Log in

View Full Version : A scientific summary of the USSR and its collapse



Bolshevika
25th December 2003, 01:10
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/fred1218.php


The revolution overcame the near-total collapse of the productive forces and raised Russia and its colonies from a semi-feudal region to the second industrial power in the world. The USSR led the world in steel and coal production. In the sphere of science and engineering, the USSR inaugurated the space age, built the largest construction projects in history, and, most importantly, from a class point of view, it did all this while lifting the peasants and workers out of poverty, bringing literacy, medicine, vacations, early retirement, and numerous other social benefits to the people.

The planned economy eliminated economic crises. Not once in its history, save during the Nazi invasion, did it suffer a decline in production. The five-year plans brought a steady growth in the economy while the capitalist world went through boom and bust, including a world depression in the 1930s. Unemployment was abolished. The present horrendous living conditions of the peoples of the former USSR are sufficient testimony to what was lost.

The revolution gave the oppressed nations who were in the tsar's "prison house of nations" the right to self- determination and created the first legislative house of nationalities in history. In its early years the Soviet government exposed the secret treaties of imperialism and called upon the oppressed peoples of the world to overthrow their colonial masters. It supported anti-imperialist governments and liberation struggles around the world and inaugurated a foreign policy of internationalism.


Karl Marx himself never let victorious counterrevolution force him to abandon his scientific view of history, and consequently never lost faith in the struggle. After the revolution of 1848, in which he and Frederick Engels were participants, the workers in Paris were slaughtered and the Prussian and Austrian monarchies, with the aid of the Russian tsar, crushed the revolutions in their realms. Revolutionaries all over Europe were executed, jailed or exiled. By 1852, reaction reigned supreme.

But in the midst of reaction, on March 5, 1852, Marx wrote a letter to a friend in New York, Joseph Wedemeyer, in which he calmly said that "... no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. ... What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of the classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

redstar2000
25th December 2003, 03:12
On balance, it was the combined forces of material insufficiency and the campaign of aggression and pressure by imperialism that were the dominant factors in the demise of the USSR, not its attempts to build socialism.

What is "scientific" about this explanation?

The USSR was at peace from 1945 to 1992 (with trivial exceptions). Of course, there was always the threat of aggression...but the USSR had the nuclear capability from the middle 1950s to deal with that possibility.

So what "pressure" is this guy talking about?

If the USSR's approach to "socialism" was sound, then "material insufficiency" is a poor excuse as well. The USSR did not collapse, after all, in 1945-60...when people really were poor. It was afterwards that the "rot" set in...when people were much better off.


To be sure, the demise of the USSR was immeasurably aided by the leadership's eventual abandonment of socialist norms and Leninist practices. The growth of excessive material privilege and social inequality under the guise of material incentives, the abandonment of revolutionary proletarian internationalism, and the use of repressive measures which went beyond the justifiable repression of the bourgeoisie and landlords to include the party and loyal communists, helped to undermine the revolutionary spirit of the workers--the fundamental asset of the revolution.

That's a little better...though it ignores the fact that all those "bad practices" were inaugurated by Lenin himself--supported by both Trotsky and Stalin.

But I think this guy knows the real explanation--though he hides it in his closing conclusion...


It is the revolution in the developed imperialist countries that lays the basis for an era of true peace and solidarity to begin, that is, the beginning of human history.

In other words, the material conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia, China, etc. From a Marxist standpoint, the whole project of "socialist revolution" in backward countries was and remains quixotic...no matter what you do, you still end up with capitalism.

You can't skip a whole epoch of class society...no matter how much you want to.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas