happening that happen today? Could we require a popular vote on laws for them to pass? In a communism, what exactly defines the difference between a representative government and a participatory government?

Thanks, and sorry for the long question, I just want an answer so I'm better equipped to combat idiots that won't let me speak to them. Utopia, failed states, and governments seem to be the focus point of these idiots' fantasies.

[Kléber]

There was a luxury economy for the bureaucracy. Special stores, restaurants, even a lane on large streets, were only accessible to Party members of a certain rank, who got paid much more than ordinary workers. Information about privileges and salaries of officials was kept secret from the people, but there were ruble millionaires by 1945.

This book was written precisely to answer many of the questions you ask:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

[ContrarianLemming]

1. When, if ever, did the Soviet Union actually act in the favor of workers? As far as I know when Lenin 'temporarily' put a ban to a big part of the democratic process in the Soviet Union and formalized the soviets and the in-between forces and made them a police-force that just terrorized the country. Did the Soviet Union ever act in the real favor of the workers?No, The workers councils survived for there short time in spite of lenin


2. Even though people know this, some still say that the Soviet Union was pro-worker. How can this be if they actively oppressed the rights of the worker? Could someone explain this to me?Denial and Sovietphilia.


3. What are some ways to counter it when people accuse communism of being a utopia? It seems to be a prevalent argument here where I live, and instead of a huge convoluted argument explaining all of the intricacies of it and why it would work, I would rather have some quick way to dismiss that, because it's quite frankly difficult to dislodge from someone's mind.It's not really possible to argue against it with as quick a line as there argument, you must ask them why they think this and argue against each of there points. It ain;t easy, theres no quick fix.


4. Were the people in the Soviet Union generally poor? That's the perception that's widely diffused into the media, but were the people really that poor? I know from reading Crime and Punishment that during Tsarist reign some people were horrifyingly poor (such as Raskolnikov), but how can this be if the populace was so poor?Compared to us, yes, of course they were mostly poor, compared to countries at Russia's level of development, I'd say they were more prosperious then most, the Soviets centrally planned economy was more succesful then any of the other third/second world market economies.




5. What was the standard of living like in Russia? During the early times of computers, did people have them?Can't answer, can't answer 6 either.


As you all know, council communists such as myself believe that society should almost be anarchist in style, with each community deciding things for itself, and then the whole system being federated up to the top.That is anarchism
To be frank, council communism and anarchism, in practice, are idenetical, they just have some different philosophical theories and a different class analysis.


How is it to be decided when town-laws overrule national laws? How is this decided? Are there certain types of laws that can only be passed at certain levels? I know corruption and elitism can be avoided simply by election limits, and I understand that if a city votes its rep to the regional, and the regional votes one of their guys to zone, and zone votes guys to top-level (i.e. national), what laws are they deciding up there? If each council from the top-down passes laws that apply to each zone and only that zone, who could stop the national council from passing laws that invalidate the town laws, or the regional laws? In a communist society, who continues the work that is done now by people for profit that's entirely entertainment-based, like making professional movies, or designing video games? Who continues this? Is it just assumed that people will continue doing what they're doing now, and society will progress as normal? Back to my tendency statement, I know that council communism can seem impossible due to the lack of centralization and cohesiveness of the government, so what are some other options? If we have a series of committees that deliberates on things, and then a president to lead the nation, how could we avoid the things from happening that happen today? Could we require a popular vote on laws for them to pass? In a communism, what exactly defines the difference between a representative government and a participatory government? first i should say that this is hard to answer, not because of the questions, but how you phrase it in one paraghraph. There are about 7 or 8 questionsh ere, so it;s hard to look through this and I;m not sure where to begin! Keep that in mind when asking questions :)

Your general question is on laws and who gets priority.
The way I see it, the national level has very few common laws, basically the "golden rule" laws, like don't kill, be democratic, workers control, don't steal, don't rape etc.
Then eveything else is decided locally. If the law effects the region, the region decides, if the law is minor then only the local commune decides.
Also the importance of the law decides how it is decided upon, very important laws like "don't kill" would need almost complete national consensus, while a very minor law like "don't park in a handicap space if you're not handicaped" would only need a 50% + majority on the local level.


In a communist society, who continues the work that is done now by people for profit that's entirely entertainment-based, like making professional movies, or designing video games? Who continues this? Is it just assumed that people will continue doing what they're doing now, and society will progress as normal? jobs like this would continue, but there pay would be decided democratically in whatever way is most efficiant and fair. Things wouldn't just progress as it did, peoples jobs would be fundamentally changed, they would be democratic, there pay would be fair, no boss, no master.


I know that council communism can seem impossible due to the lack of centralization and cohesiveness of the government, so what are some other options? If we have a series of committees that deliberates on things, and then a president to lead the nation, how could we avoid the things from happening that happen today? It doesn't seem impossible to me at all, it seems very stable, far more then any state, and you are also implying that centralization means more efficiancy and coordination. This is a captialist lie (and it's disturbingly common among Leninists), in fact I find the opposite is true, people work better when decentralized, in fact, centralization is very inefficiant. We don't need other options, it's not that we should live in anarchy, it that we must


In a communism, what exactly defines the difference between a representative government and a participatory government?

representitive government would be like modern states, a participatory governmenti s a form of direct democracy, where there are no representitives, only delegates

[thälmann]

they were ruble millionaires by 1945? very interesting...i think this should be proved...

[Proletarian Ultra]

1. When, if ever, did the Soviet Union actually act in the favor of workers? As far as I know when Lenin 'temporarily' put a ban to a big part of the democratic process in the Soviet Union and formalized the soviets and the in-between forces and made them a police-force that just terrorized the country. Did the Soviet Union ever act in the real favor of the workers?

Actually in favor? Depends on what you mean. The USSR never achieved the kind of emancipatory autonomy at the point of production that socialism promises (though China managed to do it for a while during the Cultural Revolution.) That should concern us, because as Marxists we know that every class question is a political question, so political emancipation is not something we can dismiss in favor of economistic benefits.

But, in terms of economistic benefits, quite a lot. Soviet workers had a very large amount of non-wage benefits - long vacations, free medical care, free education through the postgraduate level, comically low rent every state company had a recreational fund administered by the union, etc. And Soviet workers didn't work as hard; labor productivity was extremely low; low enough that differences in fixed capital investment couldn't explain it all; might be one reason why the East Bloc collapsed. The joke in East Germany, for example, was you couldn't say a word about the party authorities, even in secret, but you could tell your boss to go fuck himself, to his face, any time you wanted. That was an exaggeration, but it had more than a little truth about it.

Many Russians were pissed off after Communism fell when they discovered you couldn't take off the middle of the day to go shopping any more.


4. Were the people in the Soviet Union generally poor? That's the perception that's widely diffused into the media, but were the people really that poor? I know from reading Crime and Punishment that during Tsarist reign some people were horrifyingly poor (such as Raskolnikov), but how can this be if the populace was so poor?

Soviet economic growth began to stagnate in the 60's and 70's. It stagnated in the West, too, but not as badly. Before that point the USSR had made enormous leaps in terms of standard of living (granted, with a dip in the 1930's, though due to forced industrialization rather than the Depression); but when economic growth stagnated, a gap really opened up between Russia and the West.

Even still, there was basically zero unemployment. So while the general standard of living was rising little or not at all, you didn't have lots of junkies or beggars in the streets, as you do when the economy goes south under capitalism.

And after the end of the USSR, you had the biggest drop in standard of living that the world has ever seen. But people don't talk about that here.


5. What was the standard of living like in Russia? During the early times of computers, did people have them?

No. The USSR sucked at computers. Stalin thought cybernetics was bourgeois, for whatever reason. But even after he was off the scene, there was a huge problem getting the industrial bureaucracy to adopt new technology. One Soviet study in the '70s found that although the machine tools in Soviet factories were newer, on average, than machine tools in US factories, the Soviet tools were of much older design. So even moving the state of lathe or die press technology was a problem under Kruschev and Brezhnev; forget about computers.

[thälmann]

lots of people here in eastern germany too couldnt believe their eyes how bad live in capitalism could be.( lots areas there have unemloyment of 20 or more percent, also for educated workers and so on). Freedom appeared their aof course, especially for fascists groups.thats a problem until today for comrades in eastern germany...

to computers: it was not normal n the western countrysin the 80s or 70s to own a Personal computer, this comes up in the 90s. so of course people in the USSR didnt have them. But they existed in ecomomy and military.

Stalin thought cybernetics is bourgois? hmm, strange, in other cases he was a real fan of modern technollogy and science

[CommunistRus]

Some remarks about Stalin: he learned 20 000 books, write poetry.

[Kléber]

they were ruble millionaires by 1945? very interesting...i think this should be proved...
That comes from a Stalinist pamphlet, "Soviet Millionaires" by Reginald Bishop which bragged about them as proof of economic prosperity.

[AK]

That is anarchism
To be frank, council communism and anarchism, in practice, are idenetical, they just have some different philosophical theories and a different class analysis.
I never saw much of a difference between the two myself.


jobs like this would continue, but there pay would be decided democratically in whatever way is most efficiant and fair. Things wouldn't just progress as it did, peoples jobs would be fundamentally changed, they would be democratic, there pay would be fair, no boss, no master.
Pay? Pay!? What pay? Abolish the monetary system. Abolish wage labour.


Some remarks about Stalin: he learned 20 000 books, write poetry.
What's your point... Is there actually any relevance in this to the topic at hand?

[StoneFrog]

That is anarchism
To be frank, council communism and anarchism, in practice, are idenetical, they just have some different philosophical theories and a different class analysis.



One of the main differences between Anarchism and Council Communism is unions, while anarchists commonly support Unions Council Commies don't. Some Council Commies will partake in a party as well, while Anarchists don't. But yeah Anarchism and Council Communism do support a lot of the same things.

[AK]

One of the main differences between Anarchism and Council Communism is unions, while anarchists commonly support Unions Council Commies don't. Some Council Commies will partake in a party as well, while Anarchists don't. But yeah Anarchism and Council Communism do support a lot of the same things.
Didn't alot of councilists question the role of the party after the demise of the KAPD?

[Zanthorus]

Pay? Pay!? What pay? Abolish the monetary system. Abolish wage labour.

And replace it with a system of labour time accounting :)

[AK]

And replace it with a system of labour time accounting :)
These would be your magical "labour credits (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch13.html)", would they not?

[Zanthorus]

These would be your magical "labour credits (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch13.html)", would they not?

I've had that Kropotkin piece thrown at me a hundred times before. It's fucking terrible. I reccomend you actually read something by people who advocate labour-time accounting.

[AK]

I've had that Kropotkin piece thrown at me a hundred times before. It's fucking terrible. I reccomend you actually read something by people who advocate labour-time accounting.
If I recall correctly, I got it from you.

[Boboulas]

Any suggest reading on labour-time accounting zanthorus?

[robbo203]

they were ruble millionaires by 1945? very interesting...i think this should be proved...


One source that is often quoted is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of "economic success". Also, it has to be remembered that much of the benefits accruing to members of the Soviet ruling class were "in kind" - perks such as dachas, limos, and etc - apart from monetary income and as for monetary income the practice of "multiple salaries" was widespread

[Zanthorus]

If I recall correctly, I got it from you.

Oh god you're right.

My original intention in posting that piece was to play devil's advocate since if I'd posted "Anarcho-Communists are all moralistic idiots who advocated the abolition of "wage-labour" for no good reason" I'd have to deal with a swarm of AC's :D

[Zanthorus]

Any suggest reading on labour-time accounting zanthorus?

This article from the Marxist-Humanist initiative exploring Marx's critique of Proudhon goes into the difference between Proudhon's "labour money" and Marx's "labour certificate's" near the end:

http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/04/15/marx-proudhon-and-alternatives-to-capital/

Cockshott and Cottrell's paper on the economic calculation debate also goes into this in section 4.1:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debate.pdf

[AK]

Cockshott
Is it wrong to laugh at his name?

[Zanthorus]

Probably since he actually posts on this board.

[AK]

Probably since he actually posts on this board.
:/

Sorry, this guy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17298).

[revolution inaction]

And replace it with a system of labour time accounting :)

whats the difference?

[thälmann]

can somebody give me a link or somethink to this book "soviet millionaire" from reg bishop? i cant find anythink in the web about it...

[Barry Lyndon]

And after the end of the USSR, you had the biggest drop in standard of living that the world has ever seen. But people don't talk about that here.

This is very important. It is estimated that in the five years following the USSR's collapse, the average life expectancy in Russia dropped 10 years, from 68 to 58 years. This was in large part due to the collapse of the socialist health care system, as well as the skyrocketing suicides, drug use and alcoholism that accompanied the unemployment caused by capitalist reforms, since having a job was no longer considered a right anymore. This was reflected by population loss of 6 million people(not due to emigration, these were actual deaths), the largest such loss Russia suffered since World War II. And this was in peacetime! Russia still suffers more deaths then births for the same reasons, although not at the rate of the 1990's.

To me, possibly the most horrific effect of the loss in living standards in the former Soviet Union is the emergence of an army of street children. It is estimated that in Russia today there are about 1-2 million orphans living on the streets or in sewers. Most are drug addicts, and many turn to prostitution to survive. In the Soviet Union, these children would have had somewhere to sleep, somewhere to eat and to go to school, but in today's 'free-market' Russia they are left to survive or die on their own.

[StoneFrog]

Didn't alot of councilists question the role of the party after the demise of the KAPD?

Yes but some still wanted it, i think some even wanted a vanguard..

[Paul Cockshott]

This is very important. It is estimated that in the five years following the USSR's collapse, the average life expectancy in Russia dropped 10 years, from 68 to 58 years. This was in large part due to the collapse of the socialist health care system, as well as the skyrocketing suicides, drug use and alcoholism that accompanied the unemployment caused by capitalist reforms, since having a job was no longer considered a right anymore. This was reflected by population loss of 6 million people(not due to emigration, these were actual deaths), the largest such loss Russia suffered since World War II. And this was in peacetime! Russia still suffers more deaths then births for the same reasons, although not at the rate of the 1990's.

To me, possibly the most horrific effect of the loss in living standards in the former Soviet Union is the emergence of an army of street children. It is estimated that in Russia today there are about 1-2 million orphans living on the streets or in sewers. Most are drug addicts, and many turn to prostitution to survive. In the Soviet Union, these children would have had somewhere to sleep, somewhere to eat and to go to school, but in today's 'free-market' Russia they are left to survive or die on their own.

That is a conservative estimate of deaths
See my estimate of 7.7 million additional deaths in
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/berlin.ppt

The underlying cause was also the terrible decline in economic output once planning was abolished.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pugAklByimc/SibZG11d8zI/AAAAAAAACXY/Y0NqATVzrp8/s400/russia.JPG

[Zanthorus]

whats the difference?

Compared to the monetary system labour credits would not be exchangeable for means of production or be able to be accumulated and turned into capital of any sort. They would also be based on social property and a planned economy rather than reciprocal producers exchanging their products in a market economy. As such the system of labour-time accounts would be used to allocate resources rather than the verrückt (crazy) allocation method of the market system.

It would differ from wage-labour because you would get out exactly what you got in. Your labour would be directly social instead of private labour which only became social through the market.

[revolution inaction]

Compared to the monetary system labour credits would not be exchangeable for means of production or be able to be accumulated and turned into capital of any sort. They would also be based on social property and a planned economy rather than reciprocal producers exchanging their products in a market economy. As such the system of labour-time accounts would be used to allocate resources rather than the verrückt (crazy) allocation method of the market system.

It would differ from wage-labour because you would get out exactly what you got in. Your labour would be directly social instead of private labour which only became social through the market.
i don't see how this makes it not wage labour, you are still working for a wage which you need to live on, and i don't see how this would make your labour social, because you would the same separation from your work resulting from only doing in for the money that any other worker has.
there would still be the incentive for people to be lazy and avoid working, becasue if they get there work do faster they get paid less.

[Zanthorus]

i don't see how this makes it not wage labour, you are still working for a wage which you need to live on,

A "wage" as commonly understood in socialist economics circles is the money the capitalist pays to the worker in return for the use of his labour-power. This is the kind of "wage-labour" which practically every socialist has tried to abolish. If we're talking about abolishing "wages" as in renumeration for work done then I'm sorry but I don't understand why that needs to be done. I don't think it would be very desirable to be honest.


and i don't see how this would make your labour social, because you would the same separation from your work resulting from only doing in for the money that any other worker has.

How does "doing it for the money" seperate you from your work? What seperates you from your work is the fact that your work is performed according to the needs of capital. You work in order to try and enrich yourself but what you are really doing is enriching capital and the growth of capital further impoverishes you. Now in a communist economy you would work to enrich yourself and your community instead of the parasitic capitalist, therefore the seperation which exists under capitalism would cease.

[mikelepore]

2. Even though people know this, some still say that the Soviet Union was pro-worker. How can this be if they actively oppressed the rights of the worker? Could someone explain this to me?

For more information about that, see the definition in the dictionary for the word "hypocrisy."

[ZeroNowhere]

i don't see how this makes it not wage labour, you are still working for a wage which you need to live onBecause labour-power is not a commodity.


and i don't see how this would make your labour social, because you would the same separation from your work resulting from only doing in for the money that any other worker has.Firstly, there is no money. Secondly, labour-time is apportioned in accordance with a definite social plan. The fact that people receive tokens permitting them to withdraw an amount corresponding to their labour time from the social consumption stock does not mean that labour ceases to be directly social.

[Paul Cockshott]

i don't see how this makes it not wage labour, you are still working for a wage which you need to live on, and i don't see how this would make your labour social, because you would the same separation from your work resulting from only doing in for the money that any other worker has.
there would still be the incentive for people to be lazy and avoid working, becasue if they get there work do faster they get paid less.

The difference would be that the marginal rate would be one hours tokens for one hours work, entitling you to goods made with 1 hour