Why Anarchists oppose Soviet Socialism?

[Philosophos]

I don't quite understand why... If you have any source just put the link down so Thanks in advance

[The Idler]

H.3 What are the myths of state socialism? | Anarchist Writers (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html)

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

They think that anything with a state is anti-socialist.

[Sasha]

Most anarchists supported soviet socialism and would still do, the problem is that the bolshevic counter revolution killed of any chance on actual socialism, like the brave kronstad rebels said "al power to the soviets!"

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anarchists are correct in thinking that state-socialism is not a thing.
Stalinists confuse the DotP for the lower stage of Communism and both of those things for the dictatorship of the party.

[The Douche]

What happened in the USSR was a restructuring of capitalism. So when you say "soviet socialism" I assume you mean "Marxism-Leninism", the ruling doctrine of a capitalist world superpower.

I guess I think it needs no explanation why anarchists, or well, anybody who is actually a communist, would oppose a capitalist superpower and the ideology which guides it.

[theblackmask]

Soviet rule was simply a different kind of capitalism. The working class was still forced to produce for the ruling class. The only difference was that the state constantly claimed that it was doing all this in the name of the workers.

I suggest reading Alexander Berkmans "The Bolshevik Myth"
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-the-bolshevik-myth-diary-1920-22

[Teacher]

Because they are kids who too lazy to actually read/learn anything about Soviet socialism. There were no capitalists in the Soviet Union. Gap between the lowest paid and highest paid was about 1:7, and the bureaucrats weren't even among the highest paid.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Haha sweet wage labor statistics man. No capitalists to be sure :rolleyes:

[kuriousoranj]

I think you need to clarify what you mean when you say "Soviet Socialism". Do you mean a system of soviets, or the system in the former Soviet Union?

[Positivist]

Well the Marxists-Leninists (those who advocate a state structure modeled after the Soviet union) operate on a different definition of socialism than most other socialists. For most socialists communism=socialism whereas for ML's socialism is the "lower phase of communism." This period is supposed to be characterized by the building of a stateless, classless, abundant, communal society.

[Comrade Samuel]

Because they are kids who too lazy to actually read/learn anything about Soviet socialism. There were no capitalists in the Soviet Union. Gap between the lowest paid and highest paid was about 1:7, and the bureaucrats weren't even among the highest paid.

What's your source for that?

From what I'm given to understand anarchists where in favor of the workers councils that held duel power with the provisional government but did not like the ideas that the Bolsheviks brought to the table after the october revolution eventually culminating in the Kronstat incident. I don't believe the sailors of kronstat where anarchists but they did support the workers councils. (please do correct me if there is anything FACTUALY wrong with this as I'm attempting to give as objective answers to this as possible)

[Ostrinski]

Because they are LAME

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Because they are kids who too lazy to actually read/learn anything about Soviet socialism. There were no capitalists in the Soviet Union. Gap between the lowest paid and highest paid was about 1:7, and the bureaucrats weren't even among the highest paid.

:rolleyes:

Guess everyone I grew up around was a liar.

[Positivist]

:rolleyes:

Guess everyone I grew up around was a liar.

Are you from a former Ussr territory or people's democracy?

[Caj]

Well the Marxists-Leninists (those who advocate a state structure modeled after the Soviet union) operate on a different definition of socialism than most other socialists. For most socialists communism=socialism whereas for ML's socialism is the "lower phase of communism." This period is supposed to be characterized by the building of a stateless, classless, abundant, communal society.

I would say M-Ls equate socialism, not with the lower phase of communism, which is classless and stateless, but with the dictatorship of the proletariat (or at least with a certain stage of its existence).

Of course, some M-Ls further confuse the matter by confounding the lower phase of communism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. (How such an understanding emerges from even a cursory reading of Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme" is beyond me.)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Are you from a former Ussr territory or people's democracy?

Mhmm, I was born and grew up in Moscow, but have been basically all over.

[Positivist]

Mhmm, I was born and grew up in Moscow, but have been basically all over.

Hmm your good English and relatability lead me to believe you were from America (where I'm from.) Haha

[Zealot]

Because Anarchists do not have a scientific world outlook and do not understand the fundamental relationship between theory and practice. In fact, they come dangerously close to idealism if not idealism proper.

[The Jay]

Haha sweet wage labor statistics man. No capitalists to be sure :rolleyes:

While I'm no fan of the USSR, I take issue with this. Who owned the means of production? The state. Who was the bourgeoisie? It certainly wasn't the bureaucrats though they fulfilled some of the roles currently occupied by the bourgeoisie. While the USSR was not a good method of organising society, it was not capitalist during the times that I'm thinking of.

[Tim Cornelis]

Because they are kids who too lazy to actually read/learn anything about Soviet socialism.

You sound like a caricature, to be honest.

In a sense, anarchists are the most ardent supporters of soviet socialism. Arguably, the Soviet Union had neither soviets nor socialism.


There were no capitalists in the Soviet Union.

This merely amounts to circular reasoning: there was no capitalism in the USSR, therefore no capitalists, therefore no capitalism, therefore no capitalists (or vice versa). But you are begging the question, why where there no capitalists in the Soviet Union? No one is disputing that there were no private capitalists in the USSR (or at least very little), so arguing this would be a misrepresentation of the views of many anarchists--in which case the "not reading/learning" applies to you.

In order to answer whether there were no capitalists we have to identify whether there was a socialist or capitalist mode of production. This has been done ad nauseam so let's not repeat it here.


Gap between the lowest paid and highest paid was about 1:7, and the bureaucrats weren't even among the highest paid.

Again begging the question: are the fundamental characteristics of the socialist mode of production a low wage gap? (and if so, how low). If we can answer affirmatively then we can indeed say that the Soviet Union was socialist. But to do so would be to abandon Marxism, which isn't necessarily a problem for me, but all the more for you.

There are certain variations of the characteristics of the capitalist and socialist mode of production depending on what aspect of Marxist analysis we emphasise. Some say the relations of production are most important (of which I am one), some say the type of commodity production (generalised commodity production is here considered capitalist), others say alienation from the production process (I recall someone stressing this on these forums, I believe Tim Finnegan), and some say 'the law of value applying to capital goods.' But none of the definitions that conforms to any aspect of Marxism includes the wage gap.

[The Douche]

I would like to point out that none of you so-called "scientific socialists" have demonstrated how it was possible for capitalists to re-emerge in the USSR. How is it possible, that the social relationship of capitalism was abolished, and able to return?

If you are Marxists then you know that history doesn't revert backwards to more primitive forms of property relations. So the only "scientific" conclusion one can come to, if on uses the tools and methods of Marx, is that the USSR was not socialist.

The USSR was quite obviously nothing more than an authoritarian social welfare state, and I'm not necessarily opposed to authority (of the class, not a clique, though) or social welfare (though I certainly don't prefer it to communism, as it can only exist in a capitalist economy), but I don't call that communism.

Not a single defense of the USSR in this thread, just condemnations of anarchists. Typical Stalinist horse-shit.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would like to point out that none of you so-called "scientific socialists" have demonstrated how it was possible for capitalists to re-emerge in the USSR. How is it possible, that the social relationship of capitalism was abolished, and able to return?

I was thinking the same thing, and made this little 'graph' to show that Marxism-Leninism is itself the greatest revision of Marxism. According to Marxist-Leninists history can progress as follows:

Primitive communism > slave-societies > feudalism > socialism > capitalism* > socialism > communism
productive forces advance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

*Marxist-Leninists argue capitalism can be split in two sections: state-capitalism which was introduced because the leadership of the Soviet Union changed its ideas slightly, and private-capitalism which came after the collapse of state-capitalism.

It is irreconcilable with Marxism that we have socialism, and despite the fact that the productive forces have advanced since then, it reverts 'back' to capitalism because the leadership revised its ideas (which incidentally also shows the USSR was not a workers' state either).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I would like to point out that none of you so-called "scientific socialists" have demonstrated how it was possible for capitalists to re-emerge in the USSR. How is it possible, that the social relationship of capitalism was abolished, and able to return?

If you are Marxists then you know that history doesn't revert backwards to more primitive forms of property relations. So the only "scientific" conclusion one can come to, if on uses the tools and methods of Marx, is that the USSR was not socialist.

The USSR was quite obviously nothing more than an authoritarian social welfare state, and I'm not necessarily opposed to authority (of the class, not a clique, though) or social welfare (though I certainly don't prefer it to communism, as it can only exist in a capitalist economy), but I don't call that communism.

Not a single defense of the USSR in this thread, just condemnations of anarchists. Typical Stalinist horse-shit.

Unlike your calling Marxism-Leninism vapitalism. That isn't just condemning MLs. Typical Anarchist horse-shit, hypocrite.

[The Douche]

Unlike your calling Marxism-Leninism vapitalism. That isn't just condemning MLs. Typical Anarchist horse-shit, hypocrite.

This post is not showing how it is possible, and concurrent with Marxism for society to advance to socialism and the revert to capitalism.

A number of MLs have come in here. Where is your defense against the typical anarchist horse-shit?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This post is not showing how it is possible, and concurrent with Marxism for society to advance to socialism and the revert to capitalism.

A number of MLs have come in here. Where is your defense against the typical anarchist horse-shit?

I think arguing with petty-bourgeois idealists isn't worthy of my time. The discussion whether or not the USSR was socialist (I believe it was in the Stalin-Era) appears every so often, and it always results in the same non-sense. I don't think anything new will come up, from either side, so I don't waste my time with it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While I'm no fan of the USSR, I take issue with this. Who owned the means of production? The state. Who was the bourgeoisie? It certainly wasn't the bureaucrats though they fulfilled some of the roles currently occupied by the bourgeoisie.Why not? If it's bureaucrats controlling social surplus and directing where to invest it, how is than not filling the same role? Does that mean that Keynesian policies where the state acts on behalf of unwilling (due to crisis which makes investments slow) capitalists as an engine for investments and capital circulation? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.


It is irreconcilable with Marxism that we have socialism, and despite the fact that the productive forces have advanced since then, it reverts 'back' to capitalism because the leadership revised its ideas (which incidentally also shows the USSR was not a workers' state either).

It would be possible IMO, but not without a huge counter-revolution (since world-wide market capitalism was still very much the order) - and we certainty wouldn't have seen the former Party become the current ruling class as in Russia or China. While a system might not revert spontaneously back to a previous system, certaintly we've seen many worker's movements get pulled by non-proletarian interests: the 2nd international famously (and since 99% of us on this site would agree that something like that happened with those parties). But I also think this is what happened in Russia as (measures argued as imperfect) necessities early on (regardless if we agree or not if they were wise decisions or policies) became virtues as the goal of worker's power became more and more lost and a trend within the Bolsheviks began to see the point as building the nation. So IMO, it was a case like the 2nd international of movement being pulled by (petty0bourgoise) politics.

[The Douche]

I think arguing with petty-bourgeois idealists isn't worthy of my time. The discussion whether or not the USSR was socialist (I believe it was in the Stalin-Era) appears every so often, and it always results in the same non-sense. I don't think anything new will come up, from either side, so I don't waste my time with it.

The USSR was socialist under Stalin because you believe it was.

Got it.:rolleyes:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The USSR was socialist under Stalin because you believe it was.

Got it.:rolleyes:

Where do I say so? I say I think it was, but that doesn't mean you have to believe it. Go ahead, study the information about the period, and make up your own mind (Although it seems you already did).

[Tim Cornelis]

I think arguing with petty-bourgeois idealists isn't worthy of my time. The discussion whether or not the USSR was socialist (I believe it was in the Stalin-Era) appears every so often, and it always results in the same non-sense. I don't think anything new will come up, from either side, so I don't waste my time with it.

So you believe that in spite of the fact that the productive forces advanced since socialism was established it reverted back to capitalism because the leadership of the USSR changed some ideas on how to run society? You believe that the USSR was classless?

Primitive communism > slave-societies > feudalism > socialism > capitalism > socialism > communism
productive forces advance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

By the way, how do you get away with calling someone a "petty-bourgeois idealist" when you argue that the USSR ceased to be socialist because of idealism? It's just a meaningless buzzword to cover for your cop out.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So you believe that in spite of the fact that the productive forces advanced since socialism was established it reverted back to capitalism because the leadership of the USSR changed some ideas on how to run society? You believe that the USSR was classless?

Primitive communism > slave-societies > feudalism > socialism > capitalism > socialism > communism
productive forces advance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

I don't see why that is so unlikely. Just because the DotP and Socialism have been established, doesn't mean all bourgeois/capitalist-ideology is immediately gone, the next day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^ the next day or in 60 years!?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Because Anarchists do not have a scientific world outlook and do not understand the fundamental relationship between theory and practice. In fact, they come dangerously close to idealism if not idealism proper.

I identify with certain Anarchist principles and I absolutely detest idealism. I adopt a scientific and material outlook on almost everything in my daily life.

What you're saying is more of a below the belt attack on an opposing ideology as opposed to constructive criticism. I do understand where you come from when you say that some of the Anarchists are idealist. But in wider context, this is no different from any other ideology on the planet, and the opposite rings true as well (logical and scientific ideology).

So you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't see why that is so unlikely. Just because the DotP and Socialism have been established, doesn't mean all bourgeois/capitalist-ideology is immediately gone, the next day.

If you don't understand then you're not a historical materalist, and thus not a Marxist. The material conditions determine what mode of production exists, not an ideology (that is, according to historical materialism). Thus, once socialism has been established and the productive forces advance, you can't revert back to capitalism. It is impossible to have feudalism in the West with the current level of technology and productive capabilities. Hence, insisting that we can from feudalism to socialism and back to capitalism is a revision of the fundamentals of Marxism.

That being said, how could there have been a dictatorship of the proletariat if all it took for the Soviet Union to revert from socialism to capitalism was the (slight) revision of ideology of its leadership. This necessarily implies that the leadership, a small clique, and not the working class exercised power.

Moreover, in the dictatorship of the proletariat there is a working class exercising its class rule over the capitalist class. In contrast, socialism is classless and hence no working class would exist. You say the Soviet Union was both.

I'm not saying that Marxism-Leninism is wrong because it's not Marxist, but it certainly diverges radically from the basics of Marxist analysis.


Because Anarchists do not have a scientific world outlook and do not understand the fundamental relationship between theory and practice. In fact, they come dangerously close to idealism if not idealism proper.

"Scientific"? How is arguing that you can from feudalism to socialism to capitalism sustained by any "scientific" (Marxist) analysis? As I've demonstrated above, there is nothing Marxist about arguing anything a Marxist-Leninist does. Marxist-Leninists seems to be the biggest idealists around here.

[Manic Impressive]

Why Anarchists oppose Soviet Socialism?

A better question would be

Why would anyone support Soviet Capitalism?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The USSR was socialist under Stalin because you believe it was.

Got it.:rolleyes:

But that's not idealism, that's science.

[Caj]

I think arguing with petty-bourgeois idealists isn't worthy of my time.


I don't see why that is so unlikely. Just because the DotP and Socialism have been established, doesn't mean all bourgeois/capitalist-ideology is immediately gone, the next day.

Well that's a bit ironic. . . .

[Hermes]

If you don't understand then you're not a historical materalist, and thus not a Marxist. The material conditions determine what mode of production exists, not an ideology (that is, according to historical materialism). Thus, once socialism has been established and the productive forces advance, you can't revert back to capitalism. It is impossible to have feudalism in the West with the current level of technology and productive capabilities. Hence, insisting that we can from feudalism to socialism and back to capitalism is a revision of the fundamentals of Marxism

Sorry for interrupting, but what would happen if a socialist society (for whatever hypothetical reason) lost the majority of their productive capability? Wouldn't it be possible, then, that it could revert to an earlier stage of production?

--

For clarification, I'm not trying to liken this to the USSR during WW2, or anything. I'm just trying to understand the concept.

[Zealot]

If you don't understand then you're not a historical materalist, and thus not a Marxist. The material conditions determine what mode of production exists, not an ideology (that is, according to historical materialism). Thus, once socialism has been established and the productive forces advance, you can't revert back to capitalism. It is impossible to have feudalism in the West with the current level of technology and productive capabilities. Hence, insisting that we can from feudalism to socialism and back to capitalism is a revision of the fundamentals of Marxism.

Unfortunately, your idealism compels you to insist that a Socialist country cannot revert back to Capitalism under particular conditions all the while proclaiming you're a materialist.


That being said, how could there have been a dictatorship of the proletariat if all it took for the Soviet Union to revert from socialism to capitalism was the (slight) revision of ideology of its leadership. This necessarily implies that the leadership, a small clique, and not the working class exercised power.

Except we don't believe that the degeneration was due to a revisionist leadership alone.


Moreover, in the dictatorship of the proletariat there is a working class exercising its class rule over the capitalist class. In contrast, socialism is classless and hence no working class would exist. You say the Soviet Union was both.

Because you don't understand what Marxist-Leninists mean by Socialism. You're trying to impose your own definition just so that you can giggle to yourself about how other people don't share your definition.


I'm not saying that Marxism-Leninism is wrong because it's not Marxist, but it certainly diverges radically from the basics of Marxist analysis.

I don't even think you understand Marxism-Leninism at all.


"Scientific"? How is arguing that you can from feudalism to socialism to capitalism sustained by any "scientific" (Marxist) analysis? As I've demonstrated above, there is nothing Marxist about arguing anything a Marxist-Leninist does. Marxist-Leninists seems to be the biggest idealists around here.

Again, just because you really really really want Socialism to be maintained doesn't mean it will be.

[theblackmask]

Because you don't understand what Marxist-Leninists mean by Socialism. You're trying to impose your own definition just so that you can giggle to yourself about how other people don't share your definition.

So, what exactly do Marxists-Leninists mean by Socialism?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It has to have Socialist or Socialism in the name.

[Tim Cornelis]

Sorry for interrupting, but what would happen if a socialist society (for whatever hypothetical reason) lost the majority of their productive capability? Wouldn't it be possible, then, that it could revert to an earlier stage of production?

--

For clarification, I'm not trying to liken this to the USSR during WW2, or anything. I'm just trying to understand the concept.

According to historical materialist analysis, if the productive forces regress, society can fall back into a previous mode of production, yes.


Unfortunately, your idealism compels you to insist

Explain how 'my' idealism relates to this (I wasn't talking from my personal perspective).


that a Socialist country cannot revert back to Capitalism under particular conditions all the while proclaiming you're a materialist.

Socialism could revert back to capitalism if the productive forces regress. This is not what happened in the USSR though. The productive forces in the Soviet Union were much more advanced in 1953 than it was in 1928 or 1918.


Except we don't believe that the degeneration was due to a revisionist leadership alone.

But surely "revisionist leadership" is purely idealist? And to what other factors can we attribute its degeneration?


Because you don't understand what Marxist-Leninists mean by Socialism. You're trying to impose your own definition just so that you can giggle to yourself about how other people don't share your definition.

Socialism being a classless society is a rather evident and basic definition. Are you seriously going to assume the position that (I will emphasise it to show how ridiculous it is):

socialism is a class society?


I don't even think you understand Marxism-Leninism at all.

Enlighten me.


Again, just because you really really really want Socialism to be maintained doesn't mean it will be.

I never argued it did. But saying that in spite of the productive forces having advanced since socialism was established, society reverted back to capitalism is incompatible with Marxism.

[Sheepy]

Because it's just a form of bureaucracy and to call it socialism is a joke. Not to mention the purges against the anarchists by the Bolsheviks and later the Stalinist state capitalists.