Nature of the Soviet Union

[Peoples' War]

So, Trotsky's theory of the "degenerated workers' state": Was it correct?

If not, what was the nature of the Soviet Union?

Are Marxist-Leninists right to call it Socialism?

Or before it was declared socialist, was it correct to call it a workers' state?

Is it actually bureaucratic collectivist or state capitalist?

Why/why not?

[Book O'Dead]

Read "Nature of Soviet Society". You can find it in pdf format here SLP.ORG (http://www.slp.org)

[Caj]

I would say the Soviet Union became bourgeois-capitalist sometime in the late '20s or early '30s, before which it was a proletarian dictatorship. Another interesting theory on the nature of the Soviet Union is that it was a non-mode of production: http://vimeo.com/29505740 and http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

[Grenzer]

The main problem I have with the claim that the Soviet Union was capitalist is that i have a hard time seeing how you can have capitalism without, well, capitalists. I don't think the bureaucracy could have been considered to be bourgeois because they did not organize production for their individual accumulation, which is a significant dimension of the bourgeois class. Even if one considers the bureaucracy to be bourgeois because of de facto ownership, it doesn't make up for the discrepancy that that they never organized production for their individual accumulation, which is supposed to be a clear indicator of class.

In addition, societies like the Soviet Union never really engaged in imperialism with very few exceptions(at least in the classic economic sense), which has been an established necessity for the survival of capitalism. They have never really attempted to dominate other countries for purposes of economic exploitation. While one might construe the invasion of Finland and Afghanistan as imperialism, they really had nothing to do with economics.

However, the whole structure seems to be roughly analogous to capitalism, but without actually being it. In other words, the bureaucracy seemed to fill the same social function as the capitalist class, but they could in no way be considered to be capitalists by Marxist standards. What I have a hard time accepting is that this is supposed to be progressive now. It's still perpetuating wage labor and commodity production, which is what we are trying to get rid of to begin with.

[Blake's Baby]

While I think you make a laudible attempt to begin grasping the question, Ghost Bebel, I'm afraid you fall down almost immediately. Who told you the point of capitalist accumulation was for individuals accumulation? The point of capitalism is for expanded reproduction.

Therefore, 'capitalists' don't make capitalism, but the other way around; managers of re-investment are capitalists, whatever colour their flag. The process of producing commodities (either for sale internally or for trade externally) leading to expanded reproduction, is capitalism. The group in society that controlled this process (that stood, in other words, in a particular relationship to the means of production) is a class. It was the capitalist class, even if society wasn't 'significantly' orientated towards individual accumulation (but don't forget the roads only party members could use, the dachas and all the rest - so there was some individual accumulation, which was then invested in luxuries, both collectively and privately).

[Astarte]

The main problem I have with the claim that the Soviet Union was capitalist is that i have a hard time seeing how you can have capitalism without, well, capitalists. I don't think the bureaucracy could have been considered to be bourgeois because they did not organize production for their individual accumulation, which is a significant dimension of the bourgeois class. Even if one considers the bureaucracy to be bourgeois because of de facto ownership, it doesn't make up for the discrepancy that that they never organized production for their individual accumulation, which is supposed to be a clear indicator of class.

In addition, societies like the Soviet Union never really engaged in imperialism with very few exceptions(at least in the classic economic sense), which has been an established necessity for the survival of capitalism. They have never really attempted to dominate other countries for purposes of economic exploitation. While one might construe the invasion of Finland and Afghanistan as imperialism, they really had nothing to do with economics.

However, the whole structure seems to be roughly analogous to capitalism, but without actually being it. In other words, the bureaucracy seemed to fill the same social function as the capitalist class, but they could in no way be considered to be capitalists by Marxist standards. What I have a hard time accepting is that this is supposed to be progressive now. It's still perpetuating wage labor and commodity production, which is what we are trying to get rid of to begin with.

I agree with your post almost completely, except for the part of about "its still perpetuating wage labor..." - technically, yes, Soviet workers were paid a wage, but again, unlike the capitalist mode, the monied wage they were paid had no real use value in society - meaning the capital they were paid in could never be used for classical capitalist pursuits, like private investment, establishments of private businesses for the purpose of accumulating more capital, etc ... in my understanding the Soviet worker was more like a modern industrial corvee laborer, paid with state credits, or state scrips. Also - perhaps this mode was actually more "progressive" than capitalism as at least it guaranteed the necessities of life?

[l'Enfermé]

It clearly wasn't State-Capitalism, look at what was the classical example of what contemporary Marxists called State-Capitalism: Germany. During the Bolshevik period, until the Stalinist counter-revolution, the USSR was basically what it claimed to be; a revolutionary dictatorship of the worker's and peasants. During the Stalinist period the USSR retained features of Socialism and Capitalism and also re-introduced slavery, with millions of people(another word for "forced-labour" is slavery, my Stalinist friends) being enslaved by the Soviet state(the cruelest example of this was the enslavement of the Soviet soldiers and PoWs returning from the Eastern Front, to be used in rebuilding the damage caused by the Axis). The entire history of the post-Stalin period consisted of the newly freed bureaucracy(freed from Stalin's tyranny and the secret police)trying to organize itself into a class. I'd say that until about 1956, the USSR was a worker's and peasant's state, albeit with a bureacratic deformation during the Stalinist era, and from 1956 until the fall of the Eastern bloc, it was basically in a transition period between a worker's state and capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

... the capital they were paid in could never be used for classical capitalist pursuits, like private investment, establishments of private businesses for the purpose of accumulation more capital, etc ...

'No, no, the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist because workers weren't in a position to start their own businesses...'

What planet of bizarre capitalism are you living on? Are you claiming that workers in the west can or could do these things?



It clearly wasn't State-Capitalism, look at what was the classical example of what contemporary Marxists called State-Capitalism: Germany. During the Bolshevik period, until the Stalinist counter-revolution, the USSR was basically what it claimed to be; a revolutionary dictatorship of the worker's and peasants...

Which says precisely nothing about the nature of the economy. Except that there were workers and peasants in it; so there was a class sytem. So not socialism; but not capitalism either?

I'm afraid Marxists are going to be hard to convince that you can just invent another class-system to fit between capitalism and socialism. At its basis, until capitalism (a world system) is suppressed by the working class (a world class) and the bourgeoisie (another world class) is expropriated in the revolution (a world revolution) capitalism still exists. The Soviet Union didn't manage to leave the capitalist Earth behind, or suspend the rules of international capitalism somehow. It was capitalist; it was a capitalist state in which the working class, for a short period, help political power through the soviets.

But that is all.

[Deicide]

Are you claiming that workers in the west can or could do these things?

To be fair, they can. It's not impossible. It's just incredibly unlikely, and the odds are stacked against them (or us).

My friends dad, who was born on a council estate, Wythenshawe council estate, to be exact, owns a ''successful'' building business. And actually has a nice, posh gaff. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest social mobility doesn't exist in capitalism.

[Astarte]

'No, no, the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist because workers weren't in a position to start their own businesses...'

What planet of bizarre capitalism are you living on? Are you claiming that workers in the west can or could do these things?

Wow. Way to take shit completely out of context. I am not sure how you could even get that from my above post. Seems kind of weird to even insinuate that, actually. What I am saying is that capital under a capitalist mode has a different quality than the "capital" which was used in the Soviet Union - under capitalism, there is mingling of the capital which is paid to workers in wages with private institutions know as corporations and banks - hence the "401k" bullshit that was going around in such swindling frequency in the earlier part of the 2000's or the savings/checking account which practically every worker has which is also exploited by finance capital. Under the Soviet mode, this "private" quality of their "capital" did not exist. It had no use value to any private insitution - hence it was not capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

To be fair, they can. It's not impossible. It's just unlikely, and the odds are stacked against them.

My friends dad, who was born a council estate, Wythenshawe council estate, to be exact.
He owns a successful building business. And actually has a nice, posh gaff. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest social mobility doesn't exist in capitalism.

Yes social mobility exists, some workers do become bosses. Jet aircraft exist too, but I don't know anyone who owns one.

I'm unconvinced that any lack of social mobility in the SU means it's not capitalism.

[Astarte]

Yes social mobility exists, some workers do become bosses. Jet aircraft exist too, but I don't know anyone who owns one.

I'm unconvinced that any lack of social mobility in the SU means it's not capitalism.

Lack of social mobility does not mean it "wasn't capitalism", since the USSR had more social mobility, for the most part than the West anyway. It is just that mobility meant affiliation with the apparatuses of state bureaucratic power - the Party, the military, public state institutions, etc - not the accumulation of capital. As if social mobility is a determining factor of the hegemonic economic mode. Its not.

[Deicide]

Hmmm. Surely entering the higher echelons of the bureaucratic party in the SU, especially in Moscow, considering such a position came with many privileges beyond those of ordinary citizens, could be considered social mobility?

For example, Kruschev was an ordinary farmer, son of a poor peasant, he ended up top bureaucrat, gaining many privileges, even the pension he received, after his time as first secretary, was more than the yearly wage of many workers. If my memory doesn't fail me, high ranking party bureaucrats could actually leave the SU and travel abroad, which ordinary workers were not allowed to do. If they could, some of my family members would of left the Soviet Union for America or England in the 1970s or even earlier. I have some family members who went to America after the SU collapse, I've never met them, however. They live in Chicago, a city with a high Lithuanian population, from what I've heard.

[Thug Lessons]

The whole nomenclature debate about whether the USSR was a socialist state, state capitalism, a deformed worker's state, a degenerated worker's state, a social imperialist state, or a degenerated democratic state of deformed proletarian dictatorship seems, to me, like useless posturing. It was a leftist state that, while failing to move beyond hierarchical leadership in both production and government, was generally a good thing for the Soviet people and a useful counterweight to Western imperialism. The terminology isn't particularly important as long as it's understood for what it was.

[Rafiq]

Ghost, could the Soviet Union, then, represent a mutated and obscure form of capitalism, without the exact class composition in capitalist states? It did seem to have all the characteristics of a capitalist mode of production.

Perhaps so long as someone feeds capital, be it the manager class or the bourgeois class, the system persists.

This also accounts for problems in Market Socialism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Ghost, could the Soviet Union, then, represent a mutated and obscure form of capitalism, without the exact class composition in capitalist states? It did seem to have all the characteristics of a capitalist mode of production.

Eh, not exactly. This video here: http://vimeo.com/29505740 where Hillel Ticktin argues that Russia was essentially a "non-mode of production" he goes into detail on why it did not have all the characteristics of a capitalist mode of production. It did not really have a market, the value-form, etc. While there are some things flawed with his arguments, I think he is generally correct.

EDIT: I bet you think you are a badass just posting a link to that video before me, don't you CAJ :)

[Deicide]

''In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.''

Thoughts?

[Revolution starts with U]

The questions to ask are how class antagonisms are created, did the soviet system have these? Was there alienation? Who benefited?

Another question which comes to mind is the nature of the state. Most want to put the beneficiaries of the system as the members of the state... but this isn't really how the state functions in normal capitalist system. Even fascism gave the head-nod to private autonomy in matters of business, right?

[fabian]

State capitalism. One private owner is replaced with another state one. Privatization and nationalization are both mechanisms of claiming ownership over someone else's labor.

Socialism is socialization of property- everyone to be the owner of his labor. The peasant to be the owner of the full product of his labor, without any outside owner taking any of it, whether that owner is private or state. Likewise with all artisan, firm and factory businesses that would be individual self-employment businesses or worker coops.

The people who fought for socialism ni Russia were the Esers with their Green Army, and Communists with their Black Army. Bolsheviks were (as Marxists in general are) plain capitalists- and nationalization of property is not just as much capitalism as privatization, but worse, because the boss has even more power.

[Peoples' War]

You can have more than one mode of production at a time. This, I think, would be most notable in the transitory stage.

I mean, Marx said (im paraphrasing here): The new society (or transitory or lower phase) will retain features of the old society.

What does this account for in your guys' analysis of the Soviet Union?

[Baseball]

I'm afraid Marxists are going to be hard to convince that you can just invent another class-system to fit between capitalism and socialism. At its basis, until capitalism (a world system) is suppressed by the working class (a world class) and the bourgeoisie (another world class) is expropriated in the revolution (a world revolution) capitalism still exists. The Soviet Union didn't manage to leave the capitalist Earth behind, or suspend the rules of international capitalism somehow. It was capitalist; it was a capitalist state in which the working class, for a short period, help political power through the soviets.

But that is all.

Of course the USSR had to function in world wherein existed capitalist countries. I'm sorry, but unless the expectation is that there there will be a simultaneous world wide revolt, the existence of a socialist community side by side a capitalist one is a state of affairs has to expected and accounted for.
So why haven't socialists done so? Simply calling such a socialist community "capitalist" is nothing more than a total dodge of the issue.

[Baseball]

While I think you make a laudible attempt to begin grasping the question, Ghost Bebel, I'm afraid you fall down almost immediately. Who told you the point of capitalist accumulation was for individuals accumulation? The point of capitalism is for expanded reproduction.

Therefore, 'capitalists' don't make capitalism, but the other way around; managers of re-investment are capitalists, whatever colour their flag. The process of producing commodities (either for sale internally or for trade externally) leading to expanded reproduction, is capitalism. The group in society that controlled this process (that stood, in other words, in a particular relationship to the means of production) is a class. It was the capitalist class, even if society wasn't 'significantly' orientated towards individual accumulation (but don't forget the roads only party members could use, the dachas and all the rest - so there was some individual accumulation, which was then invested in luxuries, both collectively and privately).

If the party folks were the "capitalists" of the USSR et. al, what explains their inabilities to keep pace with the more normally recognized "capitalists" of other lands?
I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.

[#FF0000]

I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.

How so?

[#FF0000]

The people who fought for socialism ni Russia were the Esers with their Green Army, and Communists with their Black Army. Bolsheviks were (as Marxists in general are) plain capitalists- and nationalization of property is not just as much capitalism as privatization, but worse, because the boss has even more power.

Nah, the bolsheviks had a lot of problems but I don't think this is one of them. They were far and away better than the other "socialists" who just didn't seem to want to have a revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

You can have more than one mode of production at a time. This, I think, would be most notable in the transitory stage...

You can when they are local systems like feudalism, or even a local capitalist system (eg the developing capitalism around the North Sea in the 15th century) and a neighbouring feudal system. The new local bourgeoisie can fight or make deals with the aristocracy as it likes - they are both oppressing classes after all, it's possible for them to agree to a system where they share political power. You can't have two systems when one is a world system - capitalism - based on property and a class system, and the other is an opposed world system - socialism - which is based on the abolition of property and classes.

Russia was a capitalist state in 1917; it was part of a capitalist world system. It is not possible to abstract a territory from the world capitalist system and establish socialism in it on its own.


...I mean, Marx said (im paraphrasing here): The new society (or transitory or lower phase) will retain features of the old society.

What does this account for in your guys' analysis of the Soviet Union?

Not every society that has features of an old society is a new society, some of them are just old societies.

The USSR had 'features' of capitalism, because it was capitalism.

It didn't have features of socialism (eg the abolition of wages, the working class and the state) because it wasn't socialism. Not because it was.



Of course the USSR had to function in world wherein existed capitalist countries. I'm sorry, but unless the expectation is that there there will be a simultaneous world wide revolt, the existence of a socialist community side by side a capitalist one is a state of affairs has to expected and accounted for.
So why haven't socialists done so? Simply calling such a socialist community "capitalist" is nothing more than a total dodge of the issue.

It's not a 'socialist' community, it's a capitalist state.

Calling it 'socialist' is nothing more than a total dodge of the issue.

Socialism cannot co-exist with capitalism, as socialism is predicated on the non-existence of property. As property continued to exist, socialism didn't and couldn't.

Russia remained a capitalist country (one with wage labour and commodity production continued, which existed in a world capitalist framework), but for a time was politically controlled by the working class.

The world revolution must be (as the name suggests) worldwide; until it is, until the world civil war is won, the task of building socialism cannot be begun let alone completed. All that can happen is the attempt to attenuate the worst effects of capitalism in the liberated territories while also trying to support the working class in its revolutionary efforts to in the territories still subject to capitalism.


If the party folks were the "capitalists" of the USSR et. al, what explains their inabilities to keep pace with the more normally recognized "capitalists" of other lands?
I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.

If you mean capitalist countries like America or those of Western Europe, economic growth in the USSR far outstripped US and European growth for much of the 20th century. Eventually, the 40% GNP spent on the military probably had a severe adverse effect I'd think.

Some capitalist economies are more successful than others. 'Why aren't all capitalist countries the same?' is what you seem to be asking here. Why is capitalist France not as successful as capitalist Germany? Why is capitalist Japan more successful than capitalist Turkey? If capitalist Greece and capitalist Brazil are both capitalist, how come they don't grow at the same rate?

Different policies and different conditions produce different results. Doesn't mean they aren't all capitalist.


Nah, the bolsheviks had a lot of problems but I don't think this is one of them. They were far and away better than the other "socialists" who just didn't seem to want to have a revolution.

I don't think this is entirely fair on the Makhnovists, for instance, who I'm pretty certain did want a revolution and would have worked with the Bolsheviks if Trotsky had not kept shooting their delegates.

The (Left) SRs are a strange bunch however; daring to re-start WWI to help spread the revolution, when Russia had already lost around 3.5 million (military and civilian dead, including victims of war-induced famine) and had around 4.2 million military wounded, is a mind-numbingly horrific thing to do, and nothing any sane person should support.

[Rafiq]

Of course the USSR had to function in world wherein existed capitalist countries. I'm sorry, but unless the expectation is that there there will be a simultaneous world wide revolt, the existence of a socialist community side by side a capitalist one is a state of affairs has to expected and accounted for.
So why haven't socialists done so? Simply calling such a socialist community "capitalist" is nothing more than a total dodge of the issue.

We as Communists, since the late 19th century have stressed only one thing: Even if the revolution only spreads to 5% of the world, among that 5% must be the industrialized countries.

We have had this argument before.

And I'll say it again: The "Socialist" and "Capitalist" communities were not equals, not by any means. The latter had hundreds of years to develop and industrialize capitalism, while the former were stuck in the dumps of Feudalism with the extremely inefficient 20th century Communism given to them by the Soviets.

And how did the Soviets get such? Like I've said before, with the failure of the revolutions to spread across to Europe, the Bolsheviks knew that the capitalist mode of production could not be surpassed, and that they had to adjust to it. And with it, the several contradictions present in all capitalist mode productions persisted.

The Soviet Union was not, despite what Stalinists want to tell you, a state that was constantly building socialism rapidly. Indeed, throughout the years, it was a country of pure revolutionary degeneration, struggling to even exist throughout it's whole existence. And yes, when Stalinists say there was heavy sabotage by foreign powers, they were indeed correct a lot of the times. Sabotage did happen frequently, and thus, this accounts for the paranoia and the police state.

[Rafiq]

If the party folks were the "capitalists" of the USSR et. al, what explains their inabilities to keep pace with the more normally recognized "capitalists" of other lands?

Because they weren't capitalists at all. They were agents of capital, but not a Bourgeois class.

But to play the devil's advocate, it would strike me as obvious, that this was fully due to the fact that the 20th Communist mode of organizing the capitalist mode of production (Especially in Neo-Feudal lands) is quite evidently not as efficient as the capitalist mode of production (s) existent with their western counterparts.


I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.


I fully concur. Couldn't have said it better (No, I'm not being sarcastic)

[Peoples' War]

@Blake's Baby

Okay, it wasn't socialism.

But was it a workers' state?

I mean, of course the transitory phase will be a form of capitalism in the beginning and throughout until the lower phase of socialism can be reached, no?

Was their a Proletarian Dictatorship in place, as Caj suggested?

Or was the state always out of the workers' hands?

[Blake's Baby]

@Blake's Baby

Okay, it wasn't socialism.

But was it a workers' state?

I mean, of course the transitory phase will be a form of capitalism in the beginning and throughout until the lower phase of socialism can be reached, no?

Was their a Proletarian Dictatorship in place, as Caj suggested?

Or was the state always out of the workers' hands?

Well...


... it was a capitalist state in which the working class, for a short period, help political power through the soviets... (from post 8 - later quoted by Baseball in post 21)


... Russia remained a capitalist country (one with wage labour and commodity production continued, which existed in a world capitalist framework), but for a time was politically controlled by the working class. ... (from post 25)

Don't know if repeating what I said earlier makes so much sense, as you didn't get it the last couple of times but I'll to explain it differently.

The soviets were the working class's attempt to control the state, to excercise its own class dictatorship. For a short while, they were somewhat successful, they made the Soviet Republic a 'proletarian republic'. Is that a 'workers' state', degenerated or not? I don't know. It's a state where the working class temporarily holds power. I don't much care whether that's a 'workers' state' according to Lenin or Trotsky. A 'workers' state' says something about political power (when it isn't a lie, a cover for a dictatorship of a party with a red flag), but it says nothing about the economy - except implicitly; any state is a sign that classes and therefore property exist, and the workers 'ownership' of the state means that there is still a working class. A 1-state with 2-a working class is a capitalist state. It can't really be anything else. Yes, there was a tiny working class in feudalism and Antique Slavery, but not a big enough one to hold state power. That can only happen in capitalism.

But by 1921, I'd argue, the working class had lost control of the state which was in the hands, solely, of the Bolshevik Party, which no longer even represented the interests of the working class. Its material position as managers of Russian national capital had placed the Bolskevik Party in the position of 'state capitalists' - no different to the joint-stock corporations that Engels discussed in the 1880s, boards of management tasked with developing industrial corporations; furthermore, Engels in discussing the statisation of capital in the late 19th century warns that socialists should increasingly see the state as 'the personification of the national capitalist'. Wilhelm Leibknecht in the 1890s campaigned against the idea that the statisation of capital was 'state socialism' - it was '... nothing but state capitalism' he declared.

The trajectory in Russia was not 'towards' socialism; it was away from it. The high point of the world revolution was between 1919-1921, and by 1922 the world revolution was in definite retreat, to be finally extinguished in Shanghai in 1927. Certainly the high point of the revolution in Russia was reached long before 1921; due to isolation and the Civil War the revolution almost immediately had to go into reverse in order to 'consolidate proletarian power' which increasingly meant state, Bolshevik, power, rather than the power of the working class as a whole, or the soviets, its revolutionary organs.

That's certainly longer, but it might not be clearer. Sorry.

[Peoples' War]

Well...

(from post 8 - later quoted by Baseball in post 21)

(from post 25)

Don't know if repeating what I said earlier makes so much sense, as you didn't get it the last couple of times but I'll to explain it differently.

The soviets were the working class's attempt to control the state, to excercise its own class dictatorship. For a short while, they were somewhat successful, they made the Soviet Republic a 'proletarian republic'. Is that a 'workers' state', degenerated or not? I don't know. It's a state where the working class temporarily holds power. I don't much care whether that's a 'workers' state' according to Lenin or Trotsky. A 'workers' state' says something about political power (when it isn't a lie, a cover for a dictatorship of a party with a red flag), but it says nothing about the economy - except implicitly; any state is a sign that classes and therefore property exist, and the workers 'ownership' of the state means that there is still a working class. A 1-state with 2-a working class is a capitalist state. It can't really be anything else. Yes, there was a tiny working class in feudalism and Antique Slavery, but not a big enough one to hold state power. That can only happen in capitalism.

But by 1921, I'd argue, the working class had lost control of the state which was in the hands, solely, of the Bolshevik Party, which no longer even represented the interests of the working class. Its material position as managers of Russian national capital had placed the Bolskevik Party in the position of 'state capitalists' - no different to the joint-stock corporations that Engels discussed in the 1880s, boards of management tasked with developing industrial corporations; furthermore, Engels in discussing the statisation of capital in the late 19th century warns that socialists should increasingly see the state as 'the personification of the national capitalist'. Wilhelm Leibknecht in the 1890s campaigned against the idea that the statisation of capital was 'state socialism' - it was '... nothing but state capitalism' he declared.

The trajectory in Russia was not 'towards' socialism; it was away from it. The high point of the world revolution was between 1919-1921, and by 1922 the world revolution was in definite retreat, to be finally extinguished in Shanghai in 1927. Certainly the high point of the revolution in Russia was reached long before 1921; due to isolation and the Civil War the revolution almost immediately had to go into reverse in order to 'consolidate proletarian power' which increasingly meant state, Bolshevik, power, rather than the power of the working class as a whole, or the soviets, its revolutionary organs.

That's certainly longer, but it might not be clearer. Sorry.
You could say that the workers' lost power as a result of the material conditions of Russia, and it wasn't intended to be a permanent thing.

I mean, War Communism, as bad as it was, was a response to civil war, invasion, etc.

I agree that workers' held political power in the beginning. I don't know, however, if the state stopped representing the interests of the working class in totality, but that they didn't restore workers' power and go as far as they could have.

[Blake's Baby]

You could say that the workers' lost power as a result of the material conditions of Russia, and it wasn't intended to be a permanent thing...

I'm not sure by what other process it might have happened.

However, intentionality really doesn't come into it. "Socialism/not socialism" doesn't really come down to 'well, they thought they were moving towards socialism, but they weren't, but because they thought they were right, we'll give them it anyway'.


...I mean, War Communism, as bad as it was, was a response to civil war, invasion, etc...

I don't think I suggested otherwise.


...I agree that workers' held political power in the beginning. I don't know, however, if the state stopped representing the interests of the working class in totality, but that they didn't restore workers' power and go as far as they could have.

"In totality"? The interests of the working class are in overthrowing capitalism and the state. If you're going to argue that state-sponsored social programmes are 'in the interests of the working class' rather than a method the state uses to ensure social peace, then you're going to end up supporting all sorts of reformist idiots.

[fabian]

Capitalism is now once again celebrating a resurrection, but in forms that are more oppressive and harrowing for the proletariat than of old. Instead of assuming higher industrialised forms, private capitalism has assumed the most wretched and shabbyforms of black marketeering and money speculation. Industrial capitalism has developed to become state capitalism. Formerly state officials and officials from private capital were critical, often very hostile towards each other. Consequently the working man found that his advantage lay with one or the other in turn. Today the state bureaucracy and capitalist bureaucracy are merged into one—that is the upshot of the "great socialist revolution" brought about by the Bolsheviks. It constitutes the most oppressive of all despotisms that Russia has ever had to suffer.

Karl Kautsky, 1919. Terrorism and Communism.

[Baseball]

How so?

Blake is claiming is that capitalist is somebody who simply moves wealth, assets ect. from point A to Point B. A committee electing managers could perform the same function. The history of the 20th century has refuted that assertion.

[Baseball]

The world revolution must be (as the name suggests) worldwide; until it is, until the world civil war is won, the task of building socialism cannot be begun let alone completed. All that can happen is the attempt to attenuate the worst effects of capitalism in the liberated territories while also trying to support the working class in its revolutionary efforts to in the territories still subject to capitalism.

Which is what the USSR tried.
And it collapsed...why? Because it was not successful?




If you mean capitalist countries like America or those of Western Europe, economic growth in the USSR far outstripped US and European growth for much of the 20th century. Eventually, the 40% GNP spent on the military probably had a severe adverse effect I'd think.

And toilet paper was rationed...

But hey- you are the one saying the USSR was NOT a socialist country...

[Baseball]

We as Communists, since the late 19th century have stressed only one thing: Even if the revolution only spreads to 5% of the world, among that 5% must be the industrialized countries.

Yes. And it never did. At what point is the theory refuted? At what point does the call become nothing more than an article of faith?




And I'll say it again: The "Socialist" and "Capitalist" communities were not equals, not by any means. The latter had hundreds of years to
develop and industrialize capitalism,

Actually,a century and less




And how did the Soviets get such? Like I've said before, with the failure of the revolutions to spread across to Europe, the Bolsheviks knew that the capitalist mode of production could not be surpassed, and that they had to adjust to it.

They had to adjust to a world where capitalist countries still existed, true. But as I said earlier, this is a problem which all socialists are faced. It is scarcely the fault of the non-socialist world that the socialists did not consider it.




The Soviet Union was not, despite what Stalinists want to tell you, a state that was constantly building socialism rapidly. Indeed, throughout the years, it was a country of pure revolutionary degeneration, struggling to even exist throughout it's whole existence. And yes, when Stalinists say there was heavy sabotage by foreign powers, they were indeed correct a lot of the times. Sabotage did happen frequently, and thus, this accounts for the paranoia and the police state.

OK, so the socialist solution to existing in a world side by side capitalist communities is to become a police state.

[Blake's Baby]

Blake is claiming is that capitalist is somebody who simply moves wealth, assets ect. from point A to Point B. A committee electing managers could perform the same function. The history of the 20th century has refuted that assertion.

No I'm not.

I'm claiming a capitalist is someone who controls production to produce commodites in an economy where surplus value is obtained from the working class who are paid wages.

But a committee of managers can perform that function, for sure.

The history of the 20th century has demonstrated that time and again.



Which is what the USSR tried.
And it collapsed...why? Because it was not successful?

...

It really didn't. As early as 1920 it progressively abandoned notions of world revolution and began making deals with other countries to protect its own strategic and commercial interests, at the expense of the world revolution. Germany. Turkey. China. It's all there, go find out about.




And toilet paper was rationed...

And for you the rationing of toilet paper is a sign of socialism?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Soviet Union massively invested in heavy industry and showed spectacular growth, way beyoind the growth in western countries. It did it through massive exploitation, the brutalisation of the population and militarization of the economy.




But hey- you are the one saying the USSR was NOT a socialist country...

Absolutely. As nothing in what I've said above constitutes a classless communal society, it is not by definition 'socialism'. As it has wage labour, commodity production, a class system, a state etc, it is capitalism. Just a particularly militarised and inefficient form of capitalism.

[Baseball]

due to isolation and the Civil War the revolution almost immediately had to go into reverse in order to 'consolidate proletarian power' which increasingly meant state, Bolshevik, power, rather than the power of the working class as a whole, or the soviets, its revolutionary organs.

OK. So the OPPONENTS of the revolution (as defined, of course, by the leaders of the Revolution) were responsible for Stalin. Had everyone just done what they were told... Soviet Russia would have been a free and prosperous land.

[Baseball]

I'm claiming a capitalist is someone who controls production to produce commodites

Which is a mis-characterisation of capitalism and the capitalist.
And thus why these so-called "state capitalism" communities were not successful

[Blake's Baby]

The failure of the world revolution in Germany in particular created the circumstances which led to the rise of Stalin, if that's what you mean. If you like, the German social democrats who sent proto-fascist death-squads to hunt revolutionary German workers in Berlin were responsible for the failure of the world revolution, which created the conditions for Stalinism, yes.

[Baseball]

It really didn't. As early as 1920 it progressively abandoned notions of world revolution and began making deals with other countries to protect its own strategic and commercial interests, at the expense of the world revolution. Germany. Turkey. China. It's all there, go find out about.

And as you point out elsewhere, part of the role a socialist community is to protect itself and to support the revolution world-wide.



And for you the rationing of toilet paper is a sign of socialism?

No. A sign of failure.


I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Soviet Union massively invested in heavy industry

No. Western capitalists massively invested in heavy industry.



and showed spectacular growth, way beyoind the growth in western countries. It did it through massive exploitation, the brutalisation of the population and militarization of the economy.

In 1910, Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country on Earth. It was growing faster than the USA. The investments lauded were coming anyways. The question becomes whether those costs were worth it, or whether it would have been better had industrialization occurred under the far more benign auspices of capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

And as you point out elsewhere, part of the role a socialist community is to protect itself and to support the revolution world-wide...

No, I don't. I don't use the expression 'socialist community' because it wasn't socialist.




No. A sign of failure...

And I agree with you.





No. Western capitalists massively invested in heavy industry...

And Russia's massive industrialisation drive was financed by...?






In 1910, Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country on Earth. It was growing faster than the USA. The investments lauded were coming anyways. The question becomes whether those costs were worth it, or whether it would have been better had industrialization occurred under the far more benign auspices of capitalism.

Under the 'far more benign auspics' of... liberalism, do you mean? Because in Russia they happened under capitalism, just a short-sited and brutal one.

Unfortunately for Russia, it didn't begin its industrialisation process back in the 18th century heyday of capitalist development, but in the 1880s, when it was already decades behind other countries. Rapid industrialsation is generally a pretty brutal affair, whether the government has a red flag or a blue one.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2467523]No, I don't. I don't use the expression 'socialist community' because it wasn't socialist.

Review your note #25 in this thread. I was referring to your claims of what socialism needs to do in general.






And Russia's massive industrialisation drive was financed by...?

Capitalism.






Under the 'far more benign auspics' of... liberalism, do you mean?

That too.




Unfortunately for Russia, it didn't begin its industrialisation process back in the 18th century heyday of capitalist development,

Why was that unfortunate? Its how things shook out. Most of the WORLD didn't begun industrializing until the 20th century.


Rapid industrialsation is generally a pretty brutal affair, whether the government has a red flag or a blue one.

Granted. So why denounce such difficulties when it occurs under capitalism, but offer all sorts of excuses and rationalizations when it occurs in socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

Review your note #25 in this thread. I was referring to your claims of what socialism needs to do in general.
...

What I said in post 25:


...

Russia was a capitalist state in 1917; it was part of a capitalist world system. It is not possible to abstract a territory from the world capitalist system and establish socialism in it on its own.

...

It's not a 'socialist' community, it's a capitalist state.

Calling it 'socialist' is nothing more than a total dodge of the issue.

Socialism cannot co-exist with capitalism, as socialism is predicated on the non-existence of property. As property continued to exist, socialism didn't and couldn't.

Russia remained a capitalist country (one with wage labour and commodity production continued, which existed in a world capitalist framework), but for a time was politically controlled by the working class...

Seems pretty clear to me.

NOT SOCIALISM.






...
Capitalism...

Exactly.



...
Why was that unfortunate? Its how things shook out. Most of the WORLD didn't begun industrializing until the 20th century...

From the point of view of Russian capitalism it was unfortunate. Some countries in Western Europe began industrialisation much earlier than Russia, so they (for instance, England, France) were much further down the road when Russia started. Russia was playing catch-up.



...
Granted. So why denounce such difficulties when it occurs under capitalism, but offer all sorts of excuses and rationalizations when it occurs in socialism?

a) it wasn't socialism, it was capitalism;
b) some of us don't alibi Russian capitalism;
c) as for 'rationalizations', well, do you mena 'reasons'? Sure, the way capitalist development happened in Russia was down to historic causes, just as the way capitalism developed in Italy or Sweden or Argentina or anywhere else was down to historic causes.

[Baseball]

In respinse to Note 43, see paragraph 10.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean this one:


...

The world revolution must be (as the name suggests) worldwide; until it is, until the world civil war is won, the task of building socialism cannot be begun let alone completed. All that can happen is the attempt to attenuate the worst effects of capitalism in the liberated territories while also trying to support the working class in its revolutionary efforts to in the territories still subject to capitalism...?

I don't see where I claim this is socialism, as you imply. So what's your point?

[trivas7]

The Soviet Union was a failed state that demonstrated the best that socialism could deliver: empoverishment for society and abasement of the individual before an all-mighty state.



l

[Revolution starts with U]

Your second point may or may not be true.

Your first point is by all standards absolutely false. Russia was worse off before the USSR than under it, and is worse off now that it is gone.

(USSR still not socialism btw)

[Baseball]

Do you mean this one:

?

I don't see where I claim this is socialism, as you imply. So what's your point?


I guess it is the unrealism of your view that if a capitalist community exists anywhere, socialism exists nowhere.

[Blake's Baby]

If a person is awake, are they also asleep? Does your leg, or your pancreas, or your nose, get out of bed, go downstairs and put the kettle on, while waiting for the rest of you to catch up?

How can a 'classless communal society' exist when there are classes and property? How can a society or economy be both itself and its opposite?

If you think it's unrealistic to believe that the opposite of a thing is not identical with the thing itself, then I think you're going to have a problem keeping up.


...
I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.

Yeah, that's right, we don't understand the capitalism we live in. You however perfectly understand the socialism that you have never experienced and don't believe in. Oh, no, wait, you don't.

I think part of the problem with the analysis stems from the longstanding misunderstanding of socialism by capitalists.

Fixed that for you.

[Baseball]

If a person is awake, are they also asleep? Does your leg, or your pancreas, or your nose, get out of bed, go downstairs and put the kettle on, while waiting for the rest of you to catch up?

How can a 'classless communal society' exist when there are classes and property? How can a society or economy be both itself and its opposite?

If you think it's unrealistic to believe that the opposite of a thing is not identical with the thing itself, then I think you're going to have a problem keeping up.

I am quite up to speed. I think you socialists are going to continue to be constantly dissappointed going forward, as socialists in the past have.



Yeah, that's right, we don't understand the capitalism we live in.

Yep.


You however perfectly understand the socialism that you have never experienced and don't believe in.

I do not accept statements of faith as adequate demonstrations of the viability of socialism. I also ask socialists to put down their pamphlets and think a little bit about what they say about socialism and how it might translate into something viable in the real world.

[Blake's Baby]

If by 'translate into something viable in the real world' you mean 'stop being socialism' then I entirely agree with you. You can after all call dogshit 'chocolate cake'. However, calling it 'chocolate cake' doesn't mean that it is the same as what other people understand by 'chocolate cake'. So there is still a problem that you can have dogshit, ie capitalism, and call it chocolate cake, ie socialism, but... it still tastes like dogshit for some reason.

I don't like dogshit. And you don't know what chocolate cake is. You can't convince me that they're the same thing.

[Grenzer]

It clearly wasn't State-Capitalism, look at what was the classical example of what contemporary Marxists called State-Capitalism: Germany. During the Bolshevik period, until the Stalinist counter-revolution, the USSR was basically what it claimed to be; a revolutionary dictatorship of the worker's and peasants. During the Stalinist period the USSR retained features of Socialism and Capitalism and also re-introduced slavery, with millions of people(another word for "forced-labour" is slavery, my Stalinist friends) being enslaved by the Soviet state(the cruelest example of this was the enslavement of the Soviet soldiers and PoWs returning from the Eastern Front, to be used in rebuilding the damage caused by the Axis). The entire history of the post-Stalin period consisted of the newly freed bureaucracy(freed from Stalin's tyranny and the secret police)trying to organize itself into a class. I'd say that until about 1956, the USSR was a worker's and peasant's state, albeit with a bureacratic deformation during the Stalinist era, and from 1956 until the fall of the Eastern bloc, it was basically in a transition period between a worker's state and capitalism.

The main problem is that State Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with the existence of a proletarian dictatorship. The Soviet system had never been a dictatorship of the peasantry and proletariat, that would require a two-party system. The Soviet Union had both generalized commodity production and wage labor, key characteristics that are exclusive to capitalism. There is no doubt at all that this is capitalism, but the real question is whether it can be accurately called capitalism without a bourgeoisie. Whatever it was, it is clear that it the economic system in the Soviet Union was analogous to capitalism and not a higher qualitative stage at all.

I also have a hard time seeing how something can be a "worker's state" without... the actual workers being charge. Clearly they weren't; unless mass murder, famine, and racism are considered to be integral to the class interests of the proletariat.

[Rafiq]

Yes. And it never did. At what point is the theory refuted? At what point does the call become nothing more than an article of faith?

We said it must take place in industrialized countries, but we aren't fortune tellers. So long as the capitalist mode of production persists, it can never be refuted. For one, though, if it were to occur in an industrialized country, would that not be enough proof?



Actually,a century and less


That's absurd. They may have only started to industrialize around the late 1800s, but that doesn't make up for the fact that they had hundreds of years to do so.



They had to adjust to a world where capitalist countries still existed, true. But as I said earlier, this is a problem which all socialists are faced. It is scarcely the fault of the non-socialist world that the socialists did not consider it.


That's why we stressed it must take place in industrialized countries, you know, where the capitalist world existed. A revolution in the industrialized countries would mean there wouldn't have to be a capitalist world to adjust to, and if there were still remaining countries, they'd have to be the ones to adjust to a proletarian dictatorship.



OK, so the socialist solution to existing in a world side by side capitalist communities is to become a police state.


That's partially why there cannot be a coexistence with bourgeois states. Especially massive industrial powers like the United States and Western Europe (China too).

I mean, if you want to look at what happens when you attempt this without a massive police state, Chile is a perfect example. But it's important to note that the only country that actually experienced a proletarian revolution was Russia, which, as you should know, quickly degenerated after the failed uprisings in Europe.

[Baseball]

We said it must take place in industrialized countries, but we aren't fortune tellers. So long as the capitalist mode of production persists, it can never be refuted. For one, though, if it were to occur in an industrialized country, would that not be enough proof?




That's absurd. They may have only started to industrialize around the late 1800s, but that doesn't make up for the fact that they had hundreds of years to do so.




That's why we stressed it must take place in industrialized countries, you know, where the capitalist world existed. A revolution in the industrialized countries would mean there wouldn't have to be a capitalist world to adjust to, and if there were still remaining countries, they'd have to be the ones to adjust to a proletarian dictatorship.




That's partially why there cannot be a coexistence with bourgeois states. Especially massive industrial powers like the United States and Western Europe (China too).

I mean, if you want to look at what happens when you attempt this without a massive police state, Chile is a perfect example. But it's important to note that the only country that actually experienced a proletarian revolution was Russia, which, as you should know, quickly degenerated after the failed uprisings in Europe.

I see a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda's there.

Well, then the only way to pull this off is a simultaneous world wide revolt. Talk about idealism.

[Blake's Baby]

You really don't understand the notion of 'material conditions' here baseball, do you?

It's idealist to think that a small bunch of people in one place can overcome capitalism. It's idealist to think that 'will' is sufficient to overcome history. It's idealist to think that a few 'great men' can change the world.

Actually existing material conditions (this is why Marxism is materialist) are what counts. The material conditions of capitalism in the 20th and 21st centuries are that:
1-it is a worldwide system;
2-the working class it has created is a worldwide class;
3-the bourgeoisise that is the dominant class in capitalism is a worldwide class;
4-the crisis that it is exhibiting is a worldwide crisis.

Given these material conditions it is axiomatic that the soluition must be worldwide also. This is not 'idealism', yet again you are using words without knowing what they mean. It is materialism that insists that the revolution is worldwide, and idealism that posits the idea that it could be anything else.

[Baseball]

You really don't understand the notion of 'material conditions' here baseball, do you?

It's idealist to think that a small bunch of people in one place can overcome capitalism. It's idealist to think that 'will' is sufficient to overcome history. It's idealist to think that a few 'great men' can change the world.

Actually existing material conditions (this is why Marxism is materialist) are what counts. The material conditions of capitalism in the 20th and 21st centuries are that:
1-it is a worldwide system;
2-the working class it has created is a worldwide class;
3-the bourgeoisise that is the dominant class in capitalism is a worldwide class;
4-the crisis that it is exhibiting is a worldwide crisis.

Given these material conditions it is axiomatic that the soluition must be worldwide also. This is not 'idealism', yet again you are using words without knowing what they mean. It is materialism that insists that the revolution is worldwide, and idealism that posits the idea that it could be anything else.

While a nice summary and synopsis, it has nothing to do with what was mentioned.

Let me ask you this: Are you truly prepared to consign millions of workers who are ready and able for the Great Socialist Revolt into a netherworld of "quasi-socialism" (for lack of better word and myself being under some time constraints) because millions of other workers are unable or unwilling to follow suit?

[Blake's Baby]

Are you truly prepared to push passengers of a cliff because there are no aeroplanes?

Revolution is both a matter of will (in that people have to want it) and a matter of conditions (in that it must be possible). Wishing won't make it so.

However, I think your question is flawed in more ways than this rather obvious one.

Leaving aside the question of 'quasi-socialism', which I assume is intended to mean 'state administered by the workers, or by the party purporting to represent the workers', it should be obvious that if conditions in one part of the world are so horrendous that the working class is trying to overthrow capitalism and the state (not just the current government but capitalist relations and the state itself) that this is likely not to be a purely local phenomenon.

We're not talking a coup against a shit government here, we're talking a recognition by a substantial swathe of the working class that the problem is bigger than this or that politician, this or that policy, this or that party. It is a failure of the entire system of politics and economics and social control.

Seems pretty obvious to me that this sort of recognition is extremely unlikely to emerge in one concentrated mass of workers in one country but nowhere else. That's why I spent a long time mocking your idealism. The notion makes no sense if you have a materialist understanding. Ideas are the product of material conditions, they're not things that have independent existences in unwilling hosts. Masses of workers in one place cannot become convinced of the necessity of revolution if the material conditions elsewhere are not also conducive to that same process.

That's why in 1916-1927, along with the two Russian Revolutions there were massive strikes, risings, and outright revolutions in Germany, Hungary, France, Italy, the US, Canada, the UK and China, along I'm sure with other examples I haven't listed. The (world) working class was in revolt against the (world) capitalist system and the (international) bourgeoisie that controls it, in many countries throughout the world.

[Comrade Trollface]

Call the USSR whatever you want, just don't call it late for dinner!

'Deformed Workers' State is apt because Stalin was nothing if not a deformed worker, and the state most certainly belonged to him. I tend to prefer 'State Capitalism' myself. That phrase paints a good picture of the workers' relationship to the means of production was like in the USSR.

[Book O'Dead]

Call the USSR whatever you want, just don't call it late for dinner!

'Deformed Workers' State is apt because Stalin was nothing if not a deformed worker, and the state most certainly belonged to him. I tend to prefer 'State Capitalism' myself. That phrase paints a good picture of the workers' relationship to the means of production was like in the USSR.


You say a lot of bizarre things, most of them untrue.

For example, elsewhere in this forum you made the claim that "Bolshevism" had "collapsed". When I asked you when this was supposed to have happened you simply posted a reply with a link that led to an automated Google search, all of which led to the usual official versions of the USSR's collapse, but nothing about actual Bolshevism collapsing, which, I suspect you have not the slightest idea when that happened.

I think you really don't know what you're talking about when you say that "Bolshevism collapsed".

[Comrade Trollface]

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake. I said the Bolshevik state collapsed. You know- that Frankenstein's Monster that the Bolsheviks erected. The USSR? Jesus.
Just because you don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean that I don't.

[Book O'Dead]

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake. I said the Bolshevik state collapsed. You know- that Frankenstein's Monster that the Bolsheviks erected. The USSR? Jesus.
Just because you don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean that I don't.


There never was a 'Bolshevik state'. The last of the leading Bolsheviks, Bukharin, was destroyed by Stalin in what, 1938?

So, not only did Russia never have a "Bolshevik state", its last true Bolshevik died some SIXTY YEARS before the collapse of the USSR.

Your terminology, your idiom does not square with my experience of listening and reading people who know and understand the history of the USSR.

[MuscularTophFan]

So, Trotsky's theory of the "degenerated workers' state": Was it correct?
No not at all. Trotsky would have been just as totalitarian as Stalin if he became dictator after Lenin died.


If not, what was the nature of the Soviet Union?
Authoritarian imperialistic empire.


Are Marxist-Leninists right to call it Socialism?
No


Or before it was declared socialist, was it correct to call it a workers' state?
NO


Is it actually bureaucratic collectivist or state capitalist?
Correct


Why/why not?
How is abolishing the soviets(workers coucils) when Lenin took power in 1917 pro-worker or socialist? How is spreading imperialism to the Baltic states, Mongolia and eastern europe, etc., socialist? How is abolishing all political opposition and establishing an authoritarian state socialist?

[Comrade Trollface]

its last true Bolshevik died some SIXTY YEARS before the collapse of the USSR.Was he buried along side the last true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)? :lol:

[Book O'Dead]

Was he buried along side the last true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)? :lol:

You just can't deny that your idiom betrays you.

You know nothing about the Soviet Union except bits and pieces that you've casually picked up on the internet and even that you garble in translation. "Bolshevik state," indeed!

[Comrade Trollface]

Your semantic masturbation betrays you. And bores me. I'm from the Soviet Union, dipshit:laugh:

[Comrade Trollface]

Like seriously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77CUkFXXyI

[Book O'Dead]

Your semantic masturbation betrays you. And bores me. I'm from the Soviet Union, dipshit:laugh:

More the reason to suspect your use of the phrase "Bolshevik state"!

[Book O'Dead]

Like seriously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77CUkFXXyI

Russian nationalistic kitsch.

So you're a reactionary, a Russian nationalist?

[Comrade Trollface]

That rap at the end gets me every time:crying:


More the reason to suspect your use of the phrase "Bolshevik state"!Because I'm bored by watching you jerk yourself off? Spare me!

But anyway, do you do anything other than quibble over semantics? I don't like to tarnish the term 'Soviet', as the Bolsheviks broke up those instruments of workers' control not long after taking power. And the term 'communist' shouldn't be applied either. Stalinistism and its descendants are the legitimate progeny (and inevitable outcome) of the Bolshevik project so 'Bolshevik State' it is. I really don't give two shits if that rubs you the wrong way or where the last True Scotsman is buried.

[Comrade Trollface]

Russian nationalistic kitsch.

So you're a reactionary, a Russian nationalist?You're actually talking to a genuine a rootless cosmopolitan, boychick.

[Book O'Dead]

You're actually talking to a genuine a rootless cosmopolitan, boychick.

What's a "boychick"?

[Comrade Trollface]

What's a "boychick"?
An affectionate term meaning 'young man' used by rootless cosmopolitans residing in the US.

[Book O'Dead]

An affectionate term meaning 'young man' used by rootless cosmopolitans residing in the US.

I that case I'll return the compliment, I call you "dildo" as in "Dildo, the fake dick".

Isn't that cute?

[Comrade Trollface]

I call you "dildo" Thanks, boychick! Everyone loves a dildo. Now lets get back on topic quick before the mods show up and throw us both into a reeducation camp. So... what are your thoughts on... um... the nature of the USSR? That's what this thread is about, right?:confused:

[Book O'Dead]

Thanks, boychick! Everyone loves a dildo. Now lets get back on topic quick before the mods show up and throw us both into a reeducation camp. So... what are your thoughts on... um... the nature of the USSR? That's what this thread is about, right?:confused:

I've already pronounced myself on the question on this thread without once having to lie about myself or about what I know.

[Baseball]

Are you truly prepared to push passengers of a cliff because there are no aeroplanes?

Revolution is both a matter of will (in that people have to want it) and a matter of conditions (in that it must be possible). Wishing won't make it so.

However, I think your question is flawed in more ways than this rather obvious one.

Leaving aside the question of 'quasi-socialism', which I assume is intended to mean 'state administered by the workers, or by the party purporting to represent the workers', it should be obvious that if conditions in one part of the world are so horrendous that the working class is trying to overthrow capitalism and the state (not just the current government but capitalist relations and the state itself) that this is likely not to be a purely local phenomenon.

We're not talking a coup against a shit government here, we're talking a recognition by a substantial swathe of the working class that the problem is bigger than this or that politician, this or that policy, this or that party. It is a failure of the entire system of politics and economics and social control.

Seems pretty obvious to me that this sort of recognition is extremely unlikely to emerge in one concentrated mass of workers in one country but nowhere else. That's why I spent a long time mocking your idealism. The notion makes no sense if you have a materialist understanding. Ideas are the product of material conditions, they're not things that have independent existences in unwilling hosts. Masses of workers in one place cannot become convinced of the necessity of revolution if the material conditions elsewhere are not also conducive to that same process.

That's why in 1916-1927, along with the two Russian Revolutions there were massive strikes, risings, and outright revolutions in Germany, Hungary, France, Italy, the US, Canada, the UK and China, along I'm sure with other examples I haven't listed. The (world) working class was in revolt against the (world) capitalist system and the (international) bourgeoisie that controls it, in many countries throughout the world.

Again, a nice essay- which still doesn't really answer the question. Should the workers who were succesful in say Russia be denied the glories of socialism because the workers in USA et. al were not? Its not an unfair question to be answered. Wishing that the workers were successful all over the world smacks of the "idealism" you otherwise condemn.

I mean LH already answered the question- a police state is necessary in such a situation to safeguard the revolution. You seem to be bending over backward to avoid his (correct) conclusion.

[Blake's Baby]

Again, a nice essay- which still doesn't really answer the question. Should the workers who were succesful in say Russia be denied the glories of socialism because the workers in USA et. al were not?...

Should people who want to fly be pushed of cliffs because no aeroplanes are available?

You don't seem to get it that it's impossible to build socialism except worldwide. The workers of Russia cannot enjoy 'the glories of socialism' without world revolution. The best the workers in Russia could have managed, in the circumstances they were in, was a more benign version of state capitalism. The Russian state didn't have to be as repressive as it was, but it could never have been other than a state capitalist dictatorship.


... Its not an unfair question to be answered. Wishing that the workers were successful all over the world smacks of the "idealism" you otherwise condemn.

I mean LH already answered the question- a police state is necessary in such a situation to safeguard the revolution. You seem to be bending over backward to avoid his (correct) conclusion.

Who or what is LH?

'A police state is necessary' - well, I believe all states are police states, and, as I'm not an anarchist, I think there will, of necessity, be a proletarian state of a kind during the revolutionary process, and that that state will exist to suppress the bourgeoisie, organise to fight the invading states that seek a restoration of the bourgeoisie; and of necessity it will, to an extent, escape the control of the working class. The working class must constantly excercise control over its own state. This wasn't possible in Russia, and it led to the Bolsheviks increasingly taking over the state.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat became the dictatorship over the proletariat, because it is impossible to sustain 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' indefinitely. The revolution must spread or die. It didn't spread; it died. What other way forward is there? History continues, the proletariat can't stop the clocks and say 'we have our little corner, nothing changes here for 70 years'. The world doesn't work like that. Thinking that does is the idealism here.

[electrostal]

You know nothing about the Soviet Union except bits and pieces that you've casually picked up on the internet and even that you garble in translation. "Bolshevik state," indeed! Pots and kettles and Stalin invading Hungary in 1956...
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2472895&postcount=25






You don't seem to get it that it's impossible to build socialism except worldwide.
Says who? Where is the proof for this?

[Blake's Baby]

'Proof'?

Socialism is a classless communal society. Read some Marx.

Such a society can no more exist in one country than it can exist in one street. Any system that still has classes, states and property is not a 'classless communal society'. It's inherant in the definition of socialism that it can't exist in one country.

If you want to redefine socialism to mean something other than what Marxists and Anarchists define it as, that's up to you, but you'd better explain what you're up to if you want people to follow what you're talking about.

[electrostal]

Socialism is a classless communal society. Read some Marx.
What was the whole point of the Soviet Union after the revolutions in Europe failed then? What was the whole point of Leninism? Lenin did speak of socialism as possible, even in Russia alone. Not in Khruschev's "communism in 20 years", but he did.
Not to mention that people (and not just Glenn Becks) operate with different ideas on what socialism is and what it's supposed to be...

[Blake's Baby]

What was the whole point of the Soviet Union after the revolutions in Europe failed then? ...

The administration of Russian national capitalism, just like any other government in any other country.

[electrostal]

So the USSR was basically, in that sense, just like Bismarck's Germany, but with red flags?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes!

At last, you seem to be grasping the idea.

At least, after about 1920 it was. After the Bolsheviks progressively took control of the state from the Soviets.

[Comrade Trollface]

I've always thought that most definitions of socialism involve socialized means of production. In this view, whether or not you see the USSR as having been socialist all depends on whether or not you consider state-owned means of production without anything like workers' control in either the state itself or individual workplaces to count as 'socialized.' It really comes down to whether you see any difference between society and the state.

[electrostal]

At last, you seem to be grasping the idea.I don't think many would agree with that. The Reich was an imperialist power in the rising, and not just superficially different from the USSR in pretty much every aspect.




I've always thought that most definitions of socialism involve socialized means of production. I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, but isn't one of the main contradictions of capitalism the fact that while production is socialized, the "appropriation" remains private?

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think many would agree with that. The Reich was an imperialist power in the rising, and not just superficially different from the USSR in pretty much every aspect...

I think pretty much anyone who isn't a Stalinist or a Trotskyist would. Unless you mean 'many people would consider Stalinist Russia to be much worse than fin-de-siecle Germany', in which case you're probably right.


...
I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, but isn't one of the main contradictions of capitalism the fact that while production is socialized, the "appropriation" remains private?

Yes, that's right, but I think Comrade Trollface didn't mean 'socialised production' in terms of process, but 'socially-controlled means of production' ie production for ends dictated by society, not the 'owners'.

[electrostal]

Unless you mean 'many people would consider Stalinist Russia to be much worse than fin-de-siecle Germany', in which case you're probably right.
Worse in what sense?
And how come bourgeois scientists don't say such things: the USSR being just like B.'s Germany with red flags?


Yes, that's right, but I think Comrade Trollface didn't mean 'socialised production' in terms of process, but 'socially-controlled means of production' ie production for ends dictated by society, not the 'owners'. And wasn't this the case with the USSR until the 60s?

[Blake's Baby]

Worse in what sense?
And how come bourgeois scientists don't say such things: the USSR being just like B.'s Germany with red flags?...

Why would the bourgeoisie want to deny that 'Stalinism = Communism'?

'Hey, stupid workers! Look at that shit-heap prison-camp over there! We fooled you - that wasn't communism, that was just another form of capitalism!

Hey, why are you suddenly reading Marx again?'

Compare this to:

'Hey, stupid workers! Look at that shit-heap prison-camp over there! That's what happens if you have a revolution, you're better of in comfortable west liberal capitalism!'

It's worked for the last oooh, 70 years or more.


And wasn't this the case with the USSR until the 60s?

No, but it arguably was in 1917-19. or there abouts. Still, other countries existed, the Soviet republic existed, property existed, and the 'social ends' that production was being geared for were:
1 - war;
2 - errr, not starving.

So it still wasn't 'socialism'.

[electrostal]

Why would the bourgeoisie want to deny that 'Stalinism = Communism'?
My personal impression was that bourgeois "popular history" generally presents the pre-Stalin period as "true and genuine" socialism, with Stalin fucking everything up afterwards.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you're confusing 'bourgeois popular history' with 'Trotskyism' there. Except even Trotskyists wouldn't call it 'socialism'.

'Bourgeois popular history' never tires of repeating the endless trope of 'Stalinism was the inevitable outcome of Leninism, which is the logical outcome of workers getting uppity'.

[Baseball]

You don't seem to get it that it's impossible to build socialism except worldwide. The workers of Russia cannot enjoy 'the glories of socialism' without world revolution.

Then I guess socialism is going to be perpetually stuck-- that instantaneous, SUCCESSFUL, world-wide revolt that you are hinging your bets on cannot be taken seriously as a realistic option.

[Baseball]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat became the dictatorship over the proletariat, because it is impossible to sustain 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' indefinitely. The revolution must spread or die. It didn't spread; it died.

OK. So can there be a "base of operations" that establishes itself and supports workers elsewhere under the thrall of capitalism?

I am also wondering a bit of the lack of say science, in your analysis. It is pure faith to surmise the revolution would be a success.

I am also curious about time lines. Why is 70 years considered too long (it took a couple of centuries for capitalism to eclipse feudalism) for the revolution to spread? Why isn't the death of the revolution more accurately analyzed as simply being a result of flawed premises and errors as to its understandings of the nature of capitalism and yes, that of socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

OK. So can there be a "base of operations" that establishes itself and supports workers elsewhere under the thrall of capitalism?...

Of course. But that 'base of operations' (= 'red bastion', = 'revolutionary territory') is always under massive pressure from the outside world.

The revolution must begin somewhere. There is a particular spark. It may start with a single demoinstration that leads to factory occupations; it may start with one street in one city being barricaded as people there 'we've had enough'. It's more likely that it'll happen in several places more-or-less simultaneously but even then, there must logically be one place where it starts even if it also begins somewhere else 10 minutes later; but because it starts somewhere, that doesn't mean that it is completed there with no reference to anywhere else. One factory cannot make a revolution, one street cannot make a revolution, one city cannot make a revolution, one country cannot make a revolution, one continent cannot make a revolution; it's a world revolution by a world-wide class against a world-wide system.


...I am also wondering a bit of the lack of say science, in your analysis. It is pure faith to surmise the revolution would be a success...

I agree and don't know why you 'surmise' any such thing. I have been spending the last 5 pages telling you how the revolution failed. Had you not noticed?


I am also curious about time lines. Why is 70 years considered too long (it took a couple of centuries for capitalism to eclipse feudalism) for the revolution to spread?

There are fundamental differences between feudalism, capitalism and socialism, that you fail to understand.

1 - capitalism is a class system, socialism is not: therefore,
a) capitalism can adjust to other class systems (such as feudalism) because they are based on different premises of exploitation. The bourgeoisise can develop inside feudalism exploiting the urban proletariat, while the aristocracy exploits the rural peasants. Economically, capitalism can develop inside feudalism. They do not therefore come into conflict until the bourgeoisie is capable of taking over the reins of the state. The political revolution of the bourgeoisie follows its economic revolution; only when the bourgeoisie has socially become the leading class in society does the previous social formation (lords, patronage, titled estates etc) start to come into conflict with it. The bourgeoisie grows until it mno longer fits the feudal shell and has its political revolution to becoime the new master of society.
b) socialism is not a class system, it cannot develop in capitalism as a seperate economic power, because the proletariat is already working for the capitalists, so it can't work for itself, and there is no other class the proletariat can exploit. It was not the peasants who overthrew aristocracy, it was the bourgeoisie, another exploiting class; as there proleatariat does not exploit anyone else it cannot have a revolution in the same form as the bourgeois revolution; it is both an exploited class (like the peasantry under feudalism) and a revolutionary class (like the bourgeoisie under feudalism). This was not the case under any previous change of epoch, when the revolutionary class was not the same as the exploited class.

2 - feudalism was a local system (or series of local systems), capitalism is a world system: therefore,
a) feudalism could be overthrown (or accommodated to) in one place (eg Britain and Ireland, between 1640-1746) while in other places the fuedal absolutist state could continue and come to its own accommodation later (eg France 1789-1871; Germany 1848-1890 approximately, etc).
b) capitalism however, because it is a world system, must be overthrown as a world system, just as blood poisonoing must be cured in the blood and not just one affected organ, forest fires must be defeated totally not just in one tree, football cannot be played by a single person etc.

The conclusions that inevitably flow from this are that the proletariat must have its political revolution before its economic revolution; it must seize control of the state to re-order society rather than building its power inside it (1 a&b), and it must do it worldwide (2 a&b). Just as you can't say that you have stopped a forest fire if you can save one tree for 70 years while the rest of the planet burns, one country claiming 'socialism' cannot survive as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is constantly (as I outlined but didn't expand on in the first part of this post) from the outside world; to quote myself in the 'why is 'scialism in one country' impoosible?' thread (this is the post it comes from - http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473301&postcount=54):

In the 'liberated territories', the working class is likely to have to work harder to:
1-make up for the shortfall of international trade as capitalism embargoes the revolutionary territory;
2-increase arms production to defend the revolutionary territory from hostile capitalist attack;
3-repair the damage that the capitalists managed to inflict on the productive forces during their local defeat;
4-export arms and munitions to the still-revolting proletariat in the countries where the revolution is proceeding;
5-while all this is going on, try to increase the material standards of the population in the revolutionary territory.

All of this renders the liberated territory (your 'base of operations') particularly susceptible to failure. I don't know how many years it could have lasted. I know it didn't last 5. I suspect, given better conditions, better decisions, that could have been eked out maybe a couple more years. Not decades, that seems ridiculous to me. Given worse conditions and decisions, it might have been over in weeks.


...Why isn't the death of the revolution more accurately analyzed as simply being a result of flawed premises and errors as to its understandings of the nature of capitalism and yes, that of socialism?

Because revolutions are made by classes and as a result of material conditions, not by certain thinkers who may or may not have got things right or wrong. You have a very idealistic conception of history as you believe that 'great men' make it up out of their own heads.

If people jump off a cliff they die because of gravity, not because they have failed to accurately grasp the theory of the aeroplane. The death of the revolution (which undoubtedly did occur) was not a result of failure of 'theory' or 'understanding' (though there were undoubtedly massive failures of understanding and theory); but even if Lenin and Trotsky had been oh-so-correct, if the revolution had been defeated intertnationally (particularly in Germany) their oh-so-correct theory would have meant precisely nothing. Perfect theory cannot make up for imperfect material conditions. Again, we're back to your idealism.

[Comrade Trollface]

No, but it arguably was in 1917-19. or there abouts. Still, other countries existed, the Soviet republic existed, property existed, and the 'social ends' that production was being geared for were:
1 - war;
2 - errr, not starving.

So it still wasn't 'socialism'.See, this is the crux of the disagreement on whether or not the USSR was socialist- the question of whether or not there is any distinction between the state and society.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree. The crux of the argument as to whether it was socialist is whether it had established socialism.

Which, obviously, it hadn't, and couldn't.

[Baseball]

Of course. But that 'base of operations' (= 'red bastion', = 'revolutionary territory') is always under massive pressure from the outside world.

Ok. So the theory has to account for it. Your subsequent essay simply explains it failed because it failed- sort of like Gibbons Decline and fall of Roman.
It isn't enough.






I agree and don't know why you 'surmise' any such thing. I have been spending the last 5 pages telling you how the revolution failed. Had you not noticed?

Yes. But saying because it failed isn't enough.







b) socialism is not a class system, it cannot develop in capitalism as a seperate economic power, because the proletariat is already working for the capitalists, so it can't work for itself, and there is no other class the proletariat can exploit. It was not the peasants who overthrew aristocracy, it was the bourgeoisie, another exploiting class; as there proleatariat does not exploit anyone else it cannot have a revolution in the same form as the bourgeois revolution; it is both an exploited class (like the peasantry under feudalism) and a revolutionary class (like the bourgeoisie under feudalism). This was not the case under any previous change of epoch, when the revolutionary class was not the same as the exploited class.

But again, such a community, as you yourself has conceded, at some point has to and will, co-exist along side capitalist communities.



The conclusions that inevitably flow from this are that the proletariat must have its political revolution before its economic revolution; it must seize control of the state to re-order society rather than building its power inside

Which is what happened in the USSR- even if you reject the economic revolution part of the equation.


t (1 a&b), and it must do it worldwide (2 a&b).

Or have a safe base upon which to support elsewhere.


Just as you can't say that you have stopped a forest fire if you can save one tree for 70 years while the rest of the planet burns, one country claiming 'socialism' cannot survive as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is constantly (as I outlined but didn't expand on in the first part of this post) from the outside world; to quote myself in the 'why is 'scialism in one country' impoosible?' thread (this is the post it comes from -

In its own stead, it is seeking to place enormous pressure upon the capitalist world. So we are back to why was the pressure placed by the socialist world upon the capitalist not successful, but the capitalist pressure upon the socialist was. Your claim seems to be because socialism was not world-wide. But that also seems a rather circular and incomplete argument.


I
n the 'liberated territories', the working class is likely to have to work harder to:
1-make up for the shortfall of international trade as capitalism embargoes the revolutionary territory;
2-increase arms production to defend the revolutionary territory from hostile capitalist attack;
3-repair the damage that the capitalists managed to inflict on the productive forces during their local defeat;
4-export arms and munitions to the still-revolting proletariat in the countries where the revolution is proceeding;
5-while all this is going on, try to increase the material standards of the population in the revolutionary territory.[/I]

warfare exists within the capitalist world, amongst the various capitalist countries. Those cited problems are scarcely unique to a socialist world. It also fails to account for embargoes by such socialist communities toward capitalist one and the impact that may have upon the capitalist community.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there are a hypothetical one 'socialist' country and 211 capitalist countries, so how much damage is an embargo going to the economy of the revolutionary territory, comapred to the 211 capitalist territories?

The 'glories of socialism' that positivist was extolling can't be enjoyed by the population of the revolutionary territory for the reasons I outlined. Are they unique to the liberated territory? Probably not. Does every capitalist state have to suffer them permanently? No. Does the revolutionary territory? Yes.

So what this means is that in the revolutionary phase, in the opening days, weeks and maybe months of revolution, until more territories join with the original revolutionary territory, the original revolutionary territory will have to suffer the worst and most concentrated effects of the capitalist system. International capital will attempt to destroy the revolutionary territory both militarily and economically.

If the world revolution quickly makes some successes the balance of forces might change and 'socialist embargoes' of the capitalists might begin to have an economic effect.

Of course, the workers of the revolutionary territory wouldn't want the workers in the still-capitalist territories to starve, so they are maybe less likely to use embargoes as a tactic. The capitalist rulers are hardly likely to care about the workers in the revolutionary territories however.

[Liberty]

Totalitarian Communist state.