The USSR post-Stalin

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Seeing as that PSL thread got way off topic...

Just wondering about the opinions of different people here on whether or not the USSR was still socialist after Stalin. I've always disliked the state capitalist profit planning that took place under Krushchev and Brezhnev, and I'm also no fan of the invasions of Czechslovakia and Afghanistan, which I've always felt were simply acts of imperialism.

Can someone who supports the USSR post-Stalin give their view on this and justification?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well, I am not a supporter of the USSR after Stalin but I will say I don't think it was socialist under Stalin either.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Well, I am not a supporter of the USSR after Stalin but I will say I don't think it was socialist under Stalin either.
Well that's a given for most of the ultra-left. I mean mostly the MLs and such.

[norwegianwood90]

It depends on how we define "support." I support the USSR from a return to full-fledged capitalism, but I don't support the Soviet Union's model within a Marxist framework.

My best guess as to the justification offered by Brezhnev's supporters for Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for example, is that it was to prevent pro-Western capitalist elements from coming to power should the pro-Moscow governments fall.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

My best guess as to the justification offered by Brezhnev's supporters for Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for example, is that it was to prevent pro-Western capitalist elements from coming to power should the pro-Moscow governments fall.

And how would they justify profit planning?

[ComradeOm]

And how would they justify profit planning?Probably the same way they always did: khozraschet (roughly: 'cost accounting') had been a feature of the Soviet economy as far back as War Communism. That includes the Stalinist period, with the exception of the period 1928-32 when all pretence of financial planning went out the window. It was not a sudden invention of those devious revisionists

But then the idea that capitalism was suddenly or stealthily reintroduced post-1953 doesn't really bear weight. There was certainly a shift in emphasis - such as the abandonment of the coercive economy and the rise in living standards - but overall the economy remained firmly within the administrative planning model developed in the early 1930s. There was no shift comparable to the creation or abolition of the NEP

[Woodsman]

the believe the end of socialism in the USSR started with the 1937 purges and continued with the annexation of Eastern Europe. However, I think the most important turning point was the suppression of the 1956 uprising in Hungary.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

the believe the end of socialism in the USSR started with the 1937 purges and continued with the annexation of Eastern Europe. However, I think the most important turning point was the suppression of the 1956 uprising in Hungary.

When was Eastern Europe annexed? Look, if Eastern Europe was under the absolute control of the Soviet Union after WWII, then Stalin would have not allowed Tito to gain power in Yugoslavia and break away from Marxism-Leninism, and Khrushchev would have forced Hoxha to step down as leader of Albania because he was not willing to de-Stalinize his nation.

Your claim is simply not true.

And on the suppresion of the uprisings in Hungary, that was undoubtedly an example of early Soviet social-imperialism, but the uprising was also not legitimate at all. It was a movement started by a bunch of ignorant students set on destroying the workers' state and returning Hungary to capitalism.

It was not a workers movement just because a bunch of councils were set up that killed anyone who did not agree with their stupidity. Communists of all kinds were the first to suffer the wrath of these "workers' councils." Not to mention that communist books of all kinds, including the Communist Manifesto, were burned.

Here is a secret KGB report talking about some of the violence against communists (I italicized and underlined the word "secret" to assure you that they had no reason to lie):
http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.document&identifier=824CD4FC-EA38-D85C-19E642C601751C1F


3. The situation in several cities can be characterized in the following way: the population is stimulated against the communists. In several regions the armed people search in the apartments of communists and shoot them down.
In the factory town of Csepel (near Budapest) there were 18 communists killed. When in buses travelling between cities, the bandits do checks and prominent communists are taken out and shot.

TADA! Nice workers' movement!

And to the OP, I think that Brezhnev was probably the best post-Stalin leader. Before I explain to you my position on Brezhnev, you have to understand where I come from ideologically. I am an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. I uphold the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha. It makes me feel sick to my stomach to even slightly support an imperialist and revisionist like Brezhnev, but I like him over all the other post-1956 leaders because he relatively stopped the psychotic neo-liberal rampage of Kosygin. That is at least worth a sticker.:)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Bumpa.

Soooooo quiet on here.

[Ismail]

Probably the same way they always did: khozraschet (roughly: 'cost accounting') had been a feature of the Soviet economy as far back as War Communism. That includes the Stalinist period, with the exception of the period 1928-32 when all pretence of financial planning went out the window. It was not a sudden invention of those devious revisionists

But then the idea that capitalism was suddenly or stealthily reintroduced post-1953 doesn't really bear weight. There was certainly a shift in emphasis - such as the abandonment of the coercive economy and the rise in living standards - but overall the economy remained firmly within the administrative planning model developed in the early 1930s. There was no shift comparable to the creation or abolition of the NEPThere's a qualitative difference. On the role of profit under the revisionists see: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.html

And on debates on the market in the 1940's and 50's (and the subsequent drive to expand commodity relations, etc. shortly after Stalin's death): http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm

And no, it wasn't "suddenly" reintroduced. In the 1960's Hoxha noted that the CPSU under revisionist leadership was leading towards the restoration of capitalism. After 1968 it became obvious that the USSR was a social-imperialist power and was state-capitalist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Oops, I thought the OP's question was asking who was the best post-Stalin leader.

[Woodsman]

When was Eastern Europe annexed? Look, if Eastern Europe was under the absolute control of the Soviet Union after WWII, then Stalin would have not allowed Tito to gain power in Yugoslavia and break away from Marxism-Leninism, and Khrushchev would have forced Hoxha to step down as leader of Albania because he was not willing to de-Stalinize his nation.

Yes but the Soviets induced harsh measures against those nations. Stalin massed troops along the Yugoslavian border and persecuted Titoist throughout the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Khrushchev cut off grain supplies to Albania when it was in the midst of famine in retaliation for Hoxha's refusal to de-Stalinize. These were early signs of imperialist behavior.

[Ismail]

There are two essential differences in that regard, Woodsman.

First, you mention that Soviet troops massed at the Yugoslav border. At that time Yugoslavia was talking about the possibility of joining an anti-Soviet military bloc. Massing troops is not imperialism. Second, many of the Titoists who were executed or imprisoned were right-wing "national roads to socialism" types. Some like Gomułka and Imre Nagy were rehabilitated after Stalin's death and openly demonstrated their right-wing views as leaders of countries. Furthermore one of the main Soviet charges was that Yugoslavia was leading its economy into a path of dependence on imperialism by doing things like encouraging kulaks to grow, etc.

Now let's take the case of Albania. Khrushchev said that it should become the "garden" of the socialist bloc, and should subordinate heavy industrial development to being an agriculture-based economy which would export fruits to other Comecon states in exchange for machinery and factory materials in accordance with the post-Stalin Soviet leadership's "international socialist division of labor." Not only was this at odds with the line of Lenin and Stalin, but it would have clearly harmed Albania's economic growth and the well-being of its people, plus have had the obvious effect of undermining any attempt at independence.

Then Albania, which vowed to never come to terms with US imperialism (unlike Yugoslavia which accrued a gigantic debt to the USA and IMF), was not only withheld grain supplies, but had a submarine base at Vlora which was gradually moving from partial Soviet control to full Albanian control, but as Soviet-Albanian relations deteriorated the Soviets attempted to take full command over it. Then Khrushchev, in an indirect threat to Hoxha, had talks with Sophocles Venizelos, son of the Greek leader who tried to annex southern Albania during WWI, in which he promised to bring up the issue of "Greek autonomy" in southern Albania, at a time when Greece was claiming that it was in a "state of war" with Albania and formally claimed southern Albania as Greek territory.

[ComradeOm]

There's a qualitative difference. On the role of profit under the revisionists see: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.htmlThere's nothing in that link except a collection of quotes. It seems to boil down to the fact that for-profit accounting existed during the Stalinist economy but (!) the author believes that it was of "minor importance". That's not really a qualitative difference and it's not really true. Don't believe me? Let's ask my good friend Molotov. Molotov, old bean, how important do you believe khozraschet was under Stalin?

"The correct conduct of khozraschet, of so-called commercial accounting principles, must in present conditions be of decisive importance for improving the management of industry from bottom to top" (2 Feb 1931)

Are you sure about that Vyacheslav? "Decisive importance" doesn't sound like a ringing condemnation of for-profit accounting or it's relegation to "minor importance"... Actually it doesn't sound like the latter at all. I'm confused. What do you think Stalin?

"Owing to inefficient management the principles of khozraschet are grossly violated in a large number of our factories and business organisations... We must put an end to inefficiency, mobilise the internal resources of industry, introduce and reinforce business accounting in all our enterprises, systematically reduce production costs and increase internal accumulations in every branch of industry without exception

Hence, the task is to introduce and reinforce khozraschet, to increase accumulation within industry" (31 July 1931. Emphasis in original)

Well that's not very helpful, you lying bastard. But thank you anyway for helping to demonstrate why vetted quotes and red text do not a coherent argument make

[Woodsman]

Ismail
In the case of Albania I do agree with Hoxha's decision to stand up to Khrushchev revisionism. In the case of Titoism, though revisionist, I due see part of its origins as a result of Stalin's increasingly reactionary policies in later years.

[Ismail]

There's nothing in that link except a collection of quotes. It seems to boil down to the fact that for-profit accounting existed during the Stalinist economy but (!) the author believes that it was of "minor importance". That's not really a qualitative difference and it's not really true. Don't believe me? Let's ask my good friend Molotov. Molotov, old bean, how important do you believe khozraschet was under Stalin?

"The correct conduct of khozraschet, of so-called commercial accounting principles, must in present conditions be of decisive importance for improving the management of industry from bottom to top" (2 Feb 1931)

Are you sure about that Vyacheslav? "Decisive importance" doesn't sound like a ringing condemnation of for-profit accounting or it's relegation to "minor importance"... Actually it doesn't sound like the latter at all. I'm confused. What do you think Stalin?

"Owing to inefficient management the principles of khozraschet are grossly violated in a large number of our factories and business organisations... We must put an end to inefficiency, mobilise the internal resources of industry, introduce and reinforce business accounting in all our enterprises, systematically reduce production costs and increase internal accumulations in every branch of industry without exception

Hence, the task is to introduce and reinforce khozraschet, to increase accumulation within industry" (31 July 1931. Emphasis in original)

Well that's not very helpful, you lying bastard. But thank you anyway for helping to demonstrate why vetted quotes and red text do not a coherent argument makeThere's a pretty big difference between making sure that enterprises are made profitable and orienting enterprises in general towards profit. In the conditions of the first few Five-Year Plans, where the utmost personal effort was necessary to reduce waste and other problems, the issue was to make stuff that could be exported for machinery and other necessities and to reduce costs of production in general so that the utmost growth and economic construction could be made.

After Stalin profit became the goal of every enterprise, the law of value was said to lead industry in all cases (whereas Stalin argued, and he was attacked as "dogmatic" by post-Stalin economists, that it existed but was kept in check by central planning) and the success of an enterprise was judged not by its ability to keep down costs, but of sheer profitability (there is a difference.) Not to mention that commodity production was encouraged by the post-Stalin leadership since apparently their commodities were merely of a "new type" and could be expanded without issue.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/sovecon.htm

J. Wilczynski in The Economics of Socialism, for instance, noted that after 1965 profit was the main criterion of enterprise performance, compared to before where it was only a way to keep down costs. I'm also fairly sure that in Molotov Remembers Molotov criticized the role of profit in post-Stalin Soviet economics, too.

[ComradeOm]

There's a pretty big difference between making sure that enterprises are made profitable and orienting enterprises in general towards profitNo there's not. Factories under Stalin were expected to operate on a profit basis and factories post-Stalin were expected to operate on a profit basis. You're inventing distinctions that are not there. Ridiculously so in this case: 'enterprises that are expected to be profitable' and 'enterprises that are orientated towards profit' are the exact same thing. Or what do you think that Stalin wasn't 'orientating enterprises in general towards profit' when he called for the stricter enforcement of for-profit accounting?

Even as an exercise is semantics that is extremely weak


In the conditions of the first few Five-Year Plans, where the utmost personal effort was necessary to reduce waste and other problems, the issue was to make stuff that could be exported for machinery and other necessities and to reduce costs of production in general so that the utmost growth and economic construction could be made.Why are you so boring? It's the same story over and over again. 'Yeah, well, Stalin did as well as the [insert revisionists/capitalists/fascists] but under Stalin it was part of the construction of the glorious socialist motherland as opposed to the [insert capitalist restoration/imperialism] of the [insert revisionists/capitalists/fascists]'

Get a new line for once. Never mind abusing history, it's repetitive in the extreme


I'm also fairly sure that in [I]Molotov Remembers Molotov criticized the role of profit in post-Stalin Soviet economics, too.Does he remember championing it in the 1930s?

[Ismail]

No there's not. Factories under Stalin were expected to operate on a profit basis and factories post-Stalin were expected to operate on a profit basis. You're inventing distinctions that are not there. Ridiculously so in this case: 'enterprises that are expected to be profitable' and 'enterprises that are orientated towards profit' are the exact same thing.If I'm "inventing distinctions" then I guess the USSR itself was inventing them too, since Bland notes Kosygin saying, "Let us consider profit, one of the economic instruments of socialism. A considerable enhancement of its role in socialist economy is an indispensable requisite for cost accounting."

Evidently they weren't considered synonymous. After 1965 enterprises were rewarded not just for keeping down costs, but for producing products that sold well. The emphasis was on profit above all else, industries increasingly acquired less of a social character and more of a "for-profit" basis.


Or what do you think that Stalin wasn't 'orientating enterprises in general towards profit' when he called for the stricter enforcement of for-profit accounting?No, he was calling, primarily, for cost-cutting measures. Industrialization, especially in Soviet conditions, required such things. If there was no qualitative difference then you're free to ask why the Soviet revisionist economists attacked Stalin for supposedly "underrating" the role of profit in enterprises (which of course was linked to the question of the law of value under socialism.)


Why are you so boring? It's the same story over and over again. 'Yeah, well, Stalin did [insert whatever crime/atrocity/policy] as well as the [insert revisionists/capitalists/fascists] but under Stalin it was part of the construction of the glorious socialist motherland as opposed to the [insert capitalist restoration/imperialism] of the [insert revisionists/capitalists/fascists]'It's the "same story over and over again" because the fact is that the Soviet revisionists attacked the work of Lenin and Stalin in practice and worked to establish a state-capitalist economy, distorting the role of central planning, the role of the law of value, and also of political questions (e.g. declaring that the USSR had "transcended" classes and was merely a "state of the whole people.")


Does he remember championing it in the 1930s?No, probably because he didn't.

E.g. in Molotov Remembers, p. 204: "Our 1961 program states: money-commodity relations are to be retained through the entire period of socialism. It has things turned around." You cannot divorce the elevation of profit as the sole criterion for success of an enterprise from the fact that the Soviet revisionists proclaimed that the law of value was merely "transformed" under socialism and thus applied to pretty much everything without worry (contrasted to Stalin who noted that it did exist, was not 'transformed,' but had to be kept in check through central planning as money-commodity relations became increasingly phased out, which he advocated for instance in the case of products-exchange in the countryside, etc.)