What can we learn from the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

[Dogs On Acid]

Lenin was a great man, and he dreamed of a Socialist world free from oppression. I think we can all agree from that.
But he never lived to see his dream come true... Unfortunately he died fairly quickly after the revolution and his period was met with many advances in the name of Socialism, but also many mistakes.
He feared the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, and the future was very uncertain.

I only wish Lenin and Trotsky lasted longer while leading the People and the Army.

It must of been depressing for him, after all that work, not a day of rest, just to suffer from a stroke and severe incapacitation.

Soon after his stroke things got hectic and as we all know, the SU was heading in a spiral of ups and downs to the point of failure: Right-Wing members taking power and extreme bureaucracy plagued the system (even Lenin criticized this!).

China went in the same direction, and dissolved into capitalism.

Now, my question is: What can Marxists-Leninists(-Maoists) learn from history? What must they avoid and what must they change?

Fight on! :star:

[The Man]

What can Marxists-Leninists(-Maoists)[B] learn from history? What must they avoid and what must they change?

Fight on! :star:

Why put a Libertarian Socialist symbol if you support Lenin? :D

Anyways, I think we must learn to stop being so sectarian, and purging people for being Trotskyists or Anarchists. We must be united. Sure, I think Stalin was a fantastic man who grew the economy and happiness of the Soviet people. But of course, like all leaders, they have their faults.

[DiaMat86]

"What can we learn from the dissolution of the Soviet Union?"


Stamp out revisionism. Eliminate wages and privileges. Discredit the concept of race as false and unscientific. Expose the false promises of religion. Abolish the officer corps in the military. Replace the concept of nationalism with communism. Let nothing stand in the way of progress to communist economic relations. One world, one working class, one party.

[Dogs On Acid]

Why put a Libertarian Socialist symbol if you support Lenin? :D

It's half black, half red.
I am pan-leftist, I support the struggle of Communists and Anarchists.

No Sectarianism!

[The Idler]

That Leninism does not lead to a workers state otherwise why would workers vote for its dissolution?

[Sir Comradical]

A year long course on Marxism and the need to pass a series of written exams for anyone wanting to contend for important party positions? Just entertaining the thought...

[Marxach-Léinínach]

More purges, more politicising of the people, and going as far towards communism as possible

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That Leninism does not lead to a workers state otherwise why would workers vote for its dissolution?

Ummm...they didn't. Most people in the USSR wanted to preserve the union

[SacRedMan]

More purges

Are you out of your mind? Go purge your own village!

[Revolutionair]

One world, one working class, one party.

Am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with this? It's not even the slogan, but why should there only be allowed one party. This reeks of authoritarianism and anti-socialist anti-communist violence.

I am sorry buddy, but you should go to some fascist forum, there is no place for you in communism.

[Revolutionair]

Lenin was a great man

Great man theory of history. Very nice.

Are there any Marxists on this forum?

[#FF0000]

Am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with this? It's not even the slogan, but why should there only be allowed one party. This reeks of authoritarianism and anti-socialist anti-communist violence.

Depends on what you mean by party.

[Insurgency]

Great man theory of history. Very nice.

Are there any Marxists on this forum?

Is it Marxist to say that subjective factors dont matter at all?

[Revolutionair]

Of course not. Just like it is not Marxist to say that the history of mankind is the history of great men and there are also some people who follow them.

[The Idler]

Ummm...they didn't. Most people in the USSR wanted to preserve the union
So how was that described as a healthy workers state?

[DiaMat86]

Am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with this? It's not even the slogan, but why should there only be allowed one party. This reeks of authoritarianism and anti-socialist anti-communist violence.

I am sorry buddy, but you should go to some fascist forum, there is no place for you in communism.


The One Party is a communist idea.

After the come to power of the working class (communism). STATE POWER IS OFF THE TABLE. Just like it is now, under dictatorship of the capitalists. Electoral politics is a farce.

Communism is a system without money and privileges or national borders. A multiparty system is anticommunist because state power must not fall into the hands of revisionists. This cannot be permitted. Once the working class experiences communism they will demand one party for communism in overwhelming numbers.

I understand its not easy to imagine a higher order system.

Don"t call me a fascist. I don't want to have to attach an angry emoticon to this comment.

[Tim Finnegan]

More purges
Oh, don't worry, you won't be left out this time.

[Kadir Ateş]

Lenin was a great man, and he dreamed of a Socialist world free from oppression. I think we can all agree from that.He had a few great moments, like when came back to Russia and upon finding the working class in the arms of Kerensky, denounced him anyway and became a vocal opponent of every shred of reformism at the time. Or the Bolshevik seizure of power. Those were indeed fine moments. We should be hesitant to state that everything he said and did stood for socialism, particularly after 1917.


But he never lived to see his dream come true... Unfortunately he died fairly quickly after the revolution and his period was met with many advances in the name of Socialism, but also many mistakes.Well, he prevented his "dream" from coming true, whatever that was after purging the left-wing of his party and ruthlessly exterminating the left SRs. Kronstadt wasn't a smart move either.


He feared the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, and the future was very uncertain. I only wish Lenin and Trotsky lasted longer while leading the People and the Army.*Sigh* well, enough of that.


It must of been depressing for him, after all that work, not a day of rest, just to suffer from a stroke and severe incapacitation.Perhaps had he decided to step outside from his office and listen to the workers a bit more, rather than attempting to think for them, maybe his health would have improved...maybe.


Soon after his stroke things got hectic and as we all know, the SU was heading in a spiral of ups and downs to the point of failure: Right-Wing members taking power and extreme bureaucracy plagued the system (even Lenin criticized this!).Maybe the question shouldn't be "how to prevent the right-wing from taking over the party apparatus" but rather, "why did the Bolsheviks attempt to even set up one in the first place?"


China went in the same direction, and dissolved into capitalism.So you support Maoism? How can you say that, when you before you clearly voiced your dislike of Stalin?


Now, my question is: What can Marxists-Leninists(-Maoists) learn from history? What must they avoid and what must they change?Try this one on for size:

"The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves" - Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Proramme"

[La Comédie Noire]

I can't tell you what anyone should have done or what we can learn from history. We'll be playing on an entirely different field than Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.

As for action, we won't know till it ceases being an intellectual question and becomes a practical one. I can't for see the future, but it looks to me like leftists will have to do a lot of organizing of the unemployed, especially the youth.

I think we can take some inspiration from the past and a smattering of theory, but the future is going to be uncharted territory.

[Hebrew Hammer]

China went in the same direction, and dissolved into capitalism.


It hasn't really dissolved into capitalism in the same manner as the former states of the USSR. It remains state capitalist.


Now, my question is: What can Marxists-Leninists(-Maoists) learn from history? What must they avoid and what must they change?

More purges, less *****ing. Capitalist roaders are like termites, infesting all areas of the party and worker's state. Also, worker states should be more united and not allow themselves to bicker over ideology and policies and allow themselves to be slowly infiltrated by revisionists from within and to be picked off by the bourgeois nations from without. I would give a more detailed and proper answer but I'm new and not well versed as it stands.

[Tim Finnegan]

More purges, less *****ing. Capitalist roaders are like termites, infesting all areas of the party and worker's state. Also, worker states should be more united and not allow themselves to bicker over ideology and policies and allow themselves to be slowly infiltrated by revisionists from within and to be picked off by the bourgeois nations from without.Why do you people even pretend to be materialists, when you are so very clearly nothing of the sort? :confused:

[Kléber]

Why is multi-party socialist pluralism so terrifying to these "anti-revisionist" ignoramuses? Every one-party Stalinist dictatorship has restored capitalism or is in the process of doing so.. there's your revisionism right there.

No amount of purges and brainwashing can resolve the social contradiction between the bureaucracy and the proletariat. Only workers' democracy, which means freedom for socialist parties and trade unions outside the government's control, enables the working class to defend itself against its own elected representatives.

The Soviet republic was founded as a multi-party state with Left SRs and anarchists in the government, and it would have been better if it stayed that way. The Russian revolution was lost when it abandoned the principles of the commune: instant recallability and workers' wages for all officials.

[Kadir Ateş]

Why do you people even pretend to be materialists, when you are so very clearly nothing of the sort? :confused: I've been on RevLeft for a week now and am amazed at how many counter-revolutionaries this site attracts.

[Geiseric]

Isn't china dividing into free market zones? I mean isn't that the basic definition of capitalism?

The "More purges" idea is without a doubt the most rediculous thing i've heard on this forum, in regards to tactics to keep a socialist state healthy. The Stalinist/Maoist definition of a purge is de facto the same definition held by capitalists and fascists! It means crushing current and possible political dissent to silence any voices against the state!

[RED DAVE]

It hasn't really dissolved into capitalism in the same manner as the former states of the USSR. It remains state capitalist.Actually the percentage of state capitalism in Russia and China is about the same:

China 30% of all assets in 2010:

http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/state-owned-enterprises-in-china-how-big-are-they

Russia 33.5 in 2005:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/44/37732242.pdf


More purges, less *****ing. Capitalist roaders are like termites, infesting all areas of the party and worker's state. Also, worker states should be more united and not allow themselves to bicker over ideology and policies and allow themselves to be slowly infiltrated by revisionists from within and to be picked off by the bourgeois nations from without. I would give a more detailed and proper answer but I'm new and not well versed as it stands.Still haven't figured out that the "capitalist roaders" are inevitable under stalinism/maoism. Quickly, they stem from the bureaucracy's desire to reap the fruit of the society they control as individuals, not just, broadly, as a class.

RED DAVE

[tachosomoza]

Purge those who show even the slightest inkling of nationalistic, capitalistic, religious, or otherwise reactionary sympathies. Kill the cancer before it grows.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Why do you people even pretend to be materialists, when you are so very clearly nothing of the sort? :confused:

You know, I figured I would have responses like these, I know, I know, I believe I said "I would give a more detailed and proper answer but I'm new and not well versed as it stands." Meaning, I am not neglecting the fact the material conditions of the USSR and other Socialist states and other sorts of things played a role (primary) in the dissolving of the USSR however I am not well versed enough to articulate them properly. I figured the last sentence of my post would have suggested this but apparently not. Further, it was not super serious and I purposely used heavy rhetoric because I found it amusing. So all of you can save you're "omgah, these Maoists/Stalinists," comments and take a healthy grain of salt when reading my post. I might address the other responses tomorrow (considering I'm tired).

[LewisQ]

Great man theory of history. Very nice.

Describing someone as a great man and subscribing to the Great Man Theory are two different things. It's unmaterialist to suggest that there aren't, indeed, women and men who can justly be described as "great" in terms of achievement, intelligence, insight etc. Whether Lenin was one of them is open to debate, but it's hardly an un-Marxist viewpoint.


Are there any Marxists on this forum?I hate to tell you this, but Marx was a man too. And a great one, at that!

[Tim Finnegan]

You know, I figured I would have responses like these, I know, I know, I believe I said "I would give a more detailed and proper answer but I'm new and not well versed as it stands." Meaning, I am not neglecting the fact the material conditions of the USSR and other Socialist states and other sorts of things played a role (primary) in the dissolving of the USSR however I am not well versed enough to articulate them properly. I figured the last sentence of my post would have suggested this but apparently not. Further, it was not super serious and I purposely used heavy rhetoric because I found it amusing. So all of you can save you're "omgah, these Maoists/Stalinists," comments and take a healthy grain of salt when reading my post. I might address the other responses tomorrow (considering I'm tired).
If you aren't actually capable of explaining something as essential to your conception of Soviet history as the apparently contradictory adherence to historical materialism on the one hand and the theory of "revionism" on the other- the contradiction being that, for Marxist, transition from one mode of production to another is only possible, short of a general societal collapse, through the resolution of the internal contradictions of that mode of production, which would imply that the "revisionists" and "capitalist roaders" where mighty sorcerers with the power to bend time and space to their will- then you may want to consider why you insist on holding to such theories.

[Das war einmal]

That we should not take social securities for granted.