Leninists, what's your overall opinion of the USSR post-Lenin?

[Le Socialiste]

This is just something I've been wondering. Seeing as how I have few friends who qualify as actual leftists (none of which are Leninists), I can't ask them, so I'm asking here! Seeing as Lenin played a large role in shaping the post-czarist Russia, what's your opinion concerning the USSR after his death?

[Rusty Shackleford]

all the way up to the overthrow of the soviet union, workers still had more rights than western workers.

[L.J.Solidarity]

Between the beginning of Stalin's bureaucratic rule and the re-introduction of capitalism the SU was a deformed workers' state - workers had more social rights than western workers, conditions were much better than they would have been under capitalism (as is visible by what happened in the former SU and Eastern Europe in the 90s) but democracy and actual workers' control in the planned economy were eliminated, and economic planning was done in the interest of the bureaucracy and not the majority of the working class.

[Queercommie Girl]

Between the beginning of Stalin's bureaucratic rule and the re-introduction of capitalism the SU was a deformed workers' state - workers had more social rights than western workers, conditions were much better than they would have been under capitalism (as is visible by what happened in the former SU and Eastern Europe in the 90s) but democracy and actual workers' control in the planned economy were eliminated, and economic planning was done in the interest of the bureaucracy and not the majority of the working class.

I would dispute the fact that workers had more rights in every sense under the deformed worker's state. Under Stalinism and post-Stalin revisionism Soviet workers had no right to strike, and in many cases not even the right to choose their own profession, since jobs were "allocated" by the bureaucracy. (Maoism on the their hand did gave Chinese workers the right to strike during the Cultural Revolution)

Furthermore, they were often forced to work very hard. While conditions were no doubt much better than how they would be if Russia stayed feudal or capitalist (as the fall of the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated), in some ways they are not as good as the conditions workers had in Western European countries under social democratic governments. (E.g. Old Labour in Britain)

[Queercommie Girl]

all the way up to the overthrow of the soviet union, workers still had more rights than western workers.

Not really. Mao did say that revisionism can be even worse than capitalism.

Do you think workers in China today still have more rights than Western workers, since technically the shell of the "deformed worker's state" hasn't completely fallen yet? :rolleyes:

[Black Sheep]

all the way up to the overthrow of the soviet union, workers still had more rights than western workers.

Once more, anti-revisionists fail to judge self-proclaimed socialist states according to socialist standards and prefer to compare them with capitalist states.

[Rusty Shackleford]

what i said was not an all encompassing stance on the SU. workers were still provided health care education and vacations plus cultural events.

as far as socialism goes. the construction of socialism was stopped post stalin and slowed down in the years of stalins leadership.

workers' control was surely not as present when the SU became deformed, so to say.

socialism could not have existed in the soviet union alone. that much is true. but a period of socialist construction could exist.

there were obvious blunders made by the soviet union as well.

one of them being the support of the foundation of israel (which was reversed)


another being the subject of sino-soviet relations
the soviet chauvanism of the comintern making china a jr. partner and ultimately, the USSR was the one to blame over the Sino-Soviet split.
also, the soviet union had a really bad record of support in china. switching between the CPC and the KMT a few times until it became clear who was more powerfll.
as for china today, the CPC has hardly done anything to support the chinese working class post-mao. it has gone so off course with the whole "socialism with chinese characteristics" its rather laughable that the CPC still has communist in its name.

but, china is not the subject of this thread.

had lenin not had his series of strokes, the USSR would have been much better off in its first decade of existence than how history turned out. obviously, history turned another direction. i critically support the soviet union.


dogpile me why dont you all. jesus christ.

[ComradeOm]

Why would Lenin's death change anything? Particularly so when he had been effectively hors de combat since 1922? Any structural reasons for the rise of Stalinism were certainly present by 1924


Between the beginning of Stalin's bureaucratic rule and the re-introduction of capitalism the SU was a deformed workers' state - workers had more social rights than western workers, conditions were much better than they would have been under capitalism (as is visible by what happened in the former SU and Eastern Europe in the 90s)Except that the Stalinist period saw a dramatic curtailing of workers' rights (through emasculating the trade union apparatus, introduction of draconian labour laws, etc), civil rights (decrees on homosexuality, divorce, etc) and a collapse in living standards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=19). This was alleviated somewhat by later 'revisionist' regimes but still lagged far behind the Western capitalist states


workers were still provided health care education and vacations plus cultural eventsWhich has what to do with workers' rights or socialism?

[Queercommie Girl]

Except that the Stalinist period saw a dramatic curtailing of workers' rights (through emasculating of the trade union apparatus, introduction of draconian labour laws, etc), civil rights (decrees on homosexuality, divorce, etc) and a collapse in living standards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=19). This was alleviated somewhat by later 'revisionist' regimes but still lagged far behind the Western capitalist states


You have a point but stop using such sexist words!

Is there any reason why Trade Unions must be considered to be "intrinsically male"? :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Except that the Stalinist period saw a dramatic curtailing of workers' rights (through cutting out the uterus of the trade union apparatus, introduction of draconian labour laws, etc), civil rights (decrees on homosexuality, divorce, etc) and a collapse in living standards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=19). This was alleviated somewhat by later 'revisionist' regimes but still lagged far behind the Western capitalist statessee... fixed that for you...

[Queercommie Girl]

see... fixed that for you...

So vulgar...

You could have said "making infertile"...:lol:

[Rusty Shackleford]

or you could just say make "impotent".

or even less sexual organ oriented, "make useless"!

[ComradeOm]

You have a point but stop using such sexist words!

Is there any reason why Trade Unions must be considered to be "intrinsically male"?Fine. Stalin rendered the trade unions impotent. Oops :rolleyes:

If you think that 'emasculation' means that the trade union apparatus was "intrinsically male" then your mind is far too literal. That said, you did highlight a typo

[Geiseric]

I support it with Lenin, if the NEP happened I can tell things would have gotten better. Stalin was like ultra-younger lenin though, and his paranoia and brutality were exponentially worse.

[Delenda Carthago]

i think the thread should be moved in history

[Bright Banana Beard]

Lenin was no different from Stalin, anyone who support Lenin and not Stalin or vice versa is a hypocrite in my opinion. This does not mean MLs does not have criticism of Lenin and Stalin.

[PhoenixAsh]

So vulgar...

You could have said "making infertile"...:lol:

:lol: on hindsight I should have gone with "ripping out the genitals" for max effect and making it completely gender neutral ;)

[ComradeOm]

Lenin was no different from Stalin...And you base this on what exactly...? That Stalin said so? Because anyone who cannot divine differences between Lenin and Stalin, or the USSR pre-1924 and post-1927, is simply not looking hard enough. Or at all

[scarletghoul]

The seeds of revisionism (and what Trotskyists would call 'degeneration') were all present under Lenin, despite his efforts to stop them. They grew under Stalin (again, despite his efforts) and were able to gain state power in the 1950s. All this time the economy was socialised, but functioning political socialism lessened and the revisionist leadership adopted capitalist ideas, which were at odds with the socialised economy, resulting in the Brezhnev stagnation and then the Gorbachev collapse.

[Bright Banana Beard]

And you base this on what exactly... That Stalin said so Because anyone who cannot divine differences between Lenin and Stalin, or the USSR pre-1924 and post-1927, is simply not looking hard enough. Or at all

No, I don't based it on Stalin. According to you, both of them caused decreased living of standard and doesn't cause socialism, so how the hell are they different I am referring to the structural change to the government rather than what law they are passing or not.

[Clark]

IMO, when Lenin died, Stalin sticked his head out of the sand and openly started to attack the ideas of Lenin, by using "Trotskyism" is a scapegoat (Which many today-stalinists still do to slander communism).

In any way, the revolution still had to be defended, even if it had been betrayed by a group of parasites.

Yeah, I like the USSR post-Lenin on the grounds of anti-Imperialism (which many stalinists nowadays confuse with support for capitalist islamism), and that it was "the home of the workers", but other than that, I don't really like the ruling cliques post-Lenin. Mainly because they changed "all power to the soviets!" into "all power to the state!"

[Queercommie Girl]

IMO, when Lenin died, Stalin sticked his head out of the sand and openly started to attack the ideas of Lenin, by using "Trotskyism" is a scapegoat (Which many today-stalinists still do to slander communism).

In any way, the revolution still had to be defended, even if it had been betrayed by a group of parasites.

Yeah, I like the USSR post-Lenin on the grounds of anti-Imperialism (which many stalinists nowadays confuse with support for capitalist islamism), and that it was "the home of the workers", but other than that, I don't really like the ruling cliques post-Lenin. Mainly because they changed "all power to the soviets!" into "all power to the state!"

So just because technically the PRC today hasn't completely fallen yet, it's also a "home of the workers"?

How about actually looking at worker's conditions in a purely concrete and empirical sense?

[Clark]

So just because technically the PRC today hasn't completely fallen yet, it's also a "home of the workers"?


This thread is about opinions.

Btw I havn't said a word about China - how about you starting to carefully read something before bragging about it?

[Queercommie Girl]

This thread is about opinions.

Btw I havn't said a word about China - how about you starting to carefully read something before bragging about it?


You could apply the same logic you've applied to the USSR to the PRC.

To say that objectively the USSR must have been always better for workers throughout its entire period just because it is technically a "deformed worker's state" in the abstract is fucking ridiculous.

Even Maoists recognise that objectively revisionism can become even worse than capitalism in some cases.

[ComradeOm]

According to you, both of them caused decreased living of standard and doesn't cause socialism, so how the hell are they differentIn the first place, I have never suggested that Lenin "decreased standards of living". Granted, the Bolsheviks came to power in the midst of a massive economic crisis and then endured bitter years of civil war, but these were not of Lenin's making and he pursued policies (including the NEP) designed to alleviate the suffering of the Russian working class. In contrast, the collapse in real wages and living standards (plus millions of deaths) almost a decade later was a direct product of the economic policies advocated by Stalin. His regime is wholly responsible for the immense hardships of the late 1920s and 1930s

As for "causing socialism", I don't believe in some Great Man version of history in which Lenin or Stalin simply waved a wand and created a socialist society. That said, the Soviet Union pre-1924 was not socialist and Lenin recognised this fact. He probably did not recognise the degree to which the revolution had already degenerated - and despite his intentions he probably played a role in this degeneration - but he was still scathing about the shortcomings of the Soviet state. Despite this, the modest achievements of the latter were reversed further still with the creation of the Stalinist system. Say what you like about the NEP, but workers were never branded criminals for tardiness at work or peasants for collecting leftover grain from the fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Spikelets)

So no, even by restricting ourselves to these fields we see that there are major differences between the two. Most obviously, Lenin never waged a war on the working class


I am referring to the structural change to the government rather than what law they are passing or not.So are we to start enumerating the differences between Lenin and Stalin in the realm of "structural change to the government" then? To be honest, I've no idea what that actually means but I assume it would include things like basic respect for inner-party democracy, working primarily within the Sovnarkom, collective ruling in government, maintaining worker-representative unions (eg, unions and RKK) and, a small matter, not executing political rivals. And this is barely even touching on the major structural reforms of the Soviet state apparatus at the beginning of the Stalinist period!

[NecroCommie]

I guess the soviet union was as good as ti could have been, seeing the conditions and all. But, it was still a state, a centralized one at that and as such it has the perks of any other state. Sure it had rising and lowering rights and living standards dependent on the historical period, but I really see no reason to "judge" entire countries either good or bad. I leave such petty labels for ideological zealots.

IF, on the other hand, you would ask me about some particular policy in some particular context then I might give an actual oppinion.

Also, I don't get it why whe should have to see the USSR as some kind of ideal when we had independent soviets (no matter how short of a time). Ofcourse I would have preferred the soviets, but if the class conscioussness does not last then it does not last. I guess the Bolsheviks did an OK job of salvaging the situation.

[Queercommie Girl]

I guess the soviet union was as good as ti could have been, seeing the conditions and all. But, it was still a state, a centralized one at that and as such it has the perks of any other state. Sure it had rising and lowering rights and living standards dependent on the historical period, but I really see no reason to "judge" entire countries either good or bad. I leave such petty labels for ideological zealots.

IF, on the other hand, you would ask me about some particular policy in some particular context then I might give an actual oppinion.

Also, I don't get it why whe should have to see the USSR as some kind of ideal when we had independent soviets (no matter how short of a time). Ofcourse I would have preferred the soviets, but if the class conscioussness does not last then it does not last. I guess the Bolsheviks did an OK job of salvaging the situation.

How do you define "as good as it could have been"? What does that actually mean?

[Born in the USSR]

Say what you like about the NEP, but workers were never branded criminals for tardiness at work or peasants for collecting leftover grain from the fields (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Spikelets)

So no, even by restricting ourselves to these fields we see that there are major differences between the two. Most obviously, Lenin never waged a war on the working class
It turnes out that Stalin did wage the war against workers and against peasants,of course (collectivisation).

I was always amazed at the idiotism of such statements.Stalin supressed 99% of the people!It is a simple thing - you cannot supress something without the fulcrum of greater mass than the subject you want to supress.Every reasonable person understands - if the government suppresses any part of society, then it has the support of other more significant part of it.It is easy to understand for everyone - but not for antistalinists.What's wrong with their heads?

[Queercommie Girl]

It turnes out that Stalin did wage the war against workers and against peasants,of course (collectivisation).

I was always amazed at the idiotism of such statements.Stalin supressed 99% of the people!It is a simple thing - you cannot supress something without the fulcrum of greater mass than the subject you want to supress.Every reasonable person understands - if the government suppresses any part of society, then it has the support of other more significant part of it.It is easy to understand for everyone - but not for antistalinists.What's wrong with their heads?

No it's not so simple, because it's not just a matter of pure numbers. A well-armed and organised minority could easily crush an unarmed, disorganised numerical majority.

How do you think, for example, the Spanish conquered the Incas and the Aztecs?

[NecroCommie]

How do you define "as good as it could have been"? What does that actually mean?
Economically speaking. That short of miracles there was the industrial development to be expected of a country in a civil war, and that the goods were distributed as evenly as possible for a society with such structure.

Oh yeah, and I was speaking of the pre-cold-war period. And I ackowledge very well that there were civil rights issues, but those can be addressed in any society regardless the system.

[ComradeOm]

I was always amazed at the idiotism of such statements.Stalin supressed 99% of the people!It is a simple thing - you cannot supress something without the fulcrum of greater mass than the subject you want to supress.Every reasonable person understands - if the government suppresses any part of society, then it has the support of other more significant part of it.It is easy to understand for everyone - but not for antistalinists.What's wrong with their heads?And since when did the balance of class forces depend entirely on numerical strength? Power does not flow entirely from the barrel of a gun but this is not license to ignore the role of class consciousness or state institutions in minimising dissent. Or do you suggest that the Russian workers actually welcomed laws that condemned them to six months in a labour colony for being twenty minutes late to work?* No, look past the propaganda and the attitude of the Stalinist state towards the working class is clear - contempt and the desire for a pliant and servile proletariat

*Harsh laws against 'truancy' had first been passed in 1932 but were strengthened significantly with decree of 28 Dec 1938, which classified anyone twenty minutes late as a truant, and 26 June 1940 which criminalised such labour 'offences'

Edit:

Economically speaking. That short of miracles there was the industrial development to be expected of a country in a civil war, and that the goods were distributed as evenly as possible for a society with such structureMeaning that everyone had equally little, except for the privilege few who had access to special store? The "industrial development" of the 1930s did not benefit the Russian workers to any degree. It was not until the dismantling of the Stalinist economy by the 'revisionists' that living standards significantly improved in the USSR

[Queercommie Girl]

Economically speaking. That short of miracles there was the industrial development to be expected of a country in a civil war, and that the goods were distributed as evenly as possible for a society with such structure.


The economic "miracle" need to be analysed dialectically. On the one hand it did have a progressive role, but on the other hand it was often built on the bones of workers and poor peasants in the Soviet nations.



Oh yeah, and I was speaking of the pre-cold-war period. And I ackowledge very well that there were civil rights issues, but those can be addressed in any society regardless the system.

Well civil rights issues can't be considered in a completely independent manner either, because we are talking about civil rights issues for workers, not for anybody else.

[NecroCommie]

The economic "miracle" need to be analysed dialectically. On the one hand it did have a progressive role, but on the other hand it was often built on the bones of workers and poor peasants in the Soviet nations.
What did you expect of a state? I don't recall any situation in which centralized capital (a prerequisite for industrialization) would have manifested itself as something humane. Not saying that we shouldn't try, merely pointing out that the industrialization in USSR was no more of a failure than that of great britain was.



Well civil rights issues can't be considered in a completely independent manner either, because we are talking about civil rights issues for workers, not for anybody else.
If we are criticizing the civil rights issues we are ciriticizing the overall values in a culture (whether that culture is that of the ruling class or the entire society), not some things inherent in the state. The state is a structure independent of the values it contains. Now, I know the two affect each other, but when you say "soviet union" we have to understand whether we are talking about the society that lives within the state, or the state apparatus itself. I was talking about the apparatus, which was very neutral in regard of the civil right violations because it did not demand any kind of structural change to increase those rights. Only some minor legistlative reforms were needed in this regard, and we can blame the leaders for those.


The "industrial development" of the 1930s did not benefit the Russian workers to any degree. It was not until the dismantling of the Stalinist economy by the 'revisionists' that living standards significantly improved in the USSR
Whereas I cannot claim to be an insane history buff, in all honesty I have to say this is not what I have heard. Many a person have claimed that the stalinist soviet union actually saw a dramatic increase in welfare for the average citizen.

Then again I have not heard the details, feel free to elaborate or correct.

[Queercommie Girl]

What did you expect of a state? I don't recall any situation in which centralized capital (a prerequisite for industrialization) would have manifested itself as something humane. Not saying that we shouldn't try, merely pointing out that the industrialization in USSR was no more of a failure than that of great britain was.


Well, yes, Stalinist USSR was more humane than capitalist Great Britain when the latter was going through its industrialisation, sure, but why are we directly comparing a socialist state with a capitalist state?

Unless you don't consider the USSR to be intrinsically socialist, of course.



If we are criticizing the civil rights issues we are ciriticizing the overall values in a culture (whether that culture is that of the ruling class or the entire society), not some things inherent in the state. The state is a structure independent of the values it contains. Now, I know the two affect each other, but when you say "soviet union" we have to understand whether we are talking about the society that lives within the state, or the state apparatus itself. I was talking about the apparatus, which was very neutral in regard of the civil right violations. We can blame the leaders for those.
But it's clearly not just the "culture" is it? Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917, whatever the actual limitations of that policy, but Stalin completely reversed this decision and re-criminalised it in 1931 with Article 121. So far from just being a "cultural factor", homosexuality was indeed punishable by the socialist state as an official crime under Stalin.



Whereas I cannot claim to be an insane history buff, in all honesty I have to say this is not what I have heard. Many a person have claimed that the stalinist soviet union actually saw a dramatic increase in welfare for the average citizen.

Then again I have not heard the details, feel free to elaborate or correct.I generally agree with you here, certainly the Stalinist period cannot be completely written off, and had Russia stayed feudal or capitalist, it would have been much worse for the masses for sure.

But as I said, we need to take a dialectical stance on this matter. It's wrong to be actually "glorifying" Stalin's reign.

[ComradeOm]

Whereas I cannot claim to be an insane history buff, in all honesty I have to say this is not what I have heard. Many a person have claimed that the stalinist soviet union actually saw a dramatic increase in welfare for the average citizen.

Then again I have not heard the details, feel free to elaborate or correct.The you have heard wrong. See here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-economy-t121565/index.html?p=1590160). Or try Nove's Economic History of the USSR. Or really any account of the period not written by Stalinists or fellow travellers

[Dire Helix]

The "industrial development" of the 1930s did not benefit the Russian workers to any degree. It was not until the dismantling of the Stalinist economy by the 'revisionists' that living standards significantly improved in the USSR

Not quite. It was thanks to the rapid economic development that had been done in 1930-1950s that working class living standards finally started to see a significant improvement by early 1960s.

[ComradeOm]

Not quite. It was thanks to the rapid economic development that had been done in 1930-1950s that working class living standards finally started to see a significant improvement by early 1960s.There may be a grain of truth in this if not for the fact that these improvements in living standards were only possible after the dismantling of the coercive Stalinist economy. There was no reason why, for example, the housing crisis could not have been tackled in the 1930s if the political will had been there. This was obviously lacking however when the economy was largely based on suppressing real wages, the use of forced labour, worker passports and a host of other coercive measures

[NecroCommie]

Well, yes, Stalinist USSR was more humane than capitalist Great Britain when the latter was going through its industrialisation, sure, but why are we directly comparing a socialist state with a capitalist state?

Unless you don't consider the USSR to be intrinsically socialist, of course.
I don't think anyone in the soviet union considered soviet union as socialist, so I don't see why I would want to do that.



But it's clearly not just the "culture" is it? Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917, whatever the actual limitations of that policy, but Stalin completely reversed this decision and re-criminalised it in 1931 with Article 121. So far from just being a "cultural factor", homosexuality was indeed punishable by the socialist state as an official crime under Stalin.

This I know, but certainly it is not a feature inherent in the state apparatus that was the soviet union, as proven by the fact that it was not a crime during Lenin. Whether affected by cultural or other factors, the soviet union per se cannot be held as an anti-homosexual entity. Stalin-era leadership sure was anti-homosexual, and post-stalin leadership was, if not anti-gay, then at least very conservative in this matter.


The you have heard wrong. See here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-economy-t121565/index.html?p=1590160). Or try Nove's Economic History of the USSR. Or really any account of the period not written by Stalinists or fellow travellers
I am not trying to argue against now or anything, but my accounts are something quite other than "fellow travellers". History teachers, ordinary russians of the period, and I believe Noam Chomsky in some instance I cannot recall, have claimed higher living standards in stalinist soviet union.

Having said that, high living standards are not exactly an argument because living standards have been improving and decreasing regardless the economic system.

[Red_Struggle]

There may be a grain of truth in this if not for the fact that these improvements in living standards were only possible after the dismantling of the coercive Stalinist economy.

How was the Stalin-era economy "coercive"? Yes it put a large emphasis on heavy industry, but there is nothing wrong with this. When transforming a third world, semi-feudal country, you have to lay the base for socialist construction before workers can dream of a major increase in living standards. If you want to invest in housing, you need the means the tools and the adequate machinery to make it happen. As such, a socialist country developing itself in the global conditions that existed during the USSR's lifeftime, an emphasis needed to be placed on increasing the production of the means of production. Coal, steel, electricity, tractor, and machine-tool production rose than any other country I know of. As a sidenote, most tractors produced were designed to be easily transformed into tanks, if need be.


the economy was largely based on suppressing real wages


While in any socialist country the state does recieve surplus value at some point in the process, the issue is to what application that surplus value is put. If that surplus value was (as it was in the USSR,) put to the application of infrastructure building and maintainance (roads, hydro dams, etc), essential and beneficial services ( healthcare, education, universal housing, public transportation, etc), paying salaries to millions, further developing the productive capacity of the nation... who was the ultimate benefactor of all toil?


the use of forced labour

This would imply that the majority of Soviet workers were in labor centers, which is obviously not the case.



worker passports and a host of other coercive measures

As far as passports go, they were the main form of ID for Soviet citizens, which I wouldn't view as a big deal.

[Born in the USSR]

No it's not so simple, because it's not just a matter of pure numbers. A well-armed and organised minority could easily crush an unarmed, disorganised numerical majority.

How do you think, for example, the Spanish conquered the Incas and the Aztecs?


Or do you suggest that the Russian workers actually welcomed laws that condemned them to six months in a labour colony for being twenty minutes late to work?*

Whom, I wonder, consider anti-Stalinist the generation of workers that have carried out the revolution?Where did they get the idea that everyone could do everything he want with those people?

One anti-Stalinist thinks that Soviet workers were a kind of American savages,a meek herd,the other is sure that they were truants and violators of labor discipline - "oh,workers didn't welcome a law aimed at the strengthening of labor discipline,they were all slovens!" (btw,it's a lie :"six months in a labour colony";they usually sentenced truants to retention of a part of earnings for one or two years).

In whose interest was to strengthen labor discipline, especially in 1940 (I hope everyone know what was in the world in 1940)?The strengthening of discipline was the strengthening of the defence potential,it is clear,I think.

Generally,arguing that there was the dictatorship of Stalin in the USSR,not the dictatorship of a proletariat, "left" critics do not even realize what nonsense do they talk.No one would claim that there is Obama's dictatorship in the USA,not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,or that there is a dictatorship of Putin in Russia,not of the big busioness.It's clear for all lefts that Putin and Bush are just mouthpieces of the will of the bourgeoisie as a class, spokesmen of common interests of the capitalists.

[ComradeOm]

How was the Stalin-era economy "coercive"?In the literal meaning of the word - the state employed force and threats of force to drive the economy. Contrast with economies based on incentives or worker control. Most obviously this coercion took the form of the vast labour camp system which would evolve into a veritable economic empire under the control of the MVD. To quote from Donald Filtzer's Soviet Workers and Late Stalinism:

"In 1949 the Gulag's production accounted for approximately 10% of the USSR's entire gross industrial output. It had a virtual monopoly over the mining and processing of strategic metals and materials, such as platinum, mica and diamonds (100%); gold (90%); and tin (70%). It produced 40% of the USSR's copper and 33% of its nickel. Its logging operations provided 13% of the country's timer and its mines hewed nearly 4% of its coal. In 1950 MVD construction organisations put up well over 50% of Moscow's new civilian housing. But the economy's reliance on the MVD was greater than even these figures suggest, since the other economic ministries became heavily dependent on prison labour to cover labour shortages and cope with bottlenecks."

And so on in this vein. Now I feel that 10% is overstating it slightly but there's no questioning the importance of the forced labour system to the Soviet economy. This was merely the most obvious form of state coercion in the economic sphere however

The real impact of the Gulag and overt state repression (such as the passports and labour books noted below) was to 'motivate' the Soviet workforce in the face of falling real wages and living standards. It became necessary, from a Stalinist perspective, to pass these draconian laws because the state's 'productivist' stance (ie, work harder for less money) was desperately unpopular with the workers. Understandably so. Without being able to promise the workers any real material benefits the powers of the state (including the Party and the trade union apparatus) were needed to compel workers to fulfil their targets and to finance the industrialisation drive through unpaid/underpaid labour and scams such as 'voluntary' state bond drives. Iseul had it right when s/he said that Soviet industrialisation was "built on the bones of workers and poor peasants in the Soviet nations."

This economic configuration was already faltering by the early 1950s and it did not survive the death of Stalin. The MVD's economic empire was dismantled and both Khrushchev and Malenkov committed to substantial increases in consumer goods production. Coercion was no longer the norm in economic relations


...who was the ultimate benefactor of all toil?Who was the ultimate benefactor of the suppression of the working class's real wages and living standards? Do I really need to answer that?


This would imply that the majority of Soviet workers were in labor centers, which is obviously not the caseNo, it would imply that forced labour made up a significant part of the economy and involved millions of Soviet citizens. Majority does not come into it


As far as passports go, they were the main form of ID for Soviet citizens, which I wouldn't view as a big deal.The passports tied workers down to a specific region, served to restrict the mobility of the workforce and facilitated easier deportation to the camp system. Ditto with the labour books which were designed to reduce the ability of workers to move jobs without official consent. These were instruments of state control over the workforce. Arguing that they also served as a form of identification (and thus are a-ok!) is just silly


Whom, I wonder, consider anti-Stalinist the generation of workers that have carried out the revolution? Largely dead, scattered or working in new positions. The demographic collapse of the Civil War years decimated (almost literally) the Soviet working class. Major industrial centres such as Moscow and Petrograd saw falls in population of 50-75%. The working class did recover numerically during the 1920s but in terms of class consciousness it never again reached the heights of 1917. Perhaps it could have done but, as noted above, there was a concerted effort at a factory level to pressurise or intimidate the workers in order to keep them pliant and divided. That many of the institutions involved in this (state bodies, unions, the Party) had actually represented the workers, to some degree, until the late 1920s only added to the shock. The first response of many workers to the changing conditions was to complain to these bodies - except that the latter were now 'facing towards production' on the government's instructions

Despite this were should not forget that there was resistance to the imposition of the Stalinist economy. Nothing like a 'Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre' but grassroots opposition on the factory floor. Unfortunately this never coalesced into a broad opposition movement; it could not do so in the face of powerful state repression


(btw,it's a lie :"six months in a labour colony";they usually sentenced truants to retention of a part of earnings for one or two years)You're right actually, my mistake. To quote Filtzer (Soviet Workers and De-Stalinisation) again:

"A decree of 28 Dec 1938 reaffirmed that absentees would be summarily dismissed and evicted (together with their families) from factory housing; moreover subsequent rulings extended the decree to any worker arriving just twenty minutes late, who would be classed as a truant. When, despite its harshness, this law had little effect, the the regime, in June 1940, declared both truancy and job-changing criminal offences. Truancy was punishable by a period of corrective labour of up to six months at the workers' original enterprise, with up to 25% loss of pay. Quitting one's job without the authorisation of factory management made the worker liable to imprisonment for two to four months. In addition, according to the decree of 28 Dec 1938, job-changers and those fired for truancy were to lose most of their pension and disability benefit rights"

All hail the magnanimosity of the Stalinist state!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Except that the Stalinist period saw a dramatic curtailing of workers' rights (through emasculating the trade union apparatus, introduction of draconian labour laws, etc), civil rights (decrees on homosexuality, divorce, etc) and a collapse in living standards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780465&postcount=19). This was alleviated somewhat by later 'revisionist' regimes but still lagged far behind the Western capitalist states

Which has what to do with workers' rights or socialism?

You speak of a collapse in living standards, yet anyone following the link you provided can see the clear mis-leading nature of this post. The link you provide shows only the calorific intake of food by peasant and worker households. It shows a spike during the NEP, a gap, and then a slower increase at a lower level in the 1930s. You then say that this was alleviated by 'revisionist' regimes but lagged far behind the capitalist states.

So implicitly, you seem to be supporting the Capitalistic NEP, the poor policymaking of Kruschev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev and their subordinates, and even the Western capitalist states.

Let me ask you a question. What does the NEP, Brezhnev stagnation or the relatively comfortable lives of workers in places like Britain and Germany have to do with workers' rights or socialism?

[ComradeOm]

You speak of a collapse in living standards, yet anyone following the link you provided can see the clear mis-leading nature of this post. The link you provide shows only the calorific intake of food by peasant and worker households. It shows a spike during the NEP, a gap, and then a slower increase at a lower level in the 1930sYes. How is that misleading? Calorie intake rose during the NEP period before crashing during the first years of the Stalinist industrialisation drive. There was then a slow recovery but without reaching pre-Stalin levels. If you read the rest of that particular thread, plus the other links in this one, you'll see that this held roughly true for other measures of living standards as well - most notably real wages which remained well below NEP levels for most of the 1930s. Calorie intake is merely one indicator of this decline


So implicitly, you seem to be supporting the Capitalistic NEP, the poor policymaking of Kruschev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev and their subordinates, and even the Western capitalist states.In the realm of living standards, yes, these regimes were better at providing for their citizens than the Stalinist USSR. Which is a damning indictment of the latter

Now obviously I do not condone the capitalist system but then this is not a binary choice in which one is forced to choose between Western, or 'revisionist', capitalism and Stalinist despotism. Supporting the latter simply because it is not Western/revisionist is stupid


Let me ask you a question. What does the NEP, Brezhnev stagnation or the relatively comfortable lives of workers in places like Britain and Germany have to do with workers' rights or socialism?One would expect a socialist state to be of benefit to the workers, no? It is staggering that both the pre and post-Stalin economies were superior in this regard to so-called Stalinist 'socialism'

[Queercommie Girl]

Let me ask you a question. What does the NEP, Brezhnev stagnation or the relatively comfortable lives of workers in places like Britain and Germany have to do with workers' rights or socialism?


Why should workers support "communism" if it cannot make their lives better?

This is not to completely negate the Stalinist legacy. Had Russia stayed a Tsarist or capitalist state during the same period, living standards would have been even worse. Industrialisation under Stalin was still more humane than how industrialisation was like in Great Britain and the United States earlier on. But on the other hand genuine socialists should never "glorify" Stalin, because his system was severely distorted from a genuine Marxist point of view.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

There may be a grain of truth in this if not for the fact that these improvements in living standards were only possible after the dismantling of the coercive Stalinist economy.
Are you a pacifist?

[ComradeOm]

Are you a pacifist?No. I'm simply someone who believes that any platform that subjects the working class to draconian labour laws, mass violence and material immiseration is not compatible with socialism

Edit:

This is not to completely negate the Stalinist legacy. Had Russia stayed a Tsarist or capitalist state during the same period, living standards would have been even worseBe careful not to fall into the trap of assuming a binary scenario. There were alternatives to Stalinism. Even within the Party in the 1920s it was uniformly accepted that industrialisation was a pressing necessity. It is not the case that the absence of Stalin would have automatically led to continued Tsarist or capitalist policies

[LibertarianSocialist1]

No. I'm simply someone who believes that any platform that subjects the working class to draconian labour laws, mass violence and material immiseration is not compatible with socialism
And what was the cause for this? State Capitalism?

[ComradeOm]

In a general sense, the degeneration of the revolution. The more specific charges that you've highlighted were the product of Stalinist economic policies. I wouldn't call them 'state capitalist' but then I've no real quarrel with those who do

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, the Soviet Union turned into a bureacratic tyranny primarily as a result of 'objective' historical factors (the decimation of the Russian working-class vanguard during the Civil War, the defeat of workers' movements in Europe, etc), and not as a result of Lenin's death. The difference between Lenin and Stalin, however, was that the former dedicated a bulk of his last years to fighting bureaucratisation, whereas the latter dedicated the majority of his political life to aiding it and climbing the bureaucratic ladder.

[Red_Struggle]

"In 1949 the Gulag's production accounted for approximately 10% of the USSR's entire gross industrial output. It had a virtual monopoly over the mining and processing of strategic metals and materials, such as platinum, mica and diamonds (100%); gold (90%); and tin (70%). It produced 40% of the USSR's copper and 33% of its nickel. Its logging operations provided 13% of the country's timer and its mines hewed nearly 4% of its coal. In 1950 MVD construction organisations put up well over 50% of Moscow's new civilian housing. But the economy's reliance on the MVD was greater than even these figures suggest, since the other economic ministries became heavily dependent on prison labour to cover labour shortages and cope with bottlenecks."

Ten percent isn't a massive number, and even you yourself dispute your source's accuracy. Even if the number is true, using kulaks and class enemies to make up for lost resources and time isn't exactly irrational considering the actual conditions that faced the USSR at that given time. It's true that the GULAG was no paradise and the working conditions were tough, so that does offer a reasonable criticism of society, but I don't view the labor camps as the ultimate evil.




The real impact of the Gulag and overt state repression (such as the passports and labour books noted below) was to 'motivate' the Soviet workforce in the face of falling real wages and living standards.

That's not true. The Soviet Union wasn't "heaven on earth" but it was not hellhole either. Like I said, the non-wage benefits outweighed the wage benefits and most good were relatively cheap.

As the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) puts it, which clandestinely operated during the USSR's revisionist years:

"Another attack was that under Stalin, people lived very poorly. We lived at that time according to the means and possibility under the prevailing conditions. The period of "self reliance" was from 1920 to 1950. USSR did not receive any help from anyone. But our economy was not in a crisis as it is now in 1941. With every year, our lives were improving. We were happier and more satisfied with every passing year.
Of course, the development of life and economy is not without problems. There were still classes, and the development had to be looked upon as to which class should be served, the majority or the minority... cooperatives or private enterprisers? The people were gaining higher understanding, moral fortitude and unity in constructing socialism and these are the people that stopped the Hitler tanks and hordes when they invaded our Motherland."


It became necessary, from a Stalinist perspective, to pass these draconian laws because the state's 'productivist' stance (ie, work harder for less money) was desperately unpopular with the workers.

I doubt that. Such "draconian" laws were intended to heighten labor discipline, not oppress the workers and take their freedom away. As Harry Haywood and William Z. Foster note, discussions were quite common among factory committees and in one of Foster's articles, he notes a demonstration that took place between those who wished to celebrate Easter and those who protested against the event (mostly the younger generation). However, he notes the amount of mutual respect the demonstrators had for each other and nobody necessarily imposed or harassed the other side.


He also mentions something about the May Day demonstrations, which he also attended.


Without being able to promise the workers any real material benefits the powers of the state (including the Party and the trade union apparatus) were needed to compel workers to fulfil their targets and to finance the industrialisation drive through unpaid/underpaid labour

What unpaid labor? If a manager was accused of withholding wages or benefits, the union or factory committee could hold a vote to recall him or her. In one of the PLP's old newspaper articles, it tells the story of a manager who the workers felt went on talking for too long on the floor. As such, the workers aired their opinions in the open and decided to take the floor themselves to discuss the issues that mattered to them the most.

You could also check out "Stalinist Terror and Democracy" by Wendy Goldman. Here she describes how workers participated in accountability meetings, complete with photographs of the meetings and voting mechanisms themselves.


The MVD's economic empire was dismantled and both Khrushchev and Malenkov committed to substantial increases in consumer goods production. Coercion was no longer the norm in economic relations.

Of course. That's why in 1962, the army was ordered to open fire on workers who protested the price high of foodstuffs, notably meat and butter by 25 to 30 percent. This was the first time since Krondstadt that the Soviet state fired upon its own population.

Not to mention that Khruschev drew up a proposal in the name of the COMINFORM, without consulting the organization itself, or any other workers' or communist parties in order to rehabilitate Tito.


The passports tied workers down to a specific region, served to restrict the mobility of the workforce and facilitated easier deportation to the camp system.

Actually, the passports were mainly used to document whose job was what, as well as a form of simple ID. A worker could leave his residence for up to thirty days on vacation, which was a pretty decent benefit.

And to be honest, I'm not really all that opposed to using a universal passport or something of the sort for the use of public services (trains, plains, healthcare, etc.). It'd be much easier to have what you need on a single document or portable record book than it would be to carry around a bunch of credit cards or what have you. It'd be more convenient for the workers and probably cost much less money.

[NewPartyTendency]

USSR was a pioneer for what is state-capitalism is happening in the United States, yet the proletariat were getting poorer near the end of the 1980s. The stock market fixes the dilemma so the bourgeoisie get taxed less so millionaires still about. China has more millionaires now due to the Chinese stock market.

[Born in the USSR]

It's all a distortion.The fall of population of big cities was primarly due to the fact that people moved to the countryside,where it was easier to survive a famine.The worker class certainly suffered a loss but was not destroyed.

What for all this manipulations of facts?tTo distract from the main issue:what class was Stalin's mainstay."Oh,there was a bureacratic tyranny in the USSR!"The bureacratic tyranny of what class?You see,the beurocracy is only a superstructure,and what was the basis?

No answer.

What was the nature af changes in the USSR in 1920s-1930s:socialist or capitalist?

No answer.

Chiller-diller about the Soviet life instead of answers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming a binary scenario. There were alternatives to Stalinism. Even within the Party in the 1920s it was uniformly accepted that industrialisation was a pressing necessity. It is not the case that the absence of Stalin would have automatically led to continued Tsarist or capitalist policies

Well, I'm certainly not saying that Stalinism was the best potential possibility in Russia at the time, only that it was significantly better than the feudal or capitalist alternatives.

Even the "horrors" of Stalinist industrialisation is nothing compared with how the United States was industrialised: genocide against native Americans, mass black slavery, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think anyone in the soviet union considered soviet union as socialist, so I don't see why I would want to do that.


Many hardline Stalinists would label the USSR under Stalin as a genuine socialist or "worker's state".



This I know, but certainly it is not a feature inherent in the state apparatus that was the soviet union, as proven by the fact that it was not a crime during Lenin. Whether affected by cultural or other factors, the soviet union per se cannot be held as an anti-homosexual entity. Stalin-era leadership sure was anti-homosexual, and post-stalin leadership was, if not anti-gay, then at least very conservative in this matter.
The Soviet Union is not an intrinsically queerphobic entity, but the Soviet Union under Stalinism (and later under revisionism) was.

[NewPartyTendency]

Stalin was a dictator. Since Troskyists have always sponsored Leninist in democracies, he says he works better in the United States. Personally spoke to James Cannon, and personally read The Militant magazine. Trosky's permanent revolution would work in the United States in campaigning. Americans have short-term memory, because they're not marxist in their lives. I'm sure that degenerated workers state theory could become of good use to describe treasury funds spent on Afgan War/ Iraq War or the sovereignty of the Philippines. There are more theories avaliable from Leon Trosky and some Trotskyist agree with state-capitalism like Johnson-Forest tendency Troskyists.

[Kléber]

You see,the beurocracy is only a superstructure,and what was the basis?
The bureaucracy was based on the state power that "we took over from Tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil" (Lenin).

Bonaparte's military, gravedigger of the French Revolution, had been the superstructure of a bourgeois state that came to exist for itself and backslide into feudalism. Please don't tell us you support Bonaparte?


What was the nature af changes in the USSR in 1920s-1930s:socialist or capitalist?In the 1920's, the centrist bureaucracy was allied with the rightists and followed their capitalist road. When NEP led to an agricultural crisis which threatened the state, they were forced to break with the right and partly enact the industrialist, collectivist policies which had been theorized and advocated years prior by the defeated Left Opposition. Real socialism was never constructed in the USSR - socialism can not exist while the ruling elite live like Western capitalists and the working class has no political freedom to democratically administer what are supposed to be its own economy and state institutions.

There were other changes in the 1930's too: the development of a luxury economy, special stores and restaurants for bureaucrats, limousines and servants for bureaucrats, the first Soviet millionaires, waste of resources on Stalin's pharaonic prestige projects, all this at the expense of the proletariat. Those are capitalist changes. The increasing contradiction between the workers and the bureaucrats was settled by Stalin in a profoundly counter-revolutionary way: mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of communists who posed a threat to the despotic ruling clique.

[ComradeOm]

Ten percent isn't a massive number, and even you yourself dispute your source's accuracyTen percent, which is certainly in the right range, is a huge number. We're talking about a vast national economy here. Even then, that does not give license to ignore the rest of the paragraph. The Soviet economy relied heavily on the MVD administered system of camps and colonies. Its dismantlement would have profound consequences for the rest of the economy


Even if the number is true, using kulaks and class enemies to make up for lost resources and time isn't exactly irrational considering the actual conditions that faced the USSR at that given time. It's true that the GULAG was no paradise and the working conditions were tough, so that does offer a reasonable criticism of society, but I don't view the labor camps as the ultimate evilSure, what could possibly be wrong about working people to death in camps? :rolleyes:

But then the idea that the camps and colonies were reserved from kulaks or counter-revolutionaries is a lie. Or rather, the definition of 'counter-revolutionary' was stretched to breaking point (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1933717&postcount=23). The rest of that thread is worth reading as well, particularly here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1934870&postcount=34) where I dismiss the kulak label as, to use the words of one Soviet historian, "lacking class content"


That's not true. The Soviet Union wasn't "heaven on earth" but it was not hellhole either. Like I said, the non-wage benefits outweighed the wage benefits and most good were relatively cheapAnd your source for this is the "All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)"? :lol:

It is certainly true that there were amenities provided that cannot be captured in a primarily economic/statistical analysis but I'd refer you to Shelia Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism or Moshe Lewin's Making of the Soviet System for accounts of how under-developed or chaotic these were. Certainly there's no reason to suggest that they were sufficient to compensate for, say, the introduction of food rationing or the increasingly dire housing shortage. As I say, the 1930s were a time of extreme hardship for the Russian proletariat. This is the conclusion of virtually all non-Stalinist research into the period that I'm aware of

As for prices, cheap goods are of little use if they can't be purchased. This was a reoccurring problem in the USSR and the Stalinist period was no exception. Indeed it was particularly acute at this time. To quote Fitzpatrick: "With the transition to a centrally planned economy at the end of the 1920s, goods shortages became endemic in Soviet society... . Indeed the shortages of these years, in contrast to those of the post-Stalin period, really were caused as much by underproduction of consumer goods as systemic distribution problems... . [Shortages] were a central fact of economic and daily life." She goes on to note that basic goods (from food to shoes) were "often completely unobtainable" and to describe the emergence of "closed shops" and exclusive commercial stores that provided goods for the connected and the well-off


Another attack was that under Stalin, people lived very poorly. We lived at that time according to the means and possibility under the prevailing conditions. The period of "self reliance" was from 1920 to 1950. USSR did not receive any help from anyone. But our economy was not in a crisis as it is now in 1941. With every year, our lives were improving. We were happier and more satisfied with every passing year'Life Has Become Better, Life Has Become Merrier' :rolleyes:


I doubt that. Such "draconian" laws were intended to heighten labor discipline, not oppress the workers and take their freedom awayYet "taking their freedom away" was exactly, and explicitly in the case of passports, what these measures achieved. The discipline that they imposed from above was the discipline of the harsh taskmaster whipping his charges onwards. These were measures that far exceeded even the harshest labour laws in the peacetime liberal democracies, all in the name of "labour discipline"


As Harry Haywood and William Z. Foster note, discussions were quite common among factory committees...To quote Kevin Murphy's Revolution and Counterrevolution which studied the Hammer and Sickle metalworks: "Even as late as 1928 workers made open threats to factory management at delegates' meetings, but a few months later only state loyalists spoke. Only 7 out of 128 spoke at delegates' meeting in January 1929 - meetings that rank-and-file militants had controlled just a few years earlier. A few weeks later at a factory conference, just 11 workers spoke from the floor."

There was a sharp decline in worker participation in these factory meetings in the late 1920s as they essentially became stage-managed rituals. By 1930 the factory committees were the preserve of management stooges and, to quote Murphy again, had been "formally transformed into... a management tool for raising productivity, working longer hours and lowering costs."


What unpaid labor?The camps. Underpaid labour would be everyone else


You could also check out "Stalinist Terror and Democracy" by Wendy Goldman. Here she describes how workers participated in accountability meetings, complete with photographs of the meetings and voting mechanisms themselvesI do love when people reference papers that I've already read. I think that Goldman, like Getty, has a tendency to take Stalin at his word and almost portray him as an innocent bystander as others "slashed themselves to ribbons". That's not an interpretation I agree with. However the article in question is well researched and it is useful in that it:

1) Identities the colossal injustices perpetrated by the union apparatus and the depths to which these state institutions were despised by the workers

2) That nothing of note came from this grand campaign. It merely "encouraged leading officials to play a type of leapfrog" in which one set of corrupt bureaucrats replaced another set of corrupt bureaucrats

Certainly there was no question that the workers listening passively to reports of union abuses gained any real power from this, again, top-down integrative. Goldman frankly notes that they "did not succeed in removing 'bureaucrats'". To portray this as a victory for workers' rights is hard to stomach


Of course. That's why in 1962, the army was ordered to open fire on workers who protested the price high of foodstuffs, notably meat and butter by 25 to 30 percent. This was the first time since Krondstadt that the Soviet state fired upon its own populationMy mistake, I'd assumed that you knew the meaning of "the norm" :glare:

But then you're also clearly not counting the million plus deaths at the hands of the Soviet security apparatus during the 1930s. Few states in history have employed mass violence on such a scale against their own citizenry as the Stalinist USSR


Actually, the passports were mainly used to document whose job was what, as well as a form of simple ID. A worker could leave his residence for up to thirty days on vacation, which was a pretty decent benefit.

And to be honest, I'm not really all that opposed to using a universal passport or something of the sort for the use of public services (trains, plains, healthcare, etc.). It'd be much easier to have what you need on a single document or portable record book than it would be to carry around a bunch of credit cards or what have you. It'd be more convenient for the workers and probably cost much less money.I see what this is. Its often the case that Stalinists will happily point out the hypocrisy of, say, the US Bill of Rights, but then take a ridiculously juristic approach to the USSR. So sure, the labour passport and work book was just "a simple form of ID" with no sinister purpose whatsoever :rolleyes:

Tell you what, how about the next time you want to visit a city or get a new job, you have to apply to the state to do so. Would you consider that to be a restriction on your movements?

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can fail to associate the internal passports (which actually date by to Tsarist times in Russia and had been abolished in 1917) or labour books (kept by the manager) with anything other than an attempt to control the movement of populations. These determined where you could or could not work/live. Such measures were enforced strongly - Fitzpatrick notes that in Moscow and Leningrad "passportisation was the occasion for a purge of the whole urban population. Those residents who did not pass the scrutiny of the OGPU... were deprived of their rights of residence and expelled from the city." This was as far from being "a simple form of ID", like the ID card constantly discussed in the UK, as it was possible to be

Edit:

What was the nature af changes in the USSR in 1920s-1930s:socialist or capitalist?And why does it have to be either? More to the point, anyone who believes that the USSR was a socialist society, particularly after reading some of the posts in this thread, is wilfully ignorant as to either the realities of the Soviet Union or the meaning of the word 'socialism'

[Born in the USSR]

The bureaucracy was based on the state power that "we took over from Tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil" (Lenin).

Bonaparte's military, gravedigger of the French Revolution, had been the superstructure of a bourgeois state that came to exist for itself and backslide into feudalism. Please don't tell us you support Bonaparte?

In the 1920's, the centrist bureaucracy was allied with the rightists and followed their capitalist road. When NEP led to an agricultural crisis which threatened the state, they were forced to break with the right and partly enact the industrialist, collectivist policies which had been theorized and advocated years prior by the defeated Left Opposition. Real socialism was never constructed in the USSR - socialism can not exist while the ruling elite live like Western capitalists and the working class has no political freedom to democratically administer what are supposed to be its own economy and state institutions.

There were other changes in the 1930's too: the development of a luxury economy, special stores and restaurants for bureaucrats, limousines and servants for bureaucrats, the first Soviet millionaires, waste of resources on Stalin's pharaonic prestige projects, all this at the expense of the proletariat. Those are capitalist changes. The increasing contradiction between the workers and the bureaucrats was settled by Stalin in a profoundly counter-revolutionary way: mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of communists who posed a threat to the despotic ruling clique.

This is not the answer,this is an evasion.

"The USSR was not socialist" - OK,then what was it?If it was capitalist then where is the bourgeoisie? Where are job exchanges and capital markets, where is competition?Thank god,Kleber didn't blurt out that the bureaucratcy was the bourgeoisie itself,it would be terribly ignorant.Certainly,the bureaucracy had no right to dispose the property at their discretion - to give it as a present,to sell,to transfer by inheritance.So,the bureaucracy did not own any property and it was not a class,but a class stratum.

Thus, the bourgeoisie in the USSR is not found.

Another question:OK,the USSR was not socialist,but was it progressive or not?Or you shall like the Western European "ultra" Marxists (who have finished their lifes in Hitler's concentration camps) proclaim that you do not care, that you do not see any difference between western capitalism and the Soviet "state capitalism" and therefore, in the event of an armed conflict between them, you "have no right to support none of them. "?

But was the USSR really not socialist?

In the late 1930's was completely eliminated private industry and the collictivisation of agriculture was provided.A nice "non-socialist" regime, indeed,wich allowed the expropriation by the first large and then the petty bourgeoisie (mainly peasants)! How could the "bourgeois" regime allow such expropriation? Is not this expropriation a function of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it is a direct consequence of the socialist revolution?

Many benefits such as housing, medicine, education, etc. ceased to be a commodity, and were distributed egalitarian.Isn't this an element of communism?

We know that moving towards socialism we must destroy private property, organize planned production and consumption in society on the whole. In the USSR these problems were largerly solved.

Let's summarize:we could not find the bourgeoisie in the USSR, and the transformations in the USSR ,I hope, nobody would call the bourgeois.

So,what was the class nature of the Soviet Union?

[LibertarianSocialist1]

You probably won´t get an answer to those questions.

[Kléber]

I don't quite follow your analogy of Stalinism with Bonapartism. The French revolution was a bourgeois national revolution, while the Russian revolution was not so. It was part of an international wave of proletarian revolts (Revolutions of 1917–23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917-23)). Stalinism was the ultimate result of the defeat of this worldwide proletarian revolt. In any case, can you explain this further?
The French Revolution was also part of a international revolutionary wave, which degenerated because of its isolation. In the first years of the struggle, as the armies of the revolution marched around Western Europe smashing the monarchist armies, they were greeted by crowds of Republican burghers and workers singing the Marseillaise and rising up in solidarity. Thousands of refugees from partitioned Poland rallied to the banner of the French Revolution and joined it as the feared Polish Legions. Democratic-minded soldiers and officers from monarchist armies defected to the revolutionary forces and were welcomed into the French Republican army, even as commanders and generals. English sailors staged a massive naval mutiny, refusing to fight a war for the aristocrats. In the Americas, militant slaves in French colonies spread the news that "In France, the white slaves have overthrown the white masters," and they in turn rose up, smashed feudal absolutism and destroyed the slaveowners on Haiti (Saint-Domingue), Guadeloupe and Martinique. This unrest soon spread to Spanish- and English-speaking colonies as well. Even after Bonaparte's militarist clique had defeated the revolution in France, he sent vast armies to the Caribbean islands in a futile attempt to re-enslave the revolutionary people, and purge the lost sentinels of the Republic.

[Queercommie Girl]

The French Revolution was also part of a international revolutionary wave, which degenerated because of its isolation. In the first years of the struggle, as the armies of the revolution marched around Western Europe smashing the monarchist armies, they were greeted by crowds of Republican burghers and workers singing the Marseillaise and rising up in solidarity. Thousands of refugees from partitioned Poland rallied to the banner of the French Revolution and joined it as the feared Polish Legions. Democratic-minded soldiers and officers from monarchist armies defected to the revolutionary forces and were welcomed into the French Republican army, even as commanders and generals. English sailors staged a massive naval mutiny, refusing to fight a war for the aristocrats. In the Americas, militant slaves spread the news that "In France, the white slaves have overthrown the white masters" and they in turn rose up, smashed feudal absolutism and destroyed the slaveowners on Haiti (Saint-Domingue), Guadeloupe and Martinique. Even after Bonaparte's militarist clique had defeated the revolution in France, he sent vast armies to the Caribbean in a futile attempt to re-enslave the last bastions of the revolution, and purge the lost sentinels of the Republic.

Yes, the French Revolution was significantly more radical and progressive than either the British or the American bourgeois revolutions.

[Kléber]

This is not the answer,this is an evasion.
You try explaining how capitalism was restored, and we'll see who is "evading."


"The USSR was not socialist" - OK,then what was it?If it was capitalist then where is the bourgeoisie? Where are job exchanges and capital markets, where is competition?
...
Certainly,the bureaucracy had no right to dispose the property at their discretion - to give it as a present,to sell,to transfer by inheritance.So,the bureaucracy did not own any property and it was not a class,but a class stratum.

Thus, the bourgeoisie in the USSR is not found.
...
Let's summarize:we could not find the bourgeoisie in the USSR, and the transformations in the USSR ,I hope, nobody would call the bourgeois.

So,what was the class nature of the Soviet Union?The Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state, frozen in transition between capitalism and socialism. The bureaucracy was indeed a caste and not a class, although its culture increasingly mimicked the lifestyle of western capitalists from the growing inequality of 1930's to the wholesale corruption of the Brezhnev era. I never said it was capitalist, only that the bureaucracy acted as the agent of the imperialist bourgeoisie within the party and society. Obviously the USSR could not be capitalist if there was no capitalist class with private property over the means of production. Lenin analyzed the Soviet state as a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations, and he was correct. If not a deformed workers' state ruled by a centrist bureaucracy, how else do you explain the lack of political freedom for the class of either capitalists or workers?

You see, now it is time for you to answer some questions.

How could the USSR be socialist without political freedom for the working class, without independent trade unions and workers' parties? Socialism means by definition the ultimate democracy, the ultimate workers' power - how could that exist when the revolutionary vanguard, the organizers of the 1917 revolution, were tortured and murdered by the thousands, sometimes along with their families, for opposing the treason of the revisionist Stalin clique? How can you say the state was democratically administered by workers when the corrupt, unaccountable bureaucracy ended up crashing the economy with its wasteful consumption of the working people's resources?

And most importantly, the question that exposes your renegacy from Marxism, your rejection of historical materialism: How could a socialist society, which must necessarily be the most productive and democratic society in world history, in which workers' democratic control of the means of production had been organized and won - how could such a society peacefully transition back to capitalism?


Another question:OK,the USSR was not socialist,but was it progressive or not?Or you shall like the Western European "ultra" Marxists (who have finished their lifes in Hitler's concentration camps) proclaim that you do not care, that you do not see any difference between western capitalism and the Soviet "state capitalism" and therefore, in the event of an armed conflict between them, you "have no right to support none of them. "?The Soviet public sector, the economic basis of a workers' state, was worth defending right up until it was dismantled by the criminal Stalinist bureaucracy. I don't believe the USSR was a capitalist empire, nor that it became one in 1956 as our Maoists claim.

Real revolutionaries can not stand by in the fight between imperialism and the oppressed nations, they must stand with the oppressed peoples against imperialism. Trotsky was against all imperialisms (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm), and called on the workers of the world to defend the Soviet and Chinese people against fascism while maintaining their political independence from all bourgeois class forces.


In the late 1930's was completely eliminated private industry and the collictivisation of agriculture was provided.A nice "non-socialist" regime, indeed,wich allowed the expropriation by the first large and then the petty bourgeoisie (mainly peasants)! How could the "bourgeois" regime allow such expropriation? Is not this expropriation a function of the dictatorship of the proletariat and it is a direct consequence of the socialist revolution?Then maybe you can explain why the Guomindang regime in China expropriated the banks during the crisis in the 1930's? Chiang Kai-shek must have been a socialist, or he wouldn't have let it happen right?

As I already explained, Stalin's clique ended NEP to solve an economic and social crisis which the Left Opposition had predicted, and they solved it largely using the Opposition's methods. At the same time the bureaucracy was enriching itself, abolishing the salary limit for party officials, creating a luxury economy for the new Soviet elite, and preparing the mass repression to kill off the revolutionary vanguard that opposed the new caste and its new course.

So, would you care to explain or defend the abolition of Partmaximum? The special shops and restaurants restricted to officers and officials? The waste of resources on opera houses and a showcase metro while workers did not even have proper housing? Maybe you can explain how 800,000 executions of good revolutionaries and Soviet citizens were necessary to preserve a "socialist society" where social antagonisms had ceased to exist?


Many benefits such as housing, medicine, education, etc. ceased to be a commodity, and were distributed egalitarian.Isn't this an element of communism?Sure, so are you now going to call as "communist" any government that does a welfare program?


We know that moving towards socialism we must destroy private property, organize planned production and consumption in society on the whole. In the USSR these problems were largerly solved.Since 1991 we also know that in the USSR, all the gains made by the revolutionary people were rolled back and destroyed by the Stalinist bureaucracy, when it restored capitalism and capitulated to American imperialism. I'd love to hear your explanation for the complete and utter failure of "socialism in one country."

[Born in the USSR]

The Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state, frozen in transition between capitalism and socialism. The bureaucracy was indeed a caste and not a classSo,you admit t6hat the Soviet Union was degenerated or not,but the worker's state.What does it mean?It means that the worker class was dominant in the USSR.

You also admit that that "bureaucracy was a caste and not a class".A little correction:it was not a caste,becouse the caste is something that is closed,but the way "into the bureaucracy" was opened for everyone - Soviet and party apparatus consisted of workers and peasants by birth;remember for example,Khrushchov began his career as a miner,Brezhnev as a land-surveyor,Chernenko as a farm labourer,etc.Just so "terrible" was Soviet bureaucracy.

Thus,as the bureaucracy was not a class, it was only an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.

Of course,Lenin was absolutely right when he said that "we have a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations".And until the bureaucracy exist,it would exist the bureaucratic deformations to some extent.The only remedy for the bureaucracy is not a "turnover" or a "Soviet control "- all this is a pseudosolutions of a problem - the real solution is the elimination of the division of labor on the mental and physical,wich will come under communism.

There is no doubt that this phenomenon has taken hypertrophic shape in the late Soviet Union, but at some stage the bureaucracy is not only inevitable, but it also plays a progressive role.In 1930s it became clear that the world revolution is delayed, and fast division of labor within the country could not be destroyed quickly - it will take decades </span>- appeared the problem of training the intelligentsia, which could learn advanced techniques.In order to grow rapidly this intelligentsia they had to enter some inequality. It was necessary to create better living conditions for so-called "bureaucracy" to make it more likely originated. Of course, it was a reproduction of inequality, of injustice (but it is no comparison with the inequalities and injustices of capitalism).To introduce new technology,to develope the productive forces (without it the bureaurocracy cannot be destroyed) was inpossible without a bureaurocracy - that is the dialectic of the real,non-fictional socialism.


How could the USSR be socialist without political freedom for the working class, without independent trade unions and workers' parties?

A funny question.There was a party consisted from workers and peasants,90% of party's apparatus was former workers and peasants,this party had an absolute power and proveded a policy in the interests of the majority - can a worker class have more political freedom?


Then maybe you can explain why the Guomindang regime in China expropriated the banks during the crisis in the 1930's? Chiang Kai-shek must have been a socialist, or he wouldn't have let it happen right?

The matter is that this kind of "nationalization" have nothing in common with expropriational type of nationalization carried out contrary to the interests of the bourgeoisie,with its very strong resistance, as it was in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc.

And in general, capitalism, never permit a general nationalization.


Stalin's clique ... revisionist Stalin clique... 800,000 executions of good revolutionaries and Soviet citizens ...

Sorry,but your saying so don't make it so.It's only emotions,they show your personnele sympathy or antipathy and proves nothing.BTW,in the USSR in 1922-1953 were passed 800 000 death sentences for all crimes,mostly for vulgar banditism.And you call bandits,as well as counerrevolutionaries and Nazi collaborators, "good revolutionaries".It's also well-known that not all death sentences executed.

You see,a small lie creates a lot of mistrust.


I think it's enough for today.I'll answer remaining questions later.

[ComradeOm]

BTW,in the USSR in 1922-1953 were passed 800 000 death sentences for all crimes,mostly for vulgar banditism.And you call bandits,as well as counerrevolutionaries and Nazi collaborators, "good revolutionaries".It's also well-known that not all death sentences executedActually, according to Getty, himself quoting archival sources, the figure of 800K (actually 786,098) death sentences between 1930 and 1953 were solely for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes". That is, explicitly anti-Soviet behaviour. It does not include death sentences passed for simple criminal behaviour

You do have a point however in that the Soviet definition of just what constituted a 'dangerous anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary' was incredibly flexible (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-stalin-really-t145370/index.html?p=1933717). By 1937 it included a range of 'crimes' that included the likes of being homeless, prostitution, begging, juvenile delinquents, 'hooliganism', etc. Actually breaking down the numbers executed into distinct categories is difficult (which does mean that passing broad generalisations about "banditry" is foolish) because so many innocent or marginalised people were deliberately labelled as dangerous counter-revolutionaries


Sorry,but your saying so don't make it soYou care to apply that stance to your own position? Just because the Stalinist state accused someone of being a counter-revolutionary - despite all the evidence to the contrary and the lack of incriminating evidence - does not make it so

[Queercommie Girl]

So,you admit t6hat the Soviet Union was degenerated or not,but the worker's state.What does it mean?It means that the worker class was dominant in the USSR.

You also admit that that "bureaucracy was a caste and not a class".A little correction:it was not a caste,becouse the caste is something that is closed,but the way "into the bureaucracy" was opened for everyone - Soviet and party apparatus consisted of workers and peasants by birth;remember for example,Khrushchov began his career as a miner,Brezhnev as a land-surveyor,Chernenko as a farm labourer,etc.Just so "terrible" was Soviet bureaucracy.

Thus,as the bureaucracy was not a class, it was only an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.

Of course,Lenin was absolutely right when he said that "we have a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations".And until the bureaucracy exist,it would exist the bureaucratic deformations to some extent.The only remedy for the bureaucracy is not a "turnover" or a "Soviet control "- all this is a pseudosolutions of a problem - the real solution is the elimination of the division of labor on the mental and physical,wich will come under communism.

There is no doubt that this phenomenon has taken hypertrophic shape in the late Soviet Union, but at some stage the bureaucracy is not only inevitable, but it also plays a progressive role.In 1930s it became clear that the world revolution is delayed, and fast division of labor within the country could not be destroyed quickly - it will take decades </span>- appeared the problem of training the intelligentsia, which could learn advanced techniques.In order to grow rapidly this intelligentsia they had to enter some inequality. It was necessary to create better living conditions for so-called "bureaucracy" to make it more likely originated. Of course, it was a reproduction of inequality, of injustice (but it is no comparison with the inequalities and injustices of capitalism).To introduce new technology,to develope the productive forces (without it the bureaurocracy cannot be destroyed) was inpossible without a bureaurocracy - that is the dialectic of the real,non-fictional socialism.


To put productive force at the centre of normative Marxist discourse rather than productive relation is a fundamental mistake.

Communism is all about worker's power, it does not absolutely guarantee that productivity will necessarily always increase by a large margin.

The Soviet Union lacked direct worker's democracy. Workers had no electoral rights, no rights to directly influence politics, no rights to strike as a method of bargaining with their managers. While some forms of meritocracy and an administrative system are always required in any kind of society, the absence of an effective democratic supervisory system actually makes the bureaucracy prone to corruption and generally less efficient, not more.



The matter is that this kind of "nationalization" have nothing in common with expropriational type of nationalization carried out contrary to the interests of the bourgeoisie,with its very strong resistance, as it was in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc.

And in general, capitalism, never permit a general nationalization.
In this I agree with you. Kleber claims to be an orthodox Trotskyist, but he made a mistake here which no orthodox Trotskyist should make. There is obviously a fundamental difference between the partial nationalisation by capitalist regimes and the complete general nationalisation by worker's states.

There is a fundamental difference between the planned economy in a worker's state, deformed or not, and Keynesian-like measures of limited partial nationalisations in capitalist states.

[Kléber]

So,you admit t6hat the Soviet Union was degenerated or not,but the worker's state.What does it mean?It means that the worker class was dominant in the USSR.
Now are you ready to answer my first and most important question: how was the working class removed from power in the USSR? How was capitalism restored?


Soviet and party apparatus consisted of workers and peasants by birth;remember for example,Khrushchov began his career as a miner,Brezhnev as a land-surveyor,Chernenko as a farm labourer,etc.Just so "terrible" was Soviet bureaucracy.
Thus,as the bureaucracy was not a class, it was only an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.So Gorbachev was an instrument in the hands of the proletariat?


f course,Lenin was absolutely right when he said that "we have a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations".And until the bureaucracy exist,it would exist the bureaucratic deformations to some extent.The workers in the Paris Commune showed it is possible to keep positions of authority democratic and accountable by paying them workers' wages and having them subject to immediate recall. Stalin and co. enjoyed far greater pay than the average worker, and attempts to recall them were drowned in blood.


The only remedy for the bureaucracy is not a "turnover" or a "Soviet control "- all this is a pseudosolutions of a problem - the real solution is the elimination of the division of labor on the mental and physical,wich will come under communism.I'm sorry but in our world does not exist these people who can wait for their God to bring down the communism. People have to create that on earth. What will really enable a great social advance is the total abolition of wars and militaries forever, and that requires successful world revolution.

The Soviet bureaucracy promised to build this communism in one country by 1980's, but what really happened? Bureaucracy defeated the workers, surrendered to imperialists, and restored capitalism. Obviously, a political struggle was necessary to get rid of Stalinist traitors and continue the permanent revolution.


There is no doubt that this phenomenon has taken hypertrophic shape in the late Soviet Union, but at some stage the bureaucracy is not only inevitable, but it also plays a progressive role.Hypertrophic shape? You know what you call an "organ" that keeps growing and growing, sucking all the resources out of the body, until the whole body dies? That is called cancer.

As a tumor emerges from a body to be the agent of its demise, the bureaucracy existed for itself, its ambitions destroyed the public economy. Can't you see that the USSR is gone because of its internal contradictions? Do you even admit that the Soviet Union no longer exists? Did you go into a basement in 1991 and never come out, you still refuse to believe USSR is gone?


In 1930s it became clear that the world revolution is delayed, and fast division of labor within the country could not be destroyed quickly - it will take decades </span>- appeared the problem of training the intelligentsia, which could learn advanced techniques.In order to grow rapidly this intelligentsia they had to enter some inequality. It was necessary to create better living conditions for so-called "bureaucracy" to make it more likely originated.The inequalities permitted for specialists and managers from 1917 were already very problematic. Stalin just made the rich get richer. And these great bureaucrats who got puffed up in the 1930's, were the boost in their pay and privileges really so necessary to defend USSR? What did they do with their "full and joyous life" except abandon the world revolution to ally with imperialists like Hitler. The workers and farmers barely defended the USSR against fascism in spite of their betrayals.


A funny question.There was a party consisted from workers and peasants,90% of party's apparatus was former workers and peasants,this party had an absolute power and proveded a policy in the interests of the majority - can a worker class have more political freedom?Look at any church, army, or political party in the world, the vast majority of its members will be workers and peasants. Maybe you need to go back to elementary Marxist studies if you don't understand the difference between the form and character of a political movement.

"Can the workers have more freedom?" What a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, they could have freedom to run their own trade unions, socialist parties, go on strike, directly criticize government policy, propose alternatives, etc.


The matter is that this kind of "nationalization" have nothing in common with expropriational type of nationalization carried out contrary to the interests of the bourgeoisie,with its very strong resistance, as it was in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc.If those countries were so socialist, how is everything privatized or being privatized now? Lenin did not consider socialism to exist in Russia even before NEP. The dictatorship of the party was a temporary measure, and that wage inequalities even as early as 1918 constituted capitalist levels of inequality that had to be abolished before socialism could be achieved. Without democracy and equality there is no socialism.


And you call bandits,as well as counerrevolutionaries and Nazi collaborators, "good revolutionaries".It's also well-known that not all death sentences executed.
You see,a small lie creates a lot of mistrust.How about a big lie? Stalinism is one giant lie after another. It's well known what happened to the old Bolshevik vanguard. How can I trust someone who says Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin were Nazis?


in the USSR in 1922-1953 were passed 800 000 death sentences for all crimes,mostly for vulgar banditism.Stalin claimed that socialism had been built in 1934. The vast majority of these killings occurred in 1937-38. How can class struggle intensify and hundreds of thousands of class enemies appear, after class struggle is over and won? How could poor workers and farmers who steal a bit to survive during a famine be "vulgar bandits" who deserve to die?


I think it's enough for today.I'll answer remaining questions later.There was one question you could have answered to avoid all the others. The most important question, the one you can't answer: How was capitalism restored in the Soviet Union?


In this I agree with you. Kleber claims to be an orthodox Trotskyist, but he made a mistake here which no orthodox Trotskyist should make. There is obviously a fundamental difference between the partial nationalisation by capitalist regimes and the complete general nationalisation by worker's states.Actually the terms you are looking for are socialization and nationalization, but you made a mistake here which no Marxist should make - confusing state property with socialist property. No democracy, no socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually the terms you are looking for are socialization and nationalization, but you made a mistake here which no Marxist should make - confusing state property with socialist property. No democracy, no socialism.


I was not talking about a "socialist state", but a worker's state. Even Lenin's USSR was not technically a "socialist state", but only a worker's state. A "socialist state" can only be established on an international basis.

I was pointing out the mistake you made in conflating the economic base in a deformed worker's state like Stalin's USSR and the very limited nationalisations (which is far from even keynesianism, let alone socialism) that Chiang Kai-sheik implemented in KMT China. Chiang was basically a semi-fascist, I don't think you should compare Stalin with Chiang, unless you think Stalin is as bad as Hitler was.

[Kiev Communard]

Actually, according to Getty, himself quoting archival sources, the figure of 800K (actually 786,098) death sentences between 1930 and 1953 were solely for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes". That is, explicitly anti-Soviet behaviour. It does not include death sentences passed for simple criminal behaviour.

As far as I know, the total number of judicial executions in Stalin's USSR was somewhat around 3,2 million people. However, this figure does not take into account the "collateral damage" caused by the so-called "collectivization" (in fact, statization) of the agriculture and the mortality levels among the incarcerated. Even the apologetic Подлинная история СССР ("A True History of the USSR"), published in 2010 within the scope of pro-CPRF "Soviet Project", put the total number of "non-military losses" of the Soviet population during Stalin's years at 7,8 - 8,9 million people.

[Born in the USSR]

Three Lenin's quotes for a start:

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property." ( The State and Revolution )

"...control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism..." ( The State and Revolution ).

"...by the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean, in essence, the dictatorship of its organised and class-conscious minority.
... we must admit that only this class-conscious minority can guide the broad masses of the workers and lead them.” ( The Second Congress of Comintern ).


The Soviet Union lacked direct worker's democracy. Workers had no electoral rights, no rights to directly influence politics, no rights to strike as a method of bargaining with their managers.

At first,it is not true that workers had no electoral rights;elections to the Soviets were held regularly, Communist Party leaders were electing too by communists.
At second,the point is not in the election.Not those dominated who votes,but those who rules.

It seems no one here argue agaist the fact that the USSR was a workers' state (we 'll look later was it degenerative or not).It means that the worker class was the ruling class. EXPLAIN ME HOW CAN THE RULING CLASS BE POWERLESS ???

Antistalinists simply do not underastand what does a worker's power look like.According to Lenin the power of workers is the power of their class-conscious minority.Why it is so?Becouse of the heterogeneity of the working class.Everyone who have ever seen a strike saw the partition of workers: workers proper,worker's activists and scabs.A strike committee,this little worker's vanguard leads the thousands of workers in a strice contrary not only to administration,but also contrary to strike-breakers.

Note:worker's leaders are not elected,they became leaders themselves. Then where does the democracy of the worker's vanguard lie?It lieas in the fact that it can act only within limits with wich agree the majority.Let the strike committee try to declare a srike political when workers are ready only for economic demands!Impossible.Every strike commettee will collapse immediately as soon as it stop to express the will of the majority of workers.

Thus,the worker's vanguard can exsist only till it express the will of workers.

The socialist country can be compared with a great factory led by worker's vanguard - the worker's party.According to Lenin,it supress if it is necessary "the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism..."

That is how socialist society is arranged.Then the right to strike here is the right to fight for corrupted workers,strike-breakers,scabs against the workers' vanguard.

Here is the reactionary of atistalinism.

That is an answer on one of the questions.

To be continued.

[Born in the USSR]

Can't you see that the USSR is gone because of its internal contradictions? Do you even admit that the Soviet Union no longer exists? Did you go into a basement in 1991 and never come out, you still refuse to believe USSR is gone?
So,the USSR does not exist any more. Kléber certainly thinks that he killed me by this fact.It's funny that he praised formerly Paris Commune as opposed to the USSR - he is sure that it exists still ? :D

The fact of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR proves nothing.The point is that the possibility of retrograde of human society or its individual parts, people or country, is very real.Maex wrote about the events in France in 19 century:"A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch".

The economic life of every country is a complex picture.Several socio-economic structures associated with different types of productive forces and forms of property coexist there imultaneously.Socialist structure was leading in the Soviet Union.In addition to the socialist structure in 1930s-40s there existed patriarchal and small-scale commodity structures - thut is petty sole property.The elements of private capitalism in the USSR didn't disappeared completely. Private activity and bourgeois private property became a part of a criminal world. The Soviet state fought against the remnants of the bourgeoisie,applying the law.But despite this fight,sometime very effective and persistent,it was impossible to eliminate completely the elements of capitalism.The whole transition period from capitalism to communism, including the period called "socialism"
bears features both of past (capitalism) and future (communism).

This was the objective socio-economic preconditions for a possible
revival of capitalism in the USSR. But the transformation of this possibility into a reality depended on the progress of specific events, on real balance in the politics of the proletarian and petty-bourgeois elements, thut is it was a consequence of the class struggle within the Soviet society.

That is an answer on the question :
Stalin claimed that socialism had been built in 1934. How can class struggle intensify and hundreds of thousands of class enemies appear, after class struggle is over and won? The class struggle can be over only on reaching communism .


It's well known what happened to the old Bolshevik vanguard. How can I trust someone who says Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin were Nazis?At first,Kléber forgot that Stalinists were old Bolshevik themselves.

At second.Of course,I would not have believed myself that the Trotskyists had connections with the Nazis if I didn't remember what happened in Spain in 1937.Remember that stab in the back - no,not Nazi's - but in the back of republic in Barcelona,remember POUM?

The principle of Clemenceau,isn't it?

"We must restore the tactics of Clemenceau, who opposed the French government at a time when the Germans were in the eighty miles from Paris. " (Trotsky).

I have no doubt that the anti-Stalinist opposition would try to implement this principle in 1941 if it had not been destroyed in 1937.I also have no doubt on the catastrophic of the attempt,and I have no doubt that 1945 would not happened without 1937.

Ah,"old Bolsheviks",it is so affecting.But let's remember a bit of history.

Let us take the first period, the Iskra period, or the period of the Second Congress of the Party, when the disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks first appeared within the Party and when the top leadership of the Party in the end split into two sections: the Bolshevik section (Lenin), and the Menshevik section (Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov, Zasulich, Potresov). Lenin then stood alone. How much howling and shouting there was then about the "irreplaceables" of "Founding Fathers" who had left Lenin!And what was the finish of Founding Fathers of Russian Social-Democracy?Anti-Soviet activity and a flight in the baggage of White Guard in 1920.They weren't shot only becouse the could slip away quickly.

I might refer, further, to the other stage in the development of the Party, the period following the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, the 1907 period, when a section of the Bolsheviks, the so-called "Otzovists," headed by Bogdanov, forsook Bolshevism. This was a critical period in the life of the Party. It was the period when a number of Bolsheviks of the old guard deserted Lenin and his party.

I might point the next stage in the development of the Party, the period preceding the October Revolution of 1917, when a section of the Bolsheviks wavered and were against undertaking the October uprising, considering it an adventure.

All of these deserters of the Party were once old Bolsheviks.

Why does it happened?Due to the following circumstances.

They are, firstly, the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and, hence, the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat. Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of bourgeois society. The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.

They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of different strata within the working class. I think that the proletariat, as a class, can be divided into three strata.

One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure-blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.


The second stratum consists of newcomers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and have brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.


The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety to "get on in life." This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.


Notwithstanding their superficial difference, these last two strata of the working class constitute a more or less common nutritive medium for opportunism in general—open opportunism, when the sentiments of the labour aristocracy gain the upper hand, and opportunism camouflaged with "Left" phrases, when the sentiments of the semi-middle-class strata of the working class which have not yet completely broken with the petty-bourgeois environment gain the upper hand. The fact that "ultra-Left" sentiments very often coincide with the sentiments of open opportunism is not at all surprising. Lenin said time and again that the "ultra-Left" opposition is the reverse side of the Right-wing, Menshevik, openly opportunist opposition. And that is quite true. If the "ultra-Lefts" stand for revolution only because they expect the victory of the revolution the very next day, then obviously they must fall into despair and be disillusioned in the revolution if the revolution is delayed, if the revolution is not victorious the very next day.


Naturally, with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party.


Such are the sources of inner-Party contradictions and disagreements.

[Geiseric]

I always thought that Stalin killed off most of the Old Bolsheviks, or at least the ones who opposed him, and using his post as general secretary put people he favored into their place, after lenin died of course.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not too good...though probably better than the west (or I would at least hope).

[Amphictyonis]

This is just something I've been wondering. Seeing as how I have few friends who qualify as actual leftists (none of which are Leninists), I can't ask them, so I'm asking here! Seeing as Lenin played a large role in shaping the post-czarist Russia, what's your opinion concerning the USSR after his death?

Post Lenin Russia was a push to industrialize after they realized a global revolution was not going to happen. Socialism/communism is not nor has never been about the process of industrialization. That's suppose to be capitalism's job.The entire Russian system was a perversion of what was suppose to happen. Not a "sinister" perversion but one of 'necessity' after a global revolution never took place. Stalin should have allowed a bourgeois revolution to take place after it was obvious no advanced capitalist nations were going socialist- not a revolution per say but a true capitalist system to take hold. Everything that happened in Russia post Lenin was blamed on communism when in fact it was the process of industrialization. What did it take for America to industrialize? A whole lot of death and time. If any compliments can be given to post Lenin era is the rapid industrialization but that only made "communism" look bad to the west even though it was not communism.

[Rooster]

You also admit that that "bureaucracy was a caste and not a class".A little correction:it was not a caste,becouse the caste is something that is closed,but the way "into the bureaucracy" was opened for everyone - Soviet and party apparatus consisted of workers and peasants by birth;remember for example,Khrushchov began his career as a miner,Brezhnev as a land-surveyor,Chernenko as a farm labourer,etc.Just so "terrible" was Soviet bureaucracy.

Wait, what? What has that got to do with class? You could say the same for an any number of capitalists, prime ministers, presidents, dictators and even roman emperors. I understand that you're trying to argue that the bureaucracy was not a class in itself but I don't think this part of your argument holds any water.

[Born in the USSR]

Wait, what? What has that got to do with class? You could say the same for an any number of capitalists, prime ministers, presidents, dictators and even roman emperors. I understand that you're trying to argue that the bureaucracy was not a class in itself but I don't think this part of your argument holds any water.

I only want to say that bureaucracy was not a caste.I see you try to cavil at something but can't find a fault.

[Rooster]

I only want to say that bureaucracy was not a caste.I see you try to cavil at something but can't find a fault.

The point I'm making, within capitalism and all sorts of other systems, is that the stratum of the ruling class can be open to people from all walks of life. You tried to say that because the people who were in government apparatus of the USSR were people were all proletariat meant that the government was a proletarian government. But you could apply that logic to any republic at almost any time through history (even things that weren't such as the Roman and Byzantine Empires).

[Born in the USSR]

The point I'm making, within capitalism and all sorts of other systems, is that the stratum of the ruling class can be open to people from all walks of life. You tried to say that because the people who were in government apparatus of the USSR were people were all proletariat meant that the government was a proletarian government. But you could apply that logic to any republic at almost any time through history (even things that weren't such as the Roman and Byzantine Empires).

Not at all.You take one phrase out of context.Kleber said that bureaucracy was a caste, I have shown that it was not so.That's all.


The presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is determined not by the authority of the Soviets, trade unions or other similar organizations, but by the fact,in the interesting of what class reorganization takes place,and what class is suppressed.

"The difference between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship is that the former strikes at the exploiting minority in the interests of the exploited majority" (Lenin."The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government") Against what class strikes are directed - by this factor is determined the presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not by the power to strike committees, trade unions and the Soviets.That is what I wrote to prove the exsistance of the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

[Das war einmal]

There's no way you could analyze post-lenin USSR in a few simple lines. Real existing socialism, which I think is a fair term, in the Soviet Union, was at the very least the most interesting experiment on building an alternative for capitalism.

[Kléber]

Not at all.You take one phrase out of context.Kleber said that bureaucracy was a caste, I have shown that it was not so.That's all.
Silly me, making ultraleft blasphemy against great comrades like Gorbachev. Didn't you know that brave Soviet leader was the son of workers?

If there was no social divide in the USSR, the events of 1991 defy a logical Marxist explanation. The working people voted to keep the USSR, but their Stalinist government, representing bureaucratic interests, chose to abolish Soviet power and privatize the economy. Capitalism was restored without a foreign invasion. How can such an admirer of the Soviet Union as yourself not ask: who were the authors of that treachery?

It is useless to point to the achievements and glories of the Soviet Union because that country no longer exists. You arrived in this thread saying "I ask the questions!" But when a single question was asked of you, there was no answer. Here it is again, for the last time (now in bold, so you can't miss it). If you won't answer it then you are probably just an anticommunist troll or you may have been suffering from a deep psychosis for the past 20 years.

How was capitalism restored in the Soviet Union?


Three Lenin's quotes for a start:You can distort anyone by taking a few quotes out of context. I only need one to prove that you're going against the man.

Lenin said that "disenfranchisement and any restrictions whatsoever upon liberty are necessary solely as temporary measures of struggle against the attempts of the exploiters to maintain or to restore their privileges. In proportion as the objective possibility for the exploitation of man by man disappears, all necessity for these temporary measures will likewise disappear, and the party will strive to narrow them down, and to completely abolish them."


the right to strike here is the right to fight for corrupted workers,strike-breakers,scabs against the workers' vanguard.How else could somebody justify shooting down striking workers, except with such idiocy: "strikers are scabs!"

Capitalism wasn't restored by the struggle of striking workers, it was brought back by the command of bureaucrats - the real "corrupted" ones, the representatives of the international bourgeoisie within the party and society. It is precisely the lack of democratic means for the workers to fight against such bourgeois-minded traitors in positions of authority which enabled their gradual accumulation of surplus value and eventual restoration of the profit system (so they could finally be able to invest all the money they had stolen from workers).


At second.Of course,I would not have believed myself that the Trotskyists had connections with the Nazis if I didn't remember what happened in Spain in 1937.Remember that stab in the back - no,not Nazi's - but in the back of republic in Barcelona,remember POUM?Actually the POUM and the working class as a whole was stabbed in the back by the Stalinist PCE and GPU, which from communist beginnings fell to the level of hired assassins and executioners for the liberal shadow of the Spanish bourgeoisie, until the Soviet bureaucracy abandoned the Republic altogether in order to pursue an alliance with Nazi Germany.


The principle of Clemenceau,isn't it?It was a clumsy metaphor, but at least Trotsky was an honest politician who spoke his mind, and not a lying backstabbing recluse. By comparing himself to Clemenceau he referred precisely to a bloodless change of leadership. Clemenceau wasn't a traitor to France nor a German agent, duh. All this indicates is that Trotsky intended to return to power through democratic means.

After Stalin came in danger of being voted out after the 17th Congress, he decided to drown the opposition in blood. It's clear to any honest student of history which faction tried to restore Soviet democracy and which one consciously destroyed what was left of it.

[Born in the USSR]

But when a single question was asked of you, there was no answer. Here it is again, for the last time (now in bold, so you can't miss it). If you won't answer it then you are probably just an anticommunist troll or you may have been suffering from a deep psychosis for the past 20 years.
How was capitalism restored in the Soviet Union?


I've answered you long time ago:


The fact of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR proves nothing.The point is that the possibility of retrograde of human society or its individual parts, people or country, is very real.Marx wrote about the events in France in 19 century:"A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch".

The economic life of every country is a complex picture.Several socio-economic structures associated with different types of productive forces and forms of property coexist there imultaneously.Socialist structure was leading in the Soviet Union.In addition to the socialist structure in 1930s-40s there existed patriarchal and small-scale commodity structures - thut is petty sole property.The elements of private capitalism in the USSR didn't disappeared completely. Private activity and bourgeois private property became a part of a criminal world. The Soviet state fought against the remnants of the bourgeoisie,applying the law.But despite this fight,sometime very effective and persistent,it was impossible to eliminate completely the elements of capitalism.The whole transition period from capitalism to communism, including the period called "socialism"
bears features both of past (capitalism) and future (communism).

This was the objective socio-economic preconditions for a possible
This does not deny the fact that the party 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 classPretending that you didn't see this?


It is useless to point to the achievements and glories of the Soviet Union because that country no longer exists.Yes,the USSR doesn't exist,as well as the Paris Commune.Be logic and spit upon the Commune too.

The USSR doesn't exist,but the world without fascism do exist - due to stalinist USSR.

We leave in the world without colonialism - due to stalinist USSR.

If the Western workers have got something,​​it is becouse their bourgeoisie, frightened by the Soviet example, have made important concessions.

Stalinism was destroyed?But Cuba and north Korea still resist imperialism.And are modern revolutionary movements in Columbia,Nepal,Kurdistan,etc. not stalinist?Is Greek communist party,the only European strong revolutionary party not stalinist?

"The USSR has collapsed" - trots think that it is a very strong argument.

Trots,your ideology has suffered a collapse in one hundred percent of cases throughout it's history! Be logic and make a honest conclusion.