A question about Socialism why did the Soviet Union need to nationalize the means of

[tradeunionsupporter]

A question about Socialism why did the Soviet Union need to nationalize the means of production ? I thought the Workers owned the means of production in the Soviet Union and under Socialism not State Ownership am I confused to why the State needs to nationalize the means of production ?


Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Manifesto
of the Communist Party

1848

II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone have an answer to why the State needs to nationalize the means of production ?

[scarletghoul]

Because its a workers' state, the workers control the means of production via state ownership. This means their control is more strong and consolidated than if you tried to have workers control without a state. If you just had the workers directly controlling their workplaces seperately, the economy would be discoordinated and they may even start competing, so it's better to have the working class collectively control the whole means of production via a workers' state.

How this works in practice is debatable and requires more detail, but I'm just explaining the basic theory to you.

[Hiero]

Also the concept of the Marxist state is that it is a a coercive arm of the ruling class. The state is dependent on classes.

[¿Que?]

Also the concept of the Marxist state is that it is a a coercive arm of the ruling class. The state is dependent on classes.
So basically, this "worker's state" is a state mostly because within socialism there still exist proletariat and bourgeoisie except that the proletariat are "the ruling class" now, and that as classes disappear, so does the state on account that it's no longer necessary. Correct?

[Sturzo]

Can anyone give some detailed historical reasons rather than Marxist theory?

I was under the impression that the original plan was to allow industry to be run by the Soviets directly, but due to internal as well external pressures such as peasant revolts, partial economic chaos, the White counter-revolution, and the immense pressure being put on the Soviet state that the Bolsheviks felt obliged to nationalize and centralize in order to simply survive.

[Outinleftfield]

Because its a workers' state, the workers control the means of production via state ownership. This means their control is more strong and consolidated than if you tried to have workers control without a state. If you just had the workers directly controlling their workplaces seperately, the economy would be discoordinated and they may even start competing, so it's better to have the working class collectively control the whole means of production via a workers' state.

How this works in practice is debatable and requires more detail, but I'm just explaining the basic theory to you.

We can already see in capitalism that without sufficient anti-trust laws the economy gravitates towards monopolies and collusion practices such as price fixing. Given the option capitalist owners of the means of production prefer cooperation with each other to competition, since by cooperating they can maximize their interests. They already collude as much as they can by lobbying the government and this has whittled away much enforcement of anti-trust laws. Considering this wouldn't it also make sense that workers would, left to their own devices choose to federate together in order to coordinate production according to their interests?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is it good to nationalize the means of production to prevent competition am I right ? Also why would the economy be discoordinated without state ownership of the means of production ?

[Queercommie Girl]

Can anyone give some detailed historical reasons rather than Marxist theory?

I was under the impression that the original plan was to allow industry to be run by the Soviets directly, but due to internal as well external pressures such as peasant revolts, partial economic chaos, the White counter-revolution, and the immense pressure being put on the Soviet state that the Bolsheviks felt obliged to nationalize and centralize in order to simply survive.

Well it's not all innocent like that. There is also the fact that some top bureaucrats wanted to steal political power from the people. Of course, the objective situation greatly facilitated their actions, but fundamentally the subjective desire was already apparent. The Soviet Union was not just a victim of objective circumstances, it was literally sabotaged from within.

There is no socialism without worker's democracy. It is true that in principle in certain objective situations an "ideal form" of worker's democracy is rather difficult to maintain, and for instance in a large-scale war situation the centralisation aspect of the proletarian state would need to be reinforced more. But historically that was certainly not the only factor when considering the gradual structural deformation of the Soviet Union. The structural deformation in the USSR and later in China continued all the way to when the USSR formally collapsed in 1991 and in China's case, even today as we speak. (Technically China today's is still a "worker's state", even though in many ways Chinese workers now have less actual rights than workers in the capitalist USA)

[RGacky3]

Is it good to nationalize the means of production to prevent competition am I right ? Also why would the economy be discoordinated without state ownership of the means of production ?

It has nothing to do with preventing competition, it has to do with democratically controlling the economy rather than it being controlled by the rich.

[Baseball]

Is it good to nationalize the means of production to prevent competition am I right ? Also why would the economy be discoordinated without state ownership of the means of production ?

It wouldn't be-- but it would be along the lines of a market, capitalist economy which is an obvious failure for a socialist community.

[Baseball]

.There is no socialism without worker's democracy. It is true that in principle in certain objective situations an "ideal form" of worker's democracy is rather difficult to maintain, and for instance in a large-scale war situation the centralisation aspect of the proletarian state would need to be reinforced more. But historically that was certainly not the only factor when considering the gradual structural deformation of the Soviet Union. The structural deformation in the USSR and later in China continued all the way to when the USSR formally collapsed in 1991 and in China's case, even today as we speak. (Technically China today's is still a "worker's state", even though in many ways Chinese workers now have less actual rights than workers in the capitalist USA)

Then to what extent should the gradual "deformation" of the USSR and China should be considered a failure of socialism as a theory, as opposed to a failure of individual socialists?

[Bud Struggle]

Then to what extent should the gradual "deformation" of the USSR and China should be considered a failure of socialism as a theory, as opposed to a failure of individual socialists?

And that's the BIG question of what Communism (and OI) is all about.

The Communists say: "Just one, just ONE more try and we're gunna get it right! Really. No kidding. Wait and see!"

And the Cappies say: "Fifty eight Revolutions and all we get for it is this RevLeft website and a lousy Che Tee shirt."

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question is if you don't mind me asking why is it necessary to nationalize the means of production ? Why not just make laws where the rich must give up the means of production give it to the workers without state or government ownership ?

[Bud Struggle]

My question is if you don't mind me asking why is it necessary to nationalize the means of production ? Why not just make laws where the rich must give up the means of production give it to the workers without state or government ownership ?

The problem is the in reality Communist don't "nationalize" anything since under Communism there won't be any nations.

The people will take control directly--no state or nation or owner or king or president or manager need apply.

[#FF0000]

My question is if you don't mind me asking why is it necessary to nationalize the means of production ? Why not just make laws where the rich must give up the means of production give it to the workers without state or government ownership ?

In the USSR, the state was supposed to be the conduit through which workers exercised their power. How effective the Soviet state was in this capacity is debatable.

[Queercommie Girl]

It has nothing to do with preventing competition, it has to do with democratically controlling the economy rather than it being controlled by the rich.

Actually if you read what Marx said he did explicitly say that socialism would put to end to the kind of "anarchic" free market competition that we see under capitalism. He meant "competition" in the capitalist economic sense, not all "competition" of course.

[Queercommie Girl]

My question is if you don't mind me asking why is it necessary to nationalize the means of production ? Why not just make laws where the rich must give up the means of production give it to the workers without state or government ownership ?

What is the "state"?

A worker's state is just a political organ to execute workers' democratic collective power at the largest scales.

A worker's state is not the same as a capitalist state.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then to what extent should the gradual "deformation" of the USSR and China should be considered a failure of socialism as a theory, as opposed to a failure of individual socialists?

There are both contingent and fundamental reasons for the deformation of former communist countries, in what proportions are hard to judge.

Socialism is an on-going process. Theories don't become perfected and then become set in stone forever. They constantly evolve with time. As the Trotskyist Tony Cliff once said: "If Marxism doesn't move forward then it's dead."

[Queercommie Girl]

And that's the BIG question of what Communism (and OI) is all about.

The Communists say: "Just one, just ONE more try and we're gunna get it right! Really. No kidding. Wait and see!"

And the Cappies say: "Fifty eight Revolutions and all we get for it is this RevLeft website and a lousy Che Tee shirt."

But that's not a fair judgement. To be sure, a global socialist state in the genuine sense has yet to come about, and probably will not come about for quite some time, but we can already see the fruits of socialist and leftist movements, both revolutionary and reformist, that happened in the past. If it wasn't for the leftist and socialist movements of the past, there would be no independent trade unions, no universal suffrage, no women's rights, no racial and ethnic minorities' rights, no LGBT rights, no social welfare, not even freedom of speech.

A socialist revolution is not an one-off event, you either make it or you don't. It's a constant and continuous process.

[RGacky3]

Why not just make laws where the rich must give up the means of production give it to the workers without state or government ownership ?

That has happened in some cases.

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question is why is it good to nationalize the means of production ?

[RGacky3]

because its more succeptable to democratic control, thats the answer.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

The main reason for collectivising the means of production has been set out many times, with complex reasons for why it is a good idea.

Titoism involved not collectivising the means of production but regulating it so "worker self-management" existed. That is a practical example of 'socialism' in action, one that didn't collectivise the means of production and.. in my opinion, one that failed.

One of the main reasons why collectivisation is absolutely essential, is for abolishing the wage system. How can you abolish wages, remove exchange and produce for human need if you have companies running everything in competition? It wouldn't work.

It goes beyond being economic, we are aiming to fundamentally change the way humans interact with one another, collectivisation takes place at production and consumption levels too, in various and complex ways.