The failure of the Soviet Union

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I had made another post which also asked about this, but it turned into another one of those anarchist vs communist posts (I blame myself for that).
Anyway, this is about why the Soviet Union failed.
I don't know which one was worse, Stalin or Lenin.
When Lenin was in power he followed the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat: he took food and other belongings from people(in general) to be redistributed, he created a totalitarian state where socialism was forced upon people, they had to agree with socialism or die.
At the time Russia's people were starving due to an embargo by the USA, and, to make matters worse, whatever food they had left was taken by the state.
I have read about corruption, political officers took the food from people for redistribution, but instead they would keep it for themselves.
Lenin sent everyone who didnt agree with socialism, even other leftists such as anarchists, to die, either executed by tcheka or sent to Siberia.
Stalin was no better, instead of sending people to Siberia he sent then to gulags.
I come to the conclusion that it was the dictatorship of the proletariat that doomed the Soviet Union.
Do you think that if a revolution were to occur right now in the United States, and if the dictatorship of the proletariat was put in practice there, the result would have been any different?


In the other thread I made most of what i recieved were acusations (one even accused me of being a stalinist) which I had to respond to with my own accusations, that being said , i don't want anyone accusing anyone of anything in this thread.

[Nox]

Socialism in Russia ended as soon as the Bolsheviks seized power.

[CommunityBeliever]

Socialism in the USSR ended in 1956 when the proletarian cadres of the CC were kicked out and the Kruschevites initiated the process of "de-Stalinisation." Capitalism was officially introduced in the USSR in 1965 with the Kosygin reforms which lead to the nomenklatura ruling class and gangs of Soviet millionaires who later abandoned the socialist image projected by the USSR to accumulate more profits.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Okay, I have read and reviewed the sources of "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens and I am extremely dissapointed in it. A Stalinist friend of mine reccomended it to me.I have always been VERY anti-Stalinist (and to some extent anti-Leninist) so I thought I would read it and open my mind. Most of the sources come from research or writings that have been proven to be false and propaganda put out by the Soviet Union. I don't want you to take my word for it, check it out yourself!

Anyway, while I agree that Lenin wasn't a great leader and the Soviet Union was not a socialist society, it did represent a significantly better society. Before the Bolsheviks, Russia was a Tsarist autocracy that defended the wealthy and let the poor die. I think even non-Leninist leftists, like myself, need to acknowledge this fact.

Also, as bad as Stalin is, I do think that it is pretty much a fact now that he WAS NOT CREATING A FAMINE TO DESTROY UKRAINIAN NATIONALISM! India had more people die in their famines than in the Soviet Union, yet we never accuse India of doing it on purpose to take out a segment of their population.

[Deicide]

I think the Stalinist phenomena is peculiarly interesting. I'm tempted to say I've never seen anything like it in history. It was an incredibly brutal regime, sending dissenters to death camps, etc, etc. Yet at the same time, it was incredibly insecure, like a narcissist, and was fanatically preoccupied with maintaining appearances or an ideological ''narrative''. For instance, assholes like Hitler, outright told everyone they will do bad thing X. In the USSR, bad things were not talked about openly, it was prohibited, officially bad things (i.e crimes committed by the regime) didn't happen, officially the Soviet Union was a proletariat utopia working towards communism. There was always this radical obsession with projecting an idealised (completely unrealistic) image. It (the USSR) was essentially the malignant narcissist of regimes.

The regime, during the 1930s, even managed to cannibalise itself, devouring itself from the inside out. I find this fascinating, the most dangerous place in the USSR was precisely the higher echelons of the party, it was like a game of cluedo: who was going to die next?

I have a question for the Stalinists, although anyone can answer it. What do you think would happen if, during an assembly of the party, in which Comrade Stalin gave a speech, lets say on the theory of ''Socialism in one country'', then everyone applauded, congratulated him on his brilliance, etc, etc, but then you decided you didn't agree with Comrade Stalin, stood up and announced your disagreement to the whole party. What do you think would happen to you?

Regardless, whoever wants the Soviet Union back, is an excrement of history, spurred on by nostalgic delusion.

[Omsk]

I have a question for the Stalinists, although anyone can answer it. What do you think would happen, if, during the 1930s and 1940s, during an assembly of the party, in which Comrade Stalin gave a speech, then everyone applauded, etc, but then you decided you didn't agree with Comrade Stalin, stood up and announced your disagreement to the whole party.




Such actions are not the part of the protocol during and after the speach and are as such considered provocations and usurpations.

If i had something against a decision that was put on the list,i would have acted before the decision bacame official,and if the decission was accepted by a majority vote,i would have accepted the solution.

Simple as that.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think the Stalinist phenomena is peculiarly interesting. I'm tempted to say I've never seen anything like it in history. It was an incredibly brutal regime, sending dissenters to death camps, etc, etc. Yet at the same time, it was incredibly insecure, like a pampered brat, and was preoccupied with maintaining appearances or a ''narrative'', it was the malignant narcissist of regimes.

I have a question for the Stalinists, although anyone can answer it. What do you think would happen, if, during the 1930s and 1940s, during an assembly of the party, in which Comrade Stalin gave a speech, lets say on the theory of ''Socialism in one country'', then everyone applauded, etc, but then you decided you didn't agree with Comrade Stalin, stood up and announced your disagreement to the whole party. What would happen to you?

THANK YOU! The book, "Another View of Stalin" is full of lies and things that are just plain wrong! The sources used have come from researchers paid by the Soviet Union and have proven to be false. Yes, I have read it too.

[Deicide]

Such actions are not the part of the protocol during and after the speach and are as such considered provocations and usurpations.

If i had something against a decision that was put on the list,i would have acted before the decision bacame official,and if the decission was accepted by a majority vote,i would have accepted the solution.

Simple as that.

So, holiday in gulag? Siberia? 'accident' while sleeping? Psychiatric institution? Firing squad? What would be the punishment for such ''provocations and usurpations''. What would you do if you were Stalin, but, more importantly, what do you think Stalin would do?

[ComradeOm]

Such actions are not the part of the protocol during and after the speach and are as such considered provocations and usurpationsIndeed. By the 1930s the purpose of the increasingly rare Party Congresses and Central Committee plenums was not debate or the setting of policy. as it had been prior to the Revolution. Instead these were highly orchestrated rituals in which decisions previously made, by the actual ruling circle, were rubberstamped


If i had something against a decision that was put on the list,i would have acted before the decision bacame official,and if the decission was accepted by a majority vote,i would have accepted the solutionExcept that if you had disagreed with the Stalin line, before or after any vote, then you would likely have been branded an anti-Soviet agitator. Democratic centralism entails 'freedom in criticism, unity in action', the former was entirely lacking in Stalin's USSR. To quote Getty (Road to Terror):

"According to Stalin's formula, criticism was the same as opposition; opposition inevitably implied conspiracy; conspiracy meant treason. Algebraically, therefore, the slightest opposition to the regime... was tantamount to treason"

[Bostana]

The Soviet Union fell when they separated from Marxism-Lenism.

Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.

Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.
And within this narrative, he also attacked many of Stalin's positive Socialist policies, and justified his reversal away from Marxism-Leninism as getting away from the Stalin "Nightmare."

The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.

His policies reintroduced an emphasis on markets and steered the USSR towards state capitalism. He was a disciple of what is called the Right Opposition Group. These were people who believed in market Capitalism.
Khrushchev also allowed the illegal private economy o flourish. This became the main problem during the Brezhnev years, which saw basically total stagnation to flourish, and a huge growth in corruption. Meanwhile the party itself did nothing to combat this. Brezhnev himself was an open Russian Nationalist and led the USSR into and imperialistic was in Afghanistan and other Imperialistic meddling in trying to assert influence in non-socialist countries.
But obviously there is more to it than "Stalin did this, and Khrushchev did that" History is a story of materialist conditions, not of Great Men.
Things became so bad in the Brezhnev years because of the '77 recession, the illegal private sector controlled a huge part of the economy, especially in places like Kazakhstan. These mobsters and other Capitalists bribed Party officials to look the other way, and corruption reached to the very top.

It was an inability to accurtley respond to both internal and external problems and threats.

Post-1956 Party policies only aggravated these threats.

[Deicide]

The Soviet Union fell when they separated from Marxism-Lenism.

This is the fanatics answer.

Republicans give the same answer for the recent financial ''crash'' and relative ''failure'' of capitalism, I.E ''We were not capitalist enough!!! We were not faithful enough to the fundamentals of the system!! It's socialist elements that caused this!!!''.

Your answer is the inversion of the Republican answer, I.E ''We were not Stalinist enough!!! We were not faithful enough to the system!! It's the capitalist/revisionist elements that caused this!!! If only Comrade Stalin didn't die!!!''. For fanatics it's never the natural conclusion (and failure) of the system.

[l'Enfermé]

Kruschev himself was a "Marxist-Leninist", so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Apparently, Khrushchev abolished Socialism because he brought back collective leadership, said some means things about Stalin, didn't nuke America because of Cuba, had a fetish for corn and decided that hiding dissidents in mental hospitals is more appropriate than torturing and shooting them. And because he banged a a shoe on the table in New York.

[Amal]

Such actions are not the part of the protocol during and after the speach and are as such considered provocations and usurpations.

If i had something against a decision that was put on the list,i would have acted before the decision bacame official,and if the decission was accepted by a majority vote,i would have accepted the solution.

Simple as that.
Please don't waste time with them. They will never understand. Actually, I have doubt that whether they can do anything real other than storming the teacups.

[Omsk]

So, holiday in gulag? Siberia? 'accident' while sleeping? Psychiatric institution? Firing squad? What would be the punishment for such ''provocations and usurpations''. What would you do if you were Stalin, but, more importantly, what do you think Stalin would do?

Expulsion from the party on the lower level,and a political conflict on the higher level.


@ComradeOm.

Indeed. By the 1930s the purpose of the increasingly rare Party Congresses and Central Committee plenums was not debate or the setting of policy. as it had been prior to the Revolution. Instead these were highly orchestrated rituals in which decisions previously made, by the actual ruling circle, were rubberstamped





Party conferences and Congresses were usually for bigger,more important decisions,while i am sure the smaller units of the political and administrative body were quite encouraged to talk about the best solution for their village,or small town,as a community.Talking about wether the village should be abandoned due to the threath of an enemy offensive is not the same as talking about the next steps of the CCCP.

In fact,i think that Stalin,after Lenins death,showed to be the collective type,trying to get popular support and opposing individualism.
Here is a shot cite from the historian Getty: (About criticism)

Stalin continued his criticism of party leaders by discussing another familiar topic: the "verification of fulfillment of decisions."... Stalin stated, "There is still another kind of verification, the check-up from below, in which the masses, the subordinates, verify the leaders, pointing out their mistakes, and showing the way to correct them. This kind of verification is one of the most effective methods of checking up on people."
Stalin stated, "Some comrades say that it is not advisable to speak openly of one's mistakes, since the open admission of one's mistakes may be construed by our enemies as weakness and may be used by them.
This is rubbish, comrades, downright rubbish. The open recognition of our mistakes and their honest rectification can, on the contrary, only strengthen our party, raise its authority in the eyes of the workers, peasants, and working intellectuals.... And this is the main thing. As long as we have the workers, peasants, and working intellectuals with us, all the rest will settle itself."
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 146



Except that if you had disagreed with the Stalin line, before or after any vote, then you would likely have been branded an anti-Soviet agitator. Democratic centralism entails 'freedom in criticism, unity in action', the former was entirely lacking in Stalin's USSR.


Well,when the Soviet Archives were opened,the various commissions in the searching process of the entire deal,found many,many letters, in 1935, Krest'ianskaia Gazeta (peasants' newspaper) got some 26,000 letters.Kalinin,one of the most important men of the government,got some 77,000 a year between 1923 and 1935.Zhdanov,Kirov,and even Stalin also got many letters,and usually,the letters were either complaints and sometimes advice,however,while many of them dealt with personal problems of the people who sent them,there were some to which the Soviet party men replied,usually via Pravda.

I think the trade unions, and cooperatives ,small scale local Soviets and councils,and their decisions were not dictated by the Party.


Take for an example,Kirov - a high ranking member of the party,who openly stood in opposition to some of Stalins ideas and plans,and yet he was not eliminated by Stalin.

[GoddessCleoLover]

If one wants to get at the root of the matter, I strongly encourage RevLefters to read the easily available online writings of Rosa Luxemburg on the Russian Revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

I had made another post which also asked about this, but it turned into another one of those anarchist vs communist posts (I blame myself for that)...

Actually, if it's the thread I'm thinking of, it turned into an all-socialists (Anarchist and Marxist) on one side, and a you-and-two-pro-capitalists on the other.


...
Anyway, this is about why the Soviet Union failed...

It failed because socialism in one country is impossible. Any revolution that siezes power in one area ois going to fail. Any revolution that seeks to destroy power in one area is bound to fail. Capitalism and the state must be destroyed everywhere, or the 'libertated territory' finds itself surrounded and out-gunned and out-supplied by hostile capitalist states.


...
I come to the conclusion that it was the dictatorship of the proletariat that doomed the Soviet Union...

Possibly because you have no idea either what 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' means, or what historical process is.


...Do you think that if a revolution were to occur right now in the United States, and if the dictatorship of the proletariat was put in practice there, the result would have been any different?...

No, but that's not because of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You could equally say, if a revolution were to occur right now in the United States, and if cats existed there, the result would have been any different? or if a revolution were to occur right now in the United States, and if some men had beards there, the result would have been any different? and the answer would still be no, but it's neither the cats nor the beards that cause the degeneration of the revolution. Nor is it 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

You might find a more sympathetic ear if you claimed it was 'the dictatorship of the party' (at least from me, if not from the Stalinists). But I don't think that was the cause of the degeneration of the revolution. Even a perfect revolution will degenerate if it's isolated. The Russian Revolution and its aftermath were far from perfect. But you're looking at completely the wrong factors as being the causes.


...
In the other thread I made most of what i recieved were acusations (one even accused me of being a stalinist) which I had to respond to with my own accusations, that being said , i don't want anyone accusing anyone of anything in this thread.

It was maybe even me that accused you of Stalinism. If you believe socialism in one country you believe in Stalinism, 'Stalinism' is the name given by those of us who don't accept it to the notion that socialism in one country is possible. That's not an accusation, just a statement of fact. Support for socialism in one country - in practice, the belief that an isolated revolution can survive and move in a positive direction - is Stalinism. You believe it in a weird form I'll grant you (Stalinism without a vanguard party) but, nevertheless. It's a version of socialism in one country and is therefore a version of Stalinism.

[l'Enfermé]

I think the trade unions, and cooperatives ,small scale local Soviets and councils,and their decisions were not dictated by the Party.

:laugh:

Take for an example,Kirov - a high ranking member of the party,who openly stood in opposition to some of Stalins ideas and plans,and yet he was not eliminated by Stalin.
He was killed in 1934, open murder of Communists under Stalin didn't begin until 1936.

Also, your comment is a bit ironic, considering that Kirov's assassination planned by the NKVD on Stalin's orders(it's not like Stalin doesn't have a history of ordering the murders of his political opponents!).

http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_04_on/kirov_assassination.html

[Omsk]

Also, your comment is a bit ironic, considering that Kirov's assassination planned by the NKVD on Stalin's orders(it's not like Stalin doesn't have a history of ordering the murders of his political opponents!).


I have explained in some overall detail why i find the accusation that Stalin killed Kirov without a real historical basis,and a simple myth.Since i answered to that same question,i will just quote my old post which contains a lot of information to help answer the question of Kirov's death.

(However,this if going too far off topic,so i hope this wont turn to a thread about Stalin/"Stalinism".

- (An i older post i wrote)
I just read a column by Roy Medvedev,(From his book,Let History Judge (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_History_Judge): The Origin and Consequences of Stalinism) and it was about the assassination of Sergei Kirov,and without being too surprised about the text,it did contain some important parts,namely,the rather quick acting of the NKVD ,on the 6th of December,the day Kirov was burried,the Soviet public masses were informed that all of the people accused are going to be executed.In Leningrad,some 39 people were host,while in Moscow,some 29 accused figures were shot.The next day,it was anounced that another 12 people in Minsk,(9 were shot) and 28 were arrested in Kiev,(28 of them,shot.) The NKVD was on high alert those days,as the situation was quite strange,as Kirov was the only man from the party assassinated after 1918.The fear of some party leaders was quite big,and many files were re-oppened.The Kirov murder was certainly the event of the year,if not,the entire period,as it saw a drastic change in Soviet policy toward conspirators.

However,the murder of Sergei Kirov is not so mysterious these days,and it is generally accepted that he was not murdered by 'Stalin and Stalinists' - and that such notions simply dont have a basis in historical facts.The Western obsession with the murder of Sergei Kirov mostly started around the 1980' - when a situation was created by right-wing anti-communists who tried to turn the entire case into a 'conspiracy' - and something they separated from reality and historical facts.

...Beginning in the 1980s other Western and Soviet historians also questioned the Stalin complicity theory , the origins of the story, and Stalin's motive and opportunity, as well as investigating the circumstances surrounding the event. They noted that the sources for the theory derived originally from memoirists, mostly Cold War-era Soviet defectors, whose information was second- and thirdhand and who were in all cases far removed from the event. These writers had generated a huge and sensational literature that largely repeated and echoed itself while providing few verifiable facts, and which sometimes seemed primarily designed to enhance the status and importance of the author. Later historians noted that despite at least two official Soviet investigations and the high-level political advantages of accusing Stalin in the Khrushchev years, even the most anti-Stalin Soviet administrations had never accused Stalin of the crime,...
[I](Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 143 )

...In fact, Kirov seems to have been a staunch Stalinist....
The question of Leningrad police complicity also seems murky. Recent evidence discounts the alleged connections between them and the assassin. One implicated NKVD official was not even in the city during the months he was supposed to have groomed the assassin. It is true that many Leningrad police officials and party leaders were executed in the terror after the assassination, but so were hundreds of thousands of others. There is no compelling reason to believe that they were killed "to cover the tracks" of the Kirov assassination, as Khrushchev put it. Moreover, they were left alive and free to talk for three years following the crime. Some historians have found it unlikely that Stalin would have used these agents to arrange the killing and then given them so much opportunity to betray the plot.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 144

You could also read this from : Molotov

Yagoda (through whom Stalin presumably worked to kill Kirov) was produced in open court and in front of the world press before his execution in 1938. Knowing that he was to be shot in any event, he could have brought Stalin's entire house of cards down with a single remark about the Kirov killing. Again, such a risk would appear to be unacceptable for a complicit Stalin.
The Stalinists seemed unprepared for the assassination and panicked by it.

Khrushchov hinted that Stalin had Kirov killed. There are some who still believe that story. The seeds of suspicion were planted. A commission was set up in 1956. Some 12 persons, from various backgrounds, looked through a welter of documents but found nothing incriminating Stalin. But these results have never been published.... The commission concluded that Stalin was not implicated in Kirov's assassination. Khrushchev refused to have the findings published since they didn't serve his purpose.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 353

The work of a research group much later,also,revealed nothing.


An extensive review of the evidence carried out in 1990 at the behest of Gorbachev's advisor Yakovlev does not implicate Stalin [in the murder of Kirov]. Another explanation for Stalin's assault on party cadres was the rumor that the party faithful at the 17th Party Congress in 1934 had not voted overwhelmingly to elect Stalin to the party's central committee. The documents provided here show this not to be the case,...
Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 4


Now,another questions rises up every time,"Was Kirov some kind of an inovator and a reformist?" - No.In fact,he was more lenient (Although,there is evidence to suggest this is wrong also) than Stalin,but overall,the idea that he was more 'expirienced' than Stalin,more popular,or more profound in theory and action does not hold ground.While it can be said that he was a good orator,and that he knew his way with the masses,that does not count as a supreme qualification for a serious position.He was never good with theory,he may have been a 'man of the people' but his relationship with the masses was not much different than Stalin's.

Another thing that comes to my mind,is that Kirov and Stalin were pretty close,i would not say that they were 'friends' ,but they were not enemies too.This is suggested by a number of different people. :

If Stalin and Kirov were antagonists, it would be difficult to explain Kirov's continued rise. Stalin chose Kirov for the sensitive Leningrad party leadership position and trusted him with delicate "trouble-shooter" missions to supervise critical harvests (like Kirov's journey to Central Asia in 1934). Kirov was elected to the Secretariat and Politburo in 1934, and Stalin wanted him to move to the Central Committee Secretariat in Moscow as soon as possible. Unless one is prepared to believe that Stalin did not control appointments to the Secretariat and Politburo... one must assume that he and Kirov were allies.
Much more probable than a Kirov-versus-Stalin scenario is one in which Stalin, Kirov, and Zhdanov cooperated.
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 94

The entire question of Kirov's murder is quite unkown,as there was no evidence whatsoever,that Stalin was responsible for the murder of Kirov,and their relationship was explained by many,but also defined completely differently,from one page to the other they were hostile,they were friends,they were comrades,they were direct enemies,they were the best of friends.It is an important and quite complicated discussion subject,and i urge that the users who wish to participate in this discussion write with care,and try to avoid sectarian-feuds and personal attacks,and try to raise the quality level of the discussion.I hope this last line wont be ignored comrades.

[ComradeOm]

Party conferences and Congresses were usually for bigger,more important decisions,while i am sure the smaller units of the political and administrative body were quite encouraged to talk about the best solution for their village,or small town,as a communityI'm not sure why we've gone from decisions about policy and criticism on a national level to local administrations...

Not least because most local bureaucracies rarely strayed outside the standard Stalinist discourse. Certainly anyone who did so would come to regret it during the Purges


Stalin stated, "Some comrades say that it is not advisable to speak openly of one's mistakes, since the open admission of one's mistakes may be construed by our enemies as weakness and may be used by themThat is an entirely different issue, one largely unrelated to the one at hand. Where there is a connection is in that this self-criticism (samokritika) was essentially a ritual in which one admitted one's past errors (ie, deviations from official orthodoxy) and confirmed one's support for Stalin and the party line. Which was downright creepy at times


Well,when the Soviet Archives were opened,the various commissions in the searching process of the entire deal,found many,many letters, in 1935, Krest'ianskaia Gazeta (peasants' newspaper) got some 26,000 letters.Kalinin,one of the most important men of the government,got some 77,000 a year between 1923 and 1935.Zhdanov,Kirov,and even Stalin also got many letters,and usually,the letters were either complaints and sometimes advice,however,while many of them dealt with personal problems of the people who sent them,there were some to which the Soviet party men replied,usually via Pravda.Again, I don't see the relevancy of this. Certainly not to democratic centralism. Petitioning was a long established Russian tradition that was common under the Tsars


I think the trade unions, and cooperatives ,small scale local Soviets and councils,and their decisions were not dictated by the PartyYou're entirely wrong. During the late twenties the unions were brought to heel (Tomsky's dismissal being the final indicator), cooperatives integrated into the state economic apparatus and, well, the local soviets had long since lost any representative character. For the latter, any non-party candidates who succeeded in being elected to a soviet could simply be replaced by the local authorities. As did happen

[Omsk]

I'm not sure why we've gone from decisions about policy and criticism on a national level to local administrations...


Because we should look on all the administrative and political levels in the Soviet Union.


Not least because most local bureaucracies rarely strayed outside the standard Stalinist discourse. Certainly anyone who did so would come to regret it during the Purges


There have been casses of people in the lower party level and the men from the local administrative offices,who not only criticized some of the decisions,but also protested against them.It was also common for official speakers of the party to blame conferences and congresses leaders for their failure in the atempt to criticize their own superiors and higher ranking members of the councils and political bodies.


That is an entirely different issue, one largely unrelated to the one at hand. Where there is a connection is in that this self-criticism (samokritika) was essentially a ritual in which one admitted one's past errors (ie, deviations from official orthodoxy) and confirmed one's support for Stalin and the party line. Which was downright creepy at times



Self-criticism represented an important factor in the party,and members usually had to use self-criticism,if they made mistakes.


Again, I don't see the relevancy of this. Certainly not to democratic centralism. Petitioning was a long established Russian tradition that was common under the Tsars



Not to democratic-centralism,but to the general question of criticism,as most of the letters were in fact,composed to present a general view an individual had on something,and it usually did contain criticism,but rational and constructive one.



You're entirely wrong. During the late twenties the unions were brought to heel (Tomsky's dismissal being the final indicator), cooperatives integrated into the state economic apparatus and, well, the local soviets had long since lost any representative character. For the latter, any non-party candidates who succeeded in being elected to a soviet could simply be replaced by the local authorities. As did happen


Their main general course of actions was in order with the official party line,which is normal and acceptable,while i am sure that there were events where the regional party members(For an example,in the Selsoviet's) did take the initiative and start something (Still,not something gigantic) without the need of contacting the main party body.

[Bostana]

Kruschev himself was a "Marxist-Leninist", so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Khrushchev wasn't a Marxist-Leninist :laugh:

He was a Revisionist he even said that he was separating the Country From Marxism-Leninsm because to him Stalin was "bad" and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist so he himself demonized Marxism-Leninsm at the same time.

[Rooster]

How long did it take to build socialism in backwards Russia and how did it take to return to capitalism? :confused:

[Bostana]

How long did it take to build socialism in backwards Russia and how did it take to return to capitalism? :confused:

First Step for you my Friend, Stop Trolling.

Second Step, You must read the History of Stalin and Lenin with the installment of the Boshlevick Party and learned how they installed true ML Communism.

Third Step, Then read the History of how Khrushchev got rid of Stalin's positive Socialist programs and started moving the Country away form Marxism-Leninsm.

[Ostrinski]

Bostana is an anomaly.

[Rooster]

First Step for you my Friend, Stop Trolling.

Second Step, You must read the History of Stalin and Lenin with the installment of the Boshlevick Party and learned how they installed true ML Communism.

Third Step, Then read the History of how Khrushchev got rid of Stalin's positive Socialist programs and started moving the Country away form Marxism-Leninsm.

You could just tell me, you know. Cause, you know, the whole thing about it failing more or less hinges on whether it was socialist or not and on material processes. How long did it take for socialism to be built in backwards Russia and how long did it take for capitalism to come about?

[Bostana]

Bostana is an anomaly.

A what?

[Bostana]

You could just tell me, you know. Cause, you know, the whole thing about it failing is more or less hinges on whether it was socialist or not and on material processes. How long did it take for socialism to be built in backwards Russia and how long did it take for capitalism to come about?

Okay,

Well first of course you have the October Revolution, then Stalin's leadership, and then Khrushchev was elected.

Know Khrushchev got rid of many positive Marxist-Leninist Socialist programs simply because Stalin created them.
And that's another branch of failure. Khrushchev demonized everyone of Stalin's decisions he made in office.
I can admit Stalin did make some stupid choices in office, but he has done more good than harm.

[ComradeOm]

It was also common for official speakers of the party to blame conferences and congresses leaders for their failure in the atempt to criticize their own superiors and higher ranking members of the councils and political bodies.Can you show me one Soviet politician or administrator from the 1930s who publicly criticised Stalin and went unscathed?

There were plenty of things that you could criticise in the USSR - your underlings, your boss (assuming he was not well protected), the quality of party work, yourself, etc, etc - but the key topics were decidedly untouchable. The most obvious one being Stalin and his policies. To do so, that is to criticise Stalin or his line, was simply evidence of anti-Soviet agitation and would be expected to be treated as such by the OGPU/NKVD

Those who did dare to criticise the party orthodoxy, and there were a few in the early days, could expect a rapid dismissal from their position, regardless of the constructive nature or mild tone of the criticism. (Not a good blotch to have on your record come 1937-38.) There could be no real discussion of Soviet policy either while it was being formulated or after its introduction. There was nothing remotely democratic, centralism or not, about this process


Not to democratic-centralism,but to the general question of criticism,as most of the letters were in fact,composed to present a general view an individual had on something,and it usually did contain criticism,but rational and constructive one.Sending anonymous letters (and yes, those explicitly critical of the regime or its policies tended to be anonymous) hardly counts as freedom to criticise. Particularly not when most letters were in the vein of petitions to the 'good Tsar', complaining about corrupt officials or minor travails. This is a million miles away from input into, or freedom to criticise or debate, actual policy


Their main general course of actions was in order with the official party line,which is normal and acceptable,while i am sure that there were events where the regional party members(For an example,in the Selsoviet's) did take the initiative and start something (Still,not something gigantic) without the need of contacting the main party body.Yeah, that's the freedom of the USSR: freedom to show minor displays of initiative so long as it stays within the narrow confines of official discourse. It's no wonder that officials tended to shy away from independent action: they could well be accused of 'deviation-of-the-week' as a result. And they were right to be fearful - any display of criticism of Stalin or the party line was not conductive to a long and happy career

[freethinker]

Juche, Stalin and Mao oh my

i keep this short and sweet

Russia and China were just not ready for communism for one
second any chances of creating a humane/persudo socialist Russia was crushed when Stalin took power and murdered the orginal bolsheviks

But you know something you shouldn't listen to me because the wise Stalinists say that I am an evil Kurstevite Imperialist Gorbechv sucking pussy

alright im done now go on with your death match everybody! :laugh:

[Brosip Tito]

I had made another post which also asked about this, but it turned into another one of those anarchist vs communist posts (I blame myself for that).Not your fault.


Anyway, this is about why the Soviet Union failed.Okie.


I don't know which one was worse, Stalin or Lenin.Stalin.


When Lenin was in power he followed the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat: he took food and other belongings from people(in general) to be redistributed, he created a totalitarian state where socialism was forced upon people, they had to agree with socialism or die.This isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat. Nor was it actually achieved, though I genuinely believe he struggled for it and to establish socialism.


At the time Russia's people were starving due to an embargo by the USA, and, to make matters worse, whatever food they had left was taken by the state.The nation was just ravaged by war (WWI), a drought took place, and a counter-revolution had begun. It's sort of tough to feed everyone in these conditions. The food "taken" by the state, was rationed to all the people as best as possible.


I have read about corruption, political officers took the food from people for redistribution, but instead they would keep it for themselves.Yes, I am sure this happened, not to an exaggerated extent as you may have read in some bourgeois book.


Lenin sent everyone who didnt agree with socialism, even other leftists such as anarchists, to die, either executed by tcheka or sent to Siberia.No. Where did you read this? Sources please.


Stalin was no better, instead of sending people to Siberia he sent then to gulags.Stalin was worse, a helluva lot worse.


I come to the conclusion that it was the dictatorship of the proletariat that doomed the Soviet Union.You have demonstrated you have no idea what the dotp is. If you wish to see what Marx saw it as, read up on the Paris Commune.


Do you think that if a revolution were to occur right now in the United States, and if the dictatorship of the proletariat was put in practice there, the result would have been any different?Yes, if an actual dotp was achieved. Russia never had a dotp under Lenin. Political power was still in the hands of the Central Committee under Lenin, even though he struggled to transfer it to the workers before the civil war, and arguably after.



In the other thread I made most of what i recieved were acusations (one even accused me of being a stalinist) which I had to respond to with my own accusations, that being said , i don't want anyone accusing anyone of anything in this thread. Cool beans. I won't call you a Stalinist, but I will call you misinformed...though, it is something you have in common with Stalinists.

[Brosip Tito]

Okay,

Well first of course you have the October Revolution, then Stalin's leadership, and then Khrushchev was elected.

Know Khrushchev got rid of many positive Marxist-Leninist Socialist programs simply because Stalin created them.
And that's another branch of failure. Khrushchev demonized everyone of Stalin's decisions he made in office.
I can admit Stalin did make some stupid choices in office, but he has done more good than harm.
Surely, you can make a bullet list of the good and of the bad for us all to read?

[Prometeo liberado]

Bostana is an anomaly.

Sweet jesus.

[Ostrinski]

Sweet jesus.Problem, officer?

[Zulu]

Lenin sent everyone ... to Siberia.

Lenin sent nobody to Siberia. Stalin did. The first Soviet prison camp and the only one for political criminals that was operative while Lenin was still alive was on the Solovki islands in the White Sea, which is in the North, but in Europe.





Stalin ... instead of sending people to Siberia...
See above.




he sent then to gulags.
The word "GULAG" has no plural. It's an acronym for the "State Directorate of Camps", a subdivision of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD).

I must say you appear to have done too little research to make your own judgment, and instead let yourself fall yet another victim of the popular myths that are ridden by the factual inaccuracies such as these.

[Rafiq]

The Soviet Union fell when they separated from Marxism-Lenism.

And I say that's a load of Idealist horse shit. For fuck's sake, you're a Marxist and you are suggesting material conditions act based upon the abandonment of Ideas?

Capitalism is failing because big buisnessmen and bankers are immoral. if they acted moral, capitalism would work fine. . Using that logic, this sentance makes a lot of sense. After all, if the worker's wages are increased, won't that solve the debt crisis eventually? All we need is morals, or framework upon how humans should behave, right? Fuck no!

The "Abandonment" of Marxism Leninism (Or Morals, or any ideological framework) is a direct result of material conditions, not a cause of them. Khrushchev dumped some aspects of "Marxism Leninism" because he had to.


Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.


the implementation of Russian Nationalism and the colonialization of other countries existed long before Khrushchev.


Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.


:crying:



The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.


Jesus Christ, not only are you a self admitted Idealist, you're a Moralist, and an Anti Marxist.

[l'Enfermé]

Kruschev still subscribed to the Marxist-Leninist line and so did his successors...the Soviet Union's official idealogy until it's collapse was "Marxism-Leninism".

As long as Stalinists don't seriously consider that Stalin deviated from Marx and Lenin, well, then how can we take you seriously when you claim that Kruschev and his successors were not Marxist-Leninists even though they called themselves Marxist-Leninist. And was it not Krushchev and his successors that ended the nationalist policy of Socialism in One country, re-embraced the traditional Marxist and Leninist line of internationalism and allied themselves and aided the Marxist-Leninist movements in countries like Cuba, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Peru, Vietnam and the rest of Indochina, Congo, Somalia, Angola, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Peru...and so many others? Do you forget that it was Khrushchev and his successors that supported Marxist-Leninists like Castro, Guevara, Cano, Minh...

If it wasn't for Kruschev and the rest of the "revisionists"(what the fuck did they revise? is abolishing Stalin's cult of personality "revisionism"?)who exported Marxism-Leninism from the USSR, Marxism-Leninism would have died in 1953, with Stalin.