Why did the Soviet Union 'Degenerate' ?

[Drumming Monkey]

Hi everyone. My first post.

I know a bit about the Russian revolution, the early years of the Soviet Union and 'what went wrong' in terms of it going from a genuine workers state (albeit with many problems) to a totalitarian regime under Stalin.

But I'd like a bit more detail, and I imagine there are different opinions on why this happened.

From what I've read from a Trotskyist point of view, it seems like the main reasons for bureaucracy developing and taking power were:

The isolation of the state (the spread of the revolution failed, most importantly in Germany) the Civil war devastated the country and created fertile ground for opportunist careerists to take hold in the Soviets, the fact that the most class concious workers were killed in the civil war, so they could no longer contribute in the soviets, the fact Russia was a very backward country and lacked a tradition of 'democracy' like western europe, etc it would have needed a socialist Germany to come to its aid etc etc etc

Also how 'democratic' was the regime under lenin during the civil war? I imagine as in all big wars, democracy was somewhat suspended, (I.e there were no elections in the UK during world war II) because decisions need to be taken quickly etc

But I'd like to give a real, in depth answer to people when they say that totalitarianism or bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of socialism "Like what happened in Russia"

I know there were real historical, material reasons for the Soviet Union degenerating, and that it wasn't just 'human nature' but I only have a very basic understanding of these reasons.

Any help would be much appreciated :)

[Dimentio]

I wouldn't claim that the Soviet Union at any point was a "workers state". Until 1927, the Soviet Union was not a consolidated state. It is not possible to say that a society which emerges under a revolution has attained any characteristics during the first years of it's existence, due to the fact that emergent processes under periods characterised by turmoil tend to go fast.

What people tend to forget is that the Bolsheviks were those who castrated the Soviets as a tool which empowered the people. In 1918 already, they simply ignored the election results and pressed forward for having power, despite that a majority of the electorate had repudiated them.

Moreover, the worker-peasant dichotomy was very harmful to the Soviet Union and the people, especially the peasants who routinely were treated as some kind of second class citizenry.

I cannot speak for the USSR as a "worker's state", but I see it's three main mistakes as.

I ~ Assuming that the people existed to empower one faction, rather than the other way around.

II ~ Attacking the church quite violently, alienating possibly a majority of the people

III ~ Treating the peasants like shit (if Hitler had not been so delusional about genocide for genocide's own sake, then the people of the occupied territories might very well have rallied to support the Germans, and Stalin could have been toppled, leaving us with a Nazi-controlled Europe to this day. Hitler's stupidity might have played a more important role than the Soviet leadership in turning WW2).

[Fylosoficus]

III ~ Treating the peasants like shit (if Hitler had not been so delusional about genocide for genocide's own sake, then the people of the occupied territories might very well have rallied to support the Germans, and Stalin could have been toppled, leaving us with a Nazi-controlled Europe to this day. Hitler's stupidity might have played a more important role than the Soviet leadership in turning WW2).
The people and most soldiers didn't even knew there was a genocide, sort of a documented surprise for most of them. Neighboring villages didn't even knew what happened there until after the war when they were forced to see what had happened.

Edit: Time for some sleep and better grammar and spelling ;O.o

[NoOneIsIllegal]

II ~ Attacking the church quite violently, alienating possibly a majority of the people
This is something I never understood the logic of (I am an atheist too). However, attacking religion in a country where Christianity is one of the biggest, dominating features of society is just suicide.
I recently read a biography of Michael Bakunin by Mark Leier, and it really did help me understand how deeply entrenched Russia was with Christianity. I know Bakunin wasn't alive during the Russian Revolution, but I would assume that the majority of the country didn't suddenly change their religious beliefs in a few brief decades.

[Amphictyonis]

socialism/communism in one country is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

[Dimentio]

socialism/communism in one country is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

That is a pretty lame argument.

Countries are for the first thing not equivalent with one another. There are countries which are very small, like Austria and Nicaragua, and socialism would not work in such countries without isolation from the world, which means low life standards, which would mean police states which would need to control information.

The USSR on the other hand, was an entirely different matter. We are talking about almost half of the surface of Eurasia, an abundance of natural resources and a population which is quite small in relation to the overall surface.

The problem with failing to build socialism was that the Bolsheviks dis-empowered the people in 1918, shutting down the Soviets and ignoring the election results, which gave them just around 25% of the support.

That did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union. It is even possible that had socialism prevailed, it would have fallen more quickly.

What did cause it's fall was the establishment of some very brutal policies in the 1920's and 1930's which de-legitimised it, extremely high military expenditures, and an inability to buy legitimacy from the people.

I could imagine that if Canada or Australia would implement socialism, both countries would pretty soon turn into paradises on Earth.

[robbo203]

I dont quite see where "degeneration" comes into the picture. Lenin quite candidly admitted that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia and sought to bring it about. The consolidation of state-run capitalism was what was achieved. In what sense was the Soviet a degeneration from this goal. The overthow of the state capitalist model primarlily at the ends of the Soviet ruling class and its regional outcrops might be perhaps be portrayed as a degeneration form state capitalism but that is a different matter, it didnt happen while the Soviet Union still existed

[Dimentio]

I dont quite see where "degeneration" comes into the picture. Lenin quite candidly admitted that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia and sought to bring it about. The consolidation of state-run capitalism was what was achieved. In what sense was the Soviet a degeneration from this goal. The overthow of the state capitalist model primarlily at the ends of the Soviet ruling class and its regional outcrops might be perhaps be portrayed as a degeneration form state capitalism but that is a different matter, it didnt happen while the Soviet Union still existed

Actually, I am in agreement there. The Soviet Union was never socialist.

[Drumming Monkey]

Hmmm interesting thanks guys.

It seems like none of the posts reflect a trotskyist position though - One thing with people saying that Lenin was no different to Stalin, and that the Bolsheviks were totalitarian from the start that I don't understand is what about the left opposition and Trotsky's work against Stalin? Like 'Revolution Betrayed' for example.

Why would Trotsky sacrifice his and his families lives for criticising Stalinism, if essentially it was what he and Lenin wanted?

Thanks.

[Rooster]

Hmmm interesting thanks guys.

It seems like none of the posts reflect a trotskyist position though - One thing with people saying that Lenin was no different to Stalin, and that the Bolsheviks were totalitarian from the start that I don't understand is what about the left opposition and Trotsky's work against Stalin? Like 'Revolution Betrayed' for example.

Why would Trotsky sacrifice his and his families lives for criticising Stalinism, if essentially it was what he and Lenin wanted?

Thanks.

I might be over simplifying this but (work makes one tired) Trotsky's main gripe against Stalin was that Stalin said that the USSR was socialist when it wasn't. That sort of leads to a whole bunch of things, like the inability to change the system, disenchantment with the people and so on.

[Dimentio]

Hmmm interesting thanks guys.

It seems like none of the posts reflect a trotskyist position though - One thing with people saying that Lenin was no different to Stalin, and that the Bolsheviks were totalitarian from the start that I don't understand is what about the left opposition and Trotsky's work against Stalin? Like 'Revolution Betrayed' for example.

Why would Trotsky sacrifice his and his families lives for criticising Stalinism, if essentially it was what he and Lenin wanted?

Thanks.

A combination of reasons me gather.

Probably something like this.

I. Trotsky dislikes Stalin's policies and believes that he would do it better.

II. Trotsky is dissappointed because he isn't in power, and because to not be in power and be in opposition to the status quo in a society built around democratic centralism where your survival could clinge on being in power is suicidal.

III. Trotsky is writing pamphlets to inspire people to rise up against Stalin.

As for Trotsky's analysis, I am in general agreement with his criticisms of the bureaucracy. I only disagree with two points.

Namely that 1. "socialism in one country" would not succeed. That depends on the country. Country A =/= Country B. Size, natural resources, technology, education, population density are important factors.

I also disagree with 2. permanent revolution, which Trotsky himself did when he supported peace with Poland. If that strategy had followed through, the west had been forced to intervene in Russia again, this time with an actual military strategy to topple the government.

[Drumming Monkey]

Very interesting, thanks.

I might post the question in the Trotsky tendency section bit as well to see that argument, as I probably consider myself closest to a 'trotskyist' (from what I know at the moment) but wanted to hear other views in the general forum to understand / challenge my own position etc etc

Thanks again.

[BIG BROTHER]

Hi everyone. My first post.

I know a bit about the Russian revolution, the early years of the Soviet Union and 'what went wrong' in terms of it going from a genuine workers state (albeit with many problems) to a totalitarian regime under Stalin.

But I'd like a bit more detail, and I imagine there are different opinions on why this happened.

From what I've read from a Trotskyist point of view, it seems like the main reasons for bureaucracy developing and taking power were:

The isolation of the state (the spread of the revolution failed, most importantly in Germany) the Civil war devastated the country and created fertile ground for opportunist careerists to take hold in the Soviets, the fact that the most class concious workers were killed in the civil war, so they could no longer contribute in the soviets, the fact Russia was a very backward country and lacked a tradition of 'democracy' like western europe, etc it would have needed a socialist Germany to come to its aid etc etc etc

Also how 'democratic' was the regime under lenin during the civil war? I imagine as in all big wars, democracy was somewhat suspended, (I.e there were no elections in the UK during world war II) because decisions need to be taken quickly etc

But I'd like to give a real, in depth answer to people when they say that totalitarianism or bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of socialism "Like what happened in Russia"

I know there were real historical, material reasons for the Soviet Union degenerating, and that it wasn't just 'human nature' but I only have a very basic understanding of these reasons.

Any help would be much appreciated :)

You pretty much got it right my friend.

We are Marxists and as thus we know Socialism doesn't depend on the wishful thinking of people, their "nature" but on concrete material conditions.

The Isolation was a big one due to the failure of other revolutions was the cataclyst for all the other ones. As Marx himself has noted, Socialism can not exist in one country. Just like capitalism which is a world system, so much socialism be one.

Also on top of that Russia was the most backward country in Europe, the means of production were not high enough and thus the fate of the Russian revolution depended on its ability to spread to other industrialized countries such as Germany.

A highly develop capitalism would have provided the things necessary for Socialism among them:

A large and strong proletariat which will be the basis for Soviet Democracy
A more skilled proletariat
Means of production more advanced capable of eliminating scarcity

However unlike the Bolsheviks the different Social-Democratic(communist) parties in Europe failed to take the working class to victory.

Russia's meager industry, was further destroyed by the war. This left Russia even more poor and as Marx said "were misery reigns the old crap of oppression rises"

Think about as misery reinged in Rusia wing of the party started as it was natural under such conditions to seek a privilege position in order to survive.

Now afer this burocracy rose, it was also its nature to prevent genuine socialism from developing as this would have eliminated it.

Also the war had a a lot to do with it!

During the war the most radicalized and experience workers were the ones who died.

At the end of the civil war, the failure of other revolutions demoralized the proletariat, it was tired. With the most radical elements gone, the burocracy started rising up until it criztalized around the right faction of the party while the worker's conscious will formed around the left oposition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Democracy in the Soviet Union?

Well there was nothing more Democratic than the Soviets, were workers, soldiers and farmers could discuss, debate and put forward their demands and resolutions.

There were different parties such as the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, even some Anarchists, etc besides the Bolsheviks. And this in spite that the SRs and the Mensheviks had supported the provisional gov't.

Of course during the civil war the Bolsheviks who gained the majority of support of the workers had to resort to tactics such as banning other political parties since the Soviet regime was fighting for its own existence. But as Trotsky pointed out that "would have been completely unnecessary had the revolution triumphed in Germany"

A strong german proletariat would have not only helped further spread the revolution, but would have renewed the Russian proletariat and any burocracy could have been eliminated.

----------------------------

So in conclusion "Totalitarism" is not the natural product of Socialism, but rather the absense of Socialism is what produces this oppresive regimes, weather they are a monstrousios burocracy or a brutal capitalist dictatorship that hides behind bourgoise democracy.

BTW pardon the poor grammar...

[BIG BROTHER]

A combination of reasons me gather.

Probably something like this.

I. Trotsky dislikes Stalin's policies and believes that he would do it better.

II. Trotsky is dissappointed because he isn't in power, and because to not be in power and be in opposition to the status quo in a society built around democratic centralism where your survival could clinge on being in power is suicidal.

III. Trotsky is writing pamphlets to inspire people to rise up against Stalin.

As for Trotsky's analysis, I am in general agreement with his criticisms of the bureaucracy. I only disagree with two points.

Namely that 1. "socialism in one country" would not succeed. That depends on the country. Country A =/= Country B. Size, natural resources, technology, education, population density are important factors.

I also disagree with 2. permanent revolution, which Trotsky himself did when he supported peace with Poland. If that strategy had followed through, the west had been forced to intervene in Russia again, this time with an actual military strategy to topple the government.

Its more than some personal problem that Trotsky and Stalin had. It represented within the Bolshevik party two different groups.

The worker's as the left oposition, the burocracy as Stalin and his bonapartist clique


When has "Socialism in one country" succeeded? that is a highly revisionist of marxism...

what do you understand as the theory of permanent revolution? Because from what you are saying it seems as if are speaking of something completly different.

[ComradeOm]

I know a bit about the Russian revolution, the early years of the Soviet Union and 'what went wrong' in terms of it going from a genuine workers state (albeit with many problems) to a totalitarian regime under Stalin.

But I'd like a bit more detail, and I imagine there are different opinions on why this happenedIts an excellent question and one that I've been asking myself for a few years now. Whether or not one accepts that the USSR was actually a "workers state", its undeniable that what lay behind the October Revolution was a mass, democratic and socialist movement. How this then collapsed into what was ultimately a one-party dictatorship is the key question. The bad news is that there is no single reason that can be nicely summed up. That said, I've come to believe (to quote an older post of mine) that the Russian proletariat was effectively liquidated as a class (to use a well worn phrase) by 1920 at the latest. The reasons for this are may - the Civil War, growth of the bureaucracy, rampant epidemics, etc - but the underlying cause, IMO, was the failure to halt the rapid economic collapse that was already underway in October 1917. The demographic results are horrific - Petrograd lost up to 75% of its population in 2-3 years, Moscow's nearly halved over the same period

This process severely weakened the proletariat in terms of both its actual numerical strength and, more importantly, its class conciousness. The result was a corresponding collapse in the strength of the soviet movement which effectively ended any possibility of constructing a socialist order. Whatever else was going wrong at the top, the absence of a strong soviet movement at the bottom removed a crucial check on government and engine of the revolution

I would not put too much emphasis on the backwardness of Russia. It was a definite handicap but not an insurmountable obstacle. The problem was that the Revolution and Civil War strengthened the peasantry at the same time as it weakened the proletariat. This imbalance of class forces would have significant impact. Much of this is touched on by traditional Trotskyist analyses but I find that they tend to overly stress the political developments and obsess over exactly what date 'it all went wrong'

[Die Rote Fahne]

What happened? Well, lets start with why it happened:

Some will disagree, but the authoritarian stance of Lenin and the party. This is the basic reason. This authoritarianism brought the "dictatorship for the proletariat" in place of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

This was key to allowing the party to retain power, and for its word to be final. Due to that, Lenin introduced the NEP. Which was considered a "two steps forward, one step back" economic policy. The allowance of capitalist solutions to the problems of what can be called pseudo-socialism created a backward trend.

Then came Stalin. He treated the economy as what he does is socialism. He continued capitalization to the point of state capitalism, or "bearaucratic collectivism".

The trend continued and the push toward worker control was forgotten and communism became synonomous with the USSR and totalitarianism.

[Rooster]

I think a lot can be said about the material conditions of Russia at that time. Russia had very few factories and technical experts before the revolution and during the civil war, much of the infrastructure was destroyed. The drive to modernise and industrialise required the employment of engineers and technical specialists into the party to help co-ordinate it. My opinion is that these engineers reduced the roles of society into numbers and manageable abstractions so that a centrally planned economy could function. On paper at least. With the increase of state planning and the increased industrialisation, there increased the numbers of specialists and engineers, each reducing everything into an absurd rationality. You could argue that this started with Lenin's drive to electrify the union - "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country". I think under Stalin and the five year plans, the role of the state increased and got increasingly distanced from the workers, inflating and complicating the role of the bureaucracy needed to run and manage it.

[BIG BROTHER]

What happened? Well, lets start with why it happened:

Some will disagree, but the authoritarian stance of Lenin and the party. This is the basic reason. This authoritarianism brought the "dictatorship for the proletariat" in place of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

This was key to allowing the party to retain power, and for its word to be final. Due to that, Lenin introduced the NEP. Which was considered a "two steps forward, one step back" economic policy. The allowance of capitalist solutions to the problems of what can be called pseudo-socialism created a backward trend.

Then came Stalin. He treated the economy as what he does is socialism. He continued capitalization to the point of state capitalism, or "bearaucratic collectivism".

The trend continued and the push toward worker control was forgotten and communism became synonomous with the USSR and totalitarianism.

The authoritarian "stance of the party" really? This seems like the most superficial analysis ever.

Without this "authoritarian party" the proletariat would have never conquered power and vice versa. There is a reson why the Bolsheviks grew from 8,000 to 250,000 in such short amount of time, the most advance workers saw it as THEIR revolutionary party with took THEM and the Soviets which are the highest form of democracy the world had yet to see to power.

I believe you are literally ignoring the material causes of the degeneration, which is not forgivable for someone who considers itself a Marxist.

[Drumming Monkey]

Some very very interesting responses everyone, thank you very much.

In essence, the Soviet Union needed the revolution to spread or it was, as Trotsky said, doomed to be either degenerated by bureaucracy or replaced by capitalism (both actually happened!)

The point about the peasants is interesting, I started reading Revolution Betrayed and it seems the question of the Kulaks was a difficult one. The workers and peasants were definitely divided during the civil war. Obviously in an advanced industrial country this wouldn't even be a problem. Was the nature of the Kulaks developing similar to what happened in more advanced countries may years before, when feudalism was being overturned, an indication or Russia's semi-feudalism?

Also, regarding the Bolsheviks banning other parties, from what I have read, after the revolution all parties except the fascist 'black hundreds' were allowed to exist and participate, as I understand it. It was only when every party systematically took up weapons and attacked the state with the White Army that they were banned. (didn't the Social Revolutionaries shoot Lenin?)

I mean, any government would ban a party that uses weapons against the state, I can understand that.

A lot of the violence that happened was terrible, and Lenin and Trotsky were responsible for deaths, no doubt, but to be honest the more I read the more I see they had no choice.

I do have trouble with some of the stuff they did though, like forced conscription under threat of death etc. But, I guess these were overwhelmingly violent and difficult times and had the White Army succeeded, as Christopher Hitchen's put it, the word for fascism would probably be Russian rather than Italian.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The authoritarian "stance of the party" really? This seems like the most superficial analysis ever.

Without this "authoritarian party" the proletariat would have never conquered power and vice versa. There is a reson why the Bolsheviks grew from 8,000 to 250,000 in such short amount of time, the most advance workers saw it as THEIR revolutionary party with took THEM and the Soviets which are the highest form of democracy the world had yet to see to power.

I believe you are literally ignoring the material causes of the degeneration, which is not forgivable for someone who considers itself a Marxist.

You think the Bolsheviks conquered power because of their authoritarian stance? It had nothing to do with the plight of the working class and the Bolshevik's being the only realistic answer to the provisional government of Kerensky? It had nothing to do with their policies at the time? Of their leadership? of there already great support? It all had to do with them displaying their authority?

Yes, at the beginning the Bolsheviks were the party of the working class. Don't get me wrong, they were the key factor in the success of the revolution in Russia.

The soviets DID begin as democratic and to be a good sign of worker control and democracy, but what happened to the Soviets? Power was continually concentrated to the party and it's officials. The soviets became nothing but a puppet show.

There were material causes, no doubt. However, these material causes were certainly not remedied by the authoritarianism, which led to totalitarianism, by the party. It certainly didn't help when any opposition to what I call "capitalist answers to socialist problems" was ignored and shut up. The NEP, Stalin's programs, etc.

The best thing the Bolsheviks could have done was to do central planning from the bottom up. Having the worker's come up with solutions to be passed through the union heads/committees and then through government. Not straight from government to be imposed on the workers.

[BIG BROTHER]

You think the Bolsheviks conquered power because of their authoritarian stance? It had nothing to do with the plight of the working class and the Bolshevik's being the only realistic answer to the provisional government of Kerensky? It had nothing to do with their policies at the time? Of their leadership? of there already great support? It all had to do with them displaying their authority?

Yes, at the beginning the Bolsheviks were the party of the working class. Don't get me wrong, they were the key factor in the success of the revolution in Russia.

The soviets DID begin as democratic and to be a good sign of worker control and democracy, but what happened to the Soviets? Power was continually concentrated to the party and it's officials. The soviets became nothing but a puppet show.

There were material causes, no doubt. However, these material causes were certainly not remedied by the authoritarianism, which led to totalitarianism, by the party. It certainly didn't help when any opposition to what I call "capitalist answers to socialist problems" was ignored and shut up. The NEP, Stalin's programs, etc.

The best thing the Bolsheviks could have done was to do central planning from the bottom up. Having the worker's come up with solutions to be passed through the union heads/committees and then through government. Not straight from government to be imposed on the workers.

I'm not going to apologize for my reasoning, if the Bolsheviks had any sense of worker self management, of true socialism, then the worker's would have been free to vote in mass general elections to choose the socialist party and programme of choice.

The Central Planning was from the "bottom up" as much as the material circumstances allowed it to be.

Before the NEP the Bolsheviks the policy they were pushing for was for the Unions to be the directors of the planned economy while the Soviets were the ones making the Political decisions. Is that "bottom-up" enough for you?

Also the great majority of the Bolsheviks were workers. Of course there were intellectuals (due to the fact that under a capitalist society most workers are enslaved and don't have time to study.)But specially after the party's membership swelled it was comprised of workers.

However the material conditions of Russia which did not have the capability of developing socialism plus, the Civil war is what lead to a real burocratizacion of the Soviet Union.

Ineed by the end of the war and by the time that the Left-Opposition was kicked out and all the old Bolsheviks were killed or capitulated then the burocracy using the aparatus that the Soviets had used against the white army eliminated any form of Worker's democracy.

If the situation had been like this from the start, then there wouldn't have been any need for the burocracy to eliminate all the old bolsheviks, suppres the left oposition or anything like that. No instead it had to fight a battle with the workers faction(the left oposition) in oder to be able to establish that dictatorship of the burocracy.

[Dimentio]

Its more than some personal problem that Trotsky and Stalin had. It represented within the Bolshevik party two different groups.

The worker's as the left oposition, the burocracy as Stalin and his bonapartist clique


When has "Socialism in one country" succeeded? that is a highly revisionist of marxism...

what do you understand as the theory of permanent revolution? Because from what you are saying it seems as if are speaking of something completly different.

If the workers had been an opposition, the main repression would have been directed towards the workers. That was not the case.

The main repression was directed at peasants, and the purpose was to ensure over-exploitation of them (the peasants) in order to get grain to the cities to bribe the urban population to support Stalin's regime.

The reason why "socialism in one country" has not succeeded has been because that socialism has not been implemented and because when implemented, it has been implemented in bad ways.

Even if the entire Earth was to become marxist-leninist, the result would probably (if you use the model for rule envisioned by Lenin) lead to some even worse dictatorship than Stalin's.

If the entire Earth was to fall under one revolution, we would suddenly see a massive, global civil war erupt, a civil war which would force the revolutionaries to install draconic measures to keep themselves in power. Entire regions or continents might be lost to reactionaries, nationalists or even other left-wing factions.

In general, I would say that a world revolution would run a higher risk to end with a disaster than a revolution in one country. The smaller a country, the less risk for bloodshed (but the smaller a country, the less probability to actually build socialism).

The ideal country to build socialism in would be Canada.

[Rooster]

The reason why "socialism in one country" has not succeeded has been because that socialism has not been implemented and because when implemented, it has been implemented in bad ways.

Huh? Either socialism has been achieved or it hasn't. Which is it?:confused:


Even if the entire Earth was to become marxist-leninist, the result would probably (if you use the model for rule envisioned by Lenin) lead to some even worse dictatorship than Stalin's.

If the entire Earth was to fall under one revolution, we would suddenly see a massive, global civil war erupt, a civil war which would force the revolutionaries to install draconic measures to keep themselves in power. Entire regions or continents might be lost to reactionaries, nationalists or even other left-wing factions.

I don't think this is true at all. I believe comrades Lenin and Trotsky argued that if there were other revolutions before, during or directly after the Russian revolution (namely in Germany) then the civil war would not have happened. The White Guards would be a much less efficient and confident force. I think the main thing we have to think about is the idea of coercion. If we are forcing people to join our revolution then we have failed from the outset. We're all human after all and we all want more or less the same thing. The proletariat is really the largest class and once the problem of alienation has been resolved and instilled into the hearts of every proletariat then I don't think we'd end up in huge civil wars with white guards and armies from other nations. Your whole outlook is kinda pessimistic :crying:


In general, I would say that a world revolution would run a higher risk to end with a disaster than a revolution in one country. The smaller a country, the less risk for bloodshed (but the smaller a country, the less probability to actually build socialism).

I think that the more isolated the country then the more chance there is for blood shed. If the whole world went up in revolution then who would man the armies? If one country went up then jingoism would flare up in other more entrenched capitalist countries.


The ideal country to build socialism in would be Canada.

Are you Canadian per chance? :laugh:

[Die Rote Fahne]

The Central Planning was from the "bottom up" as much as the material circumstances allowed it to be.

Before the NEP the Bolsheviks the policy they were pushing for was for the Unions to be the directors of the planned economy while the Soviets were the ones making the Political decisions. Is that "bottom-up" enough for you?

Also the great majority of the Bolsheviks were workers. Of course there were intellectuals (due to the fact that under a capitalist society most workers are enslaved and don't have time to study.)But specially after the party's membership swelled it was comprised of workers.

However the material conditions of Russia which did not have the capability of developing socialism plus, the Civil war is what lead to a real burocratizacion of the Soviet Union.

Ineed by the end of the war and by the time that the Left-Opposition was kicked out and all the old Bolsheviks were killed or capitulated then the burocracy using the aparatus that the Soviets had used against the white army eliminated any form of Worker's democracy.

If the situation had been like this from the start, then there wouldn't have been any need for the burocracy to eliminate all the old bolsheviks, suppres the left oposition or anything like that. No instead it had to fight a battle with the workers faction(the left oposition) in oder to be able to establish that dictatorship of the burocracy.

No, I disagree. The material conditions were not so that economic policy was unable to be formulated by the workers. There was no "bottom-up", all policy and directive came from the party and it's top tier.

I agree that the majority of the Bolshevik party were workers. Of course there were intellectuals as well. However, the worker's did not control or lead the party. While, yes, some party officials used to be a common worker, but they left that for their position in the party.

I agree that the material conditions were that socialism was unable to develop. However, that could have been remedied, after some years, through greater democratic efforts and bottom-up central planning.

Once again, the authoritarianism led to sectarianism which led to totalitarianism.

It was a fatal flaw in the Bolshevik's party.

[Dimentio]

Huh? Either socialism has been achieved or it hasn't. Which is it?:confused:



I don't think this is true at all. I believe comrades Lenin and Trotsky argued that if there were other revolutions before, during or directly after the Russian revolution (namely in Germany) then the civil war would not have happened. The White Guards would be a much less efficient and confident force. I think the main thing we have to think about is the idea of coercion. If we are forcing people to join our revolution then we have failed from the outset. We're all human after all and we all want more or less the same thing. The proletariat is really the largest class and once the problem of alienation has been resolved and instilled into the hearts of every proletariat then I don't think we'd end up in huge civil wars with white guards and armies from other nations. Your whole outlook is kinda pessimistic :crying:



I think that the more isolated the country then the more chance there is for blood shed. If the whole world went up in revolution then who would man the armies? If one country went up then jingoism would flare up in other more entrenched capitalist countries.



Are you Canadian per chance? :laugh:

No. I am from Northern Europe. Canada is ideal because it has vast areas, a small population and an abundance of natural resources.

If the whole world went up in a revolution, you would soon see reactionary militias claiming towns and entire districts forming counter-revolutionary units. It would not be like the Russian Civil War, and the fighting could take decades. Those who are affluent will afford to form their own armies to protect their privileges.

[BIG BROTHER]

No. I am from Northern Europe. Canada is ideal because it has vast areas, a small population and an abundance of natural resources.

If the whole world went up in a revolution, you would soon see reactionary militias claiming towns and entire districts forming counter-revolutionary units. It would not be like the Russian Civil War, and the fighting could take decades. Those who are affluent will afford to form their own armies to protect their privileges.

Yea and were would the bourgeoisie get their armies from if the whole world was in a revolution? Sigh...

[Tomhet]

The authoritarian "stance of the party" really? This seems like the most superficial analysis ever.

Without this "authoritarian party" the proletariat would have never conquered power and vice versa. There is a reson why the Bolsheviks grew from 8,000 to 250,000 in such short amount of time, the most advance workers saw it as THEIR revolutionary party with took THEM and the Soviets which are the highest form of democracy the world had yet to see to power.

I believe you are literally ignoring the material causes of the degeneration, which is not forgivable for someone who considers itself a Marxist.
Umm yeah, what the hell is an 'advanced worker'?

[Rafiq]

Er, I would assume that this was due to more power being put in the hands of so few.

[Drumming Monkey]

It's worth pointing out that there weren't exactly many workers around for 'workers democracy,' during the civil war. The most class concious were fighting in the civil war, and many workers had been 'absorbed' into the peasantry as a result of the destruction of industry due to the war and Russia's general economic state. The working class was weak in Russia from the start, but it was much weaker during this period:


"By 1919 the number of industrial workers declined to 76 percent of the 1917 level... By 1920, the figure for industrial workers generally fell from three million in 1917 to 1,240,000, i.e., to less than half. In two years the working-class population of Petrograd was halved." (A. Woods and E. Grant, Lenin and Trotsky: What They Really Stood For, page 75)

From what I've read so far, it seems any 'authoritarian' measures were in response to terrible war conditions, the soviets being totally exhausted (rather than repressed) etc

For example, in 1920 the 'workers opposition,' a faction within the Bolshevik party, and all factions (provided they didn't side with the White armies) were allowed to exist, have their arguments published in the party press, circulate leaflets at party congresses etc.

However, factions were banned after the Kronstadt rebellion. I guess that as the crisis worsened, more 'unity' in leadership was required and unfortunately the open debate and discussion of before suffered.

However, if Lenin and Trotsky didn't want workers democracy, then why did Trotsky, after Stalin had become general secretary, consistently put arguments to party congress saying that it was only workers participation that could regenerate the party and dislodge the bureaucracy? Of course by then, the party and state was so full of bureaucracy that they were having none of it.

It seems to me - and I'm learning a lot very quickly, and still have a lot to learn - that people can criticise their tactics, but to say that Lenin and Trotsky were tyrants like Stalin, just doesn't take into account the terrible material conditions which existed at that time.

I think most people here agree though that these problems would not have occurred if the revolution had spread. Also, if the revolution happened in one country but a more advanced one like Germany, (or Canada:))things would probably have been very very different.

[BIG BROTHER]

Umm yeah, what the hell is an 'advanced worker'?

By "Advanced worker" I meant a worker that has developed class consciousness who is fighting for the revolution. It is considered advanced because people's consciousness advances differently, some people get radicalized faster while to others it takes time, etc.

If you are a worker, then you are an Advanced worker because you understand the need to abolish capitalism and in your own way fight for the revolution.