Demise of the USSR

[B0LSHEVIK]

Can anybody provide any good links, books, anything really on the demise of the USSR? Im interested in the inner politics, who, why, whom benefited, etc etc. How the unification of Germany was the first step of collapse (was it?), how gorbachev allowed DDR to join NATO without a fight, what was gorbachevs goal?

Anything really covering this period would be helpful too.

[thesadmafioso]

Here is some work by Ted Grant on the matter that I have found to be quite insightful and informative. His analysis really gets to the crux of the matter in detailing how this development was an inevitability given the nature of Gorbachev's approach to the state and its bureaucratic institutions.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1987/02/russia.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1996/02/collapse.htm

[RED DAVE]

Here is some work by Ted Grant on the matter that I have found to be quite insightful and informative. His analysis really gets to the crux of the matter in detailing how this development was an inevitability given the nature of Gorbachev's approach to the state and its bureaucratic institutions.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1987/02/russia.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1996/02/collapse.htmWith all due respect, these works both share the fundamental flaw: Grant was unable to conceive of the fact that the bureaucracy constituted a ruling class. Just a few years before the transformation of the USSR from state capitalism to private capitalism, Grant was unable to see, based on his analysis, that this was coming.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Can anybody provide any good links, books, anything really on the demise of the USSR? Im interested in the inner politics, who, why, whom benefited, etc etc. How the unification of Germany was the first step of collapse (was it?), how gorbachev allowed DDR to join NATO without a fight, what was gorbachevs goal?

Anything really covering this period would be helpful too.

He was making a gambit to reduce the cost of propping up the satellite states, and to simultaneously demilitarize and some to some kind of peaceful accommodation into Western economic and political institutions as a normalized player. It cost the USSR a fortune to give loans to prop up the bribes to the workers keeping the bureaucratic stagnations afloat, and to field that extensive military apparatus. Simultaneously, the USSR centrally-administered (not credibly 'planned', as per Ticktin) economy was in a terminal crisis. Something had to give.

[Ismail]

Here's Bill Bland's postscript to his book The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union which is a good introduction to the processes of Glastnost and Perestroika: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/PS-USSR.html

As a Zëri i Popullit article noted in 1988: "It was Khrushchev who, at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, began the great counter-revolutionary transformation, that process of 'reforms' which destroyed socialism, paved the way for the restoration of capitalism… Perestroika is broader in extent than all the 'reforms' undertaken by Gorbachev’s predecessors… [and] aims to eliminate everything that hinders the complete transition to unfettered capitalism." (quoted in Ian Jeffries, Socialist Economies and the Transition to the Market, p. 230.) Gorbachev was an anti-communist who wanted to "reform" the USSR into a country that did not claim even nominal adherence to Marxism-Leninism via the "New Union Treaty" which would have established a "Union of Independent Sovereign Republics," but which was never signed due to the August coup attempt.

[Kiev Communard]

The Perestroika was merely a natural continuation of the process of decay of statised bureaucratic capitalism that was formed under Lenin and Stalin and completely degenerated under Brezhnev and Andropov. Contrary to what Ismail claimed, the bureaucratic capitalist class has formed in the USSR as early as the years of War Communism and NEP when specific officials were given control over 'their' enterprises (one-man management scheme), and then became engaged in the same practices of investment as the 'traditional' capitalists, with the only difference being their immediate social background (which is insignificant in itself, as even many private capitalists have come from working-class families) and, more importantly, their dependence on the central investment fund embodied in Gosplan, as opposed to traditional industrial capitalists' dependence on the networks of investment banks. The working class, meanwhile, remained a tool for capital accumulation, and did not control the process of social production.

[thesadmafioso]

With all due respect, these works both share the fundamental flaw: Grant was unable to conceive of the fact that the bureaucracy constituted a ruling class. Just a few years before the transformation of the USSR from state capitalism to private capitalism, Grant was unable to see, based on his analysis, that this was coming.

RED DAVE


But the isolation of the revolution and the backwardness of Russia led to the victory of the bureaucracy over the democracy of the revolution. Stalin was able to seize control in the interests and to serve the needs of the bureaucratic elite.


Now not only in social relations but in the development of industry too, the contradictions between the economic basis of the Soviet Union and the role of its bureaucratic leadership have become extreme. From being a relative means of developing the Soviet Union the bureaucracy has now become a reactionary brake on development.


Now the role of the bureaucracy in Russian society has become completely reactionary. The bureaucrats had dreams of ruling for a thousand years. Now after mere decades the regime of political counter-revolution on the basis of a planned economy has reached its limits. It can no longer rule in the old way.


The bureaucratic caste of millions is clogging the state machinery and the economy. Every section of the state machine—the army, the police and the “Communist” Party—is moulded for the purpose of defending the interests of the ruling elite.


Gorbachev is a consummate representative of the ruling caste, and has all the limitations of a bureaucrat. He wants to transform Russian society without altering the basic structure of bureaucratic control. Like the top layers of the bureaucracy, his conditions of living are vastly different to those of the working class in the Soviet Union. His wife wears clothes from the expensive fashion houses in France like Cardin. She buys the most expensive perfumes.

From "Russia: reform or political revolution"

I would say that these quotes denote Grant's belief that the bureaucracy itself did in fact represent a de facto ruling class and that they show an understanding of the impending collapse of the deformed bureaucratic Soviet state itself.

Of course, he was somewhat hopeful towards the emergence of a political revolution of the workers which would oust the place of the bureaucracy, but that isn't to say that he was incapable of predicting some variation of massive societal upheaval in the coming years. He simply added a political view to his material analysis, something not at all uncommon in this field and perfectly fitting in the context.

[Rafiq]

It is a completely Idealist notion to state the USSR collapsed because of Petestroika, or Reforms introduced by Khrushchev.

Those reforms were introduced for a reason, you know, not because they decided to be counter revolutionary assholes.

The USSR was bound to failure since 1924, the revolution didn't spread to the industrialized nations, thus leaving the USSR as an isolated state slowly, slowly degenerating into something horrible.

[Ismail]

Those reforms were introduced for a reason, you know, not because they decided to be counter revolutionary assholes. Except Gorbachev is an anti-communist, by his own admission. He said that his plan was to actually dismantle "communism" in the USSR. After he fell from power Khrushchev called Solzhenitsyn an "honest man" and said that, "From the situation in the markets, I believe that the Soviet Union has to use the services of capitalism -- the system we have made it our goal to defeat (I mean, of course, economically)."

Acting as if Khrushchev and Gorbachev were/are totally nice people who were just forced to promote capitalist reforms is ridiculous and defeatist. It's no different from Deng saying that China must have promoted the market because of how "underdeveloped" it was, otherwise it would have "never developed."


The USSR was bound to failure since 1924, the revolution didn't spread to the industrialized nations, thus leaving the USSR as an isolated state slowly, slowly degenerating into something horrible.Don't forget that after WW2 the USSR was seen as a superpower. Quite different from the impoverished and internationally isolated USSR of 1924.


It is a completely Idealist notion to state the USSR collapsed because of Petestroika, or Reforms introduced by Khrushchev.The USSR didn't collapse because of Khrushchev. It collapsed because of Glasnost and Perestroika. Glasnost allowed nationalist and anti-communist sentiments to be openly aired, while Perestroika was seen as the "last hope" of the CPSU to improve the economy, and it instead wrecked it. Both actions, as well as removing the CPSU from its status as a "vanguard party," critically undermined the legitimacy of the party and, by extension, the USSR itself. Very few people expected the USSR (or the Eastern Bloc) to collapse as late as 1989. The type of men who came into power under Gorbachev, however, were the ones who initially looked towards Khrushchev for inspiration.

[RED DAVE]

I would say that these quotes denote Grant's belief that the bureaucracy itself did in fact represent a de facto ruling class and that they show an understanding of the impending collapse of the deformed bureaucratic Soviet state itself.You're wrong. Note the constant use of the word "caste." This is a hallmark of the "degenerated workers state" notion that for some reason, Orthodox Trotskyists held onto far long than was reasonable. It should have been dropped in favor of some kind of a state capitalist notion by the mid-60s. I'm not just making debating points as we'll see below.


Of course, he was somewhat hopeful towards the emergence of a political revolution of the workers which would oust the place of the bureaucracy, but that isn't to say that he was incapable of predicting some variation of massive societal upheaval in the coming years. He simply added a political view to his material analysis, something not at all uncommon in this field and perfectly fitting in the context.You miss the point, and your use of the term "political revolution" shows why. If, in fact, the USSR was a degenerated workers state, then the bureaucracy could be reviewed as a parasitic caste of the working class (think trade union bureaucracy) and what would be needed was a political revolution.

Turns out the bureaucracy was a parasitic caste – on the bourgeoisie! And the USSR did have a political revolution – only in the opposite direction from which the degenerated workers state theory demanded. A new political structure was erected to accommodate the new social order: private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

You're wrong. Note the constant use of the word "caste." This is a hallmark of the "degenerated workers state" notion that for some reason, Orthodox Trotskyists held onto far long than was reasonable. It should have been dropped in favor of some kind of a state capitalist notion by the mid-60s. I'm not just making debating points as we'll see below.

You miss the point, and your use of the term "political revolution" shows why. If, in fact, the USSR was a degenerated workers state, then the bureaucracy could be reviewed as a parasitic caste of the working class (think trade union bureaucracy) and what would be needed was a political revolution.

Turns out the bureaucracy was a parasitic caste – on the bourgeoisie! And the USSR did have a political revolution – only in the opposite direction from which the degenerated workers state theory demanded. A new political structure was erected to accommodate the new social order: private capitalism.

RED DAVE

I don't find the term state capitalist to be a fitting description of the economic state of the Soviet Union from Stalin on, as it still did retain a planned economy which was in may ways driven and influenced by the working class. Yes, the bureaucracy did impede its efficiency quite dramatically, hence the degenerated aspect of the assessment terming the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state.

The bureaucracy was indeed a parasitic caste, but I would hardly say that their excess was not based upon the labor of the proletariat.

The course of the full blown counter revolution in Russia was regrettable, but that does not tarnish the validity of the line of thought which outlines the state as a deformed workers state necessarily. Given the climate of liberal political reforms which went towards the direction of establishing bourgeois democracy and the stagnate direction of the Soviet economy created by years of bureaucratic ineptitude and excess, conditions were somewhat more open to these events. The simple fact that a political revolution of the proletarian did not materialize does not automatically make this assessment of the Soviet State incorrect.

[Teacher]

Bill Bland's stuff is good. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I have heard good things about a book called "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny.

[RED DAVE]

I don't find the term state capitalist to be a fitting description of the economic state of the Soviet Union from Stalin on, as it still did retain a planned economy which was in may ways driven and influenced by the working class.Concretely what institutions did the working class use for "influence"?


Yes, the bureaucracy did impede its efficiency quite dramatically, hence the degenerated aspect of the assessment terming the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state.A "degenerated workers state" has to have some modicum of workers control or it is something else. One more time, how did the workers get their licks in? There was no workers control in the workplace, the unions were organs of the state, and the state was controlled by the bureaucracy. And the party was the political organ of the bureaucracy?

And please don't give us that tired old saw about nationalized industry, etc. Taiwan, which no one would call socialist, had over 60% of its industry nationalized into the 1980s.


The bureaucracy was indeed a parasitic caste, but I would hardly say that their excess was not based upon the labor of the proletariat.What? The "excesses" of the bourgeoisie are based on the labor of the proletariat too? What does that mean?


The course of the full blown counter revolution in Russia was regrettable, but that does not tarnish the validity of the line of thought which outlines the state as a deformed workers state necessarily.Yes it does. There was no counter-revolution. The actual counter-revolution took place during the 1920s. The same swine who were running the economy in the 1980s were running it in the 1990s. And there was no workers protests because all the workers did was exchange one set of bosses, the state capitalist bureaucracy (which still controls about 1/3 of the Russian economy) for a new set: the corporate capitalists.


Given the climate of liberal political reforms which went towards the direction of establishing bourgeois democracy and the stagnate direction of the Soviet economy created by years of bureaucratic ineptitude and excess, conditions were somewhat more open to these events. The simple fact that a political revolution of the proletarian did not materialize does not automatically make this assessment of the Soviet State incorrect.Not automatically, but it was, nevertheless, incorrect. This line is one of the reasons Orthodox Trotskyism in the US stagnated and/or degenerated in the late 60s and 70s.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

their dependence on the central investment fund embodied in Gosplan, as opposed to traditional industrial capitalists' dependence on the networks of investment banks

I think you've got the wrong institution here. Gosbank served as the "central investment fund," and tried to provide additional, more indirect means of planning apart from Gosplan and Gossnab. :confused:

[Jose Gracchus]

Ismail: Its too bad Uncle Joe just had a really poor human resources quality control. So many would-be evil Great Men who needed the 9 grams in the basement of the Lubyanka...but by Engels! Couldn't catch that rascal Khrushchev and his army of invisible "Khrushchevites".

[Ismail]

Ismail: Its too bad Uncle Joe just had a really poor human resources quality control. So many would-be evil Great Men who needed the 9 grams in the basement of the Lubyanka...but by Engels! Couldn't catch that rascal Khrushchev and his army of invisible "Khrushchevites".Voznesensky was executed in 1950, and he was a precursor to the Khrushchevites. Stalin also wrote Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. in response to proto-Khrushchevites. Obviously Stalin wasn't psychic, so I don't see your point here. Khrushchev himself had sympathized with Trotskyism in the 1920's, as both he himself and Kaganovich later noted.

[Rooster]

Stalin also wrote Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. in response to proto-Khrushchevites.

The text where he says this? "Is the law of value the basic economic law of capitalism? No."? :confused:

[Ismail]

The text where he says this? "Is the law of value the basic economic law of capitalism? No."? :confused:The Khrushchevites attacked the book as "left-deviationist." Stalin said after that bit you quoted that, "The law of value is primarily a law of commodity production. It existed before capitalism, and, like commodity production, will continue to exist after the overthrow of capitalism, as it does, for instance, in our country, although, it is true, with a restricted sphere of operation. Having a wide sphere of operation in capitalist conditions, the law of value, of course, plays a big part in the development of capitalist production. But not only does it not determine the essence of capitalist production and the principles of capitalist profit; it does not even pose these problems. Therefore, it cannot be the basic economic law of modern capitalism."

As a note, here's an interesting read on Stalin's work and Guevara's views, along with the views of Trotsky, etc. on the law of value: http://web.archive.org/web/20090518011241/http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/che.htm

Maoists also express views contrary to Stalin's words, beginning with Mao's "critique" of his book.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Great answers and good ideas too.

But, although I understand the demise may have well begun in 1927, my question revolves around Gorbachev. Who was he? After nationalized industries were sold off, how so, when, whom, etc. Im interested in the 89-91 period in the USSR. I know theres got to be 'Sovietologist' here!!!

[syndicat]

A language is a dialect with flags and postage stamps. Therefore Macedonian is a language. The differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian are bigger than the differences between Serbian and Croatian, which everybody accepts as two different languages these days.


i would recommend "Revolution from Above." the authors have a good account of the ruling class in the soviet union. they argue that a section of the Russian faction of this class began to seek a transition to capitalism as a path to enrichment. they envied their counterparts in western Europe and had only a cynical attachment to socialist ideology whose actual content they ignored.

but the bureaucratic class in the non-Russian parts of the USSR were not as aggreeable to the proposed transition...hence the need to jettison the Union of the republics and carve out a separate Russian federation.

[B0LSHEVIK]

i would recommend "Revolution from Above." the authors have a good account of the ruling class in the soviet union. they argue that a section of the Russian faction of this class began to seek a transition to capitalism as a path to enrichment. they envied their counterparts in western Europe and had only a cynical attachment to socialist ideology whose actual content they ignored.

but the bureaucratic class in the non-Russian parts of the USSR were not as aggreeable to the proposed transition...hence the need to jettison the Union of the republics and carve out a separate Russian federation.

This is the kind of information I was looking for.

Now, could we say that the current uber-capitalist squad in Russia today somehow have their beginnings in this era when the Soviet bloc collapsed?