A question about Socialism in the Soviet Union

[tradeunionsupporter]

A question about Socialism in the Soviet Union could anyone join the Communist Party what I mean is was the Communist Party in the Soviet Union open to a small elite or could most of the people join ? Also was the Communist Party Democatic meaning did the members vote on issues ? My final question is since the Soviet State or Soviet Government owned the Means of Production and the Communist Party was in control or run by the people does that mean that the people ran the Means of Production ?

[Kayser_Soso]

A question about Socialism in the Soviet Union could anyone join the Communist Party what I mean is was the Communist Party in the Soviet Union open to a small elite or could most of the people join ? Also was the Communist Party Democatic meaning did the members vote on issues ? My final question is since the Soviet State or Soviet Government owned the Means of Production and the Communist Party was in control or run by the people does that mean that the people ran the Means of Production ?


The procedure of joining various Communist parties and what members would do varied depending on the country. Personally I think the USSR was too open about who could join the party, as they let in way too many people from 1917, which caused a serious crisis. I remember that the Vietnamese Communist party required someone to have two sponsors so to speak- people who could vouch for you. Albania required party members to do productive work, and if they were in a government position they were required to do a certain amount of productive work within the year. China invited and allowed members of the national bourgeoisie in the party, and look where that went.

Party members voted on various things at different levels. If we speak about the USSR, part of the problem is that rather than power shifting to the democratic Supreme Soviet(where candidates were voted on by all via secret ballot, and did not have to be party members) as Stalin envisioned- actual power remained in the Central Committee, which was elected by the Party Congress, which did not meet so frequently and consisted only of party members. Oh well, live and learn.

[Bud Struggle]

But to answer the OPs question--the Party was open to an elite membership, though not all that small. An average worker had very little change of getting into the CP. There were some members in every large factory or workplace but they were more or less picked from above.

The Party members got to shop in special stores (you could see them about Moscow before the fall) and had other privledges that the average Comrade didn' have.

[RGacky3]

It was different at different times.

[Bud Struggle]

It was different at different times.

That is no doubt true. Stalin did thin the Party out a bit with the purges. My post above is about when I saw the SU in the 80s.

[Kayser_Soso]

But to answer the OPs question--the Party was open to an elite membership, though not all that small. An average worker had very little change of getting into the CP. There were some members in every large factory or workplace but they were more or less picked from above.

The Party members got to shop in special stores (you could see them about Moscow before the fall) and had other privledges that the average Comrade didn' have.

Oh but Bud, those party members were more intelligent, talented, and worked harder than the "average worker". That's why they succeeded!!!

[RGacky3]

Oh but Bud, those party members were more intelligent, talented, and worked harder than the "average worker". That's why they succeeded!!!

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA, DAMN Bud, he got you.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh but Bud, those party members were more intelligent, talented, and worked harder than the "average worker". That's why they succeeded!!!

No they were like kids of CEOs--well connected.

Got him back. :D

[Kayser_Soso]

No they were like kids of CEOs--well connected.

Got him back. :D

Oh but they work real hard too, and they save!!!

[RGacky3]

No they were like kids of CEOs--well connected.

Only some of them.

[Bud Struggle]

Only some of them.

Just like Capitalists! Soe get it from their daddies and some make it on their own. If you look at in that respect--the Soviet Union wasn't really a country at all. It was one big corporation.

The Soviet Union was Exxon writ large.

[RGacky3]

EXACTLY :)

Just like Capitalism is almost an exact parrallel of feaudalism, Corporations are almost an exact parrallel of the USSR, hell even the "democracy" in them was the same. I could go on and on about the parallels between the USSR and a large corporation, socialism my ass.

[Kayser_Soso]

EXACTLY :)

Just like Capitalism is almost an exact parrallel of feaudalism, Corporations are almost an exact parrallel of the USSR, hell even the "democracy" in them was the same. I could go on and on about the parallels between the USSR and a large corporation, socialism my ass.

Tables have four legs, cows have four legs, ergo tables are cows. See the problem with finding "parallels."

[AK]

Tables have four legs, cows have four legs, ergo tables are cows. See the problem with finding "parallels."
Parallel does not mean "the exact same bloody thing".

[M-26-7]

That is no doubt true. Stalin did thin the Party out a bit with the purges. My post above is about when I saw the SU in the 80s.

Actually, Stalin originally opened it up to a much wider membership, relaxing the original standards which a potential party member would have to meet to join. Isaac Deutscher (a very strong Trotsky sympathizer) portrays this as a cynical move by the Triumvirate to outmaneuver Trotsky. I'm not familiar with other (non-Trotskyist) perspectives on it.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the CPSU:


In 1918 it had a membership of approximately 200,000. In the late 1920s under Stalin, the party engaged in a heavy recruitment campaign (the "Lenin Levy") of new members from both the working class and rural areas. This was both an attempt to "proletarianize" the party and an attempt by Stalin to strengthen his base by outnumbering the Old Bolsheviks and reducing their influence in the party.

By 1933, the party had approximately 3.5 million members

True, the purges did reduce this number of 3.5 million to about half in the late 1930s. But before he purged it, Stalin inflated it to an incredible degree, and in the end it was still many times larger than it had been under Lenin, when it had been less of a massive careerist bureaucracy and more of an elite vanguard of Communists.

Bear in mind that, as an anarchist, I see this kind of degeneration of the "vanguard" as inevitable, I'm just portraying the situation from a certain perspective for the sake of discussion.

[Jazzratt]

Tables have four legs, cows have four legs, ergo tables are cows. See the problem with finding "parallels." Both are useless, though, if you're looking for something spherical. Sure some parallels made are entirely spurious, but I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that there was no parallel in the complete lack of any real working class control of the means of production.

[danyboy27]

The procedure of joining various Communist parties and what members would do varied depending on the country. Personally I think the USSR was too open about who could join the party, as they let in way too many people from 1917, which caused a serious crisis. I remember that the Vietnamese Communist party required someone to have two sponsors so to speak- people who could vouch for you. Albania required party members to do productive work, and if they were in a government position they were required to do a certain amount of productive work within the year. China invited and allowed members of the national bourgeoisie in the party, and look where that went.

Party members voted on various things at different levels. If we speak about the USSR, part of the problem is that rather than power shifting to the democratic Supreme Soviet(where candidates were voted on by all via secret ballot, and did not have to be party members) as Stalin envisioned- actual power remained in the Central Committee, which was elected by the Party Congress, which did not meet so frequently and consisted only of party members. Oh well, live and learn.

yea, why would they allow normal people to participate and have their voices heard, that ridiculous! you have to be holier than thou to be allowed to talk.

[mykittyhasaboner]

EXACTLY :)

Just like Capitalism is almost an exact parrallel of feaudalism, Corporations are almost an exact parrallel of the USSR, hell even the "democracy" in them was the same. I could go on and on about the parallels between the USSR and a large corporation, socialism my ass.

So do it, I'm sure you have so much to add to the discussion.


Both are useless, though, if you're looking for something spherical. Sure some parallels made are entirely spurious, but I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that there was no parallel in the complete lack of any real working class control of the means of production.

Define "complete lack" and "real". Anyone who seriously studies the USSR cannot simply say there was no "working class control". I'm sorry to all of those here at revleft who hold such a position, as popular as it is, but I don't think I can stress enough that the Soviet government hardly had problems with legitimacy and the people who are called "bureaucrats" and "state-capitalists" were not capitalists and were mostly of working class origin. There are certainly issues with soviet democracy, like the simple fact that elections and workers councils are not enough to check the power of representatives; however the system had virtually no "parallels" to a modern multi-national corporation as people are suggesting--particularly because the system in the USSR did not comprise of private owners employing wage labor as a commodity.


yea, why would they allow normal people to participate and have their voices heard, that ridiculous! you have to be holier than thou to be allowed to talk.

Quite clearly, they were talking about capitalist roaders within the party. The CPSU was almost entirely comprised of manual and skilled workers, the membership base of the party was quite large. Local and workplace councils met frequently and actually laid down policies rather than act as a rubber stamp or pay lip service as you will likely suggest. Also being elected to a position did not always require communist party membership.

Besides, there were also many "informal" methods of worker participation practiced in the USSR, like public debates, articles in the media, letters to newspaper editors, etc; and they have to be taken seriously as methods which influenced policy making as well as the formation of public opinion.

[RGacky3]

Tables have four legs, cows have four legs, ergo tables are cows. See the problem with finding "parallels."

As was said before, it does'nt mean the same thing.


So do it, I'm sure you have so much to add to the discussion.

Well you have democratic centrism, which is similar to the type of democracy that corporations have, corporations are technically controlled by the shareholders, but in reality can be used by the board and the executives for their own benefit whenever they want, and are really in their control.


Anyone who seriously studies the USSR cannot simply say there was no "working class control". I'm sorry to all of those here at revleft who hold such a position, as popular as it is, but I don't think I can stress enough that the Soviet government hardly had problems with legitimacy and the people who are called "bureaucrats" and "state-capitalists" were not capitalists and were mostly of working class origin.

Tons of Capitalists nowerdays have working class origin, their origin does'nt matter. The working class control was so insignificant you can almost say there was none. The people in power were not directly democratically accountable, if they were then you would have significant working class control.


however the system had virtually no "parallels" to a modern multi-national corporation as people are suggesting--particularly because the system in the USSR did not comprise of private owners employing wage labor as a commodity.


Well, the "democratic" system had huge parallels to american corporations. Anyway, wage labor existed in the USSR, and the state were the owners, so they could be called their private property since they were not really democratically accountable.


The CPSU was almost entirely comprised of manual and skilled workers, the membership base of the party was quite large. Local and workplace councils met frequently and actually laid down policies rather than act as a rubber stamp or pay lip service as you will likely suggest. Also being elected to a position did not always require communist party membership.

Besides, there were also many "informal" methods of worker participation practiced in the USSR, like public debates, articles in the media, letters to newspaper editors, etc; and they have to be taken seriously as methods which influenced policy making as well as the formation of public opinion.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well you have democratic centrism, which is similar to the type of democracy that corporations have, corporations are technically controlled by the shareholders, but in reality can be used by the board and the executives for their own benefit whenever they want, and are really in their control.

Democratic centralism has nothing to do with corporations or vice versa.



Tons of Capitalists nowerdays have working class origin, their origin does'nt matter.OK, but that doesn't matter at all because were talking about the former Soviet Union and there were no capitalists in that system.


The working class control was so insignificant you can almost say there was none. That is completely untrue and you have not made an argument for this position simply by stating it. The entire basis of the Soviet government was the working class as the ruling class. For authentic democracy within a ruling class, ideas and positions must be able to confront one another on a more or less level playing field. This is what the soviet system provided for worker's and they certainly utilized it for their interests, since they were the ruling class, despite what some western leftist critic has to say.

I really don't think you understand what soviet democracy is. People were elected to their positions, their positions of power were not monolithic and unchallenged seats of power like you must think. Elected officials are then accountable by their respective soviets or other electoral body, must conform to the ideology and popular opinion which got them there. If they did not do their job well, they could be voted out of their position before their term ended. That's accountability, and that is working class control.

It's not the best system but it is a sufficient model for an early worker's revolution to consolidate it's political and economic goals.



The people in power were not directly democratically accountable, if they were then you would have significant working class control.Do you even try to read what others write?

I said "There are certainly issues with soviet democracy, like the simple fact that elections and workers councils are not enough to check the power of representatives;".

This however does not mean, that I agree with the notion that "direct democracy" is the only means of workers control, as it certainly isn't.



Well, the "democratic" system had huge parallels to american corporations. Again with "parallels". I can find parallels between anything.

If you want to brand the Soviet system as capitalist or "like a corporation" I think it would take more than some "parallels" to do it.



Anyway, wage labor existed in the USSR, and the state were the owners, so they could be called their private property since they were not really democratically accountable.Now how is that one can have private property without private owners? Or how can the state own private property? Hmm? Do you even know what the hell you are talking about?



Even a broken clock is right twice a day.So that's your answer? I challenge your notion that worker's opinions meant nothing in the USSR, since you know, this idea is absolutely idiotic, but it's still "broken" because it's not the system you idealize. How pathetic.

[RGacky3]

Democratic centralism has nothing to do with corporations or vice versa.

Except that in practice democratic centralism and corporate democracy are extremely similar.


OK, but that doesn't matter at all because were talking about the former Soviet Union and there were no capitalists in that system.

You are really terrible at understanding arguments, if the origin doe'snt matter in capitalism or justify the power, why would it be different in the Soviet Union?

Do you really care what origin the top CEOs in AMerica have? No, why would it matter about communist party leaders?


This is what the soviet system provided for worker's and they certainly utilized it for their interests, since they were the ruling class, despite what some western leftist critic has to say.

COnsidering the actual soviets had almost no real power, and they were subservient to party policy that does'nt really matter. You talk about the workers being the ruling class, but how was that implimented in practice? They were the ruling class in name only, the communist party was the ruling class in practice.


I really don't think you understand what soviet democracy is. People were elected to their positions, their positions of power were not monolithic and unchallenged seats of power like you must think. Elected officials are then accountable by their respective soviets or other electoral body, must conform to the ideology and popular opinion which got them there. If they did not do their job well, they could be voted out of their position before their term ended. That's accountability, and that is working class control.


Actually thats not how it worked, in practice the party selected the candidates and the voting was really just rubber stamping, just like corporations, its a yes or no vote.

Even with that, the communist party was almost always the body that made public policy, the actual supreme soviet only even mett a couple times a year.

SO even IF the soviets were freely democratic, it would'nt have mattered unless they had more power independant of the communist party.


I said "There are certainly issues with soviet democracy, like the simple fact that elections and workers councils are not enough to check the power of representatives;".

This however does not mean, that I agree with the notion that "direct democracy" is the only means of workers control, as it certainly isn't.

Your right, but the elections were for a body that did'nt have real power, and they were nothing more than rubber stamping, thats not democracy by any standard, I'm not talking about just direct democracy.


Again with "parallels". I can find parallels between anything.

If you want to brand the Soviet system as capitalist or "like a corporation" I think it would take more than some "parallels" to do it.


Do you know what parallels mean? It means close similarities.


Now how is that one can have private property without private owners? Or how can the state own private property? Hmm? Do you even know what the hell you are talking about?

If the state is non-democratic, then in practice, it funtions the same as private property, i.e. the property of those ruling the state. Now these are just semantics, but to me it does'nt matter if the tyranny and exploitation is from the communist party or the capitalist.


I challenge your notion that worker's opinions meant nothing in the USSR, since you know, this idea is absolutely idiotic, but it's still "broken" because it's not the system you idealize. How pathetic.

I won't say that 100%, because even Monarchies care about the opnions of the people, but thats far from saying its democratic.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Except that in practice democratic centralism and corporate democracy are extremely similar.

There is no such thing as "coroporate democracy", nor are states run like corporations. Corporations can run the state, but it cannot be ran on the same basis if you want to appear legitimate. Take the US for example. Nobody elects the owner of a corporation but "the people" elect the president to a parliamentary system.

You don't understand what democratic centralism is, apparently. Democratic centralism just means that open discussion and debate is acceptable within the paramaters of a political party either in power or not, but when a decision is reached it is considered the duty of members to support the party's decision as a whole regardless if they agree or not.

Obviously this a flawed premise on which to base political party, but that does not mean it is "similar" to the way a corporation operates, not to mention that it does not necesitate that bodies which use democratic centralism are involved in the same kind of economic system or activites that a corporation is part of.




You are really terrible at understanding arguments, if the origin doe'snt matter in capitalism or justify the power, why would it be different in the Soviet Union?I'm terrible at understanding arguments? You haven't made any. The social composition and background of soviet leaders matters, because if they are not workers or from working backgrounds then it is questionable how dedicated they are to the emancipation of labor. Quite clearly capitalists who have working class backgrounds renounce their backgrounds and take up the exploitation of workers. This is obvious, and that is the difference.




Do you really care what origin the top CEOs in AMerica have? No, why would it matter about communist party leaders?
Because Communist Party leaders are not CEO's, that's quite fucking obvious. You have a real delusion about the soviet system and it is quite annoying.



COnsidering the actual soviets had almost no real power, and they were subservient to party policy that does'nt really matter. You talk about the workers being the ruling class, but how was that implimented in practice? They were the ruling class in name only, the communist party was the ruling class in practice.This is not an argument, just more claims.

The communist party was not a class--bearucrats, technocrats, state functionaries etc do not make up a class. If soviet's didn't have power, then how were local policies dealt with? Did Stalin visit each village in the soviet union and dictate the terms of economic organization?



Actually thats not how it worked, in practice the party selected the candidates and the voting was really just rubber stamping, just like corporations, its a yes or no vote.
That's completely untrue and you really don't have any information to support these claims.

The nomination of candidates is where politicking and debate takes place, not in the actual election process. The actual elections served merely to express solidarity for the nominated candidate. Candidates were nomniated by local commites and by communist party members, and anyone at meetings could propose or oppose a candidate. (The CPSU in a Soviet Election Campagin, Soviet Studies XXVIII No.4, Ronald J. Hill 1976)

Candidates were also subject to being vetoed by popular vote, for example: in 1965 208 candidates for local soviets were rejected by voters, and in 1969 rejections took place in 145 districts. (Progress Publishers, The Soviet Union Today, 1975)



Even with that, the communist party was almost always the body that made public policy, the actual supreme soviet only even mett a couple times a year.This is true but the Supreme Soviet was not the primary decision making body in the Soviet union on a day-to day basis.


SO even IF the soviets were freely democratic, it would'nt have mattered unless they had more power independant of the communist party.
It wouldn't matter if soviets were democratic just because the communist party was the only party? The communist party was not some elite organization.



Your right, but the elections were for a body that did'nt have real power, and they were nothing more than rubber stamping, thats not democracy by any standard, I'm not talking about just direct democracy.What are you talking about? You have not proven how the soviet system was just a bunch of people rubberstamping the elitist self centered corporate communist party, so im going to ignore all this crap. The soviets were the only bodies that had power in the soviet government. How could they not have power? Why would people be elected to comittees which don't have political power?




Do you know what parallels mean? It means close similarities.The only close similarities between the soviet system and corporations are superficial. The entire basis of the soviet system was fundamentally opposed to the capitalit exploitation of corporate business. The decision making within corporations consists of board of directors, who likely are leading shareholders, or outright owners of corporate subsidiaries and/or investment capital. The state in the soviet union did not operate in the same way. The leaders of the soviet union were from working clas backgrounds, and lead a system which was founded for the benefit of the soviet working class--the economy of the soviet union materially benefitted workers and peasants, as well as white coller technicians, engineers, scientsts and other intelligentisa--not private or "state" capitalists.




If the state is non-democratic, then in practice, it funtions the same as private property, i.e. the property of those ruling the state. Now these are just semantics, but to me it does'nt matter if the tyranny and exploitation is from the communist party or the capitalist.
You have no business calling the former Soviet Union a corporation or capitalist. You clearly do not understand how private property works. You see there is a private owner, and they own property. That did no exist in the Soviet Union, without restrictions from the state at first, and then later not at all. You are wrong.



I won't say that 100%, because even Monarchies care about the opnions of the people, but thats far from saying its democratic.Well that depends on what you mean by "democratic". Workers and local comittees, elections, public debates, rejection of unsuitable candidates....that sounds like some kind of democracy to me. The problem with soviet democracy is that it does not ensure enough direct democracy and that it does not incorporate demarchy either, as well as the fact that it produces heads of state, rather than getting rid of the kind of hierarchical state sturcture which is characteristic of states based on the ownership and control of exploiting classes. This is where the soviet union was limited--at first decision making was far too centralized for direct democracy, because of constant war and backwardness, then the decision making process became to technocratic as a result of rapid advancement and industrialization and the political tendencies which arose from such developments (ie Krushchev).

[RGacky3]

There is no such thing as "coroporate democracy", nor are states run like corporations. Corporations can run the state, but it cannot be ran on the same basis if you want to appear legitimate. Take the US for example. Nobody elects the owner of a corporation but "the people" elect the president to a parliamentary system

I'm talking internally, the shareholders electing the board who chooses the CEO.


Democratic centralism just means that open discussion and debate is acceptable within the paramaters of a political party either in power or not, but when a decision is reached it is considered the duty of members to support the party's decision as a whole regardless if they agree or not.


Yeah, thats exactly what I'm talking about.


Obviously this a flawed premise on which to base political party, but that does not mean it is "similar" to the way a corporation operates, not to mention that it does not necesitate that bodies which use democratic centralism are involved in the same kind of economic system or activites that a corporation is part of.

I'm sorry, but clearly you don't understand the parrallels. the relationship of the shareholders to the corporation and the board and executives.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A CORPORATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY OF A STATE, I'm not saying they are the exact same damn thing, I'm saying there are similarities on how they funtion, its not so damn difficult.


The social composition and background of soviet leaders matters, because if they are not workers or from working backgrounds then it is questionable how dedicated they are to the emancipation of labor. Quite clearly capitalists who have working class backgrounds renounce their backgrounds and take up the exploitation of workers. This is obvious, and that is the difference.


Your class is'nt a club you have loyalty too, its not something you feel, or something you embrase or renounce, your class is your relationship to the means of production, NOW, not what it was, not what it will be, not what your parents were.

Their background does'nt matter, because NOW they are in power, now thye have a different relationship to the means of production, just like a new money capitalist.

Your argument is idealistic, almost like class is a feeling.


Because Communist Party leaders are not CEO's, that's quite fucking obvious. You have a real delusion about the soviet system and it is quite annoying.

Again, its a parrallel, for gods sake, do I have to spell it out.

I'm not saying they are the exact same thing moron, I'm saying there are parrallels, both are in positions of power, and for both of them it ultimately does'nt matter what their background is. You know what the difference is? One is in red. Thats really the argument your making, one is called a communist, a CEO is elected almost the same way as a Communist leader.


This is not an argument, just more claims.

The communist party was not a class--bearucrats, technocrats, state functionaries etc do not make up a class. If soviet's didn't have power, then how were local policies dealt with? Did Stalin visit each village in the soviet union and dictate the terms of economic organization?

IF they have a different relationship to the means of production than other people, then yeah, they are a class, by definition.

About your second question, thats retarded, again, do Kings visit each village and dictate the terms of economic organization?


It wouldn't matter if soviets were democratic just because the communist party was the only party? The communist party was not some elite organization.

Not because it was the only party, but because it had an inordinate amount of political party.


The decision making within corporations consists of board of directors, who likely are leading shareholders, or outright owners of corporate subsidiaries and/or investment capital. The state in the soviet union did not operate in the same way. The leaders of the soviet union were from working clas backgrounds, and lead a system which was founded for the benefit of the soviet working class--the economy of the soviet union materially benefitted workers and peasants, as well as white coller technicians, engineers, scientsts and other intelligentisa--not private or "state" capitalists.


All right, listen, when I'm making the comparison, its between the Soviet Union, internally.

The Board of directors represents the shareholders, the Soviet government represents the people of the soviet union, so with that function, internally those are the similarities.

Technically the baord always works in the interests of the shareholders, but thats not always the way it works in practice (due to structure), the same with the USSR to the workers (because the structure is very similar).


You have no business calling the former Soviet Union a corporation or capitalist. You clearly do not understand how private property works. You see there is a private owner, and they own property. That did no exist in the Soviet Union, without restrictions from the state at first, and then later not at all. You are wrong.


Again, a parrallel does'nt mean the exact same thing. I was'nt claiming it had private property, I was claiming that structurally they are similar.


Well that depends on what you mean by "democratic". Workers and local comittees, elections, public debates, rejection of unsuitable candidates....that sounds like some kind of democracy to me. The problem with soviet democracy is that it does not ensure enough direct democracy and that it does not incorporate demarchy either, as well as the fact that it produces heads of state, rather than getting rid of the kind of hierarchical state sturcture which is characteristic of states based on the ownership and control of exploiting classes. This is where the soviet union was limited--at first decision making was far too centralized for direct democracy, because of constant war and backwardness, then the decision making process became to technocratic as a result of rapid advancement and industrialization and the political tendencies which arose from such developments (ie Krushchev).

About what made the USSR non democratic, one was democratic centrism, once a desicion is made it must be supported, which kills and further debate on the issue, because if any debate is brought up then your not fulfilling your duty and can face consequences. From that stand point it made it very hard to go against party policy.

Then you have Nomenklatura, i.e. just party memebers delebated power, and positions of authority.

Aslo when it came to the nominating process, The Communist party was the main body that selected the candidates, which ultimately meant that party policy ended up as state policy.

http://www.marxists.org/history/archive/brailsford/1927/soviets-work/ch05.htm

[Bud Struggle]

The only close similarities between the soviet system and corporations are superficial. I would venture to say they are quite real.


The entire basis of the soviet system was fundamentally opposed to the capitalit exploitation of corporate business. In much the same way that Coke is fundamentally opposed to Pepsi.


The decision making within corporations consists of board of directors, who likely are leading shareholders, or outright owners of corporate subsidiaries and/or investment capital. Much the same way that the Communist Party was the decision making body of the SU. Those people had an outright interest in maintaining a power system when they controled the running of the country.


The state in the soviet union did not operate in the same way. The leaders of the soviet union were from working clas backgrounds, Lots of CEOs (me included!) are from working class backgrounds.



and lead a system which was founded for the benefit of the soviet working class--the economy of the soviet union materially benefitted workers and peasants, as well as white coller technicians, engineers, scientsts and other intelligentisa--not private or "state" capitalists.
. The CP was just like a board of diectors of a company--they elect one of their own as head of the coropration and the corporation bwemefits the shareholders (the CP) and eventually if anything is left--the workers in both cases.



The nomination of candidates is where politicking and debate takes place, not in the actual election process. The actual elections served merely to express solidarity for the nominated candidate. Candidates were nomniated by local commites and by communist party members, and anyone at meetings could propose or oppose a candidate. (The CPSU in a Soviet Election Campagin, Soviet Studies XXVIII No.4, Ronald J. Hill 1976) This is EXACTLY how elections happen in corporations.


You have no business calling the former Soviet Union a corporation or capitalist. Gulag for Gacky!


You clearly do not understand how private property works. You see there is a private owner, and they own property. That did no exist in the Soviet Union, without restrictions from the state at first, and then later not at all. You are wrong. kitty, you are missing the point--the ENTIRE Soviet Union was the private property in question. The CP was the board of directors and the people were the workers/small shareholders. Just as if you were a worker at GM and owned three shares of stock.

It's a good analogy.

[Edit] The workers in Poland saw the exact same situation going on in their country--that is why they formed a UNION to battle against the Corporate/Communist state. (And quite effectively, too.)

[Dean]

I'm sorry, but clearly you don't understand the parrallels. the relationship of the shareholders to the corporation and the board and executives.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A CORPORATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY OF A STATE, I'm not saying they are the exact same damn thing, I'm saying there are similarities on how they function, its not so damn difficult.
Well, those similarities are so compelling that they really do represent a near-perfect reflection of each other.

The bottom line is that both the state and corporations exist as management systems over aggregations of social assets, be these security, community organization, medical, transportation or real estate assets.

Insofar as they are centrally managed, a state of decreased worker or popular control over the said asset is enacted. This is definitely what happened in the USSR. Neither nation was particularly democratic, probably in the USSR's case because the power of the soviet system was basically smashed by 1920.

Centralism is not to be confused with redistribution of the sum of national wealth, though it is often justified from that starting framework.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm sorry, but clearly you don't understand the parrallels. the relationship of the shareholders to the corporation and the board and executives.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A CORPORATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY OF A STATE, I'm not saying they are the exact same damn thing, I'm saying there are similarities on how they funtion, its not so damn difficult.The only similarities is that both administrative systems utilize represientatives. That's not a very strong similarity.




Your class is'nt a club you have loyalty too, its not something you feel, or something you embrase or renounce, your class is your relationship to the means of production, NOW, not what it was, not what it will be, not what your parents were.OK and elected officials were either workers, peasants, intelligentsia or full time state functionaries. The intelligentsia and full time politicians did have a disproportionate advantage in the political process and thats what I've been saying...

The class which individuals who were involved in running the soviet state were almost invariably members of the working class, manual and skilled (scientists, engineers, intelligentisa, "white collar" etc) or the peasantry.


Their background does'nt matter, because NOW they are in power, now thye have a different relationship to the means of production, just like a new money capitalist.Their relation to the means of production was not capitalist, how many ways must this be spelled out for you? State officials did not own the means of production exclusively from the rest of the population, they were administrators, not owners. It was owned in common--you know socialism.


Your argument is idealistic, almost like class is a feeling.Idealistic? hahaha. So class background is idealistic? If someone grew up as a worker, yet someone else grew up in a bourgeois family, their difference is merely idealistic then? Is a factory worker simply idealisitcally different from a small holding farmer? What about a corporate CEO and a teenage worker in south Asia? Class background is the person's class hitherto. Would you think its a good idea to allow former private owners and profiteers to run a socialist state? I wouldn't think so. That's why clas background is actually important.



I'm not saying they are the exact same thing moron,nice


I'm saying there are parrallels, both are in positions of power, and for both of them it ultimately does'nt matter what their background is. You know what the difference is? One is in red. Thats really the argument your making, one is called a communist, a CEO is elected almost the same way as a Communist leader.No, that is not my argument, your making up your own, I guess.

I'm saying that communist party or state officials are qualitatively different from CEO's and boards of directors because of the a) the class interests which they represent, and b) the function of their work.


IF they have a different relationship to the means of production than other people, then yeah, they are a class, by definition.The difference between state officials and manual workers is the difference between mental and physical labor. This division of labor is something the soviet union failed to abolish; that does not make officials some kind of phantom capitalist class or "money capitalist" or "state capitalist".


About your second question, thats retarded, again, do Kings visit each village and dictate the terms of economic organization?
that was sarcasm.



Not because it was the only party, but because it had an inordinate amount of political party.I'm not quite sure what this means.



All right, listen, when I'm making the comparison, its between the Soviet Union, internally.

The Board of directors represents the shareholders, the Soviet government represents the people of the soviet union, so with that function, internally those are the similarities.

Technically the baord always works in the interests of the shareholders, but thats not always the way it works in practice (due to structure), the same with the USSR to the workers (because the structure is very similar).OK this is not that bad of an argument however again, the similarities are superficial when we delve into what the actual functions of the two systems are. One is for maintaining a corporation and maximizing the rate of exploitation, one is for trying to maintain socialism. Do you understand what I'm saying? If you'd like I can try and draw a picture.



Again, a parrallel does'nt mean the exact same thing. I was'nt claiming it had private property, I was claiming that structurally they are similar.
Well, yeah they were structurally similar, but these "parallels" mean nothing.




About what made the USSR non democratic, one was democratic centrism, once a desicion is made it must be supported, which kills and further debate on the issue, because if any debate is brought up then your not fulfilling your duty and can face consequences. From that stand point it made it very hard to go against party policy.Not really. Democratic centralism was probably the least of their worries when it came to lack of democracy. As you claim, the communist party was the main decision making body, so there had to be debate over party policy evnetually, or it would have never changed. There was much debate within the communist party, and this includes criticism, obviously. A political process biased towards highly trained professionals was probably the biggest problem with their lack of democracy.


Aslo when it came to the nominating process, The Communist party was the main body that selected the candidates, which ultimately meant that party policy ended up as state policy.
Yeah the communist party nominated candiates, no shit.


http://www.marxists.org/history/archive/brailsford/1927/soviets-work/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/archive/brailsford/1927/soviets-work/ch05.htm)There is nothing about nomination in this chapter...or was I supposed to be looking for something else?

[RGacky3]

The only similarities is that both administrative systems utilize represientatives. That's not a very strong similarity.

Theres also the fact that the democratic system is based on a yes or no vote for already nominated board members, the board members elect the CEO, who in turn selects the board members, king of like how the party selects the nominees, while the people cast a yes or no vote, and how the party picks the party leadership, who then can nominate different people. Its very much a top down democracy, for both systems.

Also both are supposedly owned by the electorate (i.e. the workers in the USSR or the shareholders in corporations), while in both situations the "owners" have very little say on the resources or means of production of the entity.


State officials did not own the means of production exclusively from the rest of the population, they were administrators, not owners. It was owned in common--you know socialism.


Ownership means absolutely nothing without actual control, the administrators, were the ones that controlled where the resources went and what capital was used for, thast what matters.


So class background is idealistic? If someone grew up as a worker, yet someone else grew up in a bourgeois family, their difference is merely idealistic then? Is a factory worker simply idealisitcally different from a small holding farmer? What about a corporate CEO and a teenage worker in south Asia? Class background is the person's class hitherto. Would you think its a good idea to allow former private owners and profiteers to run a socialist state? I wouldn't think so. That's why clas background is actually important.


You put a corporate CEO and a teenage worker in south asia in control of the state and resources, you'll see that power tends to change things, people in power generally will act according to their situation now rather than their background, they background matters, but not nearly as much as their individual current power (thats why new money Capitalists are just ass douchy as old money Capitalists, sometimes more so.)


a) the class interests which they represent, and b) the function of their work.


A) My argument is that they control the means of production and resources, so they have become the administrative class.

b) The funtion of their work is the same as a CEO of a corporation, i.e. resource and capital administration.


The difference between state officials and manual workers is the difference between mental and physical labor. This division of labor is something the soviet union failed to abolish; that does not make officials some kind of phantom capitalist class or "money capitalist" or "state capitalist".



No its not, if thats the case then CEOs are just mental workers, which we both know they arn't, they are ADMINISTRATORS, i.e. they have control, where as others don't.

Soviet officials wern't scientists, they wern't engineers, they were administrators, they were controlers, managers, they were a different class, because their relationship was one of control.


One is for maintaining a corporation and maximizing the rate of exploitation, one is for trying to maintain socialism. Do you understand what I'm saying? If you'd like I can try and draw a picture.


I understand, and I'll concede that point. Which is (If I'm getting it right), that because of the profit motive and competition, the execcutives in a corporation must maxemize exploitation, to maxemize profits.

Where as the other one does'nt have those duties, their duty was to maintain their system, which for them FIRST meant maintaining their institutional power (just as Capitalists today will take a profit hit if it means defending their institutional power), and I mean their institutional power as state officials in power.


As you claim, the communist party was the main decision making body, so there had to be debate over party policy evnetually, or it would have never changed. There was much debate within the communist party, and this includes criticism, obviously. A political process biased towards highly trained professionals was probably the biggest problem with their lack of democracy.


The debate within the communist party was there, (obviously as there were factions and the such), but it was very limited and could be stopped, as it was once under Lenin and again under Stalin. Communist party policy changed drastically under Kruschef, but that was only after the death of Stalin. Also the change was not nessesarily representative of the actual soveits or the soviet people, it was more just debates within the communist party, and mostly the higher ups.


Yeah the communist party nominated candiates, no shit.

That combined with everything else, created a situation where the democracy ended up being nonfunctional, which ended up making the socialism nonfunctional.

[Rafiq]

Just like Capitalists! Soe get it from their daddies and some make it on their own. If you look at in that respect--the Soviet Union wasn't really a country at all. It was one big corporation.

The Soviet Union was Exxon writ large.

Yeah bud, that's called State Capitalism :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

EXACTLY :)

Just like Capitalism is almost an exact parrallel of feaudalism......

Err...... no.

[RGacky3]

Err...... no.

Err...... yes. Man I love your style of argument.

[ComradeMan]

Err...... yes. Man I love your style of argument.

Capitalism developed out of the bourgeois revolutions of Europe that overthrew feudalism. In France you could speak of the intermediate phases known as the ancien régime if you like.

The fact of the matter is that feudalism basically has a powerful monarchy and aristocracy ruling a peasant society and deriving it's wealth from land ownership whereas capitalism has a powerful bourgeois ruling class, an oligarchy, that derives its wealth from the profits of surplus along with the investment and movement of capital. The two are not parallel in any way, shape, or form.

Fail.

[Rafiq]

Comrademan is right.

As a matter of fact, Marx pointed this out several times.

Capitalism simply is a stage after feudalism.

Whatever the Soviets had wasn't feudalism, just state capitalism.