Russia better off capitalist?

[Rafiq]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?

[SamV]

soviet communism =/= the ideas that marx actually had

[Geiseric]

Agreed, however debating Socialism with a guy who's been around since Bhreznov (Reznov lol) is kinda like debating national socialism with a german who lived through the nazis i'm thinking, so it's a very emotional subject.

[Chimurenga.]

So far, I can't take a single post in this thread seriously.

Also,

J1OyIJtjdpo

[Rusty Shackleford]

i was just about to post that video.


Seriously though. in NO FUCKING WAY is capitalism better than the old soviet system. even the 'democracy' is shit in Russia.

Havent you all heard of the fascist hooligans everywhere in russia? thats relatively new.

how about the oligarchs?

how about the war in Dagestan

cooperation with the US?

homelessness

half of all hospitals since the SU are gone.

half of all theatres.

the police are all fucks.

cossacks read mein kampf

alcoholism is worse than it was.

drug abuse is rampant.

and so on.

[southernmissfan]

Don't forget the HIV/AIDS problem.

[robbo203]

While it is almost certainly the case that for a probably a majority of Russians there has been a relative deterioriation in standards of living etc, by comparsion with the old soviet system of state run capitalism, I think it is pointless harking back to the past. State capitalism was, I would argue, doomed to implode. From the phenomenal growth rates in the early years of soviet industrialisation we have seen a steady relentless decline. Had the Soviet Union survived there probably would be very little to chose between it and the situation we have now.

According to Tony Cliff in his State Capitalism in Russia

In the USSR the annual rate of growth of gross national product was as follows: The first five year plan – 19.2 percent (probably an exaggerated figure); 1950-59 – 5.8 percent; 1970-78 – 3.7 percent. In 1980-82 it was down to 1.5 percent and over the last ten years there has been a negative rate of growth. Clearly then the productive forces were not developing efficiently (1988 Introduction)


I would say this that the steady decline was primarily due to the inherent difficulties that a state capitalist model of development has dealing with an increasingly diversified economy. In the old days the focus was much simpler - on the development of heavy industries and large scale infrastructural projects. This is probably an argument for saying it was easier to marshall and direct resources under these circumstances though we should forget that the concommitant of this was massive repression of the working class and, in the early years of Stalin, a very significantt decline in working class living standards according to Alex Nove (something people ought to bear in mind when making comparisons). The growth of light industry and even more, the services sector, in the post war years increased the complexity factor enormously and this is partly what dragged the state capitalist model down as well as other things like the growing incorporation of the Soviet economy into the rest of the capitalist world.

Finally we should not forget that the move to abandon the old state capitalist soviet model came primarily from within the soviet ruling class itself in what has been described as a "revolution from above". Indeed some of these old communist party apparatchiks are now themselves multi-millionaires/billionaires- part of that exclusive club of Russian oligarchs

So lets not hanker of the Soviet past. It was rotten to the core and like a rotten apple doomed to drop. Instead of this conservative nostalgia for an exploitative repressive regime we should be raising our sights much higher and looking to work towards a truly communist future

[Manic Impressive]

What did capitalism accomplish in 5 years that communism couldn't do in 70 years?

Make communism look good.

[scarletghoul]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?
If he's only been around since Brezhnev then he wouldn't have experienced proper socialism, just revisionism. I would not want to live under a revisionist regime like that either (though it would be better than capitalist russia i think.. people literally died on holocaust scale due to privatisation of health care). There's a reason the russian communists now uphold Lenin + Stalin and not Khruschev or Brezhnev, and there's a reason so many old people who remember the Stalin era are hardcore socialists. (Patronising borderline-racist bourgeois media wisdom will tell you that it is either naive nostalgia or a longing for totalitarian rule inherent to Russian nature :lol: )

[bcbm]

What did capitalism accomplish in 5 years that communism couldn't do in 70 years?

Make communism look good.

ziiiing!

[CynicalIdealist]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?

Yes. I don't really change my pants much at all, to be honest. I've worn this pair for the past half year or so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think "better-off, worse-off" is the wrong approach. I mean living under Franco was probably more pleasant than under Hitler, but I wouldn't say one was better or worse. Russia (the people that is) is not necessarily better off under the free market, it just wasn't that well off under a the USSR either.

When you talk about the problems of capitalism, apologists always say, it's better than slavery, it's better than a "socialist" dictator, it's better than feudalism. That may or may not be the case, but the point is that in Russia now, there are people being oppressed by a resurgent Russian imperialism, there are people starving while oligarchs get rich, life expectancy is low, infant mortaily high and so on... and all this is preventable if society wasn't organized along the needs of parasitic minority ruling classes (regardless of weather they plan the economy through a state or a market).

Actually I've always had pretty interesting talks with Russian immigrants in the US - (ones who were fairly open-minded and not motivated by a specific ideology that is). Generally the impression I've had with them in discussions of socialism and the USSR is that they think the USSR was socialist but that socialism just doesn't work. They like what I have to say about what socialism could really look like, but they just have the same reaction that many people in the US have when you talk about the virtues of democracy - they are so used to a bullshit false-version that they tend to be cynical.

[Dire Helix]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Typical petty bourgeois mentality. Using your personal experience as some sort of marker. The statistics show that people were better off before 1991 regardless of the nature of the regime. How many pairs of pants the dude had is irrelevant(and if he didn`t like having only one pair, he should`ve bought a few pairs more - problem solved).


Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

Must be true then.


he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

The single most parasitic city on Earth populated by petty-bourgeois reactionaries who loathe equality and are afraid to lose their privileged position in life. Most of the money in Russia flocks towards Moscow and(to a much lesser extent) a few other big cities, the rest of the country is left to rot and degenerate. Should another revolution happen in Russia, Moscow won`t be where it starts.

[NecroCommie]

Practially no russian I have met have had such negative opinions about the USSR. Numerous old russian ladies actually gave me tip for wearing a Lenin pin when working in the library. Not that this proves anything, but this is a good thing to point out to those russians who are telling you "well I didn't like it so it must not be good". Well, many russians seemed to have no objections so what does that prove?

[Rafiq]

Something that bothered me, he said when the USSR allowed capitalism it worked greatly and life was good.but after 7 years they took it away for deal reasons.

[ComradeOm]

Seriously though. in NO FUCKING WAY is capitalism better than the old soviet systemWas medieval Europe "better" than the Roman Empire? Probably not but its a moot point. Sometimes systems simply run their course and break down. The Soviet system was unsustainable and, with hindsight, clearly breaking down throughout the 1980s. Picking out indicators of how people suffered in the fall is not going to change this


Well, many russians seemed to have no objections so what does that prove?That not everyone has the same experiences. Which goes no distance towards explaining/excusing away the bad ones


The single most parasitic city on Earth populated by petty-bourgeois reactionaries who loathe equality and are afraid to lose their privileged position in lifeNow this is just silly. Repeat after me: Moscow is not Babylon


Something that bothered me, he said when the USSR allowed capitalism it worked greatly and life was good.but after 7 years they took it away for deal reasonsNow this is demonstrably false. It is clear from looking at almost any indicator that you choose (literacy, population, life expectancy, real wages, birth/death rates, etc) that there was a massive decline in Russian living standards in the early 1990s. It was only in the last years of that decade that there was anything resembling a recovery

[Kotze]

Pay close attention to what he says and try to see things from his perspective. How could you and your little theories ever compare to his decades of real experience? Don't treat words like socialism and capitalism as having definitive meaning, fill in what they mean for these conversation based on what he says. Let him talk more. If he prefers living in the USA today to living in the USSR, that doesn't require brainwashing, it's entirely understandable.

Don't try to get all your points across in one big monologue. You might occasionally say that you basically agree with him, but... Like this: Yeah, the USA and England have had a higher standard of living and they are capitalist, but so are countries in Africa.

Yeah, Russians today have things they didn't have in the USSR, like mobile phones and the internet. The USSR ended two decades ago. It wasn't usual to have mobile phones or internet access in 1991, not even for Americans. Okay, I admit the Americans also had it better in 1990 or 1980 than the Russians in those years, but comparing today's capitalism with the time capsule of socialism and saying what a huge difference this is isn't entirely fair.

Yeah, I found this statistical comparison of incomes which shows what you said is true. I found it informative, though one has to keep in mind that it uses averages, and you know the saying: On average everyone has one nut.

You can help him to change his opinions by nudging him in the right direction, but in the end he is the one who decides whether to change them. ComradeOm is right about the drop in living standards due to the shock therapy (IIRC life expectancy got five years shorter, then climbed up again), but even straightforward information has to be delivered in a very diplomatic way if you want him to change his mind.

[pranabjyoti]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?
Such m***er f*ck**s are now available all around the world. Just come to India and visit metropolises like Bangalore, Mumbai and ask any worker working in IT sector. See, how enthusiastically he/she will describe how 1991 bring prosperity to India and how before that the so called "socialist" rule of India put it on the edge. He/she will describe how India is shining after 1991 (when liberal economic policy was introduced in India) and how India is going to be an world power after 1991. But anybody who have little idea about India know what the truth is.
What decision you will take by visiting those cities and talking of 'workers' of IT sector?

[Crimson Commissar]

Something that bothered me, he said when the USSR allowed capitalism it worked greatly and life was good.but after 7 years they took it away for deal reasons.
This guy is either making bullshit up, or greatly over-exaggerating it. From what I've seen most Russians at least (though maybe not those from other SSRs) are very supportive of the USSR, but they're too easily fooled by Putin's nationalist propaganda rather than supporting parties that actually want to restore socialism.

[The Idler]

Probably a separate topic, but anyone else think this common conception of Breznhev "revisionism" used here is completely meaningless.

[RedSquare]

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anything to counter this?
Some people living under capitalism, only have one pair of pants! So I don't think its fair to judge respective ideology by how many pairs of pants one has.

I've actually read a lot more articles about how the people of the Soviet Union were better off than they are under capitalism.

[Rafiq]

He also went on Supporting reaganomics.

saying that if you have more rich people in an Area, the area will become more prosperous.

He then went on saying in the accent "In soviet union, they try make no more rich. In USA, they try make no more poor".

Why would someone think this way

[L.A.P.]

and there's a reason so many old people who remember the Stalin era are hardcore socialists.

This is a good point to bring up that many of the citizens who lived under Stalin seem to fetishize him and rave about socialism while those who lived under succeeding leaders were a bit more than disappointed with socialism.

[sanpal]

So far, I can't take a single post in this thread seriously.

Also,

J1OyIJtjdpo

Could I ask someone of you, guys to explain briefly what the announcer says about in this video? I don't understand voice English but have realised that the video about Ivanovo, the city where I grown up till 20 y.o.

[Red Commissar]

Could I ask someone of you, guys to explain briefly what the announcer says about in this video? I don't understand voice English but have realised that the video about Ivanovo, the city where I grown up till 20 y.o.

It's about the social changes that have occurred in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It focuses mostly on how Russia's population is decreasing at the time this documentary was filmed (this was sometime in 2003-2005, I can't remember exactly when it was made)- death rate outweighed birth rate and migration. Ivanovo it brings up as an example of cities that have not fit in well in the transition from the old Soviet-style economic organization to free market, and is decaying due to the collapse in industry and as such social services fall apart and the population suffers.

[Struggle]

Depends what constitutes as 'better off'. In terms of Quality of living, much of the population is probably better off under Capitalism in Russia today than they were under 'Socialism'.
Russia does have vast deposits of resources and has generated into, what could be argued as an imperialist society.

Sooner or later, the vast vast majority will be better off in terms of quality of life, than they were under 'Socialism', as Russia is bound to, unless a revolution occurs, to establish itself into a full-blown imperialist society at some point.

People in imperialist societies benefit from imperialism more than anybody else, which is why they're standards of living would improve under imperialist Capitalism rather than anti-imperialist Socialism.

However, ultimately your question of being ‘Better off’, depends on how you define ‘better off’.

[Rafiq]

Standard of Living.

[Lyev]

Well Joseph Stiglitz has documented the drop in living standards, life expectancy, GDP etc. in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet regime. I am not trying to prove here that state-capitalism is somehow 'better' than oligarchic capitalism in a simplistic, black-and-white way. I am simply saying that living standards have dropped; how and why is subjective and multifaceted. It is weird; all these features I was taught in history class on the USSR - alcoholism, drug-use, absenteeism were rife, the economy was inefficient, the 'apparatchiks' were corrupt careerists - as a product of the failures of 'communism' have markedly and dramatically worsened with the return to a normal market economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Other than declining or stagnant standards of living, there has been no real infrastructure and broad economic development since the Brezhnev era, when it was "renting" from Socialist Primitive Accumulation and turning to oil and gas.

[sanpal]

Thanks for clarifying.

It is not an evident answer that capitalist Russia is better off in comparing with the f. USSR , it depends on what aspect to examine and what consider under the living standard. Of course Moscow was a "showcase" of the USSR (Leningrad, Baltic area too) because of foreign tourists, etc. but the standard of consumption of soviet people all over the country was not so much differing. If to compare average wage 100-150 rubles, retired people got pension 60-120 rubles, professors or miners 180-250 rubles, there was a north rise in wages, etc. Now some mothers have no butter to bread for her children and at that time the others don't work and spend theirs free days at the best seasides of the world. there is chasm between rich and poor. To say, many of the working class didn't notice a big difference, in the USSR they had money and could not buy a quality goods because of shortage (non quality goods were enough), now they have not enough money to buy quality goods and they are forced to buy non quality goods. But at that time they had no unemployment in the distinction from today's situation. And though the lack of unemployment weaken the labour discipline it gives the possibility to choose a profession for free. It must be noted, there were good education and medicine service (now they both are awful).
　
It is long talk though.

[pranabjyoti]

Thanks for clarifying.

It is not an evident answer that capitalist Russia is better off in comparing with the f. USSR , it depends on what aspect to examine and what consider under the living standard. Of course Moscow was a "showcase" of the USSR (Leningrad, Baltic area too) because of foreign tourists, etc. but the standard of consumption of soviet people all over the country was not so much differing. If to compare average wage 100-150 rubles, retired people got pension 60-120 rubles, professors or miners 180-250 rubles, there was a north rise in wages, etc. Now some mothers have no butter to bread for her children and at that time the others don't work and spend theirs free days at the best seasides of the world. there is chasm between rich and poor. To say, many of the working class didn't notice a big difference, in the USSR they had money and could not buy a quality goods because of shortage (non quality goods were enough), now they have not enough money to buy quality goods and they are forced to buy non quality goods. But at that time they had no unemployment in the distinction from today's situation. And though the lack of unemployment weaken the labour discipline it gives the possibility to choose a profession for free. It must be noted, there were good education and medicine service (now they both are awful).
　
It is long talk though.
A very dangerous point. Do you think that unemployment is necessary for labor discipline? That's the most poisonous kind of thinking I have seen here.

[DuracellBunny97]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.

[Kiev Communard]

While the influx of import consumer goods, creation of retail trade chains, etc. created the illusion of "prosperity" in large city centres and their suburbs in Russia and Ukraine, the vast swathes of territory and its population are impoverished, infrastructure management and renovation are completely neglected, domestic industry and agriculture stagnate. If not for the foreign imports, the level of shortages would be much higher than under Brezhnev, as the whole branches of industry are either shrunk or completely dismantled. For instance, in Kiev there are call centres and business offices for banks in buildings which used to house high-tech machinery factories.

[pranabjyoti]

Comrade KC,
Kindly inform that whether for large basic machinery like Agriculture, mining and other heavy industries are now down and your country have to import it from abroad. That's very dangerous because that means for proper industrialization, you are totally dependent on foreign investment and machinery now and if they withdraw, you are just ruined. Now your countries whole effort would be satisfy the foreign investors anyhow, because they are now in the driving seat of the economy.
IS IT RIGHT?

[pranabjyoti]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.
What can be more oppressive than capitalism and imperialism?

[Crimson Commissar]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.
You don't seriously think that there is ANY freedom WHATSOEVER under capitalism, do you?

[Imposter Marxist]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.


It's better, really? How? The crippling poverty and homelessness? The Fascist bandit's who run the country and make deals with the police, beating immigrants on a whim? Is that better? The giant gap in rich and poor? The Soviet Union funded other revolutionary movements, and more than that, just by existing they kept the Left in the minds of people; It was a real alternative to capitalism, something we really don't have now.

I'm actually quite interested in what you think is "Better" about the Russian Federation. I have a feeling you'll respond with some Bourgeois trash about how now they have "Democracy" and can pick their leaders!

You might as well just come out and say "Hey, now they get to run companies and exploit workers! They're free now!"

FYI, comrade, starvation and poverty are pretty oppressive things.

[Nuvem]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.

This is full-blown reactionary, and in the literal and appropriate sense of the word. To say that a transition from even a deformed worker's state to an out-and-out imperialist/capitalist one is an improvement is utterly revisionist. Russia doesn't have even the slightest hint of liberty, organized crime and forced prostitution are rampant, Nazbols are running for and GETTING seats in the Duma, the nation sells arms wantonly to any group with a jingle in their pocket, and the state-run enterprises such as Gazprom that served the people in the USSR now serve to stuff the pockets of the government officials that run them.

What you said above is a hideous breach of anti-imperialist stance. The mantra of anti-Imperialism is "not an inch, not an ounce", and you say that the cession of the single largest state on Earth- an economic powerhouse with some of the richest and most exploitable reserves of natural resources on the planet, the birthplace of the world-wide revolution of the 20th century- is an improvement. The very notion that any state is somehow improved by capitalism as opposed to a struggling socialist economy is a social-chauvanist stance at best, imperialist-sympathizing at worst.

[sanpal]

A very dangerous point. Do you think that unemployment is necessary for labor discipline? That's the most poisonous kind of thinking I have seen here.
Alas it is so. It is normal for wage system when working people who are not owners of the means of production wish to sell their labour power for higher price or, if the level of wage is limited by state norm they try to work less. I worked in the USSR for 20 years under socialism and in the modern Russia for 20 years under capitalism and can compare both: now the working people fear to lose their jobs, they don't drink vodka during working time, in the former USSR this was vice versa. (extensive way of developing of soviet economy needed in more and more working forces what caused the lack of workers' hands). Another situation if a worker is individual or working people are owners of the means of production (for example in commune), in that case they have no reason not to increase their productivity and to keep labour discipline voluntarily.

[Born in the USSR]

I absolutely disagree with sanpal.

The absence of unemployment is the greatest achievement of socialism.This greatest social good gives a person great freedom: freedom of choice of profession and real freedom of speech.I have been convinced that the only freedom of speech in wich people is truly interest is a freedom to express your boss all you think about him and his attitude towards his subordinates.In the USSR people enjoyed this freedom,unemployment destroyed it now.

Yes,it was a hard job - to be a boss in the USSR.He had to be able to get on together with workers and at the same time not to let them to sit on his neck.

Every coin has its other side.The other side of the freedom was a labor dicipline problem.This problem can be solved by administrative methods.In Stalin times labor dicipline was high.

[Rafiq]

Under socialism you have no 'boss'

[Born in the USSR]

Are a foreman or a plant manager not bosses? Or there are no plants under socialism? :(

[robbo203]

I absolutely disagree with sanpal.

The absence of unemployment is the greatest achievement of socialism.This greatest social good gives a person great freedom: freedom of choice of profession and real freedom of speech.I have been convinced that the only freedom of speech in wich people is truly interest is a freedom to express your boss all you think about him and his attitude towards his subordinates.In the USSR people enjoyed this freedom,unemployment destroyed it now..

It is a myth to claim that there was no unemployment in the Soviet Unioin. Of course, in the 20s there was official unemployment, figures for which can be obtained from the Soviet Yearbook but it was with the institutionalisation of the so called central planning system towards the end of that decade that the myth of unemployment arose. The argument was that central planning had eliminated the tendency towards structural periodic crises and hence mass unemployment. In fact what existed in the state capitalist system of the Soviet Union was just an elaboration of practices that western capitalist governments engage in - namely job creation schemes - which are really just a way of massaging the unemployment figures. In the Soviet Uniuon unemployment simply took the form of disguised unemployment. Surplus workers were kept on the payroll of state enterprises even if they had no work to do. There were all sorts of reasons whyt it was beneficial for state enterprises to do this not the least of which was that these surplus workers served as a kind of internalised industrial reserve army to draw upon whenever circumstances, or planned targets, changed. We should not overlook either the role of slave labour performed by gulag prisoners in respect of reducing the appearance of unemployment


You mention "freedom of choice of profession and real freedom of speech" Actually under Stalin for quite while, workers had no freedom to change jobs; they were obliged to stick with the job they had. Increasing worker discontent in the 1950s led to this system being abandoned



Yes,it was a hard job - to be a boss in the USSR.He had to be able to get on together with workers and at the same time not to let them to sit on his neck.

Every coin has its other side.The other side of the freedom was a labor dicipline problem.This problem can be solved by administrative methods.In Stalin times labor dicipline was high.

You clain it was a hard job to "be a boss in the USSR". Youre kidding surely? The managers of state enterprises enjoyed a level of income (actually multiple incomes was the norm for such individuals) and a lifestyle to match that, the workers could only dream of. This included their very own private shops stocking western goods from which ordinary workers were physically excluded. In terms of the degree of economic inequality and with a gini coefficient of 0.31, the Soviet Union was roughly comparable to the United Kingdom or Canada (0.30)

You claim a boss in the Soviet Union had a hard time to get workers not "to sit on his neck" and yet you say under Stalin labour discipline was "too high". You should make up your mind which was the case

[S.Artesian]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?


Yeah, it's called life expectancy. Look at the change after 1992.

And something else, called the Natasha trade, where women from the fSU were essentially exported around the Western world as sex-workers.

[Jose Gracchus]

Where a source for the GINI index of the USSR? Also, it is misleading as it looks only at wages, while there was public provision of many goods and services, without or predominantly not paid from workers' wages.

[pranabjyoti]

Any unemployed woman can increase her earning by being a prostitute and that certainly increases her standard of living. Do you favor prostitution over normal jobs? I guess prostitution can be profitable than a average job.

[S.Artesian]

Where a source for the GINI index of the USSR? Also, it is misleading as it looks only at wages, while there was public provision of many goods and services, without or predominantly not paid from workers' wages.

Don't know if the numbers were ever calculated for the FSU. The UN's HDI [human development index] for Russia shows a decline and modest recovery with levels still below 1990 in 2005:

1990= .815; 2000= .782 2005=.802

So the ability of society to maintain the health and welfare of its population has declined since 1990.

[ComradeOm]

Where a source for the GINI index of the USSR? Also, it is misleading as it looks only at wages, while there was public provision of many goods and services, without or predominantly not paid from workers' wages.Looking at wages is highly misleading when talking about the USSR. The problem there, and in the East European satellite states, was not lack of wages but that you couldn't buy anything with the money you had. An indicator of status/privilege was not having a huge amount of money, but having access to special shops where you could spend it

[robbo203]

Where a source for the GINI index of the USSR? Also, it is misleading as it looks only at wages, while there was public provision of many goods and services, without or predominantly not paid from workers' wages.

The source of the Gini coefficent data I referred to was John Fleming and John Micklewright's paper "Income Distribution, Economic Systems and Transition" . They cite the work of researchers like Morrison who, using data from the 1970s, found that countries like Poland and the Soviet Union had relatively high levels of income inequality, registering gini coefficients of 0.31 in both cases, which put them on a par with Canada (0.30) and the USA (0.34) ( http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf)). Also useful as a source of information is Roy Medvedev's Khrushchev: The Years in Power (Columbia University Press. 1976). He argues taking into account not only the inflated "salaries" and often multiple salaries but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite the ratio between low and high earners was more like 1:100.


Regarding the composition of workers income , the evidence suggests
that the wage packet remained the most important single component of income for Soviet workers (Brus W, "The Economic Role of the State: West and East", Survey, XXV, 4, 1980). The scale of subsidised or free goods tended to be strongly correlated with salary levels which means basically that the higher up you were in terms of salary income the more perks you got.

On final point - in terms of payments-in-kind, while there was certainly an element of this in the Soviet era you should note that with the collapse of the state capitalist system this has iroincally increased for all sorts of reasons, along with the growth of domestic barter between enterprises. This is worth bearing in mind in making comparisons before and after the collapse of state capitalism. It would seem to suggest that a lot of what Russian workers receive these days slips under the radar and doesnt really count towards the official "standard of living" but I havent really looked in great detail at this question. Perhaps someone else might have some useful links relevant to this

[Crimson Commissar]

Looking at wages is highly misleading when talking about the USSR. The problem there, and in the East European satellite states, was not lack of wages but that you couldn't buy anything with the money you had. An indicator of status/privilege was not having a huge amount of money, but having access to special shops where you could spend it
Something I often wonder, who DID have access to these priveledges many people say existed in eastern europe? Was it really just run like some sort of aristocracy, where if you were the child of an important party member you had access to things others did not? Or were these things only available to those who actually contributed to society in a significant way? If it's the second one, then, well, I don't see why people should be complaining. If people contribute more then they should deserve more. (Though not by a massive amount)

[Jose Gracchus]

Something I often wonder, who DID have access to these priveledges many people say existed in eastern europe? Was it really just run like some sort of aristocracy, where if you were the child of an important party member you had access to things others did not? Or were these things only available to those who actually contributed to society in a significant way? If it's the second one, then, well, I don't see why people should be complaining. If people contribute more then they should deserve more. (Though not by a massive amount)

Mere anecdote, but: yes. The immediate (and I'm sure, by second-hand, extended) families of party members and important bureaucrats and state-privileged people did get special access to Western stores and goods. My girlfriend was born in USSR just months before it collapsed, and her mom was born in the early 1970s, her grandmother and other extended family as early as the late 1940s. The nomenklatura's daughters, my girlfriend's mother said, were able to get designer dresses and such from the West while others could not when there would be a dance or the like. Of course that might have been as it started to unravel and liberalizing in the 1980s. This doesn't take the place of a scholarly account, of course.

[Rafiq]

Are a foreman or a plant manager not bosses? Or there are no plants under socialism? :(

There's plants, but they are run by the people inside.

So a scientist who knows a shit load about working them, contributes his part, and so do the people who work insdie of it.

Everyone contributes soemthing but no one has authority over another. (In the same field at elast)

[DuracellBunny97]

Yes it's better, but what's that saying? hardly anything, it's not as though Russia is that great of a country now, the people have more freedom yes. but, for example, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union birth rates went WAY down, and death rates went WAY up, but I think it's fair to say it is a better system, and I have no problem saying that, because the Soviet Union does not represent what I believe at all. It's not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, it's oppression vs freedom.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/progress.gif
oi vey, I opened one big fucking can of worms with that one, alright fine, I have a bad habbit of going to far in my condemnation of the Soviet Union, I guess it's not so simple I made it out to be, Russian history is not exactly pretty general I suppose. I still say the Soviet Union wasn't a good system, but modern day Russia is a pretty bad society, and I don't think a good alternative to capitalism is a so-called "socialist" government, so ultimately, I don't know what to say about which is better

[Born in the USSR]

I'm not going to comment on anti-Soviet horror stories.If somebody whant to think that the USSR was terrible let him amuse himself.

Just some facts for illustration:

Student's scolarship in the USSR - 40 rubles;

Wages of

a janitor - 60 rubles;
a yung engeneer - 130 rubles;
an experienced engineer - 175 rubles;
an unskilled labourer - 150 rubles;
a skilled labourer - 300-400 rubles;
a general manager of a plant - 500 rubles;
a university professor - 500 rubles;
an army leutenant - 250 rubles;
a colonel - 400 rubles;
a first secretary of a regional commetee of the CPSU - 700 rubles;
a minister - 700 rubles;
a general secretary of the CPSU - 1200 rubles.

I can tell what you could buy with that money if someone is interesting in it.

[Rafiq]

That would be nice if you do. But excuse me, this amount an hour or a week or what?

[The Author]

I absolutely disagree with sanpal.

The absence of unemployment is the greatest achievement of socialism.This greatest social good gives a person great freedom: freedom of choice of profession and real freedom of speech.I have been convinced that the only freedom of speech in wich people is truly interest is a freedom to express your boss all you think about him and his attitude towards his subordinates.In the USSR people enjoyed this freedom,unemployment destroyed it now.

Yes,it was a hard job - to be a boss in the USSR.He had to be able to get on together with workers and at the same time not to let them to sit on his neck.

Every coin has its other side.The other side of the freedom was a labor dicipline problem.This problem can be solved by administrative methods.In Stalin times labor dicipline was high.

When I read sanpal's posts, the ideas of perestroika and glasnost come to my mind. They were tried, they failed terribly, and they should never be repeated.

I remember reading a very long time ago the periodical Soviet Life which was produced for the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. There was I believe an article on labor discipline and how workers could never be fired by their bosses, only the trade union had this power, and there was a comment by the author that management was annoyed with employing so many people and only desired to cut some employees. The article was written in the 1970s, and I know experiments in cutting labor resources in the workplace in areas such as Shchekino had been tried, but thinking like this was a definite sign that you had a material basis for why some people wanted perestroika and the ability to create unemployment.

Speaking of labor discipline, the 1950 Criminal Code of the RSFSR comes to my mind as an example especially in regards to treatment of absenteeism. Pretty effective means, even if one doesn't like it.


Are a foreman or a plant manager not bosses? Or there are no plants under socialism? :(

No, in the minds of most "communists" around here, socialism beneath the political veneer entails a worker who simply punches his card at check-in at the factory, sits on his ass all day, collects the "labor-time vouchers," goes home, and is answerable to no one and coordinates no production activities except to service themselves. Administration is a dirty word. Oh, you'll hear the "but the workers will simply manage it themselves" cover story for this laziness disguised as "socialism." Fallacy on this point, because: one- lack of management means lack of coordinating activities and producing goods and services, and; two- certain parts of the production process require certain employees to do certain things and to carry out particular tasks and to follow plans. If you don't have planning, there's no purpose, and every single attempt at self-management resulted in a comical but miserable disaster.



I can tell what you could buy with that money if someone is interesting in it.

I'm interested. Would be a nice relief to get some informative information as opposed to the endless scholastic bullshit which is constantly posted in thread after thread after thread.

[Leninster]

I think the life expectancy dropping by more than 5 years alone shows a great deal about post 91' Russia.

[Leninster]

Also, where did this man that you talked to live in the Soviet Union? Remember, there was 15 different republics and I'm sure attitude differed, especially due to the problem of ethnic diversity.

[Born in the USSR]

That would be nice if you do. But excuse me, this amount an hour or a week or what?

I'll do it tomorrow.

This was a salary per month.

[Rafiq]

Alright. Because compared to today that's doesn't appear to be a lot.

[pranabjyoti]

Alright. Because compared to today that's doesn't appear to be a lot.
Well, the question what can you buy with such a salary. I am also interested in perks to workers and other, which in my opinion are also part of salary. And also remember the free education, healthcare and other facilities and add that to the wage. Does that too low altogether?

[Born in the USSR]

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/279.jpg

One ruble - a complete meal in the dining room;
33 cups of lemonade, and 50 calls from a payphone;
100 boxes of matches;
5 cups of ice cream;
20 trips in the bus or subway;
4 loaves of white bread (900-1000 gramm);
5 liters of milk;
a dozen eggs;
1,2 kilogramm of sugar;
20 trips to the cinema;
2 bottles of good beer, and 3 packs of bad cigarettes ;
a full tank of petrol in the car ( 4 kopeks for a liter );
5 trips to the men's barbershop or bath.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/281.jpg

Three rubles -a dinner for 5-6 persons in the factory or school cafeteria;
a lunch at a restaurant for one;
a good book;
a doll or other toy of domestic production;
a bottle of a good wine;
hiking in a sauna;
a cultural outing of the whole family, including a snack;
a pack of good cigarettes.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/285.jpg

Five rubles - a kilogram of meat at the market, or 2 kilograms of meat at the store;
a bottle of vodka;
a taxi ride "in style";
a kilogramm of very good chocolates.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/289.jpg

Ten rubles -a huge stick expensive sausages;
an expensive technical or desktop toy,such as machines or pool;
a sports equipment such as skis or a set of ping-pong table, an inexpensive guitar;
a monthly rent for a family.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/293.jpg

Twenty five rubles - airline ticket local airlines;
a tickets for the train Saratov-Novosibirsk ( abot 1500 km,two and a half day of the road );
a couple of good women's shoes;
a great razzle-dazzle at a restaurant.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/296.jpg

Fifty rubles - a teenage bicycle;
a winter coat;
a smallest pension;
a scholarship of an exellent student;
Well,it was already possible to live for a month ... but not rich.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/300.jpg

One hundred rubles - three weeks in an inexpensive sanatorium or dispensary with all costs;
a cheapest tape;
a cheap bike.

What else?

[The Author]

This is great. Really provides a little perspective on life in the East.

What could you buy with more than one hundred rubles- say, for instance, something that cost five hundred rubles?

If you didn't spend money, how much of your monthly income went towards your retirement pension?

[Arlekino]

We dont live bad in Soviet Union, we could afford even make huge parties at home. We could afford go to cinema every week or theatre, now do working class can go every week to concert, or to watch some ballet. And aout one pants is highly unlike maybe after the war which all Europe struggled with one pants:crying:

[Toppler]

Anti-USSR-Eastern Bloc people, why it is that almost everybody who lived under state socialism and who is not an ex-dissident or a buinessman or otherwise upper middle class/rich person says they lived better under socialism or at least that they didn't live bad and had job safety and affordable stuff needed for decent living? This is not to say the view state sicialism uncritically, just to say they enjoyed living in it, just as English or French people today enjoy living under the Western system.

Seriously, with the exception of Albania, Romania and Poland, the "poor oppressed Eastern European person living under evil commies" stereotype is a Western invention and bullshit, perhaps aided by sob stories pandered by dissidents to gain sympathy.

Yes, many people in the ex-communist countries are poor. This does not apply much, however, to Central European countries (Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, there is poverty, but not mainstream and none of that gut wrenching sort seen in Africa and Asia) and it only shows the impact of speedy destruction of planned economies to a ravenous neo-liberal model, not communism. This is because western people see some street kids in Russia and think "See, this is what communism does to people" and not "See, this is what the destruction of communism does to people".

I know about the atrocities by Cheka and NKVD in the USSR before the 1950s. The same about Maoist catastrophes and dekamillion killing purges. And it applies to 1950-1991 socialism about as much as Atlantic slave trade and genocide of native population by Western powers applies to modern day USA or Western Europe. Every big civilization has some skeletons in the closet some time in the past. It is horrible, but it is a waste of time to dwell on ancient atrocities.

[Born in the USSR]

Some information for thought about Brezhnev times.

Many important social decisions were made during Brezhnev's 18 years.

Five-day work week was established instead of six-day week.May,9 (Victory Day) and March,8 ( Women Day) became holidays,and veterans of the war and families of victims of the war have received numerous benefits. The retirement age was reduced to the current limit (women - 55 men - 60). Salaries, pensions and child benefits increased. Minimum wage in 1971 had risen to 70 rubles, this was quite enough for an ordinary life.
At the first stage of Brezhnev's ruling progressive labor laws were taken (to dismiss an employee was virtually impossible</span> ).A call-up period decreased up to 2 years in army (instead of 3 years ) and up to 3 years in navy (instead of 4 years).Even more liberal become a tax law;for workers and employees was repealed the tax for land use,incomes up to 100 rubles were not taxed at all.And support for mothers and children? After the birth of a second child state paid monthly mothers a allowance of 100 rubles.A maternity-leave with job retention and 100% of salary was 1,5 years plus 1,5 years of leave withou a pay.

I want to ask fans of the theory of "state capitalism":was it a policy of a bourgeois dictatorship or however a policy of a dictatorship of a proletariat? Remember,all these were done without any pressure of people in power.

During Brezhnev's 18 years 161 millions (!) of people got a new homes.Note,housing was not a commodity in the USSR,it was not sold,it was given ( so as some other benefits ) for all members of society.This was already the elements of communism."State capitalists",what can you say about this fact?

[S.Artesian]

Anti-USSR-Eastern Bloc people, why it is that almost everybody who lived under state socialism and who is not an ex-dissident or a buinessman or otherwise upper middle class/rich person says they lived better under socialism or at least that they didn't live bad and had job safety and affordable stuff needed for decent living? This is not to say the view state sicialism uncritically, just to say they enjoyed living in it, just as English or French people today enjoy living under the Western system.

Because they did live better.

What you have to account for is why the system collapsed, could not sustain itself, and why in a socialist or workers' state, the workers themselves were immobilized and unable to act against the penetration of asset-liquidationist capitalism.

[Born in the USSR]

What could you buy with more than one hundred rubles- say, for instance, something that cost five hundred rubles?

If you didn't spend money, how much of your monthly income went towards your retirement pension?


Footwear / Clothing:

Jeans (the dream of young people) could be get only from the hands for a price 80 to 250 rubles for a couple;
Branded imported shoes:70-250 rubles;
A hat of musquash cost 120 rubles ;
</span>A coat of nutria - 2,000 rubles;
Sheepskin coat: about 1,000 rubles;
Generally, a coat of natural cost 800-1000 rubles, was the object of desire of all women and a symbol of being fabulous.

Some other things:

</span>Furniture (sofa, two chairs, coffee table) costs about 350 rubles;
Black and white TV - 350 rubles,colour TV - 650 rubles;
A good imported tape - about 500 rubles;
A most expencive soviet car - 9770 rubles.

Muximum pension was 120 rubles,practically everyone could make it.

[robbo203]

I'm not going to comment on anti-Soviet horror stories.If somebody whant to think that the USSR was terrible let him amuse himself.

Just some facts for illustration:

Student's scolarship in the USSR - 40 rubles;

Wages of

a janitor - 60 rubles;
a yung engeneer - 130 rubles;
an experienced engineer - 175 rubles;
an unskilled labourer - 150 rubles;
a skilled labourer - 300-400 rubles;
a general manager of a plant - 500 rubles;
a university professor - 500 rubles;
an army leutenant - 250 rubles;
a colonel - 400 rubles;
a first secretary of a regional commetee of the CPSU - 700 rubles;
a minister - 700 rubles;
a general secretary of the CPSU - 1200 rubles.

I can tell what you could buy with that money if someone is interesting in it.

This (unreferenced) data completely overlooks several things which have a bearing on the subject of inequality under Soviet state capitalism


1) multiple uncomes - which was the norm for top earners

2) undeclared or illegal earnings particularly in connection with the massive black economy - which the elite with its strangehold on political power took advantage of and to an steadily increasing extent

3) perks of all kinds - from dachas to chauffer driven limos to holidays abroad for the elite


These considerations which disrprotionately favoured the soviet elite meant that the actual extent of economic inequality was vastly greater than the official propaganda allowed for

It is interesting that Born in the USSR can provide no counter argument to the points I made earlier


The source of the Gini coefficent data I referred to was John Fleming and John Micklewright's paper "Income Distribution, Economic Systems and Transition" . They cite the work of researchers like Morrison who, using data from the 1970s, found that countries like Poland and the Soviet Union had relatively high levels of income inequality, registering gini coefficients of 0.31 in both cases, which put them on a par with Canada (0.30) and the USA (0.34) ( http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf)). Also useful as a source of information is Roy Medvedev's Khrushchev: The Years in Power (Columbia University Press. 1976). He argues taking into account not only the inflated "salaries" and often multiple salaries but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite the ratio between low and high earners was more like 1:100.

[robbo203]

Some information for thought about Brezhnev times.

Many important social decisions were made during Brezhnev's 18 years.

Five-day work week was established instead of six-day week.May,9 (Victory Day) and March,8 ( Women Day) became holidays,and veterans of the war and families of victims of the war have received numerous benefits. The retirement age was reduced to the current limit (women - 55 men - 60). Salaries, pensions and child benefits increased. Minimum wage in 1971 had risen to 70 rubles, this was quite enough for an ordinary life.
At the first stage of Brezhnev's ruling progressive labor laws were taken (to dismiss an employee was virtually impossible</span> ).A call-up period decreased up to 2 years in army (instead of 3 years ) and up to 3 years in navy (instead of 4 years).Even more liberal become a tax law;for workers and employees was repealed the tax for land use,incomes up to 100 rubles were not taxed at all.And support for mothers and children? After the birth of a second child state paid monthly mothers a allowance of 100 rubles.A maternity-leave with job retention and 100% of salary was 1,5 years plus 1,5 years of leave withou a pay.

I want to ask fans of the theory of "state capitalism":was it a policy of a bourgeois dictatorship or however a policy of a dictatorship of a proletariat? Remember,all these were done without any pressure of people in power.

During Brezhnev's 18 years 161 millions (!) of people got a new homes.Note,housing was not a commodity in the USSR,it was not sold,it was given ( so as some other benefits ) for all members of society.This was already the elements of communism."State capitalists",what can you say about this fact?


Several points


Firstly the theory of state capitalism as a description of the structural features of Soviet economy stands on its own two feet independently of what might or might not have been the standard of living of Russian workers

Secondly. you need to be aware that you are on shaky grounds it you want to argue that the rising living standards of Russian workers is an indication of the existence of a so called "proletarian dictatorship". US or British workers also experienced a rise in living standards in this time Are we to infer that from that that this proved the existence of a "proletarian dictatroship" in the US or Britain? Of course not. Also, it should be mentioned that under Stalin in the early years of the so called central planning system it is now widely accepted that the living standards of ordinary Russian workers fell massively. See Alec Nove's An Economic History of the USSR. Applying your own simplistic logic. this would seem to suggest that you must think the Soviet Union was then a "bourgeois dictatorship"

Thirdly, if you are wanting to seriously claim here that the actual living standards of Russian workers, notwithstanding the fact that some goods were subsidised, was comparable to those of workers in the more advanced parts of global capitalism then I think you are on a fools errand. No serious economic anaysis would support this claim

Fourthly, while it is almost universally acknowleged that living standards of ordinary workers did fall after the collapse of Soviet state capitalism what is less acknowleged is that this declining trend was already in evidence before this collapse. In the post war years and particularly from the 70s economic growth was showing clear signs of slow down and for much of the 80s there was negative growth. I would argue that this was partly a function of the increasing inadequacy of the Soviet state capitalist model from the standpoint of capitalist development but also of the increasing incorporatioin of the Soviet Uni0on into global capitalism (it was in this period that partnership deals with western corporations began to really take off). If the Soviet Union had somehow survived and not been brought to an end by the Soviet state capitalist class itself, how different would things have been today? I suspect not that different

[Born in the USSR]

As a rule, the idiot thinks that he won the debate, if you first stop to discuss with him, ie, to respond to his idiotic statements and to refute them. Saying an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its coherent and reasoned rebuttal and, moreover, sometimes it is a refutation impossible .

To understand why this is so we should refer to the famous "Russell's Teapot." In 1952, Russell wrote:
'If I would guess that between the Earth and Mars around the Sun in an elliptical orbit flies porcelain teapot, no one would be to refute my assertion, especially if I carefully add that the teapot is so small that it is not visible even by the most powerful telescopes'

Can you imagine how much effort will require the denial of such approval ? And even in cases the denial is possible, it requires incomparably monstrous effort in comparison with those required for the implementation of the idiotic statements that you want to refute.

So the best you can do is to send an idiot to hell and to stop to argue with him.

[pranabjyoti]

The "state capitalist" theorists always start with some kind of negative conclusion and made their logic from that, instead of reaching conclusion. So, pleas don't engage in argument with them, it's just waste of time.
Regarding Brezhnev, I personally don't like him for his closeness third world bourgeoisie politicians like Indira Gandhi, former PM of India and other basically bourgeoisie politicians. He also continued the opposition of revolutionary struggles in other countries and extended his support to bourgeoisie politicians. But, I must admit that the changes in labor laws he introduced is certainly progressive.

[robbo203]

The "state capitalist" theorists always start with some kind of negative conclusion and made their logic from that, instead of reaching conclusion. .

What sort of argument is this? It is utterly incoherent. If this is the best that opponents of the theory of state capitalism can come up with well then frankly theorists of state capitalism have won the argument hands down.

Instead of just dogmatically dismissing the argument how about trying to engage with it for a change? It holds that capitalism can be defined by certain interrelated structural features and that state capitalism implies the continuation of these structural feautures within a form in which the state itself - that ultimate expression of class society - administers capitalism

[CharliePounds]

When was Russia ever anything other than capitalist? Maybe for a few short years between 1917 & 1921, before those State capitalist murderers Lenin and Trotsky slaughtered the Kronstadt mutineers, it was confronting the capitalist form and content of production and distribution on a grand scale, but since then capitalism won out. You can't judge a system by what it calls itself - after all, the West calls itself "the free world"

[robbo203]

As a rule, the idiot thinks that he won the debate, if you first stop to discuss with him, ie, to respond to his idiotic statements and to refute them. Saying an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its coherent and reasoned rebuttal and, moreover, sometimes it is a refutation impossible .

To understand why this is so we should refer to the famous "Russell's Teapot." In 1952, Russell wrote:
'If I would guess that between the Earth and Mars around the Sun in an elliptical orbit flies porcelain teapot, no one would be to refute my assertion, especially if I carefully add that the teapot is so small that it is not visible even by the most powerful telescopes'

Can you imagine how much effort will require the denial of such approval ? And even in cases the denial is possible, it requires incomparably monstrous effort in comparison with those required for the implementation of the idiotic statements that you want to refute.

So the best you can do is to send an idiot to hell and to stop to argue with him.


In other words , a clear admission that you haven't got a friggin leg to stand on! You cannot produce a single convincing counter-argument to any of the points I raised so you retreat into your dogmatic shell and the comforting illusion that anyone who dares to differ must be an "idiot".

Frankly that is pathetic. And not a little arrogant, dont you think? You should at least have the balls to try to defend what you are saying but dont try and kid yourself or anyone else that by running away from the arguments that have made against you you have somehow rendered them irrelevant.

[Toppler]

Because they did live better.

What you have to account for is why the system collapsed, could not sustain itself, and why in a socialist or workers' state, the workers themselves were immobilized and unable to act against the penetration of asset-liquidationist capitalism.

I agree. The issue is through, most USSR/Eastern Bloc critics don't admit that. They paint a made up picture of opressed people living in 3rd world conditions, just because the general "Western" consensus says that. "Consensus" made by armchair "historians" and Cold Warriors that never set foot in Central and Eastern Europe and never even talked to a person from outside Western Europe or USA.

But I personally think that capitalism will collapse in a similiar way. This shit cannot go on forever. I believe 1989 of capitalism will eventually come.

[NecroCommie]

Alright. Because compared to today that's doesn't appear to be a lot.
One word. Inflation.

[NecroCommie]

I don't see why we should see the USSR as any more evil or any more good than any other country in history. If we want to impose labels such as "good", "desirable" or "bad" on something I think it should not be an entire country with it's 70 years of history, but individual societal elements or policies. I think the policy to collectivize land and establish colhozes was positive, but the later privatization of several industries was negative ect ect.... To be fair, the same thing applies to all other countries as well. Nazis did OK to quarantee high employment and wages for workers, but excluding non-germans from this and achieving this with war industry was negative.

Labeling entire countries and states I save for ideological zealots.

[Pavlov's House Party]

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/279.jpg

One ruble - a complete meal in the dining room;
33 cups of lemonade, and 50 calls from a payphone;
100 boxes of matches;
5 cups of ice cream;
20 trips in the bus or subway;
4 loaves of white bread (900-1000 gramm);
5 liters of milk;
a dozen eggs;
1,2 kilogramm of sugar;
20 trips to the cinema;
2 bottles of good beer, and 3 packs of bad cigarettes ;
a full tank of petrol in the car ( 4 kopeks for a liter );
5 trips to the men's barbershop or bath.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/281.jpg

Three rubles -a dinner for 5-6 persons in the factory or school cafeteria;
a lunch at a restaurant for one;
a good book;
a doll or other toy of domestic production;
a bottle of a good wine;
hiking in a sauna;
a cultural outing of the whole family, including a snack;
a pack of good cigarettes.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/285.jpg

Five rubles - a kilogram of meat at the market, or 2 kilograms of meat at the store;
a bottle of vodka;
a taxi ride "in style";
a kilogramm of very good chocolates.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/289.jpg

Ten rubles -a huge stick expensive sausages;
an expensive technical or desktop toy,such as machines or pool;
a sports equipment such as skis or a set of ping-pong table, an inexpensive guitar;
a monthly rent for a family.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/293.jpg

Twenty five rubles - airline ticket local airlines;
a tickets for the train Saratov-Novosibirsk ( abot 1500 km,two and a half day of the road );
a couple of good women's shoes;
a great razzle-dazzle at a restaurant.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/296.jpg

Fifty rubles - a teenage bicycle;
a winter coat;
a smallest pension;
a scholarship of an exellent student;
Well,it was already possible to live for a month ... but not rich.

http://bosonogoe.ru/uploads/images/0/300.jpg

One hundred rubles - three weeks in an inexpensive sanatorium or dispensary with all costs;
a cheapest tape;
a cheap bike.

What else?

The price of commodities, especially during the Stalin period, are not a very good indicator of Soviet economic success, because frankly it was very hard to obtain items outside the ration system. By the end of 1929, the Soviet government established "commercial stores" alongside the already existing regular shops, which had higher quality products at a much higher price; shoes that cost 11 rubles in a regular store were 30 to 40 at a commercial shop, pants that were 7 rubles cost 17, cheese was double the price at a commercial store while sugar was almost 8x as expensive (Fitzpatrick). The upside to this however was that there were fewer lines at commercial stores than regular shops, but they were more often than not out of reach of the majority of the urban population, due to the low wages. More often than not Soviet citizens had to turn to the underground barter/economy of favours called blat to obtain things like bicycles, good food, building supplies, tickets, housing etc.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, at least most got something by rationing. Rationing was part of British life during WWII from periods before. Comparing that to the strainous period from 1917 onwards, this can not be labeled as bad.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I'm not going to comment on anti-Soviet horror stories.If somebody whant to think that the USSR was terrible let him amuse himself.

Just some facts for illustration:

Student's scolarship in the USSR - 40 rubles;

Wages of

a janitor - 60 rubles;
a yung engeneer - 130 rubles;
an experienced engineer - 175 rubles;
an unskilled labourer - 150 rubles;
a skilled labourer - 300-400 rubles;
a general manager of a plant - 500 rubles;
a university professor - 500 rubles;
an army leutenant - 250 rubles;
a colonel - 400 rubles;
a first secretary of a regional commetee of the CPSU - 700 rubles;
a minister - 700 rubles;
a general secretary of the CPSU - 1200 rubles.

I can tell what you could buy with that money if someone is interesting in it.

Also, this list of wages is misleading. With the exception of the janitor & labourer (whatever that means) these are all wages of people belonging to the privileged segment of the Soviet economy, no wonder they're high. Your numbers are off as well; the monthly wage for a regional party secretary was 2000 rubles in October 1938! Compare this to that of the janitor (who for our purposes will represent the majority of the urban population), who would most likely spend 50% of his monthly 60 ruble wage on a meager living space (on average 4-5.5 square meters per person) and the illusion of a bountiful Soviet economy, overflowing in consumer goods disappears, unless you belonged to the Party or some other segment of the privileged caste.

[Toppler]

The price of commodities, especially during the Stalin period, are not a very good indicator of Soviet economic success, because frankly it was very hard to obtain items outside the ration system. By the end of 1929, the Soviet government established "commercial stores" alongside the already existing regular shops, which had higher quality products at a much higher price; shoes that cost 11 rubles in a regular store were 30 to 40 at a commercial shop, pants that were 7 rubles cost 17, cheese was double the price at a commercial store while sugar was almost 8x as expensive (Fitzpatrick). The upside to this however was that there were fewer lines at commercial stores than regular shops, but they were more often than not out of reach of the majority of the urban population, due to the low wages. More often than not Soviet citizens had to turn to the underground barter/economy of favours called blat to obtain things like bicycles, good food, building supplies, tickets, housing etc.

This is not Stalin era. Born in the USSR was born in 1962 (sorry for disclosing your birth year, Born in the USSR, but it had to be said). Stop mentioning bullshit from early 20th century. People after the Stalin era were not living on rations.

[Toppler]

Also, this list of wages is misleading. With the exception of the janitor & labourer (whatever that means) these are all wages of people belonging to the privileged segment of the Soviet economy, no wonder they're high. Your numbers are off as well; the monthly wage for a regional party secretary was 2000 rubles in October 1938! Compare this to that of the janitor (who for our purposes will represent the majority of the urban population), who would most likely spend 50% of his monthly 60 ruble wage on a meager living space (on average 4-5.5 square meters per person) and the illusion of a bountiful Soviet economy, overflowing in consumer goods disappears, unless you belonged to the Party or some other segment of the privileged caste.

1938. Enough said. Also, he has, you know, actually lived in the USSR. A Quebec Westerner telling somebody who lived in the USSR for 28 years how he is wrong. How cute. Also, I don't think that most urban people are janitors.

[Born in the USSR]

Also, this list of wages is misleading. With the exception of the janitor & labourer (whatever that means) these are all wages of people belonging to the privileged segment of the Soviet economy, no wonder they're high. Your numbers are off as well; the monthly wage for a regional party secretary was 2000 rubles in October 1938! Compare this to that of the janitor (who for our purposes will represent the majority of the urban population), who would most likely spend 50% of his monthly 60 ruble wage on a meager living space (on average 4-5.5 square meters per person) and the illusion of a bountiful Soviet economy, overflowing in consumer goods disappears, unless you belonged to the Party or some other segment of the privileged caste.

1.There was a moneatary reform in 1961:2000 rubles before 1961 are equal 200 rubles after 1961.
2.Сomparing the earnings of a janitor and a head of a region, you should also compare the qualifications of their work and lengths of their workdays ( a janitor - 2-3 hours per day,a secretary of a region commetee -12-14 hours per day.)
3.BTW,the way to "the privileged segments" was opened for everyone.Remember as an example:Khrushchov began his working career as a miner,Brezhnev as a land surveyor,Gorbachov as a combine driver.And so on,and so on.

[Crimson Commissar]

Funny how it's always the westerners that complain about "the evil soviet dictatorship", never the people who actually lived under socialism. :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

Funny how it's always the westerners that complain about "the evil soviet dictatorship", never the people who actually lived under socialism. :rolleyes:

Funny how those wedded to uncritical support of the fSU and allied countries never recall the massive demonstrations, protests, "complaints" against the political and economic conditions in those countries during the period of Soviet, and Soviet-type rule.

[pranabjyoti]

Funny how those wedded to uncritical support of the fSU and allied countries never recall the massive demonstrations, protests, "complaints" against the political and economic conditions in those countries during the period of Soviet, and Soviet-type rule.
At least this fact is certainly supportable that fSU had done those abovementioned progress with much exploitation of people of the world.

[Crimson Commissar]

Funny how those wedded to uncritical support of the fSU and allied countries never recall the massive demonstrations, protests, "complaints" against the political and economic conditions in those countries during the period of Soviet, and Soviet-type rule.
These demonstrations were almost always led by radical anti-communists and capitalists. The few ones that were led by "libertarian socialists" only succeeded in weakening the Soviet Union and bringing it closer to capitalism. I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR. As many in this thread have shown, the reality of life under communism was far different to what anti-communists liked to believe about it.

[Toppler]

At least this fact is certainly supportable that fSU had done those abovementioned progress with much exploitation of people of the world.

You mean without right?

[Toppler]

These demonstrations were almost always led by radical anti-communists and capitalists. The few ones that were led by "libertarian socialists" only succeeded in weakening the Soviet Union and bringing it closer to capitalism. I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR. As many in this thread have shown, the reality of life under communism was far different to what anti-communists liked to believe about it.

People were protesting against dictatorial rule, inefficient, stagnating economy and the queues. Not for the restoration of capitalism. They wanted democratic socialism.

[S.Artesian]

These demonstrations were almost always led by radical anti-communists and capitalists. The few ones that were led by "libertarian socialists" only succeeded in weakening the Soviet Union and bringing it closer to capitalism. I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR. As many in this thread have shown, the reality of life under communism was far different to what anti-communists liked to believe about it.

That's just not true. While certainly the bourgeoisie, international and wannabe were present, and present with their money more than anything, if you look at the history of say Solidarnosc, it's origins and actions are not in radical anti-communism and pro-capitalism. There is a struggle within Solidarnosc among different elements, and the base of this organization was definitely in the working class. That the pro-capitalist faction won out and took over the movement is also a fact, but the process by which it took over has very much to do with the actions of Jaruzelski who sought to accommodate these pro-capitalist elements in order to discipline the rank and file labor force.

I find it difficult to call the coal miners in Poland who struck against the extension of the work week so that Poland could meet its international debt obligations through increased sale of coal radical anti-communists or pro-capitalist despite their looking to the Catholic Church for some sort of aid against the regime, which was willing to drown the miners like rats in the mines.

Also, the resistance and protests in East Germany and Czechoslovakia were mass protests, mass demonstrations with large amounts of worker participation.

But this comment of yours


I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR.


is the most significant, since apparently you define "genuine communist" by exactly the descriptor "those who would not revolt against 'socialism' in the USSR."

You assume "socialism" was established in the USSR, a pretty remarkable assertion given that agricultural productivity was well below that of the advanced capitalist countries.

And more than that, historical materialism drops away-- there can be no material basis, no economic basis for the events that occurred in the fSU--no basis internal to the organization of the economy and the mode of production. All you are left with then is the old "outside agitator" "capitalist conspiracy" theories.

Good luck with that. That sort of "analysis" and response is, in part, exactly why the fSU is the fSU.

[Toppler]

The key in the dissolution to the USSR was still Gorbachev's misadministration throught, not glasnost, but perestroika, which destroyed the Soviet economy to such an extent that Leningrand had to recieve food aid at the end of 1991, for the first time since WW 2.

BTW to cite an East German protestor from Neil Clark's blog article "The Myth of 1989":

""Back then we still did believe it would be possible to create another type of socialism. There were many things that disturbed us and made us angry, but nevertheless we had a good life in many ways," Andreas Blazejewski, a street protestor in East Germany said in the BBC documentary The Lost World of Communism."

Also, many apparatchiks sold out, and now hold generous positions in the new goverments, shamelessly abandoning their principles (if they even had any at the time they joined the party and didn't do it just for opportunism).

[robbo203]

These demonstrations were almost always led by radical anti-communists and capitalists. The few ones that were led by "libertarian socialists" only succeeded in weakening the Soviet Union and bringing it closer to capitalism. I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR. As many in this thread have shown, the reality of life under communism was far different to what anti-communists liked to believe about it.

Oh please - dont try and pull a fast one here. What we have seen on this thread are a few desparate attempts by some extremely gullible soviet groupies to present an image of life for the average worker under Soviet state capitalism as though it were some kind of blissful bed of roses. We are presented with a whole bunch of one-sided, undated and unreferenced data purporting to show what you could buy for a ruble or two. This is transparently sloppy propaganda at best. It reminds me of all those glowing reports of how soviet agriculture or soviet steel production had surpassed the targets set by Gosplan while quietly ignoring the fact that targets themselves had been revised downwards in the meanwhile to accommodate the fact that the production figures had been somewhat disappointing.

Honestly , you would think from the way our soviet apologists go on about it that the standard of living of the average soviet worker was far and away the highest in the world. I mean for just 3 rubles (we are confidently told) you can purchase a "dinner for 5-6 persons in the factory or school cafeteria". For fucks sake, get a sense of proportion and perspective here. This is not a serious comparative analysis. It is a piss poor attempt to justify the claims that these Soviet apologists make about the system of which they are so enamoured.

Lets be realistic here. In terms of overall standard of living, the Soviet Union was very much in the middle range of capitalist countries. Certainly it was better off than most developing countries (although we should not forget there were considerable spatial variations across such a huge landmass with some parts of the Soviet Union approximating third world conditions). However, it is ridiculous to maintain that living standards on average were comparable to say Western Europe or the United States. They werent - although Im not trying to suggest that "standard of living" is is necessarily a useful indicator of wellbeing; Im simply responding to our soviet apologists on this list who seem to think that it is. Oh and in case they make the point,yes, Ive been to the Soviet union when it was the Soviet Union and my brother's wife is Russian born and bred

I have argued here that you ought not to just to take data presened here at face value but should try to get a more rounded and fuller picture of the situation being analysed. For instance, data has been presented which seem to suggest that the extent of economic inequality in the Soviet Uniuon was pretty moderate. This is utterly misleading because it leaves out of the picture all sorts of factors that impinge on the question of inequality - such as fact that the non-wage perks enjoyed by the soviet elite were pretty substantial by any standards, such as the fact that the soviet elite typically had multiple rather than single incomes, such as the fact that, on top of all this, many in the Soviet elite enjoyed an undeclared inome through their connections with the massive black economy.

None of our pro soviet groupies seem to have taken up any of these points and one must wonder the expression "ignorance is bliss" applies in their case!

[Pavlov's House Party]

Funny how it's always the westerners that complain about "the evil soviet dictatorship", never the people who actually lived under socialism. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess no one can read about a topic or have opinions about it unless we were there at the time :rolleyes: What a cop out. Who are you to say anything about the injustices of capitalism in the 3rd world etc. unless you've been to every country and every region in them?

[S.Artesian]

Lets be realistic here. In terms of overall standard of living, the Soviet Union was very much in the middle range of capitalist countries. Certainly it was better off than most developing countries (although we should not forget there were considerable spatial variations across such a huge landmass with some parts of the Soviet Union approximating third world conditions). However, it is ridiculous to maintain that living standards on average were comparable to say Western Europe or the United States. They werent - although Im not trying to suggest that "standard of living" is is necessarily a useful indicator of wellbeing; Im simply responding to our soviet apologists on this list who seem to think that it is. Oh and in case they make the point,yes, Ive been to the Soviet union when it was the Soviet Union and my brother's wife is Russian born and bred



If we're going to be realistic here then we need to come to grips with the totality of the Soviet system's achievements , and lack thereof, in improving the lives and enhancing the quality of that life, for the population.

So we'd have to point out that the improvement that took place during the 2nd five year plan was part of, and deeply connected to, the declining living standards [and declining productivity of labor] of the 1st five year plan.

We would also point out that the improvement and the industrialization of the fSU during the 2nd year five year plan was undone by the Nazi invasion, and bloodletting from which, IMO, the fSU never truly recovered.

We should also note the tremendous improvements that were achieved in public health, literacy, education, opportunities for women, infant mortality rates, sanitation, access to safe drinking water etc etc etc.

And sure you can say "hey the modern capitalist countries achieved similar improvements," to which I would say first: "But that's the point, a modern capitalism was impossible in Russia. It simply was not going to happen. Which is why there was the single greatest event in human history, the proletarian revolution of 1917 in the first place.

And secondly:

"Those modern capitalist countries registered their gains on average, with measures above or below average based on class, economic rank, race. Gains in the fSU were truly social, not just average results, but general results.

Of course, all of this proves how immaterial living standards are in determining the source of the conflict that drives economic development and collapse-- and that source is the ability, or lack thereof for the system to reproduce itself on an expanded and expanding level without undermining the very basis for that expansion.

For capitalism, that conflict, that paradox, contradiction is made manifest in the declining profitability which is based on increased surplus value extraction.

For the fSU, an analogous, not identical, not "same" process, but analogous takes place as the growth of the economy cannot sustain relations between city and countryside; cannot increase agricultural productivity, and with that the fSU is forced to turn to the world markets, for both imports and exports [mostly oil and gas] to earn hard currency.

The die is cast. Failure to complete the revolution outside the Soviet Union gave more life to the world markets, and those markets eventually overwhelmed the Soviet economy.

[The Author]

As a rule, the idiot thinks that he won the debate, if you first stop to discuss with him, ie, to respond to his idiotic statements and to refute them. Saying an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its coherent and reasoned rebuttal and, moreover, sometimes it is a refutation impossible .

To understand why this is so we should refer to the famous "Russell's Teapot." In 1952, Russell wrote:
'If I would guess that between the Earth and Mars around the Sun in an elliptical orbit flies porcelain teapot, no one would be to refute my assertion, especially if I carefully add that the teapot is so small that it is not visible even by the most powerful telescopes'

Can you imagine how much effort will require the denial of such approval ? And even in cases the denial is possible, it requires incomparably monstrous effort in comparison with those required for the implementation of the idiotic statements that you want to refute.

So the best you can do is to send an idiot to hell and to stop to argue with him.

Oh, this is pretty much the norm around here. As soon as you start to reasonably debate with people, they either ignore you, cling to their views more devoutly, or become more aggressive in their replies; or a combination of all of the above. It's due to ignorance, due to fear, due to the fact that their conception of the world is being shattered by someone with empirical first-hand experience of this historical period and they don't feel comfortable about having their theories disproven.

The fact that a worker from the Soviet Union came forward and actually explained to us about life in the East and was promptly ignored by our resident scholarly "critics" tells me a lot about the value of most of the ideas around here. Which are completely useless. One may say there were problems, and none of us are denying this. But it wasn't the total hell that most of the book-worshipers around here have been painting it as, either. Born in the USSR's remarks count for a lot more than scholarly research, and I'm going to believe him before I take the "critics" seriously.

[Born in the USSR]

Neither I nor my parents, relatives or friends have never been unemployed in the USSR - we didn't have an unemploymet,and I was sure till the last time that it is well known for eveyone.In 1984 for a first time I came to the personnel department of a plane. 10 minutes after there appeared 4 or 5 representatives of different departments and laboratories who began to persuade me to get a job just in their units.I even became proud: I am so valuable specialist!But the matter was not in me,of course.The matter was that there was not only an unemployment in thr USSR - there was a shortage of workhands.
So it is clear what did I think when a pesone who have never been in the USSR begab to insist:


It is a myth to claim that there was no unemployment in the Soviet Unioin.So you understand what did I think about him.
My opinion was strengthened by following "argument" of the persone:


We should not overlook either the role of slave labour performed by gulag prisoners in respect of reducing the appearance of unemploymentYou see,if the number of jobs is limited and part of the 'd be occupied by "slaves" this 'd not diminish but increase an unemployment among the free citizens!

And what about the assertion that there was a competition in the USSR?Everyone know that the only owner of all plants,factories,etc.,etc. in the USSR was a state.Enterprises of different ownership can compete with each other, but the competition of enterprises of the same owner ...That's a crack!

Now you see that the diagnosis that I have made is correct.

[gorillafuck]

Funny how it's always the westerners that complain about "the evil soviet dictatorship", never the people who actually lived under socialism. :rolleyes:Actually, that's not true. There are people people who lived in eastern bloc countries who say it was not very good. Capitalism is not better, but Stalinism isn't a viable way of sustaining and living.

[pastradamus]

soviet communism =/= the ideas that marx actually had

No, you are wrong. Thats why its called Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism and not Marxism.

[Toppler]

Actually, that's not true. There are people people who lived in eastern bloc countries who say it was not very good. Capitalism is not better, but Stalinism isn't a viable way of sustaining and living.

How it is not a viable way? And placing the entire EB into the "Stalinism" category is bullshit. And of course, somebody from Poland is going to dislike the life under state socialism, while somebody from GDR or CSSR might have liked their life. Still, people had food, security and values.

[PhoenixAsh]

A man who lived in the Soviet Union since bhreznov told me that the system was absolutely terrible.

He described how he had only one pair of pants :crying:

Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

he said if you go to moscow today they will laugh at you for bringing it up.

Then he went on saying Revisionism was good because russia "Could no longer take" the socialism.

Anything to counter this?



After the shooting of the parliamentary buildings 9which incidentally where repaired by a Dutch company) by Jeltsin I was in Russia.

There was a MacDonals in Choem...the first one in Russia. In the lines were many people with rich Mink coats and three pieces suits. The rich and wealthy who could afford to eat there...as well as the tourists. (I must admit...service then was like you visited a three star restaurant...and the food actually looked like the pictures)

In contrast...we met a lot of people who litterally had nothing. Hadn't been paid in months.

I remember we gave some "change" to an old woman. It was € 12 ($18 ??? )...she actually broke down and started crying blessing each and everybody, including the bus. Our guide told us that this was actually for most people more than two months salary.

I remember I had saved up two hunderd dollars for that trip...that made me feel a bit uneasy.

I remember that at the end of the red square behind the museum for the motherland there was another square. There were a lot of communists at one side of the square under a statue of Marx selling books and literature...across the square there were the Nazi's doing exactly the same. I guess that was considered freedom of speech and progress.

the mausoleum was morbid. Impressive...but morbid. You can't go in with a camera and you must be moving at all times. (don't know if that has changed) Walking past what remains of Lenin...which is supposedly not very much that is original. During the period I was there the government was considering an offer they had gotten from an American who wanted to buy the body to display in an amusement park he wanted to build around communism. It was also considered to give him a state funeral (but not in the Kremlin walls where all the hero's of the revolution are burried) since he never wanted to be displayed and turned in to a sort of revolution fetish.

We went to Leningrad by train. At the station in Moscow we were warned to stay away from the kids. I didn't understand at first but when we arrived we saw hordes of kids roaming past the walls of the station in gangs. These were orphans or street kids who made a living robbing people and, as the stories I heard go, they would not think twice about killing you if they thought they could get away with it.


Very little people I spoke to in Leningrad (I simpy refuse to call that city anything else) and Moscow was especially glad to get rid of communism.....saying that although it sucked...the situation had in fact been better for them. At least they got paid.

Most of the Russians i know today say the situation in Russia has imporved since that time. But its still uneasy. Some people have done well...but there is a lot of poverty, a lot more crime and a lot more disillusionment...as I understand it.

[Crimson Commissar]

The above post is proof that the USSR didn't collapse because of communism, but because of capitalism. The problem was, that people directed their hate towards communism just because the state still kept the old red flag and still had a "Communist" party in power. Unfortunately it seems to be the same in China. People who are against China often direct their hate towards communism, even though China is nowhere near a Communist country. I think that even if the USSR kept the old, somewhat repressive system used by Khruschev and Brezhnev, socialism would have survived into the 21st century. At least authoritarian communism kept the USSR stable and safe from capitalist restoration. It was entirely the fault of Gorbachev's reforms that socialism fell.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree with you for a large part except for the authoritarian bit.

I think that if Stalin would have not taken over we would now still have has a eastern bloc. And that we would not experience in Western Europe the complete abandonment of social welfare...still have had some strong revolutionary parties and would not have had our name smeared with very unsavory accusations.


However for all that...I will say this...my parents were there in '60 (or somewhere close to that year) and they described a proud nation and made a large tour of the country from west to east. It had its faults, certainly, they saw that too....highly militarised or large secret police pressence, some obvious forms of state dogma...but most people were proud to be Russian, were proud of their achievements and were proud to be part of something. Because my father is a dolt :D...there are not many foto's left (he developed foto's as an hobby but somehow did not manage to notice that he was taking about 160 foto's on one film roll :laugh:) so the 70 or so foto's they did manage to take show a very different story from my foto's.


***
I looked up my foto's after writing above post. I also forgot to mention that the hotel in which we stayed was not guarded by police...I can't remeber the name but it had been part of the Olympic village once. It was guarded by men in trainig suits with kalashnikovs...the police stayed on the other side of the street. The hotel manager (or desk clerk) told me all the hotels were owned by different families who enjoyed private security and privacy.

One night we heard shooting from a part of the city close to the hotel. It was resembling what we could hear from Tharir square. The hotel staff told us that that was the police fighting with gangs who had managed to takje over parts of the city in the few years before.

I also had a picture of a gang of sleeping dogs. I forgot about those....those were everywhere. Our guide told us that these animals were left to their own device and had gone ferile.


What I witnessed....in total opposite of what my parents witnessed was a country in state of organised chaos. The USSR has long gone before it disappeared of the map.

[Crimson Commissar]

Perhaps that is true. Stalin's ideology became somewhat corrupted after WW2. The personality cult was quite bad too. But IMO when you look at the alternatives like Trotsky, it seems clear that Stalin was probably the best choice at the time. Really, I believe it was Khruschev who played a big part in the destruction of Soviet socialism. What was needed after Stalin's death was a moderate leader. One who wasn't a radical Stalin worshipper, but also one who wasn't a radical Stalin hater like Khruschev. I don't believe that shit about Khruschev being a capitalist though. He was just fucking stupid and was a bit too extreme with his de-stalinization policies.

And, wow, man. I had no idea the USSR during the early 90s was THAT bad. The most insulting thing is that, despite the fact that the majority of people didn't want capitalism back, the ruling class still managed to seize power in Russia. This is an important lesson for all future revolutionary states. If at any point socialism comes under threat, we must defend it. And if we ever get some fucker like Gorbachev in power, he must be removed immediately. Regardless of everyone's views on the USSR, it's existance has taught us many lessons about how socialism should work. My opinion is that there needs to be a balance of authoritarianism and democracy. The system must be authoritarian enough to protect itself from counter-revolution but democratic enough to appeal to the people and to allow all people to take part in the running of the socialist state.

[PhoenixAsh]

I was there as a tourist. I am sure I have not gotten a complete picture. But what the overall impression was was one of gloom....a sort of resignation and a people being completely insecure.

There was alot of fun as well....not everything was depressing. People were very kind...more..social than what I am used to in Western Europe....they were less individualised or perhaps egocentric was a better word....and still managed to make the best of it.

I loved Moscow...I love the old chaotioc style in which it is built. I hated Leningrad...too sterile for my taste. Everything is straight lines and neat housing blocks. Two completely different worlds...which is tied directly to their respective histories.

When I was in Leningrad I was comletely bored out of my skull, its just not my kind of city, but when you walked past the housing blocks in the courtyards all kinds of things were goign on. We passed a wedding...and since there was no bar or anything...we decided to sneak in. My friend spoke Russian so we thought we could perhaps have a wodka or something and enjoy the music. Naturally we were spotted for tourists as soon as we sat down...:D That was not any problem. Everybody was perfectly welcome...and everybody just treated us as one of the invited guests. (even danced with the bride :thumbup1:). Tradition is that a pillow sheet will go around and that you give your wedding gift...usually money...to the happy couple...so we did as well. Another tradition is that the bride is "kidnapped" at some point and the groom will get her shoe...he then has to look for her asking clues as to where she is from the guests... A sort of cinderella story :) We were complete strangers but were not permitted to leave untill we were absolutely positively drunnk and had been gifted some bottles of home brewn wodka (because you can't buy the tourist shit...thats NOT wodka apparently :lol:)

When I was in Moscow we were caught off guard by sudden heavy rain. Everybody took shelter in a pedestrian tunnel near Arbat. Usually there are a lot of people selling things from plastic bags...kittens, puppies, clothes, cigarettes, vergetables...you know...to get by.
But the whole tunnel was suddenly packed with people hiding from the rain. Now IN Holland people will uneasilly shift around trying to avoid one another...perhaps exchanging some nervous smiles...in the hopes everything will be over soon and we will all be on our merry way... A completely different scene there. People started entertaining each other. Some people had musical instruments...presuamably street musicians... and started playing and people started dancing and singing. Sharing stories, jokes and food and drink if they had it....with complete strangers. That was freakingly surreal but also completely amazing to be part of.

[S.Artesian]

The question remains, and remains unanswered, why then did the "socialist" economy collapse? Why was the working class unable to defend this economy and defeat the restoration of capitalism?

Classes are not easily banished from power. How could a working class in power be disarmed and immobilized, unless the disarming and immobilization had actually taken place over a course of 70 odd years; unless the disarming and immobilization had taken place internally; unless the economy of the "socialist" state was administering an impulse to capitalist restoration at the same time as the welfare of the population was improving?

[Dire Helix]

The question remains, and remains unanswered, why then did the "socialist" economy collapse?

The economy itself never collapsed(it continued to show growth even after Gorbachev`s destructive reforms). It was manually dismantled over the years after the capitalist restoration had been finally accomplished in 1991-1993. For the past 20 years Russia has existed off looting Soviet assets. The government actually launched a new wave of privatization recently, although it`s admittedly much smaller than the previous ones since most of the lucrative assets have already been privatized and looted.

[S.Artesian]

The economy itself never collapsed(it continued to show growth even after Gorbachev`s destructive reforms). It was manually dismantled over the years after the capitalist restoration had been finally accomplished in 1991-1993. For the past 20 years Russia has existed off looting Soviet assets. The government actually launched a new wave of privatization recently, although it`s admittedly much smaller than the previous ones since most of the lucrative assets have already been privatized and looted.


That's really not an answer to the question. How could Gorbachev institute such destructive reforms in a socialist state? Why did such reforms receive approval? Was there an opposition? If not, why not? If so, what was the nature of the opposition and why was there no mass working class mobilization?

Are we going to attribute the destruction of the economy to personal greed on the part of the bureaucracy? Even on the bourgeoisie? That won't fly. We know how greedy the bourgeoisie are. They represent an economic organization of production. If the bureaucracy exhibits that sort of "collective personal" greed [how's that for an oxymoron?] then, materialists that we are, we have to conclude that such greed is organized in the mode of production itself.

[sanpal]

Funny how it's always the westerners that complain about "the evil soviet dictatorship", never the people who actually lived under socialism. :rolleyes:

During 40 years I lived in the USSR under socialism and hadn't noticed that I lived in "the Empire of evil" (R.Reagan's expression) under "the evil soviet dictatorship". Perhaps like a fish living in the water and which doesn't notice that it lives in water. Socialism didn't disturb ordinary workers, engineers, office workers and so on but gave them many of social protections such as homes (free flats), free education, free medicine service, guaranteed jobs, free choice of profession, etc.,. Maybe it (dictatorship) concerned creative intelligentsia: artists, poets, directors, writers, etc. who dreamed to have their fees much more (like in the West) or to use themes for their work of art not limited by censorship.
Or free black market sellers. It is if to say shortly. Of course the matter is vast and has many positive and negative aspects to mention. I planned to write a post to compare how some points were in the fSU and in today's Russia but it'll take tooooooo much time for me to write in English.

[PhoenixAsh]

I planned to write a post to compare how some points were in the fSU and in today's Russia but it'll take tooooooo much time for me to write in English.

I hope you get around to it eventually. I would be very interesting to read that.

[punisa]

People are brainwashed - in today's Croatia everyone is poor but they were thought to love it.

[Born in the USSR]

That's really not an answer to the question. How could Gorbachev institute such destructive reforms in a socialist state? Why did such reforms receive approval? Was there an opposition? If not, why not? If so, what was the nature of the opposition and why was there no mass working class mobilization?


Do you think people understood what was happening?Do you think I understood?Even in summer 1991 I didn't beleave that the USSR can be ruined.Of course,there were malcontents,but there was nobody who 'd organized them - there was still a strong habit of believing in the Communist Party.

It's a fact that the CPSU in post-Stalin's time rotted,and rotted strongly. But the process of the decay required a time. Parties do not degenerate in one day. Degeneration of the proletarian party is a long historical period during which gradually, one by one, are breaking links connecting the party with the class. During this period, the party still largely protects the interests of it's class, but in some forms it can already be it's opponent.

[S.Artesian]

Do you think people understood what was happening?Do you think I understood?Even in summer 1991 I didn't beleave that the USSR can be ruined.Of course,there were malcontents,but there was nobody who 'd organized them - there was still a strong habit of believing in the Communist Party.

It's a fact that the CPSU in post-Stalin's time rotted,and rotted strongly. But the process of the decay required a time. Parties do not degenerate in one day. Degeneration of the proletarian party is a long historical period during which gradually, one by one, are breaking links connecting the party with the class. During this period, the party still largely protects the interests of it's class, but in some forms it can already be it's opponent.

That's the point isn't it? How can a society which is supposed to be socialist, and even if it isn't, is supposed to be built on the power of the working class have a working class that doesn't understand the weaknesses, the contradictions in its own economic organization?

Nope parties don't degenerate in a day, no more than they suddenly enter a period of degeneration upon the death of one "great man." The decline of the Bolshevik party didn't start in 1953 or 1956.. and the problems in the economic organization did not simply appear because Gorbachev introduced market reforms, of Khrushchev advocated incentives for factory managers.

If the proletariat didn't understand what was happening, and understand what could happen well before it happened, it is only because the society was organized before those things happened to keep the consciousness of the working class from engaging these problems. Plain and simple.

You have to be able to come to grips with the internal flaws and weaknesses that led over time to what appeared to be a sudden destruction.

This does not mean the Russian Revolution didn't accomplish much; it doesn't mean that the people of the fSU were much better off before the destruction of the fSU. They were. It does mean the destruction of the fSU was inherent, internal to, the social relations that reproduced the society.

What is needed is a materialist analysis of the breakdown of the fSU. That's where historical materialism can accomplish something to actually arm the working class against repeated defeats.

[S.Artesian]

Do you think people understood what was happening?Do you think I understood?Even in summer 1991 I didn't beleave that the USSR can be ruined.Of course,there were malcontents,but there was nobody who 'd organized them - there was still a strong habit of believing in the Communist Party.

It's a fact that the CPSU in post-Stalin's time rotted,and rotted strongly. But the process of the decay required a time. Parties do not degenerate in one day. Degeneration of the proletarian party is a long historical period during which gradually, one by one, are breaking links connecting the party with the class. During this period, the party still largely protects the interests of it's class, but in some forms it can already be it's opponent.

That's the point isn't it? How can a society which is supposed to be socialist, and even if it isn't, is supposed to be built on the power of the working class have a working class that doesn't understand the weaknesses, the contradictions in its own economic organization?

Nope parties don't degenerate in a day, no more than they suddenly enter a period of degeneration upon the death of one "great man." The decline of the Bolshevik party didn't start in 1953 or 1956.. and the problems in the economic organization did not simply appear because Gorbachev introduced market reforms, of Khrushchev advocated incentives for factory managers.

If the proletariat didn't understand what was happening, and understand what could happen well before it happened, it is only because the society was organized before those things happened to keep the consciousness of the working class from engaging these problems. Plain and simple.

You have to be able to come to grips with the internal flaws and weaknesses that led over time to what appeared to be a sudden destruction.

This does not mean the Russian Revolution didn't accomplish much; it doesn't mean that the people of the fSU were much better off before the destruction of the fSU. They were. It does mean the destruction of the fSU was inherent, internal to, the social relations that reproduced the society.

What is needed is a materialist analysis of the breakdown of the fSU. That's where historical materialism can accomplish something to actually arm the working class against repeated defeats.

[robbo203]

This does not mean the Russian Revolution didn't accomplish much; it doesn't mean that the people of the fSU were much better off before the destruction of the fSU. They were. It does mean the destruction of the fSU was inherent, internal to, the social relations that reproduced the society.

What is needed is a materialist analysis of the breakdown of the fSU. That's where historical materialism can accomplish something to actually arm the working class against repeated defeats.

Yes this is the crucial point and really and truly the only way in which you can make progress with a "materialist analysis of the breakdown of the FSU" is to squarely face up to the fact that the social relations of production that prevailed there were not at all fundamentally different from those that existed in the West - i.e. capitalist relatiionships. The problem lay in the form of these relationship, in the form of capitalism that existed in the FSU. It was this form that became increasingly incpmpatible with the development of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Economic diversification (the growth of light manufacturing and the services sector) as well as the increasing incorporation of the Soviet Union into the global capitalist economy were the two main forces at work that brought about the collapse of the state capitalist model and exposed its increasing inefficiencies and shortcomings


One other point that needs to be addressed and has been persistently been ignored by those who keep going on about how "living standards have declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union" is whether or not they would have declined anyway had the Soviet Union continued. I dont question that living standards have declined but I do most certainly questuon the assumption that they would not have declined had the Soviet Union remained intact. The massive secular decline in growth rates during the post war years which in the the few years before the Soviet Union collpsed had become negative would by a process of extrapolation have continued had the Soviet Union continued so there probably would be little choose between what might have happened and what actually happened in terms of working class impoverishment

[S.Artesian]

One other point that needs to be addressed and has been persistently been ignored by those who keep going on about how "living standards have declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union" is whether or not they would have declined anyway had the Soviet Union continued. I dont question that living standards have declined but I do most certainly questuon the assumption that they would not have declined had the Soviet Union remained intact. The massive secular decline in growth rates during the post war years which in the the few years before the Soviet Union collpsed had become negative would by a process of extrapolation have continued had the Soviet Union continued so there probably would be little choose between what might have happened and what actually happened in terms of working class impoverishment

That's a bit like wondering if, even without the civil war, there would have been famine in Russia in 1921.

I truly doubt living standards would have declined anywhere near to the level they did decline without the absolute gutting of the economy by Sachs, Yeltsin and co.

The decline in living standards was the direct result of the destruction of the productive capacity of the fSU under the guise of "privatization." The decline cannot be separated from the class relations producing the decline; just as the immobilization of the proletariat cannot be separated from the class relations producing that immobilization; just as the improvement in living standards in the fSU cannot be separated from the class relatons producing that improvement and the legacy of October 1917. That's the whole point of historical materialism.

[Born in the USSR]

What is needed is a materialist analysis of the breakdown of the fSU. That's where historical materialism can accomplish something to actually arm the working class against repeated defeats.

Passages from the program of RCWP-RPC:


"...In 1930s in conditions of sharply escalating international situation and the looming threat of war was made a departure from the election of authorities by labor groups (acting contrary to the Programme of the RCP (b)).And although many of the characteristics of the Soviets maintained (nomination of candidates for deputy by labor groups, a high proportion of workers and peasants deputies, periodic reports of deputies to the voters), appeared prerequisites for the formation of the parliamentary system, isolated from laibour groups.The lack of control of the government by labor collectives and their relative independence from them, have contributed to marginalization of the role of workers in control of society,bureaucratization of the whole system of government. Socialist nature of the Soviet power remained and the government continued to act in the interests of the working class till the leadership of the Communist party remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism....

...Critical situation, manifested in the USSR in the early 1990's didn't appear suddenly.It was due to a gradual change in the balance, representing on the one hand, creative, communist tendencies in society, and on another destructive, petty-bourgeois tendencies.

Human and material losses suffered by our people in World War II, it's titanic tension during the recovery of the economy, the exhausting struggle to overcome the nuclear monopoly of the U.S. and for achieving the military-strategic parity extremely weakened the creative forces; that helped to enhance the anti-communist trend. Communist Party gave itself in the struggle against fascism lives of more than three million of its best fighters, while all sorts of opportunists and the other, in the words of Lenin, the camp follower "communist bastard" strengthened their positions in the the bureaucracy....

...In addition, the successful solution of a number of major tasks of socialist development, including the elimination of class antagonisms,have led to the emergence of the party and the people the illusion of non-contradictory forward movement.This illusion of a quick, without a struggle, achievement of the higher phase of communism was reflected in a third party program, adopted in 1961, demobilized party, the working class, working people.The program erroneously proclaimed the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and declared a nationwide nature of such class-sensitive institutions as the party and state, thereby creating an ideological cover for their petty-bourgeois degeneration. Errors and deviations in the construction of socialism were explained subjectively -"due to a cult of personality".The task of the revival of the essence of Soviet power was not even posed, and workers, already fragmented organizationally, now were disarmed ideologically in the face of rising tide of petty-bourgeois. This disarmament of the Party and workers was substantiated by the official proclamation of the "final" victory of socialism in our country...

...The strengthening of private property trends prepared the economic reform in 1965, which was devastating for the economy.Directing enterprises to profit, it has stimulated a group self-interest; motivated financially manufacturers to produce products as little as possible, and as more expencive as possible ; gave a rise to the deficit and inflation, increased non-equivalence relations between town and countryside, and dramatically raised the proportion of luxury goods and socio- hazardous goods..."

[S.Artesian]

This:


Socialist nature of the Soviet power remained and the government continued to act in the interests of the working class till the leadership of the Communist party remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism....

and this:


..In addition, the successful solution of a number of major tasks of socialist development, including the elimination of class antagonisms,have led to the emergence of the party and the people the illusion of non-contradictory forward movement

Are contradicted by this:



...Critical situation, manifested in the USSR in the early 1990's didn't appear suddenly.It was due to a gradual change in the balance, representing on the one hand, creative, communist tendencies in society, and on another destructive, petty-bourgeois tendencies.

Human and material losses suffered by our people in World War II, it's titanic tension during the recovery of the economy, the exhausting struggle to overcome the nuclear monopoly of the U.S. and for achieving the military-strategic parity extremely weakened the creative forces; that helped to enhance the anti-communist trend. Communist Party gave itself in the struggle against fascism lives of more than three million of its best fighters, while all sorts of opportunists and the other, in the words of Lenin, the camp follower "communist bastard" strengthened their positions in the the bureaucracy...

In fact the second paragraph cited, where supposedly "class antagonisms" have been abolished creating an "illusion" is a self-contradiction. If the class antagonisms were eliminated then there was no illusion.


All in all what you provide is an ideological description that has very little to do with the actual economic relations internal to the fSU and linked to the world markets.

[Crimson Commissar]

One other point that needs to be addressed and has been persistently been ignored by those who keep going on about how "living standards have declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union" is whether or not they would have declined anyway had the Soviet Union continued. I dont question that living standards have declined but I do most certainly questuon the assumption that they would not have declined had the Soviet Union remained intact. The massive secular decline in growth rates during the post war years which in the the few years before the Soviet Union collpsed had become negative would by a process of extrapolation have continued had the Soviet Union continued so there probably would be little choose between what might have happened and what actually happened in terms of working class impoverishment
This is ridiculous. The decline in Eastern European living standards didn't just happen for no particular reason at all. It was entirely due to the restoration of capitalism during the years in which Gorbachev was in power. Gorbachev's reforms created massive poverty in the USSR and essentially ruined socialism. You're probably right in a way, since if the USSR had continued in the way it was in 1991, then yes, living standards would have continued to decline. But had the capitalist takeover been stopped before it had been able to destroy the socialist economy, we would see a strong and prosperous USSR in the world today.

[robbo203]

That's a bit like wondering if, even without the civil war, there would have been famine in Russia in 1921.

I truly doubt living standards would have declined anywhere near to the level they did decline without the absolute gutting of the economy by Sachs, Yeltsin and co. .

Certainly it is all speculation but, beyond just saying that you doubt that, what makes you doubt that? Do you think the ravages inflicted on on the economy in the course of privatisation would not have happened had the status quo remained intact with the very people who profited so handsomely from privatisation continuing to remain part of the political elite? I sincerely doubt that. I think old style "command economy" state capitalism would simply have evolved into what Ian Bremmer called a new kind of state capitalism without privatisation ever needing to happen and which is quite capable of gutting the economy just as effectively private corporate capitalism. This is the trend we see happening today with political elites in some parts of the world massively enriching and empowering themselves through blatant corruption using state owned enterprises to that end. I think this is what would have happened to the Soviet Union if it had continued. It would have become increasingly corrupt, increasingly polarised and increasingly impoverished. In the twilight years of the FSU, growth was negative and all the signs were there that things were going to get worse, not better. We should not overlook the massive importance of the black economy and the links between this and members of the political elite then in power. The seeds of a new kind of state capitalism were already germinating




The decline in living standards was the direct result of the destruction of the productive capacity of the fSU under the guise of "privatization." The decline cannot be separated from the class relations producing the decline; just as the immobilization of the proletariat cannot be separated from the class relations producing that immobilization; just as the improvement in living standards in the fSU cannot be separated from the class relatons producing that improvement and the legacy of October 1917. That's the whole point of historical materialism.

The class relations were the same before and after. What changed was the form rather than the substance of these relations. Minority control and therefore de facto ownership of the means of production became also de jure ownership of these means, with privatisation. The situation of the majority class - the workers - remained throughout one of being separated from the means of production and hence having to sell their abilities to work for a wage to the employing class

[B0LSHEVIK]

The old Soviet bourgeoisie and Russian plutocrats are doing fine.
:rolleyes:

[robbo203]

This is ridiculous. The decline in Eastern European living standards didn't just happen for no particular reason at all. It was entirely due to the restoration of capitalism during the years in which Gorbachev was in power. Gorbachev's reforms created massive poverty in the USSR and essentially ruined socialism. You're probably right in a way, since if the USSR had continued in the way it was in 1991, then yes, living standards would have continued to decline. But had the capitalist takeover been stopped before it had been able to destroy the socialist economy, we would see a strong and prosperous USSR in the world today.


Forget about the semantics for a moment - I simply dont accept the notion that capitalism was "restored" under Gorbachev since I take the view the capitalism existed right from the very start of the Soviet Union in the guise of state capitalism (as admitted by lenin himself). Just ask yourself - why were Gorbachev's reforms introduced? You are talking about Soviet Union in 1991 but the rot was abundantly evident well before then, well before Gorbachev even came on the scene.

I take the view that the command economy style of running capitalism was the problem. Its is probably comparatively advantageous from a capitalist perspective at an early stage when you are embarking on rampant industrialisation and capital accumulation as happened in the Stalin years. It becomes progressively less advantageous as the capitalist economy matures and becomes more diversified and complex. The inherent rigidities and inflexibilities of the system translate into rising bureaucratic costs and structural inefficiencies that, over time, make this particular model of running capitalism less and less competitive. The growing incorporation of the Soviet Union into global capitalism particularly in the post war years via partnership deals with major Western corporations really sealed its fate.

That is why the claim that had the reform process not happened we "would see a strong and prosperous USSR in the world today" is simply not believable. Even the Soviet ruling class did not believe it and that in the end is why the system imploded

[S.Artesian]

The class relations were the same before and after. What changed was the form rather than the substance of these relations. Minority control and therefore de facto ownership of the means of production became also de jure ownership of these means, with privatisation. The situation of the majority class - the workers - remained throughout one of being separated from the means of production and hence having to sell their abilities to work for a wage to the employing class

This is where we disagree. The class relations were NOT the same before and after.

To ignore the changes wrought, not by Gorbachev's reforms which did not gut the economy or dramatically reduce living standards, but by Yeltsin and co. after their siege of the parliament, is to miss a truly world-historic event.

Bureaucratic control of an economy "suspended" halfway between production for use internally and production for exchange internationally is not de facto ownership of the means of production.

The conditions of labor under which labor itself worked were dramatically, drastically, qualitatively changed after 1992. The mere separation from the means of production, while being necessary for the origin capitalism, is not, in and of itself, sufficient for the restoration of capitalism.

[robbo203]

This is where we disagree. The class relations were NOT the same before and after.

To ignore the changes wrought, not by Gorbachev's reforms which did not gut the economy or dramatically reduce living standards, but by Yeltsin and co. after their siege of the parliament, is to miss a truly world-historic event.

Bureaucratic control of an economy "suspended" halfway between production for use internally and production for exchange internationally is not de facto ownership of the means of production..

Yes this is where we disagree fundamentally. It was not a case of production for use internally and production for exchange internationally - the discredited "capitalist tail wagging the socialist dog "theory. Production was emphatically for exchange internally as well as internationally. Goods and services preominately took the form of commodities - articles sold on a market and bought by workers with the wages they were paid. Somethings were for free but that is not that different from what exists in many western capitalist states e.g. the NHS system or comprehensive educationb in the UK. Means of production were likewise commoditified with state enterrpises making legally binding contracts with each other for raw materials and machinery, which were paid for by credits (money) in the central banks. Not only that such enterprises were obliged to keep profit and loss accounts and were penalised for failure to make profits. The main difference with the West, I suppose, is that they were not bankrupted if they made a loss so there was a siginficantly greater role for subsidy than in the West. However, subsidies in the end come from the surplus value that was creamed off by the central state from the state enterprises and to that extent the ability to keep loss making enterprises afloat was predicated on the existence of profit making enterprises elsewhere in the economy

[S.Artesian]

Yes this is where we disagree fundamentally. It was not a case of production for use internally and production for exchange internationally - the discredited "capitalist tail wagging the socialist dog "theory. Production was emphatically for exchange internally as well as internationally. Goods and services preominately took the form of commodities - articles sold on a market and bought by workers with the wages they were paid.

Bought and sold is one thing; produced for the purpose of accumulating value is something else.


Somethings were for free but that is not that different from what exists in many western capitalist states e.g. the NHS system or comprehensive educationb in the UK.

It was very different than what existed in the UK, not to mention the US.




Means of production were likewise commoditified with state enterrpises making legally binding contracts with each other for raw materials and machinery, which were paid for by credits (money) in the central banks.

Yes, and this was basically an accounting methodology. There was no production of value for the sake of production of value.



Not only that such enterprises were obliged to keep profit and loss accounts and were penalised for failure to make profits. The main difference with the West, I suppose, is that they were not bankrupted if they made a loss so there was a siginficantly greater role for subsidy than in the West. However, subsidies in the end come from the surplus value that was creamed off by the central state from the state enterprises and to that extent the ability to keep loss making enterprises afloat was predicated on the existence of profit making enterprises elsewhere in the economy

No, the significant difference was that capital did not exist in the form of money that could freely employ, and expel, labor at will. That was the fundamental, and class, difference.

[Born in the USSR]

In fact the second paragraph cited, where supposedly "class antagonisms" have been abolished creating an "illusion" is a self-contradiction. If the class antagonisms were eliminated then there was no illusion.


If the bourgeoisie was destroyed as a class, then class antagonisms was destroyed too.But it does not mean that the bourgeois mentality disappeared immediately.It wears gradually over many generations and will totally disappear only under communism.


All in all what you provide is an ideological description that has very little to do with the actual economic relations internal to the fSU and linked to the world markets.

It's a curt and unsubstantiated assertion.

[pranabjyoti]

If the bourgeoisie was destroyed as a class, then class antagonisms was destroyed too.But it does not mean that the bourgeois mentality disappeared immediately.It wears gradually over many generations and will totally disappear only under communism.



It's a curt and unsubstantiated assertion.
Actually, I want to thank Comrade Born in the USSR for his assertion about my assumptions about USSR. He is totally right in saying that though the bourgeoisie may gone, but not the petty-bourgeoisie class and the seed of future bourgeoisie remained hidden in them. Socialism means a classless society and IT CAN NOT BE ESTABLISHED UNTIL AND UNLESS THE PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CLASS IS DESTROYED. From his (BITU) posts, it's clear that the petty-bourgeoisie class still remained in the USSR and they took a major role in reestablishment of capitalism in USSR.
Another point, that I have repeatedly said in many of my posts that a great reason for more advancement of science and technology in the imperialist countries is the supply of human resources from the third world countries, which USSR lacks dearly. I now want to thanks comrade BITU for asserting that I am right in this regard and want to know his detailed opinion and experience regarding that matter.

[S.Artesian]

It's a curt and unsubstantiated assertion.

You provide exactly zero economic analysis, claiming instead that it takes generations for a "bourgeois consciousness" to disappear even after the achievement of socialism and the elimination of class antagonisms, and then you claim that that consciousness is what drives history. That happens to be the most pure example of anti-Marxist idealism [and nonsense] I've read since....oh since some thread about "new democracy" and Maoism and India.

I'm making the assertion, and you're substantiating it for me.

[Le Socialiste]

Make no mistake; the Soviet Union was an oppressive and brutal regime - one that had no intention of "exporting" socialism, or supporting peoples' movements. Under Stalin (and long after his death), the USSR became embroiled in a game of geopolitical chess with the U.S.



Anyway, he seriously gave me a history of the Soviet Union, saying how since the revolution it's been chaos, murder, fear and failure.

Trust me, capitalist Russia is in the same boat. The only difference between Soviet Russia and today’s Russia is the state-approved “ideology”.

[sanpal]

Socialism means a classless society and IT CAN NOT BE ESTABLISHED UNTIL AND UNLESS THE PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CLASS IS DESTROYED.

Socialism means a classless society only in its high stage named by marxism as communism. In its first steps (after the proletarian revolution has occured) socialism can mean nothing but class society. Of course the Proletarian democracy/dictatorship is needed just after the PRevolution to protect interests of the working class till the high stage of communism will be established completely.
Immediately to abolish all classes and to transform economy from monetary system to communist economy is the great theoretical mistake and utopia.
The greater theoretical mistake is too if the monetary system to stay to function and simultaneously to introduce into practice communist (non-monetary) relations for the entire society.
The political-economic construction of such kind of society in practice is the repeat of the Duhring's scheme of the utopian socialism in theory which was scientifically criticized by Marx/ Engels in the work "Anti-Duhring" as utopian scheme and which inevitably will fail and collapse.

What was built in the USSR by Stalin as the 'main marxist' is the same Duhring's scheme and this scheme was copied by the most countries of socialist camp, maybe in some degrees except Yugoslavia under Tito (market socialism with elements of workers' self-management) and China under Mao (big jump from feudalism to communism without developed heavy industry).

S.Artesian:

The question remains, and remains unanswered, why then did the "socialist" economy collapse? Why was the working class unable to defend this economy and defeat the restoration of capitalism?

Classes are not easily banished from power. How could a working class in power be disarmed and immobilized, unless the disarming and immobilization had actually taken place over a course of 70 odd years; unless the disarming and immobilization had taken place internally; unless the economy of the "socialist" state was administering an impulse to capitalist restoration at the same time as the welfare of the population was improving?
How could Gorbachev institute such destructive reforms in a socialist state? Why did such reforms receive approval? Was there an opposition? If not, why not? If so, what was the nature of the opposition and why was there no mass working class mobilization?

That's the point isn't it? How can a society which is supposed to be socialist, and even if it isn't, is supposed to be built on the power of the working class have a working class that doesn't understand the weaknesses, the contradictions in its own economic organization?

Nope parties don't degenerate in a day, no more than they suddenly enter a period of degeneration upon the death of one "great man." The decline of the Bolshevik party didn't start in 1953 or 1956.. and the problems in the economic organization did not simply appear because Gorbachev introduced market reforms, of Khrushchev advocated incentives for factory managers.

If the proletariat didn't understand what was happening, and understand what could happen well before it happened, it is only because the society was organized before those things happened to keep the consciousness of the working class from engaging these problems. Plain and simple.

You have to be able to come to grips with the internal flaws and weaknesses that led over time to what appeared to be a sudden destruction.

This does not mean the Russian Revolution didn't accomplish much; it doesn't mean that the people of the fSU were much better off before the destruction of the fSU. They were. It does mean the destruction of the fSU was inherent, internal to, the social relations that reproduced the society.

What is needed is a materialist analysis of the breakdown of the fSU. That's where historical materialism can accomplish something to actually arm the working class against repeated defeats.

I like how correctly you form your questions. I think these questions all have answers but these all are derivatives from the fundamental one:


The question remains, and remains unanswered, why then did the "socialist" economy collapse?

The answer is only one and it is definite: it is the theoretic error, incorrect interpretation of scientific marxism namely the repeating of Duhring's utopian model in practice. All derivatives from it (low productivity of economy; shortage and low quality of goods; appearance of rich elite in the ruling structures; discrepancy of communist ideology and life practice; disappointment of the working class with the values of socialism, etc. ) had a place and will have a place in the future every time when marxism in this point is disturbed.

[S.Artesian]

Trust me, capitalist Russia is in the same boat. The only difference between Soviet Russia and today’s Russia is the state-approved “ideology”.

That's just ridiculous. There has been a real decline in the social development standards like life-expectancy, education, etc. To ignore that fundamental change is to ignore what has been fundamental about the origin, existence, and destruction of the fSU.

Sanpal:

I too hope you develop and write of your life in the USSR. Please do it in any language you wish, and it will be up to us to translate for our own education.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, the main reason of the collapse is bourgeoisie is much more organized than working class i.e. proletariat. Whenever they attacked any revolution, they had done it united, while the burden of resistance goes mostly to the workers of that sole country. The huge mass of oppressed people, mostly from third world colonies were either ignorant and feelings-less, or indirectly assisting the imperialists by joining their army just for living. As for example, the army engaged against USSR by imperialists contains men from Asia, Africa; the colonies of imperialism.
Later, after WWII, the imperialist countries always have a flow of human resource from third world countries which helped them greatly in advancement of science and technology. While the countries standing against them can not develop such programme to attract human resource around the world to improve their science and technology and slowly they lagged behind.
IN MY OPINION, THIS A MAJOR REASON FOR THE SETBACK. We must understand that the fighting is going on worldwide, but while assessing a country, we just think of it in its own national perspective and just forgot the fact that we are very much unable to stand beside it in case of imperialist attack in any form.

[Queercommie Girl]

These demonstrations were almost always led by radical anti-communists and capitalists. The few ones that were led by "libertarian socialists" only succeeded in weakening the Soviet Union and bringing it closer to capitalism.I honestly don't see why there would be any reason for a genuine communist to revolt against socialism in the USSR. As many in this thread have shown, the reality of life under communism was far different to what anti-communists liked to believe about it.

So you think it was good that gays were sentenced to five years in labour camps for their sexuality in the former Soviet Union?

[Vampire Lobster]

So you think it was good that gays were sentenced to five years in labour camps for their sexuality in the former Soviet Union?

I think it's obvious that in reality all those Soviet "gays" were actually crypto-fascist Trotskyist agents digging graves for the revolution. Liberal!

[S.Artesian]

I think it's obvious that in reality all those Soviet "gays" were actually crypto-fascist Trotskyist agents digging graves for the revolution. Liberal!


Absolutely. Bet on it. Unlike the true socialist, marxist-leninist, communists of the Soviet leadership who actually did dig the grave of the revolution, and filled it in with the thousands of women forced into the "Natasha trade," thereby demonstrating how heterosexuality is a requirement of all healthy, natural, male dominated socialist orders. Count on it.

[Toppler]

So you think it was good that gays were sentenced to five years in labour camps for their sexuality in the former Soviet Union?

When? I don't know about USSR, but homosexual sex was decriminalized in the CSSR in 1961.

[Toppler]

Absolutely. Bet on it. Unlike the true socialist, marxist-leninist, communists of the Soviet leadership who actually did dig the grave of the revolution, and filled it in with the thousands of women forced into the "Natasha trade," thereby demonstrating how heterosexuality is a requirement of all healthy, natural, male dominated socialist orders. Count on it.

???

AFAIK "Natasha trade" only started after the USSR collapsed.

[Queercommie Girl]

When? I don't know about USSR, but homosexual sex was decriminalized in the CSSR in 1961.

Lenin decriminalised homosexuality in 1917.

Stalin re-criminalised it in 1931 with his "Article 121".

I heard it was legalised in East Germany from the 1960s onwards, but Stalinist USSR was still the most representative of the old "socialist states".

[S.Artesian]

???

AFAIK "Natasha trade" only started after the USSR collapsed.

Yes, and that collapse is the responsibility of the "Marxists-Leninists" administering the Soviet economy. That's the point.

[Toppler]

Yes, and that collapse is the responsibility of the "Marxists-Leninists" administering the Soviet economy. That's the point.

Which "Marxists-Leninists"? Gorbachev and his clique were not Marxist-Leninists. They did no policies that would indicate so. In contrast, they strayed away from it as far as was possible until the collapse.

[Toppler]

Lenin decriminalised homosexuality in 1917.

Stalin re-criminalised it in 1931 with his "Article 121".

I heard it was legalised in East Germany from the 1960s onwards, but Stalinist USSR was still the most representative of the old "socialist states".

Well, I am not a supporter of Stalin so...
And I know it was decriminalized here in 1961. Anyways, homosexuality was not tolerated almost anywhere in the 1930s, so why should Stalin be singled out for it. Pretty much everybody in that age viewed homosexuals as "sick perverts", not that I agree with it, but that was the majority's opinion at that time, so no surprise that one of the biggest 20th century autocrats adapted it.

And considering Stalin, there were far more grave issues with him, if you know what I mean. Literally.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I am not a supporter of Stalin so...
And I know it was decriminalized here in 1961. Anyways, homosexuality was not tolerated almost anywhere in the 1930s, so why should Stalin be singled out for it. Pretty much everybody in that age viewed homosexuals as "sick perverts", not that I agree with it, but that was the majority's opinion at that time, so no surprise that one of the biggest 20th century autocrats adapted it.


Why? Simple. Because Lenin already de-criminalised homosexuality in 1917.

Stalin was a revisionist in this sense.



And considering Stalin, there were far more grave issues with him, if you know what I mean. Literally.


Are you suggesting that the issues of queer people aren't important?

[Queercommie Girl]

Which "Marxists-Leninists"? Gorbachev and his clique were not Marxist-Leninists. They did no policies that would indicate so. In contrast, they strayed away from it as far as was possible until the collapse.

They are revisionists. But frankly revisionism already began in Stalin's time, just that his followers became progressively worse.

[Toppler]

Are you suggesting that the issues of queer people aren't important?

What I am trying to say that his homophobia was probably the least concern you can have under his rule. He probably killed cca 11 million people, mind you. So yes, they aren't important considering the circumstances, in the same way a bruised knee of a kid is not important in a gas chamber that is just being filled with Zyklon B. Not that he was this bad, just an analogy. Stalin killed everyone who opposed him. He couldn't care really less that somebody was homosexual.

[Queercommie Girl]

What I am trying to say that his homophobia was probably the least concern you can have under his rule. He probably killed cca 11 million people, mind you.

Actually I don't completely reject Stalin, and as much as I heavily criticise his many serious mistakes, to paint Stalin as some kind of Hitler-like crazy mass murderer is certain too extreme, and most likely a kind of biased non-objective analysis from the West.

[Toppler]

Actually I don't completely reject Stalin, and as much as I heavily criticise his many serious mistakes, to paint Stalin as some kind of Hitler-like crazy mass murderer is certain too extreme, and most likely a kind of biased non-objective analysis from the West.

I agree that Hitler was worse, causing 60-80 million deaths by his genocides and WW 2, but Stalin is certainly not a desirable leader, to say it mildly, people here condemn burgeois leaders for far lesser shit that what was done by Stalin.

[S.Artesian]

Which "Marxists-Leninists"? Gorbachev and his clique were not Marxist-Leninists. They did no policies that would indicate so. In contrast, they strayed away from it as far as was possible until the collapse.


Gorbachev were not some sort of evil aberration in the "revolutionary practice" after 1917, and certainly not after 1924.

Again, what is required is a materialist analysis of the fSU; what contradictions were reproduced in and by its organization of production that led it to its "anti-October."

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree that Hitler was worse, causing 60-80 million deaths by his genocides and WW 2, but Stalin is certainly not a desirable leader, to say it mildly, people here condemn burgeois leaders for far lesser shit that what was done by Stalin.

True, but the class basis and the socio-economic mode of production are still different.

Stalin committed many serious errors, but he still kept the basic socialist economic system of the planned economy largely intact.

You can't directly compare Stalin with bourgeois leaders, because you can't only focus on the political super-structure (e.g. serious lack of democratic rights) but ignore the economic base.