Quick Question

[Impulse97]

Hey all.

Reading up on Marx, he stated that in order to achieve Socialism, there must be a Bourgeoisie and a Proletariat and that such classes do not exist under any society other than Capitalism. Thus, is that the reason the SU failed?

When the R. Rev. took place it was largely still feudal and only really progressed into Capitalism after the counter revolution.

Does this lack of strong Capitalism in early 20th Century Russia doom the 1917 revolution before it even began? Also, is this necessarily a bad thing that it ultimatly failed? Granted, it was somewhat better than Capitalism, but now that it has regressed the more orthodox marxist conditions are present. With these present, will that lead to a more stable revolution in the future? Is that the underlying cause as to its inherent problems all throughout its history?

Well, that didn't turn out to be the quickie I'd assumed it would be. :lol:

[Zanthorus]

You'll have to explain to us how exactly Russia in 1917 was feudal. Serfdom was abolished in 1861.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is a quick question which can not be answered in any simple or quick way.


No...its not the reason the SU failed. There are differences of opinion why it failed. My personal (quick and non nuanced or at least generalistic) opinion is because of Leninism and the consequences of authoritarian socialism and the failure to progress from the DOTP. Others have other opinions. I think they are wrong...but they obviously disagree with me ;)

I'd say the SU was not truely developed capitalist society...but that this does not have to pose a problem for socialism to work....it does make it more difficult.

I do think its tragic and disasterous that the attempt failed.

Because we want to see socialism, true socialism, succeed.
Because its flawed and failed ideology dominated revolutionary aspirations and actually worked to their detriment.
Because its ultimate collapse had such a profound impact on the SU inhabitants worsening their situation.
Because it had a profound impact on social situations in capitalist nations...worsening the situation there
Because its failure was such that the negative propaganda and immage of communism and revolution still hampers us today and brands us all as mass murdering distators and potentates.

THese answers are the quick ones...they are not throrough analysis. And they are mostly personal opinion. A thorough analysis will be more subtile, more weighted...but I am sure the progression of this thread will give you more information, more background, more well versed posts and more viewpoints to make up your own mind about it.

[Desperado]

Reading up on Marx, he stated that in order to achieve Socialism, there must be a Bourgeoisie and a Proletariat and that such classes do not exist under any society other than Capitalism.

Not necessarily. Marx spoke about Russia bypassing capitalism based on the peasant communal ownership of land (although this is precisely what the civil war and later Stalin went on to completely destroy).

[Sixiang]

Hey all.

Reading up on Marx, he stated that in order to achieve Socialism, there must be a Bourgeoisie and a Proletariat and that such classes do not exist under any society other than Capitalism. Thus, is that the reason the SU failed?
While it is true that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie came about from capitalism, this does not necessarily explain why USSR failed. First of all, how can we say definitively that a country is capitalist or feudal? Where is that dividing line when you have capitalism and the proletariat rising in the cities and still have peasants in the country side living largely like the old system? At what point do we say, "Okay, this country is capitalist now. Feudalism is officially over. Time for a revolution." The proletariat are the revolutionary class and socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but, as Marx pointed out, under certain conditions, the peasantry and even the petty-bourgeois can be the proletariat's allies in revolution.


When the R. Rev. took place it was largely still feudal and only really progressed into Capitalism after the counter revolution.
Not necessary. Privatized industrialization (capitalism) existed in the cities. Russia wasn't just a bunch of little farming villages. There were factories, too.

I'll let one of the more prolific comrades on Russian and Soviet history answer the rest.

[Impulse97]

While it is true that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie came about from capitalism, this does not necessarily explain why USSR failed. First of all, how can we say definitively that a country is capitalist or feudal? Where is that dividing line when you have capitalism and the proletariat rising in the cities and still have peasants in the country side living largely like the old system? At what point do we say, "Okay, this country is capitalist now. Feudalism is officially over. Time for a revolution." The proletariat are the revolutionary class and socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but, as Marx pointed out, under certain conditions, the peasantry and even the petty-bourgeois can be the proletariat's allies in revolution.


Not necessary. Privatized industrialization (capitalism) existed in the cities. Russia wasn't just a bunch of little farming villages. There were factories, too.

I'll let one of the more prolific comrades on Russian and Soviet history answer the rest.


I see how the lines can get blurred, but I think its safe to say that Russia ca.1917 wasn't fully capitalist nor did they wield much, if any political power.

I think it can be said that one nation is of a certain stage (Fuedalism, Capitalism etc. etc.) when more than 2/3rds of the power are in the hands of a certain class. England has a monarchy, but do you not consider it a Capitalist nation? It seems to me that Russia at the time was the opposite of England today, small cap class with a large Monarchy.

[Zanthorus]

Impulse, the monarchy is not necessarily a feudal institution. With respect to the situtation in France in 1848, Marx noted, in his 18th Brumaire, that the largest section of the bourgeoisie was royalist. I think there are various places where Marx and Engels refer to the absolute monarchy as the weapon of a nascent bourgeois society against the localism which was characteristic of feudal state structures. But of course, if the monarchy is an institution which is relevant to the characterisation of a nations internal relations of production, that means that in February 1917 Russia must have gone from being less capitalist to England to being more capitalist when Tsarism was completely overthrown.

With regards to the overall point of whether or not Russia was economically capable of supporting proletarian political dominance, I would agree with what patbuck says and point you towards Marx's writing on France in 'The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' and 'The Civil War in France' in which he clearly asserts the possibility of the proletariat coming to power even though the small-holding peasantry constituted the great mass of the French population, because small-holdings had become a 'fetter' on the peasants living standards, and because the proletariat had the necessary organisational capacity to provide a programme of agrarian reform and abolition of the state executive machine which the peasantry could rally round. I've been reading Paul Avrich's 'The Russian Anarchists', and from his descriptions of the worsening conditions of the small-holding peasants in the run up to the Russian revolution I think it's fairly clear that small-holding property was becoming a fetter in Marx's sense. More than that, Russian industry was much more concentrated, and the organisations of the Russian working-class much more developed than 19th century France, which would suggest that a revolution along the lines which Marx suggests in countries where the proletariat did not constitute a numerical majority was more and not less likely in Russia in 1917.

[Desperado]

At what point do we say, "Okay, this country is capitalist now. Feudalism is officially over.


We can say what the predominate mode of production is by looking at the social relations in which the majority of the population partakes.

[Psy]

You'll have to explain to us how exactly Russia in 1917 was feudal. Serfdom was abolished in 1861.

By feudalism it mostly means the contradictions of the feudal mode of production still existed in Russia up to 1917 even though the capitalist mode of production has established itself in parallel.

The bulk of Russians still were tied up on large agricultural estates. Yes peasants were free to leave but the abolishment of serfdom just meant peasants got to choose which lord gets to exploit their labor.

Now this wasn't a contradiction to capitalism, the contradiction was you had the bulk Russia's labor power tied up producing little value for the landed aristocracy that resisted the mechanization of labor and the centralized of the means of production to more efficiently exploit human labor like capitalists were doing in Russian cities.