M-Ls, Question about Post-Stalin USSR

[The Man]

Do you think the USSR was in a pretty bad shape Post-Stalin? What started these lines for getting bread and food after Stalin died?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The undermining of Marxism-Leninism and the dictatorship of the proletariat with Khrushchov declaring the USSR a "state of the whole people" and giving managers more and more bonuses and power over their enterprises, followed by reforms under Brezhnev and Kosygin which basically restored capitalism albeit in an extremely state regulated social democratic form, finally culminating in the establishment of full-scale market capitalism under Gorbachov.

[pranabjyoti]

Khrushchev turned the Dictatorship of Proletariat in petty-bourgeoisie "peoples state", which slowly degenerated in bourgeoisie. That's the very basic nature of petty-bourgeoisie, if you let them the steering, they will gradually drive you in the bourgeoisie downfall.

[Roach]

For a complete anti-revisionist insight on this issue read this : http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

[bailey_187]

The undermining of Marxism-Leninism and the dictatorship of the proletariat with Khrushchov declaring the USSR a "state of the whole people" .

funny how u guys dont have a problem with Lenin and the early Bolsheviks using the titles of "Peoples Commissars". Or for the Mao supporters, for using the world people in just about everything.

However, these are just words, the actual character of the state is not determined by them.

[Kléber]

Just to clarify some things.

The USSR officially became a "state of the whole people" in 1936, with the Stalin Constitution. Also, the "People's Republics" of China, Korea and Eastern Europe were deliberately set up by the bureaucracy as bourgeois states, not as Soviet Socialist Republics, in the interest of peaceful coexistence with the Allies for whom they had also disgracefully abandoned the Communist International in 1943.

The maximum salary was abolished in 1931 and bureaucrats started becoming rouble millionaires. Competition between state enterprises, lingering use of capitalist incentives, and investment by foreign capitalists, had always been a part of the transitional Soviet economy, that didn't start with Khrushchev.

Capitalism was not, however, restored, either under Stalin, Khrushchev of Brezhnev, because the bureaucrats were still not allowed to privately invest the wealth they had stolen from workers, until near the end of the Soviet Union.

[bailey_187]

ITT: restatements of each political tendencies official view with the pre-selected facts. boring.

[Roach]

ITT: restatements of each political tendencies official view with the pre-selected facts. boring.
So why not enlight us with some brilliant innovative insights about the class-nature of the USSR.

[bailey_187]

So why not enlight us with some brilliant innovative insights about the class-nature of the USSR.

i dont know, i havnt been able to decide yet.

do u think its true what i said though? in these threads, the Anti-Revisionists come, say their ideas and state the same few facts they all teach eachother. The Trots do the same, then the Cliffites if we are lucky, and maybe a left-com/anarchist will chime in.

[Jose Gracchus]

Also one should not the collapse in living standards under Stalin as early as the 1930s, and the continued sclerotic performance of the economy post-war. Khrushchev was no great man, but he was facilitating a transition away from a coercion economy and meeting actual demands for consumer goods.

"Anti-Revisionist" theologians like to obscure the fact that the 1954 economic model was not going anywhere into the later 60s and 70s, Khrushchev or no Khrushchev. Furthermore, as Kleber pointed out, a lot of their complaints really started earlier. The 1936 Stalin Constitution abolished the soviets even on paper in favor of a bunch of bourgeois parliaments (he renamed the Sovnarkom a bourgeois/Tsarist Council of Ministers after the war, and the Workers' and Peasants' various Red armed forces to "Soviet Army", etc.) with paper universal suffrage. In light of this, complaints about referring to the USSR as a state of the whole people seems pretty whiny.

[Roach]

i dont know, i havnt been able to decide yet.

do u think its true what i said though? in these threads, the Anti-Revisionists come, say their ideas and state the same few facts they all teach eachother. The Trots do the same, then the Cliffites if we are lucky, and maybe a left-com/anarchist will chime in.

It's better if we try to teach something rather than throwing insults at each other, I cant see how it could be another way. Since all sides are different from each other, it's pretty safe to say only one version is the truth, I think its pretty clear wich side I consider true, but in the end only history will tell, again I think it is the side that has the most concise politics and it truly is the ideological embodiement of the working class.

[Gustav HK]

Just to clarify some things.

The USSR officially became a "state of the whole people" in 1936, with the Stalin Constitution.

Where does the Stalin Constitution say that?


ARTICLE 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants.


Article 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.

[Jose Gracchus]

LOL ITS IN THE WORDS OKAY!

This is pathetic. If one ever needed proof that MLs will routinely screech on the filmiest legalistic or semantic pretext, here it is. How about the fact that they repealed the soviet system for bourgeois parliaments and extended the franchise to all, not just toiling people, as in the original Lenin Constitution? Is that not a reversion to bourgeois practice - of considering a state of being "of the whole people". I suppose they can strip all the ostensibly socialist features of the constitution out, but as long as they keep the words!!!! an Anti-Revisionist will be overjoyed.

And again, if you care about words, than what of reverting the Sovnarkom back to the Council of Ministers (the TSARIST name), with "bourgeois ministers." What of coming up with absurd grandiloquent military ranks (including Stalin's own, absurd, GENERALISSIMUS OF THE SOVIET UNION rank - can't let those historical Great Russian patriots and war heroes out do Uncle Joe). What of taking "Workers' and Peasants'" out of the the names of the Armed Forces? What of installing "people's democracies" instead of "workers' states," even on paper?

[bailey_187]

really though, how does the wording of a constitution change the mode of production of a society?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Well look how it worked out in the USSR. The fact that the state was no longer an official "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant that managers of enterprises could openly get more and more bonuses and powers, culminating in them for instance being able to fire workers at will after the Kosygin Reforms

[bailey_187]

Well look how it worked out in the USSR. The fact that the state was no longer an official "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant that managers of enterprises could openly get more and more bonuses and powers, culminating in them for instance being able to fire workers at will after the Kosygin Reforms

The Kosygin reforms came well after Krushchev, so thats irelvent. Unless the change in political rhetoric (superstructure i guess?) can cause a change in economic base?:blink:

Workers could be dsmissed in Stalin's time, with repurcusions after too and managers had control over workers. You all seem to like Robert Thurston's book Life and Terror, so ill repeat what it says in there managers could withhold ration cards and deprive workers of housing for an unexcused absence. "workers had to carry out managers orders even if illegal, and could protest only afterwards"pg.170 and workers could quit their job with permission from a manager.

Sure, u can justify this on the grounds that it was needed for preperation of war etc, and there is also evidence for some sort of authority of workers in the factories and participation. But its a myth that suddenly after Krushchev came to power, managers were elevated from a complete subordinate position to one of great power.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well look how it worked out in the USSR. The fact that the state was no longer an official "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant that managers of enterprises could openly get more and more bonuses and powers, culminating in them for instance being able to fire workers at will after the Kosygin Reforms

And transforming the soviets from assemblies of workers and peasants delegates, by workers and peasants, for workers and peasants, has nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat? :rolleyes:

[Red_Struggle]

The USSR officially became a "state of the whole people" in 1936, with the Stalin Constitution.

No, it didn't. You're probably going to argue that Stalin believed that classes no longer existed in the soviet union, which he did not believe. What he actually put forth was that the antagonistic classes as a whole have been eliminated, but that does not mean that remnants of the old bourgeoise order and its supporters were still underground. The bourgeoisie and the kulaks were liquidated as classes by the mid to late thirties, but bourgeoise individuals still remained in society.


disgracefully abandoned the Communist International in 1943.[/.QUOTE]

Ok, now here was Stalin's actual reasoning, contrary that the horror story fairy tales you like to propagate:

"Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Communist parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization." - From the Congress of Victors, 1934


and


'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)

[QUOTE=Kléber;2060402]The maximum salary was abolished in 1931 and bureaucrats started becoming rouble millionaires.

While it is true that wages the wage gap increased notably, social and economic inequality was continuously combatted step by step, not to mention that those that were employed by higher state institutions were in the highest tax bracket and oftentimes most of their income was put towards social services.

"Even more important than these liberties is the fact that theylabor not for the private profit of employers (save for the smallproportion employed in private industry), but for the profit of thewhole community. State industries, like private, must show a profit tokeep going, but the public use of that profit robs it of the driving
force of exploitation.The liberties enjoyed by workers in Russia, whether or not in unions(less than 10 percent are outside), go far beyond those of workers in other countries, not only in their participation in controlling working conditions and wages, but in the privileges they get as a class. The eight-hour day is universal in practice, alone of all countries in the world, with a six-hour day in dangerous occupations like mining. Reduction of the eight-hour day to seven hours is already planned forall industries. Every worker gets a two-week vacation with pay, while office workers and workers in dangerous trades, get a month. No worker can be dismissed from his job without the consent of his union. His rent, his admission to places of entertainment or education, his transportation- -all these he gets at lower prices than others. When unemployed he gets a small allowance from his union, free rent, free transportation, and free admission to places of entertainment and instruction. Education and medical aid are free to all workers--or for small fees--extensive services being especially organized for and by them. The new bourgeoisie, which has grown-up with the new economic policy--private traders, richer peasants...- -is too small to constitute a noteworthy exception to the general absence of a wealthy class. And they are being increasingly restricted, despite the assertions to the contrary by the Communist Opposition and others. The statistics of private versus public enterprises show it. Earnings and incomes
throughout Soviet Russia vary from the minimum of bare subsistence, 15 or 20 rubles a month, to 10 or 15 times that amount. Few incomes run above that figure (300 rubles a month, $150), the highest in all Russia being those of a few concessionaires and foreign specialists on salaries ($5000-$10,000) . Even the few traders and concessionaires who have gotten rich are unable to invest money productively in Russia, except in state loans. None can be invested for exploitation. There is practically no chance for anyone to get rich under the Soviet system except a comparatively few traders, concessionaires, or the winners of some of the big state lotteries--and it is hard for any of them to stay rich under the heavy taxation." - Baldwin, Roger. Liberty Under the Soviets, New York: Vanguard
Press, 1928, p. 29-30



Competition between state enterprises, lingering use of capitalist incentives, and investment by foreign capitalists, had always been a part of the transitional Soviet economy

It wasn't until the Kosygin reform that the economy was made to embrace capitalist production relations with state enterprises working to "outperform" eachother.

[Jose Gracchus]

And we get a bunch of appeals to ass-covering rhetoric and no response to pointed questions. What a surprise.

[Gorilla]

Where does the Stalin Constitution say that?

It doesn't; but it was a big part of the rollout campaign:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm


It means that the exploitation of man by man has been abolished, eliminated, while the Socialist ownership of the implements and means of production has been established as the unshakable foundation of our Soviet society. (Prolonged applause.)

As a result of all these changes in the sphere of the national economy of the U.S.S.R., we now have a new, Socialist economy, which knows neither crises nor unemployment, which knows neither poverty nor ruin, and which provides our citizens with every opportunity to lead a prosperous and cultured life...

The landlord class, as you know, had already been eliminated as a result of the victorious conclusion of the civil war. As for the other exploiting classes, they have shared the fate of the landlord class. The capitalist class in the sphere of industry has ceased to exist. The kulak class in the sphere of agriculture has ceased to exist. And the merchants and profiteers in the sphere of trade have ceased to exist. Thus all the exploiting classes have been eliminated.


This mistaken political line was in harmony with the contents of the '36 constitution itself, which borrowed heavily from parliamentary models rather than advancing the federated-council structure advocated by both Marx and Lenin. (And retained, BTW, in the PRC).

[Geiseric]

at least they improved living standards.

[Jose Gracchus]

How is it retained in the PRC? The National People's Congress is elected by and from lower bodies?

[Gorilla]

How is it retained in the PRC? The National People's Congress is elected by and from lower bodies?

Yup. I mean not that they're rooted in factory councils, workers' soviets, even Maoist style three-in-one committees, or whatever but:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html


Article 59. The National People's Congress is composed of deputies elected by the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and by the armed forces.

Article 97. Deputies to the people's congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and cities divided into districts are elected by the people's congresses at the next lower level; deputies to the people'scongresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns are elected directly by their constituencies. The number of deputies to local people's congresses at different levels and the manner of their election are prescribed by law.


It's a sort of obscene caricature of the Paris Commune plan, but I think it's one of the reasons why the Chinese party is still around and the Soviet one isn't.

[Red_Struggle]

You all seem to like Robert Thurston's book Life and Terror

I myself have not read this book, but judging from what I have heard of it so far, it seems more in with why we sometimes quote "Albania: A Coming of Age". Although its essentially an anti-communist book, the author did have to admit that gains were made in a number of fields. It's not up there with "Court of the Red Tsar" or anything, but its not written through the lens of a Marxist-Leninist materialist analysis either.

[bailey_187]

I myself have not read this book, but judging from what I have heard of it so far, it seems more in with why we sometimes quote "Albania: A Coming of Age". Although its essentially an anti-communist book, the author did have to admit that gains were made in a number of fields. It's not up there with "Court of the Red Tsar" or anything, but its not written through the lens of a Marxist-Leninist materialist analysis either.

basically, u use the info in it when it agrees with u, but ignore what doesnt?

i know, i used to do that same.

[Bright Banana Beard]

basically, u use the info in it when it agrees with u, but ignore what doesnt

i know, i used to do that same.

Have you realized how we disagree with making homosexual illegal, non-rights or no recognizing for LGBT, calling some discovery of science in America bourgeois, cult of personality, bureaucrat having more power later on?

You were never ML, you were simple a silly "Stalinist" who used to think Stalin is all cool. I am not a big fan on Stalin myself.

[bailey_187]

Have you realized how we disagree with making homosexual illegal, non-rights or no recognizing for LGBT, calling some discovery of science in America bourgeois, cult of personality, bureaucrat having more power later on?


What does that have to do with anything i have mentioned?

My point was about selectivly using info from academic sources. Thurston's book is the truth when it agrees with you (which can include your amazing criticisms above), but "anti-communist" and not fully ML when it doesnt.


You were never ML, you were simple a silly "Stalinist" who used to think Stalin is all cool. I am not a big fan on Stalin myself.

lol when did i ever call myself a stalinist or say stalin was "cool"?

you're not? ok. nice av btw bro

[Omsk]

My point was about selectivly using info from academic sources. Thurston's book is the truth when it agrees with you (which can include your amazing criticisms above), but "anti-communist" and not fully ML when it doesnt.
Double standards are common,get over it.

you're not? ok. nice av btw bro
You cant judge someone because of their avatar,my grandfather spent 17 years in prison for having a picture of Stalin on his wall,but he didn't follow Stalin for his ideologies,he followed him because that same Stalin sent tanks to help liberate my grandfathers motherland,and sent many Soviet comrades to help them,and after the war,after he was proclamed a hero of the people and a major they arrested him!And put him in prison!Just for 1 picture,although he bleed and fought the fascists!
If that is our logic i spit on your logic!

[bailey_187]

erm dont take that so seriously. was just a response to Red Pill's comments from nowhere about me being just a idoliser of Stalin and nothing else, when his av would point him more in that direction, but whatever, calm down, its hardly comparable to your story.

what do you mean "get over it" for double standards? ok fuck it, let anyone selectivly quote whatever they want. what a stupid thing to say.

[bailey_187]

why would u even reply to my post if u going to simply say get over double standards then have a rant about my throwaway comment at the end, which has little to do with the actual thread :confused:

[Red_Struggle]

basically, u use the info in it when it agrees with u, but ignore what doesnt?

No, my point is that even though a book may be anti-communist, the author would still have to offer at least some positive aspects to make the writing appear legit and objective. Don't mean to go back to Albania, but take "Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity" (that might not be the exact title, but its in the ball park). The author, Miranda Vickers, makes the claim that Socialist Albania had a "draconian" legal system that gave police the blanket right to basically arrest anyone without consent by any collective organs. She makes the claim that Albania's consitution permitted this, but when one actually reads the constitution, there is little to no mention of police forces. At the same time, she admits that the wage gap in socialist Albanian was 2:1.

This is why you have to be careful and do a background check on what sources the author chooses to cite.

[Bright Banana Beard]

What does that have to do with anything i have mentioned It basically means we didn't like or upholds everything in the USSR.


My point was about selectivly using info from academic sources. Thurston's book is the truth when it agrees with you (which can include your amazing criticisms above), but "anti-communist" and not fully ML when it doesnt.
We recongized that the ruling class use ruling ideas. In Cold War, th West produced massive anti-communsim book to discredit and some trotskyite will go along with this or just use trotsky.


lol when did i ever call myself a stalinist or say stalin was "cool" I stand corrected but "marching with Stalin flag" tell me this is liking him.


you're not ok. nice av btw bro
My avatar was meant to poke at the ICC, cause the picture is so hilarious, either way my point still stand.

[bailey_187]

yeah, so like i said: anything in books that does back up your view of the USSR is used, and anything is not is cast aside as somehow a peace of anti-communist propaganda that infiltrated the book. So you select facts to conform to your already decided upon view.

[Roach]

yeah, so like i said: anything in books that does back up your view of the USSR is used, and anything is not is cast aside as somehow a peace of anti-communist propaganda that infiltrated the book. So you select facts to conform to your already decided upon view.


No he compared what the author said about the constitution of Albania with the actual constitution.

[bailey_187]

Im not talking about that book. I haven't read it so i cant comment. I'm talking about Thurston's.

[Roach]

He basicaly said that his method is comparing what is said on the book to what seems to be the reality, though I cant really say what he thinks it is.

[Gorilla]

Simmer down, comrades. You guys are acting like Trots ffs.

[bailey_187]

He gave a very specific example concerning a single book. I dont see how this relates to Thurston's book.

Are the statement from Thurston's book concerning the power of managers lies? If so, how was that conclusion reached?

[Roach]

We dont advocate that suddenly after Khruschev step into power managers won all the political and economical power in the Soviet Union, roughly the restoration of Capitalism in the SU was a complex procces of gradual reforms that culminated with the Perestroika and Glasnost, this procces started with the rise of future revisionists in the CPSU soon after the WW2, thanks to the personality cult, the war itself and dysbelief of a possible bourgeios reaction from inside the SU.

I would like to apologise if I'm sounding too aggressive

[bailey_187]

But as Thurston notes, in the 1930s managers already had great amounts of power.

Dont worry, you are not.

[Roach]

Bureaucrats and managers were already a problem early in the revolution. A long time ago Ismail qouted this regarding this same subject :


Another weakness of left communism [left-wing opposition within the Bolshevik camp], which prevented its supporters from gathering around them any effective following against Lenin, was the demonstrable failure of the early experiments in workers' control of industry... Bukharin and Obolensky further advanced the criticism that Lenin's policy amounted to nothing more nor less than state capitalism; and that unless the masses exercised economic dictatorship, their political dictatorship would inevitably disappear. To this Lenin could reply that where the state embodied the interests and the will of the proletariat, economic control by the state meant economic control by the proletariat."
(Leonard Schapiro. The Origins of the Communist Autocracy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1965. pp. 137-138.)

Furthermore:
"The case of the railways will suffice as an illustration.... the overall management of the railways was entrusted, and complete control by the workers decreed on 23 January 1918. Within a few months the railways were in a state of collapse. The 'complete and utter disorganization' was growing daily:

'The workers by present-day rules are guaranteed their pay. The worker turns up at his job . . . does his job, or not, as he pleases, no one can control him, because the [railway repair] shop committees are powerless. If the workshop committee attempts to exercise some control, it is immediately disbanded and another committee elected. In a word, things are in the hands of a crowd, which thanks to its lack of interest in and understanding of production is literally putting a brake on all work.'

Ironically enough it fell to Shlyapnikov, the future leader of the Workers' Opposition and advocate of workers' control of industry, to paint this deplorable picture before the Central Executive Committee, and to demand the restoration of work discipline on the railways. On 26 March the Council of People's Commissars centralized control of the railways under the Commissar of Communications, who was given complete dictatorial powers. Lenin drafted the decree. But the railways were only one instance out of many. The inescapable fact that workers' control had failed was Lenin's strongest argument in winning support for his industrial policy of work discipline, one-man management, and efficient methods of production."
(Ibid. pp. 139-140.)

[Roach]

Regarding Thurston's work, in the same post Ismail linked a Grover Furr review of this same book, according to Ismail, it says basicly the same we are talking here but from the perspective of the ''Anarcho-Stalinist'' PLP.(I have not read it yet)

http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/furr.html