Was the Soviet Union Communist

[freethinker]

Were Stalinist/Brezhnev polices Communist? or are they state capitalist.

[Rising Sun]

Soviet union was never communist ideal but they were socialist even though hordes of door knob lickers will try to convince you it wasnt

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Under Lenin it was most definitely socialist, under Stalin you will get different answers for different tendencies.Many will tell you yes, though only barely, while some will tell you no.

[Revolution starts with U]

The USSR at best tried to be socialist at first.

[Nox]

Under Lenin it was certainly Socialist.

Under Stalin it was arguably Socialist, maybe just borderline Socialism, but considering the circumstances at the time, that's good enough.

After 1953 it's clear that the Communist Party gave up the idea of Socialism/Communism/World Revolution and just sat back and watched the USSR slowly fall apart.

[Q]

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
The USSR never reached such a high level of development, which implies a global society.

Was it socialist then? As I explain in my blog here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) such transition from the old capitalist society to the new communist society begins with the political conquest of power by the working class as a class.

This only happened momentarily, in 1917, before the Bolsheviks were forced to make retreat after retreat, inevitably containing a counterrevolution within the revolution. The revolution was in essense a wager on the world revolution (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/785/thefourwagers.php), which sadly failed as became all to clear by 1922-23. At this point the regime was still a "workers state with bureaucratic deformities", as Lenin phrased it, a regime holding on by its fingernails. From there on to the symbolic date of 1936 (because of its encoding in the new constitution of that year), there was a period of counterrevolution in which a bureaucracy firmly took power in its own interests and became, paradoxically, the last break towards genuine counterrevolution back to capitalism, for a period. But as the system faced an economic deathlock and growing discontent in the 1980's, that blockade too was lifted and the system collapsed towards capitalism.

[Rooster]

It was never socialist, the means of production were not held in common, there was wage labour, the division of labour was forced, there was currency, it traded with the capitalists, the whole thing collapsed and was sold off to capitalists without much of a fuss. You can't reform or build a state into communism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How can the USSR under Lenin have been Socialist? His legacy was war communism and the NEP, and the destruction of the workers' soviets.

No doubt you'll come back with 'it was necessary at the time'. Fine, believe that ifyou want, but it doesn't make it Socialism in any way, shape or form. Lenin himself said the aim at the time was State Capitalism.

[thefinalmarch]

Soviet union was never communist ideal but they were socialist even though hordes of door knob lickers will try to convince you it wasnt
Well, that's me convinced.

Edit: You're also really shit at insulting people.

[Thirsty Crow]

Soviet union was never communist ideal but they were socialist even though hordes of door knob lickers will try to convince you it wasnt
And I suppose that "communism" differs from "socialism" in the degree of pefection and harmony of the existing social relations, and only door knob lickers would try to convince you otherwise, that communists really shouldn't speak of Soviet society in terms of "communist ideal" and supposedly "lesser ideal of socialism".

[Nox]

How can the USSR under Lenin have been Socialist? His legacy was war communism and the NEP, and the destruction of the workers' soviets.

No doubt you'll come back with 'it was necessary at the time'. Fine, believe that ifyou want, but it doesn't make it Socialism in any way, shape or form. Lenin himself said the aim at the time was State Capitalism.

It was Socialist early on under Lenin, obviously War Communism and NEP weren't Socialist.

And yes, he believed that you couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism (which you can't) so he aimed for a temporary period of State Capitalism.

[thefinalmarch]

And yes, he believed that you couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism (which you can't) so he aimed for a temporary period of State Capitalism.
That may be true, yes (as the means of production weren't developed enough or whatever the reasoning is), but the user you were replying to mentioned that even if it was the case, you still have to look at things objectively and see that the USSR could not be considered socialist in pretty much any period of its existence.

Personally I think the question is pretty much irrelevant today. Feudalism only continues as pockets in isolated rural areas, and no state can be defined as being feudal now. To be honest all we can really do today is analyse what happened in the Russian revolution - even though it's not as if there are vital lessons to be learnt from it, especially not from the perspective of a wage-worker in bourgeois society today. The Russian revolution occured in the midst of unique conditions which just don't exist today. We can't and shouldn't debate over the proper course of action, etc. of the Bolsheviks because it's entirely irrelevant to the struggle today.

[Nox]

That may be true, yes (as the means of production weren't developed enough or whatever the reasoning is), but the user you were replying to mentioned that even if it was the case, you still have to look at things objectively and see that the USSR could not be considered socialist in pretty much any period of its existence.

Personally I think the question is pretty much irrelevant today. Feudalism only continues as pockets in isolated rural areas, and no state can be defined as being feudal now. To be honest all we can really do today is analyse what happened in the Russian revolution - even though it's not as if there are vital lessons to be learnt from it, especially not from the perspective of a wage-worker in bourgeois society today. The Russian revolution occured in the midst of unique conditions which just don't exist today. We can't and shouldn't debate over the proper course of action, etc. of the Bolsheviks because it's entirely irrelevant to the struggle today.

I agree with the second paragraph.

As for your first point, the USSR was undoubtedly Socialist in the very early stages (before War Communism and NEP), from then until 1953 it was borderline due to the conditions at the time, and after 1953 they just gave up the idea of Communism/Socialism/World Revolution.

[thriller]

No, it was not communist. Q's quote from the Manifesto is a great example of why it wasn't.
Russia was barely capitalist at the time, which made it that much harder to become socialist or communist. Did the workers in their own workplace have complete control over production? No. To me, that's an easy test to see if it was even close to being socialist or communist.

[tir1944]

It was Socialist from 1936-37 to '53...and the '65 "Reforms".

[Die Rote Fahne]

State capitalist and eventually became liberal capitalist with "de-Stalinization".

It was never socialist, it was never a DOTP.

[Tim Cornelis]

It was Socialist early on under Lenin, obviously War Communism and NEP weren't Socialist.

And yes, he believed that you couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism (which you can't) so he aimed for a temporary period of State Capitalism.

That means the 'Soviet Union' was socialist in 1917 alone, for just a few months.

(just pointing that out).

EDIT: However, since the Soviet Union only existed since 1922, we can conclude: The Soviet Union was never socialist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It was Socialist early on under Lenin, obviously War Communism and NEP weren't Socialist.

And yes, he believed that you couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism (which you can't) so he aimed for a temporary period of State Capitalism.

The fact that a society was 'under one man' suggests to me that it was far from Socialist.

It is a fact that, 'under Lenin', there was never a period of fully democratic and socialised economic relationships in the USSR. Throughout the 1920s, no more than 30-40% of the economy was nationalised, let alone brought under democratic workers' control.

There is no basis for saying that there was any element of Socialism in Lenin's lifetime.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And yes, he believed that you couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism (which you can't) so he aimed for a temporary period of State Capitalism.

Why would a self-proclaimed Marxist revolutionary aim to be the 'manager' of the Capitalist period of economic development? Sounds eerily dictatorial and opportunistic to me.

[Aurora]

Under Lenin it was most definitely socialist


Under Lenin it was certainly Socialist.


Ah yes, socialism, the next stage in human societies development, complete with world war, civil war, starvation and cannibalism. But forget about that “Milk is a product of cows and not of socialism" as our friend Radek says.



Lenin himself said the aim at the time was State Capitalism.
Context of course being quite important, Lenin said this as the NEP was being introduced which was a case of the workers state managing elements of capitalism, so Lenin's remark should be read as "(workers) state capitalism" also as the NEP was a failure all of the so called state capitalism was thrown out when it ended.

[human strike]

It was Communist, but not communist.

[Rising Sun]

And I suppose that "communism" differs from "socialism" in the degree of pefection and harmony of the existing social relations, and only door knob lickers would try to convince you otherwise, that communists really shouldn't speak of Soviet society in terms of "communist ideal" and supposedly "lesser ideal of socialism".

did soviet union achieve stateless classless society or not?

that's what I thought...

[A Marxist Historian]

That may be true, yes (as the means of production weren't developed enough or whatever the reasoning is), but the user you were replying to mentioned that even if it was the case, you still have to look at things objectively and see that the USSR could not be considered socialist in pretty much any period of its existence.

Personally I think the question is pretty much irrelevant today. Feudalism only continues as pockets in isolated rural areas, and no state can be defined as being feudal now. To be honest all we can really do today is analyse what happened in the Russian revolution - even though it's not as if there are vital lessons to be learnt from it, especially not from the perspective of a wage-worker in bourgeois society today. The Russian revolution occured in the midst of unique conditions which just don't exist today. We can't and shouldn't debate over the proper course of action, etc. of the Bolsheviks because it's entirely irrelevant to the struggle today.

Here you have the only serious attempt in the history of the human race of workers to take the power and create a socialist society, and you say that's irrelevant?

You have it backwards. Any alleged socialist or revolutionary who doesn't think the first job is to figure out what went wrong in Russia is irrelevant, as no workers will ever take him or her seriously.

The whole mantra of our time is, "well they tried socialism but it didn't work." If you can't answer that, nobody is ever really going to listen to you.

That's why socialism is so weak these days, and as long as leftists don't seriously deal with the Russian experience, that is what it will stay.

-M.H.-

[thefinalmarch]

Here you have the only serious attempt in the history of the human race of workers to take the power and create a socialist society, and you say that's irrelevant?
What I called irrelevant in today's world was the question of whether or not feudal society can undergo communist revolution.


You have it backwards. Any alleged socialist or revolutionary who doesn't think the first job is to figure out what went wrong in Russia is irrelevant, as no workers will ever take him or her seriously.

The whole mantra of our time is, "well they tried socialism but it didn't work." If you can't answer that, nobody is ever really going to listen to you.

That's why socialism is so weak these days, and as long as leftists don't seriously deal with the Russian experience, that is what it will stay.

-M.H.-
When I said there aren't any vital lessons to be learnt from the Russian revolution, I meant that there aren't really any vital lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the peasantry in the Russian revolution, and the role revolutionaries had in ending feudalism (because, well, where does feudalism even really exist today?) The specific question of whether or not feudal society can become socialist is therefore pretty much irrelevant to a revolutionary dealing with modern bourgeois society today. Apologies for being really vague and misleading in how I expressed that in my original post.

As for dismissing debating about the proper course of action of the Bolsheviks (following the revolution - again something which probably should have been specified) as irrelevant, I mostly stand by that as I believe the Bolsheviks very quickly ensured that whatever social order came out of the Russian mess would not be a socialist one. Thus basically most major decisions made by the party from the when it seized state power onwards could only relate to securing the party's own interests, and could not relate to the "development of socialism".

[#FF0000]

Nope. the USSR was a capitalist society for p. much all of its existence.

sorry guys

[Hexen]

I think I could say no it wasn't communist because Lenin wasn't a real Marxist and Russia before 1917 was a feudal agricultural society not a industrialized one like Britain, Germany, etc was what Marx originally intended to have the revolution to take place. So really the 1917 event was another bourgeoisie revolution under the guise of socialism I could say or it didn't undergo correct transition procedures (feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism --> finally communism....therefore that's why the USSR wasn't communist but state capitalist I think).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Context of course being quite important, Lenin said this as the NEP was being introduced which was a case of the workers state managing elements of capitalism, so Lenin's remark should be read as "(workers) state capitalism" also as the NEP was a failure all of the so called state capitalism was thrown out when it ended.

Workers' state capitalism is a concept that cannot be implemented. If workers controlled the machinations of government, they would not implement state-led capitalism, unless they exhibited a low-level of class consciousness, which in any case would make the Bolshevik rise to power in 1917 a coup, not a revolution.

Like I said, regardless of context, the USSR could never be described as Socialist during Lenin's lifetime.

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck" - Stammer and Tickle.:cool:

[freethinker]

Russia wasn't even the kind of country that Karl Marx's manifesto aimed, it was more pointed at the big 5 West European Imperialist Powers
Britain France Germany, Netherlands and Belgium

[Sheepy]

HAHA, no. Perhaps under Lenin, but otherwise no.

[The Idler]

Soviet Union was not communist/socialist or as Lenin described it "state-capitalist", it was private capitalist.

[Delenda Carthago]

0z_Qqnq8pI8




(what Brezhnef had to do with Stalin????)

[Rafiq]

It ran under a capitalist mode of production, but for the sake of moving on, it will be remembered as communist. Communist in the 20th century sense. There is nothing wrong with referring to it as that or allowing someone to call it that. You don't have to be a politically correct asshole all the time. It's just better to say "Well what if there is a better type of communism"? Etc.

[Rooster]

I think I could say no it wasn't communist because Lenin wasn't a real Marxist and Russia before 1917 was a feudal agricultural society not a industrialized one like Britain, Germany, etc was what Marx originally intended to have the revolution to take place. So really the 1917 event was another bourgeoisie revolution under the guise of socialism I could say or it didn't undergo correct transition procedures (feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism --> finally communism....therefore that's why the USSR wasn't communist but state capitalist I think).

That's an over simplification. Russia wasn't strictly a feudal society. It had some of the most advanced factories within it (some of the biggest at the time) and a concentrated workforce, which eventually lead the revolution. Capitalist relations were the majority within Russia. There was no, or very little, in the way of a feudal economy such as you get with serfdom and giving some of your work time to your lord. Saying that feudalism leads to capitalism and so on, is a mechanistic view of the word that doesn't neatly fit.

[Rafiq]

Russia wasn't even the kind of country that Karl Marx's manifesto aimed, it was more pointed at the big 5 West European Imperialist Powers
Britain France Germany, Netherlands and Belgium

Marx said the revolution must spread to the industrialized countries. It didn't. That is the explanation for the failure of 20th century communism.

[robbo203]

Here you have the only serious attempt in the history of the human race of workers to take the power and create a socialist society, and you say that's irrelevant?
-M.H.-

How many Russian workers seriously wanted a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism? Very few i would suggest. And the Russian working class was itself a tiny fraction of the population - perhaps 10%. Most Russian workers were concerned with things like factory closures, unemployment , the availability of food and so on and saw the way ahead in terms of capitalist relations oif production (albeit under so called workers contro)l rather than the transcendence of these relationships

[RedMarxist]

I do recall Lenin saying somewhere that if the German revolution succeeded, he would "allow for more democracy," yet I recall him being very vague about what he meant by more democracy, as if they had democracy to begin with by the early 1920's.

I do agree that for a time under Lenin, the Soviet Union was attempting to be as Socialist as possible, and under the circumstances they did a decent enough job with what they had.

Remember, Lenin never considered a Russian revolution the be-all end-all revolution, he hoped it would spread westwards, and even tried(and failed) to spread it forcibly across Poland and into Germany, as well as through Romania in the attempted defense of the Hungarian Soviet Republic.

Gee, I wonder why it failed in the 20th century?

[robbo203]

Workers' state capitalism is a concept that cannot be implemented. If workers controlled the machinations of government, they would not implement state-led capitalism, unless they exhibited a low-level of class consciousness, which in any case would make the Bolshevik rise to power in 1917 a coup, not a revolution.

Like I said, regardless of context, the USSR could never be described as Socialist during Lenin's lifetime.

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck" - Stammer and Tickle.:cool:


Might it not be said that the Bolshevik Revolution was the consummation or completion of the capitalist revolution initiated by the Kerensky regime but with greater resolution and determination than the latter could muster? The socialist sounding rhetoric and the political slogans such as "peace land and bread" was effectively a front to garner support from the workers in the Bolsheviks bid for power. Lenin himself was absolutely clear that state capitalism was the way forward and to that end, opportunistically re-defined "socialism" as state capitalism under the so called proletarian state. Absurdly, he even maintained that "socialism" would be impossible without the "big banks" and that the big banks constituted nine tenths of the socialist apparatus - an idea which, to an earlier generation of socialists, would have seemed absolutely preposterous. However, he was well aware of the traditional Marxian definition of socialism as a synonym for communism - a moneyless wageless stateless society - and vacillated between these two definitions of "socialism" as circumstances required as the interview with Arthus Ransome in 1922 clearly demonstrates. He clearly recognised that the vast majority of workers (let alone the majority peasant population) were not socialist in the traditional Marxian sense of the term in this in itself could be construed as an implicit acknowlegement that the Bolshevik Revolution was, and could only have been, a bourgeois capitalist revolution in de facto terms which the weak Russian bourgeoisie had not been able to implement themselves

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Question: Was the Soviet Union, Communist?

Answer: Is the Pope, Catholic?

[Jose Gracchus]

I like how this guy argues

[thefinalmarch]

Question: Was the Soviet Union, Communist?

Answer: Is the Pope, Catholic?
The fSU sure was stateless, classless and moneyless.

To think you call yourself a Marxist...

[Thirsty Crow]

The fSU sure was stateless, classless and moneyless.

To think you call yourself a Marxist...
Well, it's important y'know which party is in power. If it's the Communist Party, then the Soviet state is communist. Obviously.

[thefinalmarch]

Well, it's important y'know which party is in power. If it's the Communist Party, then the Soviet state is communist. Obviously.
To think this is actually the irrefutable logic of many of revleft's resident MLs.

[RedMarxist]

Might it not be said that the Bolshevik Revolution was the consummation or completion of the capitalist revolution initiated by the Kerensky regime but with greater resolution and determination than the latter could muster? The socialist sounding rhetoric and the political slogans such as "peace land and bread" was effectively a front to garner support from the workers in the Bolsheviks bid for power. Lenin himself was absolutely clear that state capitalism was the way forward and to that end, opportunistically re-defined "socialism" as state capitalism under the so called proletarian state. Absurdly, he even maintained that "socialism" would be impossible without the "big banks" and that the big banks constituted nine tenths of the socialist apparatus - an idea which, to an earlier generation of socialists, would have seemed absolutely preposterous. However, he was well aware of the traditional Marxian definition of socialism as a synonym for communism - a moneyless wageless stateless society - and vacillated between these two definitions of "socialism" as circumstances required as the interview with Arthus Ransome in 1922 clearly demonstrates. He clearly recognised that the vast majority of workers (let alone the majority peasant population) were not socialist in the traditional Marxian sense of the term in this in itself could be construed as an implicit acknowlegement that the Bolshevik Revolution was, and could only have been, a bourgeois capitalist revolution in de facto terms which the weak Russian bourgeoisie had not been able to implement themselves

:confused: Give me solid proof that it was indeed a "Capitalist Bourgeois" revolution. How the heck was the slogan of peace, land, and bread a front, exactly? The Bolsheviks did what a good chunk of people wanted.

Were not the "big banks" nationalized, or at the very least under strict government regulation?

I'm not denying that Lenin and Trotsky wanted a state Capitalist form of government(they both said so), but to say that they were secretly Capitalists wanting to carry through a fully Capitalist revolution MAKES NO SENSE.

Why would he devote years upon years of his life of organizing the masses through the social-democratic/Bolshevik party, writing books and pamphlets and the like? and for what? to betray the revolution so that he can evilly usher in full blown Capitalism?

I mean-he formed THE Communist party-so what makes you think he had an evil plan up his sleeves the whole time?

What Russia has today is full-blown Capitalism. What Russia had in 1921 was not full-blown Capitalism.

Let me lay out what it was in the simplest terms possible:


Authoritarian Socialism

or

Authoritarian State Capitalism

Hell, the only reason he gravitated towards State Capitalism was because he was sane enough to know that full-blown Socialism in Russia would most likely fail...badly. He was trying to balance out the two for strategic reasons, yet failed due to a variety of factors, most notably the German Revolution's failure.

[DarkPast]

The fSU sure was stateless, classless and moneyless.

To think you call yourself a Marxist...


Well, it's important y'know which party is in power. If it's the Communist Party, then the Soviet state is communist. Obviously.

Funny thing is, the of East Bloc countries didn't even call themselves communist. If I recall correctly, their ruling parties said they were "in the process of building socialism".

[thefinalmarch]

Authoritarian Socialism
That term is flat-out bullshit. Socialism either exists or it doesn't. There are no "degrees" of socialism.


The only way communism could be considered "authoritarian" is if the revolution is considered to be an authoritarian act - which it inherently is, as it necessary involves the working class exerting its authority over the capitalist classes. As for communism being "libertarian", what exactly does that even mean? Communism will both grant liberty to and take liberty from people; the workers, and the capitalists & managers, respectively. It cannot be universally considered to be libertarian or authoritarian. The false dichotomy between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" tendencies is ridiculous.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2213349&postcount=27

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

The fSU sure was stateless, classless and moneyless.

To think you call yourself a Marxist...

:rolleyes:

A simple question gets a simple answer. I am very well aware of the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't Communist but rather Socialist (up until a point) and considering the thread thus far has been basically "zomgah, it ws state capitalist," or "it was capitalistssz," without any links to or any elaborations on (or evidences given) how the politico-economy of the Soviet Union was in fact that I feel no need to elaborate further.

[RedMarxist]

sorry, I meant that the USSR was a variant strand of authoritarian Socialism. It was early on, and later claimed to be once it started losing all legitimacy, Socialist and it had a authoritarian streak to it. So how is that term bullshit when applied to the USSR?

I know what you mean though. The actual Communist revolution in Russia was wholly democratic in nature, but evidently the end result(the USSR) was not so democratic after all.

[robbo203]

:confused: Give me solid proof that it was indeed a "Capitalist Bourgeois" revolution. How the heck was the slogan of peace, land, and bread a front, exactly? The Bolsheviks did what a good chunk of people wanted.
.

It was a capitalist revolution because it firmly established capitalist relations of production or, to be more precise excised precapitalist social forces and relations of production enabling capitalism to develop more freely. Capitalism being defined as a system based on generalised wage labour, commodity production, capital accumlation and so on all of which features existed throughout the history of the Soviet Union

What characterises a revolution as capitalist is not the intentions or ideology of its participants or even their class composition but the outcome and the outcome of the Bolshevik revolution was unquestionably capitalism in the guise of state run capitalism.

The fact that a large chunk of the populace initially supported the Bolsheviks was neither here nor there. Numeorous right wing movements and governments have enjoyed popular support as well



Were not the "big banks" nationalized, or at the very least under strict government regulation? .

Nationalisation has nothing to do with communism/socialism. Nationalisation is state-run capitalism where the state becomes in Engels words, the "national capitalist". Banks imply the existence of financial capital and hence capitalism. In socialism/communism there would be no money and therefore no banks, nationalised or not



I'm not denying that Lenin and Trotsky wanted a state Capitalist form of government(they both said so), but to say that they were secretly Capitalists wanting to carry through a fully Capitalist revolution MAKES NO SENSE..

Thats not quite what i said. My point is that irrespective of what they might have thought they were compelled by circumstances to develop capitalism. It was simply not possible - as you yourself admit - to introduce communismn/socialism at the time. There was neither the basic technological infrastructure, nor the mass understanding/support, to make this possible



Why would he devote years upon years of his life of organizing the masses through the social-democratic/Bolshevik party, writing books and pamphlets and the like? and for what? to betray the revolution so that he can evilly usher in full blown Capitalism?

I mean-he formed THE Communist party-so what makes you think he had an evil plan up his sleeves the whole time?...

I dont see it like that at all. In fact, reading Lenin his evident sympathy for the communist cause comes across strongly. But he was a pragmatist who understood well enough that there there was no chance of it happening under the prevailing circumstances. He saw the need to develop state capitalism but tried to rationalise this as some kind of step on the road to socialism - one of numerous theoretical blunders he committed in my view. If he can be criticised it would not be for events beyond his control but for things that he did that he did not have to - like the way in which he twisted and distorted the traditional meaning of the word socialism to suit his own purposes, for instances. This is to say nothing of his authoritarian outlook on managing the economy and his fondness for scientific Taylorism.

[TheWhiteStreak]

Well now I'm a bit confused. Some people have made it sound like The USSR never wanted Communism and that it was just Capitalism dressed in Red? Can someone explain this a little better to me?

[thefinalmarch]

:rolleyes:

A simple question gets a simple answer. I am very well aware of the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't Communist but rather Socialist (up until a point) and considering the thread thus far has been basically "zomgah, it ws state capitalist," or "it was capitalistssz," without any links to or any elaborations on (or evidences given) how the politico-economy of the Soviet Union was in fact that I feel no need to elaborate further.
So you didn't feel the need to raise the standard of debate higher, despite that it was well within your capabilities?

[Rodrigo]

Yes, it was, like it or not.

[thefinalmarch]

Yes, it was, like it or not.
On behalf of everyone in this thread I'd like to thank you for that well-structured, detailed and insightful explanation.

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes, it was, like it or not.
Of course I remember when Stalin wiggled his stache and shouted, "Let there be Communism!" I mean if Uncle Joe said it then it must be true otherwise you are a goddamn fascist sympathizer who should be icepicked.

[RedMarxist]

what pisses me off is when people frequently on this forum will try to justify the USSR not being Socialist by waving a magic wand and saying that it was 100% pure Capitalist all along. Therefore Socialism was never tried. That means that Socialism has no flaws as of yet and that if anyone asks about Socialism being a failure, you can just be like 'There never was a Socialist state. The USSR was Capitalist.'

Wake up. Although state Capitalism was a far cry from Socialism, the ideals behind the USSR, its first leader Lenin, and many characteristics of the early USSR were indeed socialistic, if not fully socialist.

I'd like to point out, as others have pointed out, that state Capitalism was only in place because it would be economically infeasible for the USSR to start building socialism while not only had it just got done fighting a brutal civil war, but it was isolated following the failures of the European revolutions. Who the hell was it supposed to trade with if it's entire economy was run according to Human need? If it went full blown Socialist, no country in the world would in the least bit tolerate it.

Sames goes for the NEP. The NEP was a strategic retreat as a result of massive isolation. Again, what were they supposed to do?

Plus, by saying it was fully Capitalist and write it off as a Capitalist revolution/state you are basically ignoring the useful information gleaned from it's successes and its failures. We should be learning from the USSR, not ignoring it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well now I'm a bit confused. Some people have made it sound like The USSR never wanted Communism and that it was just Capitalism dressed in Red? Can someone explain this a little better to me?
That's a misrepresentation of a position which states that concrete material conditions necessitated that the October revolution pracitcally "implements", carries forward the unfulfilled historic tasks of the bourgeois revolution in Russia, which was never materialized in the form of fully developed capitalism and corresponding political structures. One major caveat to this is that this was also determined by the failure of the European revolutionary wave of 1917-23, and I think any revolutionary socialist, Marxist or anarchist, should agree with the basic propositon that socialism is an international affair, which cannot be achieved in isolation.

But yeah, no one's caliming that Bolsheviks trolled the fuck out of the whole world and made us think they were communists, but were cappies in disguise. It's pretty easy for misinformed MLs in particular to come up with such idiotic misconceptions which cannot even begin to grasp the position forwarded (come to think of it, I highly recommend reading Bordiga's works on USSR in which this will become clear). But I have my doubts with regard to this conception and wouldn't advocate it unconditionally.

[freethinker]

what pisses me off is when people frequently on this forum will try to justify the USSR not being Socialist by waving a magic wand and saying that it was 100% pure Capitalist all along. Therefore Socialism was never tried. That means that Socialism has no flaws as of yet and that if anyone asks about Socialism being a failure, you can just be like 'There never was a Socialist state. The USSR was Capitalist.'

Wake up. Although state Capitalism was a far cry from Socialism, the ideals behind the USSR, its first leader Lenin, and many characteristics of the early USSR were indeed socialistic, if not fully socialist.

I'd like to point out, as others have pointed out, that state Capitalism was only in place because it would be economically infeasible for the USSR to start building socialism while not only had it just got done fighting a brutal civil war, but it was isolated following the failures of the European revolutions. Who the hell was it supposed to trade with if it's entire economy was run according to Human need? If it went full blown Socialist, no country in the world would in the least bit tolerate it.

Sames goes for the NEP. The NEP was a strategic retreat as a result of massive isolation. Again, what were they supposed to do?

Plus, by saying it was fully Capitalist and write it off as a Capitalist revolution/state you are basically ignoring the useful information gleaned from it's successes and its failures. We should be learning from the USSR, not ignoring it.

That clears alot of things up...

[robbo203]

what pisses me off is when people frequently on this forum will try to justify the USSR not being Socialist by waving a magic wand and saying that it was 100% pure Capitalist all along. Therefore Socialism was never tried. That means that Socialism has no flaws as of yet and that if anyone asks about Socialism being a failure, you can just be like 'There never was a Socialist state. The USSR was Capitalist.'

Wake up. Although state Capitalism was a far cry from Socialism, the ideals behind the USSR, its first leader Lenin, and many characteristics of the early USSR were indeed socialistic, if not fully socialist.

I'd like to point out, as others have pointed out, that state Capitalism was only in place because it would be economically infeasible for the USSR to start building socialism while not only had it just got done fighting a brutal civil war, but it was isolated following the failures of the European revolutions. Who the hell was it supposed to trade with if it's entire economy was run according to Human need? If it went full blown Socialist, no country in the world would in the least bit tolerate it.

Sames goes for the NEP. The NEP was a strategic retreat as a result of massive isolation. Again, what were they supposed to do?

Plus, by saying it was fully Capitalist and write it off as a Capitalist revolution/state you are basically ignoring the useful information gleaned from it's successes and its failures. We should be learning from the USSR, not ignoring it.

You agree that the Soviet Union could not have been socialist and even advance some reasons as to why it could not have been. And yet you throw a hissy fit when someone points out to you that the SU was not a socialist but state run capitalism:rolleyes:

[RedMarxist]

You agree that the Soviet Union could not have been socialist and even advance some reasons as to why it could not have been. And yet you throw a hissy fit when someone points out to you that the SU was not a socialist but state run capitalism:rolleyes:

let me clear some things up here.



Wake up. Although state Capitalism was a far cry from Socialism, the ideals behind the USSR, its first leader Lenin, and many characteristics of the early USSR were indeed socialistic, if not fully socialist.

read the bold print. I said that it was State Capitalist, but asserted that it was Socialistic in nature(free university schooling, free healthcare, etc.) as a result of the Communist Revolution of 1917.

Yes, it had a Communist revolution. In 1917. They actually had one. Wow, I almost forgot about that because of how fully Capitalist the USSR was since day 1.

So don't mock me.

[Thirsty Crow]

let me clear some things up here.




read the bold print. I said that it was State Capitalist, but asserted that it was Socialistic in nature(free university schooling, free healthcare, etc.) as a result of the Communist Revolution of 1917.

Yes, it had a Communist revolution. In 1917. They actually had one. Wow, I almost forgot about that because of how fully Capitalist the USSR was since day 1.

So don't mock me.
You do not want to be mocked but continue to produce blatant nonsense such as that SU was state capitalist, but it was Socialistic in nature, providing examples for this "socialistic nature" which have historically been achived in capitalism proper.

[Iron Felix]

"Lenin believed a transition from Feudalism to Socialism would require a period of State Capitalism but under Lenin Russia was Socialist although it was State Capitalist"

Wait, what?

[RedMarxist]

I mean although it was State Capitalist, as a result of it's revolution it had Socialistic elements. Those examples I provided were no doubt true and given on the fly. There are plenty of examples I could point to.

stop twisting my words.

[robbo203]

read the bold print. I said that it was State Capitalist, but asserted that it was Socialistic in nature(free university schooling, free healthcare, etc.) as a result of the Communist Revolution of 1917.

Yes, it had a Communist revolution. In 1917. They actually had one. Wow, I almost forgot about that because of how fully Capitalist the USSR was since day 1.

So don't mock me.


You dont understand how capitalism ticks., Free healthcare etc you say is "socialistic". I guess that would make Saudi Arabia, which provides free health care to its natiionals and indeed expats, a "socialistic" economy/ It is of course nothing of the sort - any more than the state capitalist regime of the Soviet Union was "socialistic".

There is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. The Marxian law of value asserts that the price that workers receive for their labour power - their wages - reflect the costs of producing and reproducing that labour power. If some of those cots are not dirwectly born by the workers , if the things they would otherwsie have to pay for are subsidised by the state and paid for through generaral taxtation levied on the capitalist class, all that means is that wages will simply be adjusted downwards to take this into account. Alternatively, if workers had to pay for their healthcare what would happen is that, all things being equal, their nominal wages would rise to take this into account. In Britain the proposals contained in the 1942 Berveridge report which led to the creation of the post war welfare state were supported by Tory millionaires like Courtauld on the grounds that it was a much more cost effective of running the system. That speaks volumes!

Its not out of the goodness of their hearts that the capitalists extend to the workers the benefits of a free healthcare system. They know well enough that this means that the wages they pay their workers do not therefore need to be so high as to to take the costs of healthcare into account. They also know that the peicemeal system of private proviusion such as existed in Britain before the war was ineffeicient

[RedMarxist]

Again, free healthcare was a freaking on the fly example! By Socialistic I meant that despite being State Capitalist, some Socialist values were kept intact from the revolution.

Please, stop twisting my words. And, I know full well how Capitalism works thank you very much.

[robbo203]

Again, free healthcare was a freaking on the fly example! By Socialistic I meant that despite being State Capitalist, some Socialist values were kept intact from the revolution.

Please, stop twisting my words. And, I know full well how Capitalism works thank you very much.

Look, as far as I can determine your original whinge was against people - like me and others - who argue that the Soviet Unioin was never a socialist society but capitalist from the word go. Your complaint was that while it was true that the SU was state capitalist it nevertheless contained "socialistic" elements like free healthcare. When I pointed out that there is nothing particularly socialistic about free healthcare you throw yet another hissy fit: "free healthcare was a freaking on the fly example!" .

Let me remind you that it was your example which you adduced to illustrate the nature of these supposed socialistic aspects. If you claim to know full well how capitalism works then perhaps you might care to address the argument I put forward that there is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and that what appears to be "free" is actually paid for in terms of reduced wage levels. And while youre at it perhaps you might deign to give us your opinion on whether Saudi Arabia with its free health care systen is also, to an extent, socialistic?

[freethinker]

I understand now...

The U.S.S.R was a giant bureaucracy as crafted by Stalin and therefore not communist and not even Socialist.

[Rooster]

I understand now...

The U.S.S.R was a giant bureaucracy as crafted by Stalin and therefore not communist and not even Socialist.

The whole notion of socialism as a separate economic transitional mode reeks of reformism (which fits perfectly well with ml's notion of revisionism). It usually extremely ill defined anyway, within marxist-leninist doctrine and also sports it's own contradictions. Such as, the state must become stronger in a socialism country because class antagonisms become more acute. Fine, but Stalin announced that all class antagonisms had ended sometime in the 30s. It was not socialist nor communist because, fundamentally, the means of production were not held in common.