Lenin acknowledging the intentional implementation of State Capitalism in the USSR

[Let's Get Free]

Lenin himself desired, promoted and acknowledged the State Capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, although this was largely confined to intra-party debate and private letters. The destruction of council democracy and the introduction of 'War Communism' was the point at which the Bolsheviks introduced it to Russia, and it was consolidated by the 'New Economic Policy'.

This is in direct contrast to latter-day leninists and trots claims of the USSR under Lenin and Trotsky as genuinely socialist.

Lenin wrote:
State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm - this writing also has much more on state capitalism.

Lenin wrote:
The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.
Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

It seems to be tied into Lenin and Trotsky's pasts as Social-Democrats and the widely accepted theory that Russia needed to pass through a phase of capitalist development before socialism was workable (hence why the Mensheviks etc pushed for a parliamentary democracy). When Lenin chose to go with the Soviets rather than the Parliament, and claimed that Russia was ready for Socialism, he was lying: he still intended for Russia to pass through a phase of state capitalism.

But Lenin's theories of State Capitalism as a path to socialism were proved wrong, as his theory of democratic centralism does not assure control over society by the proletariat, but by a bureaucracy....

Although this whole subject does beg the question of whether industrialization and economic development is possible under socialism? I personally think this is possible. I would say industrialization produces capitalism, not the other way around.

[Grenzer]

Sorry man but this has probably been brought up about a dozen times since June. Real fucking late on this one.

Democratic Centralism doesn't have much to do with organization of state. It's about political organization, not party organization; but when it comes to Leninism, it's often the same..

[Ismail]

The 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia had a good section about the way Lenin used the term and its fate within the USSR:

In the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, state capitalism is one of the socioeconomic structures permitted and regulated by a proletarian state. It exists in the form of foreign-capital concessions, the renting of state enterprises, joint-stock societies, private trade on a commission basis, cooperation, and the like.

A theoretical justification of the need for state capitalism in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism was given by Lenin. He noted that the fundamentally new stature of state capitalism is predetermined by the new (proletarian) character of authority and by the conditions in which it is operating, with capitalism having ceased to exist but socialism not yet being the prevailing mode of production (see Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 45, pp. 84–85).

As a special structure of the transitional period, state capitalism can play an important role in the process of socialist reorganization of the economy. It is a more progressive form of economy than private capitalism, small-scale commodity production, and subsistence production. The transition of private capitalism and, together with it, small-scale commodity production onto the track of state capitalism eases a country’s transition to socialism, for it makes possible the maintenance or creation of large-scale machine production and the use in the proletariat’s interests of the monetary resources, knowledge, experience, and organizational capacities of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intelligentsia.

A plurality of structures in the economy of the transitional period is a general natural law for all countries proceeding toward socialism. The liquidation of the plurality of structures and the institution of the socialist structure as the prevailing system of social production constitute the content of the transitional period. The transition of individual countries from capitalism to socialism occurs at different times and under different domestic and external conditions. Two factors—the initial level of the country’s economy from which the transition to socialism begins and the balance of class forces within the given country and in the world arena—determine the specific nature of the utilization of state capitalism in the interests of the victory of socialism.

A unique feature of state capitalism in the USSR was the fact that state capitalist enterprises remained the people’s property. Only working capital (finished output and monetary resources) were retained as the property of the lease-holding concessionaires. Fixed assets (such as buildings, equipment, and land), including those that were newly built or imported from abroad, could not be sold or turned over by a capitalist to another person, and financial bodies could not alienate fixed assets to recover debts from the lease-holding concessionaire. “A lessee,” Lenin noted, “is not a property owner. ... A lease is a contract for a period. Both ownership and control remain with us, the workers’ state” (ibid., vol. 52, p. 193). The relations between the capitalists and the workers of concessionary enterprises remained those between capital and hired labor, manpower remained a commodity, and the antagonism of class interests continued. At the same time these relations were under the control of and were regulated by the proletarian state, which substantially changed the conditions of the class struggle in favor of the working class.

State capitalism did not receive any broad development in the USSR and held a minor position in the country’s economy, a situation attributable to the rapid growth of a large-scale socialist industry. Moreover, the Soviet state’s attempts to use state capitalism for socialist reorganizations encountered active resistance from the bourgeoisie. The Russian bourgeoisie would not accept state capitalism and was therefore forcibly expropriated. By 1923–24 the share of state-capitalist enterprises in the gross output of the national economy was only 0.1 percent, and the number of persons they employed at the end of 1925 did not exceed 1 percent of the country’s workers.

[Ostrinski]

Which Trotskyists have claimed that the Soviet Union ever had a socialist economy?

Also, this is not controversial. This was the perfectly appropriate stance to have - state capitalism prefectly describes the economic nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It can't be any other way, unless you're a Stalinist who believes in SiOC.

[Geiseric]

I mean get real, you can call what they had in the USSR anything you want, but the actual politically correct term would be state capitalism, since in the 1920s the law of value still mattered. The N.E.P. was basically state managed capitalism, done for the purpose of eventually collectivizing the farms that the peasants agreed to build up for about a decade. It should of been abolished sooner for an easier transition to the planned economy, but cest la vie.

[Ostrinski]

It also merits a noting that Lenin's use of the term is different than the likes of Cliff and the left communists and anarchists. For Lenin it meant allowing minor private ownership of some of the economy, however managed and kept in line by the state. For the others mentioned obviously it means the state itself assuming the traditional roles of the capitalists in market economies such as extracting surplus value etc.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin himself desired, promoted and acknowledged the State Capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, although this was largely confined to intra-party debate and private letters. The destruction of council democracy and the introduction of 'War Communism' was the point at which the Bolsheviks introduced it to Russia, and it was consolidated by the 'New Economic Policy'.

This isn't news to anyone and certainly wasn't some secret they attempted to keep within the party. What should they have done? Spontaneously created a new mode of production within the confines of their state? State capitalism was the best possibility for the Russian Proletariat.


This is in direct contrast to latter-day leninists and trots claims of the USSR under Lenin and Trotsky as genuinely socialist.


I've never seen a Trot or Leninist claiming the USSR was socialist, so I'm not sure what your going on about here. Just for the sake of clarity, I don't consider Stalinists, Leninists.


It seems to be tied into Lenin and Trotsky's pasts as Social-Democrats

You clearly don't understand the historical context of the term.


and the widely accepted theory that Russia needed to pass through a phase of capitalist development before socialism was workable (hence why the Mensheviks etc pushed for a parliamentary democracy).

Russia was a capitalist state as capitalism is a global system. Would you of sided with the Mensheviks then?


When Lenin chose to go with the Soviets rather than the Parliament, and claimed that Russia was ready for Socialism, he was lying: he still intended for Russia to pass through a phase of state capitalism.

Phew I don't even really know where to begin with that statement, so I'm not really even going to address it; I hope one day, further along in your political development, you'll look back and cringe.

Why is it so hard for this forum, supposedly filled with internationalists, to figure out that what matters is whether or not the productive forces have progressed enough globally for socialism to emerge, and not within individual states.


But Lenin's theories of State Capitalism as a path to socialism were proved wrong,

How on earth could it have been anything other than state capitalism during the DOTP!? Are you a supporter of SOIC?

[l'Enfermé]

:laugh:

Comrade, you should restrain yourselves from making such misinformed threads all the time, it's embarrassing.

You talk of Lenin's and Trotsky's pasts as Social-Democrats without any knowledge that every Marxist before 1917, when Lenin revived the term "communism", which hasn't really been used since the 1860s as Engels told Kautsky in a letter in 1894, was a "Social-Democrat". Every Russian and German Marxist, whether a real Marxist or a revisionist and reformist, called himself a "Social-Democrat". I do not see you criticizing Luxemburg for being a leading member of the Polish Social-Democrat Party for its entire 25 years of existence.

The socialization of the means of production is possible only if the forces of production are sufficiently advanced. In Russia, they were very primitive. The productivity of Russian labour was one of the lowest in Europe. Moreover, the peasantry made up the vast majority of Soviet society. Under such conditions, speaking of socialist mode of production is sheer lunacy; even if you ignore all the other insurmountable obstacles to socialism, what are you gonna do about the tens of millions of peasants who are inherently opposed to socialism(though under certain conditions can be temporarily brought over to the proletariat's cause)? what, do you propose they all get shot? - no, their absorption into the working class is a slow proccess, and if pushed too hard leads to millions of corpses and mass graves.

Now, Lenin never seriously claimed that Russia was "ready for Socialism", as you imply. No one did. Socialism in One Country, before Stalin re-invented it, only existed in the heads of ultra-revisionist right-wing socialists like Vollmar.

As for state-capitalism being a path to socialism, no, that was not Lenin's. Lenin said that, by the time capitalism advances into state-capitalism, like in the German Empire, all the prerequisites for the socialist mode of production are in place. State-capitalism is such an advanced capitalism that the only more advanced form of human society that can follows it is socialism, that is, unless capitalism regresses.

You speak of democracy centralism but you do not understand in the least what it means. Democratic centralism has little to do with assuring control over society by the proletariat. Democratic centralism is a form of inter-party organization, designed to maintain an air of free discussion and criticism in the party, yet without encouraging splits and indiscipline.

[Let's Get Free]

It also merits a noting that Lenin's use of the term is different than the likes of Cliff and the left communists and anarchists. For Lenin it meant allowing minor private ownership of some of the economy, however managed and kept in line by the state. For the others mentioned obviously it means the state itself assuming the traditional roles of the capitalists in market economies such as extracting surplus value etc.

Well, Lenin identified socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly identifying socialism with "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers.

[Geiseric]

Well state capitalism as opposed to starvation is very in the interests of workers. The state capitalism thing in all reality was mostly how they dealt with the peasantry, it's a much different image as say the US government's war industries board, which is also technically state capitalist.

[Ostrinski]

Well, Lenin identified socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly identifying socialism with "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers.Yes, Lenin erred a bit in language occasionally.

[Caj]

My god, enough with this hackneyed old argument; it demonstrates nothing more than that the one who uses it has virtually no understanding of Marxist communism whatsoever.

The primary function of the proletarian dictatorship is to act as the weapon by which the proletariat destroys the capitalist mode of production and establishes socialism. Coinciding with the establishment of socialism, i.e., coinciding with the dictatorship's fulfillment of its own functions, is the latter's withering away. So of course the proletarian dictatorship is going to exist within the context of a capitalist mode of production when its purpose is precisely the destruction of that mode of production! If you want to argue that the Bolsheviks were bourgeois revolutionaries, then argue that the state established by the October Revolution was capitalist, not that the economy was, which is denied by nobody and does not prove anything.

[Let's Get Free]

You talk of Lenin's and Trotsky's pasts as Social-Democrats without any knowledge that every Marxist before 1917, when Lenin revived the term "communism", which hasn't really been used since the 1860s as Engels told Kautsky in a letter in 1894, was a "Social-Democrat". Every Russian and German Marxist, whether a real Marxist or a revisionist and reformist, called himself a "Social-Democrat". I do not see you criticizing Luxemburg for being a leading member of the Polish Social-Democrat Party for its entire 25 years of existence.
I'm very well aware of the historical usage of the term.


The socialization of the means of production is possible only if the forces of production are sufficiently advanced. In Russia, they were very primitive. The productivity of Russian labour was one of the lowest in Europe. Moreover, the peasantry made up the vast majority of Soviet society. Under such conditions, speaking of socialist mode of production is sheer lunacy; even if you ignore all the other insurmountable obstacles to socialism, what are you gonna do about the tens of millions of peasants who are inherently opposed to socialism(though under certain conditions can be temporarily brought over to the proletariat's cause)? what, do you propose they all get shot? - no, their absorption into the working class is a slow proccess, and if pushed too hard leads to millions of corpses and mass graves.

A society based on workers running their workplaces and the peasants controlling the land was not only possible but was being implemented by the people themselves.


As for state-capitalism being a path to socialism, no, that was not Lenin's. Lenin said that, by the time capitalism advances into state-capitalism, like in the German Empire, all the prerequisites for the socialist mode of production are in place. State-capitalism is such an advanced capitalism that the only more advanced form of human society that can follows it is socialism, that is, unless capitalism regresses.

State capitalism is no less exploitative than "traditional" capitalism, and has absolutely nothing to do with the progress of humanity toward a socialist society. All it could do was promote the dictatorship of a single party over the proletariat which led unavoidably to the repression of all freedom of speech, press, organization, and action, even for revolutionary tendencies.


You speak of democracy centralism but you do not understand in the least what it means. Democratic centralism has little to do with assuring control over society by the proletariat. Democratic centralism is a form of inter-party organization, designed to maintain an air of free discussion and criticism in the party, yet without encouraging splits and indiscipline.
I fully understand what democratic centralism is but the way that it is applied ultimately is not and never has been the way you apparently think it should be. Every Leninist party has strict centralization and hierarchy and every Leninist party that has ever managed to gain control of a country has done so using this strict centralization and hierarchy in consolidating political power into their hands.
What you say and think and what is done and created are two very different things.

[Let's Get Free]

The primary function of the proletarian dictatorship is to act as the weapon by which the proletariat destroys the capitalist mode of production and establishes socialism.

Was it a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or one OVER the proletariat? A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded. That clearly applied in the case of Russia 1917. Not only was the Russian working class only a small fraction of the population - perhaps 10% - but overwhelmingly Russian workers were not socialist minded and Lenin himself free acknowledged this to be the case. For that reason alone, along with others, socialism was simply not an option. By default, if not design, the Bolsheviks had to take on the administration of capitalism and, in the course of doing so, those who controlled the state became the new de facto capitalist ruling class with complete control over the disposal of the economic surplus.


If you want to argue that the Bolsheviks were bourgeois revolutionaries, then argue that the state established by the October Revolution was capitalist, not that the economy was, which is denied by nobody and does not prove anything.

I'm saying that due to the material conditions, the Bolsheviks could not have been anything other than the harbingers of state run capitalism.

[hetz]

A society based on workers running their workplaces and the peasants controlling the land was not only possible but was being implemented by the people themselves.Where? Let me guees, in the "free territory" in Ukraine?


State capitalism is no less exploitative than "traditional" capitalism, and has absolutely nothing to do with the progress of humanity toward a socialist societyState capitalism "appeared" in developed Germany in the 19th, one of the most developed capitalist countries back then.
Capitalist development of the productive forces and everything else has a lot to do with the progress of humanity towards socialism.


I'm saying that due to the material conditions, the Bolsheviks could not have been anything other than the harbingers of state run capitalism.
Why?

[Ostrinski]

Indeed as you put it the workers took control of their factories and the peasants took control of their land. Didn't work out that perfectly, peasants withheld grain and other important produce and the directly-controlled factories failed at coordinating the economy effectively especially during war and in the ensuing famine and crisis. There were even cases where factories produced only for themselves.

[Geiseric]

The social gap between the cities and countryside was a really big problem. You had a modern proletariat existing at the same time as a feudal peasantry, so extraordinary measures with land reform would of been completely necessary, unless food is superfluous to a revolution.

[Comrade Hill]

So basically, your point is that the NEP actually lasted forever, and never ended?

Please tell me you're joking :laugh:

[Let's Get Free]

Indeed as you put it the workers took control of their factories and the peasants took control of their land. Didn't work out that perfectly, peasants withheld grain and other important produce and the directly-controlled factories failed at coordinating the economy effectively especially during war and in the ensuing famine and crisis. There were even cases where factories produced only for themselves.

Well, unfortunately, the centralized Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to really mismanage an economy. They liquidated workers control in favor of a centralized, top-down economic regime ensured that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favor of orders from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. The bureaucracy didn't even know how many factories it was managing. As Kropotkin said, a centralized state running the economy was “undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.”

[Ostrinski]

Russia was an odd case. By 1913 Russia was the fifth largest industrial power as well as one of the largest grain exporters and had modern industrial centers such as Petrograd and Moscow, but the large majority of the country was held centuries back by the remnants of the feudal economy. So while you had a modern proletariat in a few key places the country was still overwhelmingly peasant in class nature. This is an extremely unideal circumstance if you're trying to work toward socialism.

But remember that in contrast to popular Bolshevik opinion Lenin was convinced that WWI signified the coming of the global revolution and the October revolution was commenced on that premise to take Russia out of a devastating war. So they were stuck between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand, they weren't entirely sure about the prospects of a revolution in Europe coming to the aid of the workers government in Russia and on the other something had to be done about a war that was destroying Russia.

[hetz]

Well, unfortunately, the centralized Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to really mismanage an economy.It was still a system of some sort, if a horribly inefficient one. Anyway the circumstances it was created in were horrible, it couldn't have possibly been much better. It also saved Soviet Russia from total collapse and maintained its army's combat readiness.

Workers taking control over factories in Novosibirsk and then taking up resources while sparing little products for the rest of the country, well, that was something else.

[Ismail]

Well, unfortunately, the centralized Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to really mismanage an economy. They liquidated workers control in favor of a centralized, top-down economic regime ensured that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favor of orders from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. The bureaucracy didn't even know how many factories it was managing. As Kropotkin said, a centralized state running the economy was “undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.”"The case of the railways will suffice as an illustration.... the overall management of the railways was entrusted, and complete control by the workers decreed on 23 January 1918. Within a few months the railways were in a state of collapse. The 'complete and utter disorganization' was growing daily:

'The workers by present-day rules are guaranteed their pay. The worker turns up at his job . . . does his job, or not, as he pleases, no one can control him, because the [railway repair] shop committees are powerless. If the workshop committee attempts to exercise some control, it is immediately disbanded and another committee elected. In a word, things are in the hands of a crowd, which thanks to its lack of interest in and understanding of production is literally putting a brake on all work.'

Ironically enough it fell to Shlyapnikov, the future leader of the Workers' Opposition and advocate of workers' control of industry, to paint this deplorable picture before the Central Executive Committee, and to demand the restoration of work discipline on the railways. On 26 March the Council of People's Commissars centralized control of the railways under the Commissar of Communications, who was given complete dictatorial powers. Lenin drafted the decree. But the railways were only one instance out of many. The inescapable fact that workers' control had failed was Lenin's strongest argument in winning support for his industrial policy of work discipline, one-man management, and efficient methods of production."(Leonard Schapiro. The Origins of the Communist Autocracy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1965. pp. 139-140.)

[Ostrinski]

Well, unfortunately, the centralized Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to really mismanage an economy. They liquidated workers control in favor of a centralized, top-down economic regime ensured that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favor of orders from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. The bureaucracy didn't even know how many factories it was managing. As Kropotkin said, a centralized state running the economy was “undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.”Of course, it wasn't desirable. But you can't just divorce the policy of the Bolshevik government from the conditions that necessitated it, which you are doing. Their hand was forced by the peasants that were content with starving the cities so that they could make moonshine and otherwise withhold grain and the uncoordinatedness of the urban economy and distribution of goods.

It's not as if everything was fantastic until the Bolshevik government restricted worker control. That would be just as absurd as Trotskyists saying that everything was great until the defeat of the Left Opposition.

[Let's Get Free]

It's not as if everything was fantastic until the Bolshevik government restricted worker control. That would be just as absurd as Trotskyists saying that everything was great until the defeat of the Left Opposition.

I'm not arguing that everything was hunky-dory until the Bolsheviks restricted workers control, but I am saying that Bolshevik policies made an already bad situation worse.

[hetz]

I'm not arguing that everything was hunky-dory until the Bolsheviks restricted workers control, but I am saying that Bolshevik policies made an already bad situation worse.
And where's your evidence for that claim?

[Ismail]

I'm not arguing that everything was hunky-dory until the Bolsheviks restricted workers control, but I am saying that Bolshevik policies made an already bad situation worse.How? There was economic growth throughout the NEP and, obviously, the Five-Year Plan periods. Even "War Communism" achieved results.

[Let's Get Free]

And where's your evidence for that claim?


How? There was economic growth throughout the NEP and, obviously, the Five-Year Plan periods. Even "War Communism" achieved results.

In "The Economic Organisation of War Communism," Silvana Malle wrote

“The most evident shortcoming . . . was that it did not ensure central allocation of resources and central distribution of output, in accordance with any priority ranking . . . materials were provided to factories in arbitrary proportions: in some places they accumulated, whereas in others there was a shortage. Moreover, the length of the procedure needed to release the products increased scarcity at given moments, since products remained stored until the centre issued a purchase order on behalf of a centrally defined customer. Unused stock coexisted with acute scarcity. The centre was unable to determine the correct proportions among necessary materials and eventually to enforce implementation of the orders for their total quantity. The gap between theory and practice was significant.”
Thus there was a clear “gulf between the abstraction of the principles on centralisation and its reality."

[Ismail]

I don't see what that has to do with demonstrating that central planning sucks. "War Communism" was largely ad hoc measures done in the context of civil war. As R.W. Davies points out in Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev (p. 23), "By 1920 War Communism had enabled the Soviet regime to establish itself over nearly the whole territory of the Russian Empire.... In conditions of peace, the grain requisitioning policy and the other policies of War Communism were no longer viable."

Actual efforts at rational central planning didn't start until after "War Communism," with the establishment of Gosplan in 1921 and the system established under the Five-Year Plans.

[Ostrinski]

I'm not arguing that everything was hunky-dory until the Bolsheviks restricted workers control, but I am saying that Bolshevik policies made an already bad situation worse.Yes, we'd like to think this because it would give legitimacy to our beliefs in direct democracy, worker's control, and all the other little candies that we as socialists strive for, however unfortunately the facts don't line up with what our greatest wishes might be. It was a lot worse than "not hunky dory" and to simply call it a mess would be a grave understatement.

I expect that you know that your claims are extremely controversial and by that by extension significant support and evidence is required to sustain your claim?

[Caj]

Was it a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or one OVER the proletariat?

That was basically my point. The capitalist nature of the mode of production says nothing about whether the dictatorship was proletarian or not. Again, if you want to argue that the Bolsheviks were bourgeois revolutionaries, then you should argue that the state, not the economy, was capitalist, viz. that the state served the interests of the bourgeoisie. I would not agree with such an argument, but it would be much more respectable than the overused, already refuted one you are spouting now.


A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded. That clearly applied in the case of Russia 1917. Not only was the Russian working class only a small fraction of the population - perhaps 10% - but overwhelmingly Russian workers were not socialist minded. Lenin himself free acknowledged this to be the case. For that reason alone, along with others, socialism was simply not an option. By default, if not design, the Bolsheviks had to take on the administration of capitalism and, in the course of doing so, those who controlled the state became the new de facto capitalist ruling class with complete control over the disposal of the economic surplus.

The workers were actually "socialist minded." The Bolsheviks were a mass party, containing a large portion and having the overwhelming support of the Russian working class. Socialism was "not an option" because the Revolution failed to spread internationally and socialism in one country is an impossibility.


I'm saying that due to the material conditions, the Bolsheviks could not have been anything other than the harbingers of state run capitalism.

And why is that such a bad thing? In a semi-feudal society like c. 1920 Russia, state-administered capitalism meant the further development of the productive forces, something indispensable to the eventual realization of socialism. Again, what matters is not the nature of the mode of production, which, under a proletarian dictatorship must be one or another form of capitalism, but whether the state was proletarian or not.

[Comrade Hill]

Well, unfortunately, the centralized Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to really mismanage an economy. They liquidated workers control in favor of a centralized, top-down economic regime ensured that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favor of orders from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. The bureaucracy didn't even know how many factories it was managing. As Kropotkin said, a centralized state running the economy was “undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.”

First of all, it's quite obvious that the Soviet planning agencies (GOSPLAN and other local planning bodies) did not have the capability or the technology to keep track of all economic activities. The economy did have some inefficient tendencies.

Yet, the USSR still managed to industrialize (one of the fastest industrializations ever), without the help of capitalist production, and successfully fought off fascism. Your quote from Kropotkin is completely devoid of any historical analysis or context. The notion that the proletariat in the USSR was ready for "direct worker's control" because of the "local conditions" after the Civil War, with a highly illiterate population, is absurdly utopian and idealistic.

I've already shown you proof that the USSR maintained a socialist mode of production after the 1930s, until around 1957, where the means of production began circulating as commodities. You rejected my analysis and accused me of subscribing to the "Great man theory" simply because I acknowledge the existence of revisionism, and the role theory plays in people's actions. Materialism also doesn't reject the existence of action and the role that plays in determining material conditions. You can basically use this argument to apologize for any form of revisionism that exists - jucheism, khrushevism, maoism, etc.

I think it's safe to say that I've proven you wrong, for the second time. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

[Let's Get Free]

The workers were actually "socialist minded." The Bolsheviks were a mass party, containing a large portion and having the overwhelming support of the Russian working class. Socialism was "not an option" because the Revolution failed to spread internationally and socialism in one country is an impossibility.
Were they? The workers wanted and understood a society without private property, wage labor, money, or a state? I don't think that was the case. The workers backed the Bolsheviks because of their populist reform program, ie, land peace and bread and getting Russia out of the war, which was a good thing, but by itself has nothing to do with socialism. And of course, with the failure of the revolution to spread, it was doomed from the start anyway.


In a semi-feudal society like c. 1920 Russia, state-administered capitalism meant the further development of the productive forces, something indispensable to the eventual realization of socialism.

And that's exactly what happened, the revolution created a modern capitalist state, not communism.

[Let's Get Free]

I've already shown you proof that the USSR maintained a socialist mode of production after the first five-year plan, until around 1957, where the means of production began circulating as commodities. You rejected my analysis and accused me of subscribing to the "Great man theory" simply because I acknowledge the existence of revisionism, and the role theory plays in people's actions. What makes this even worse is that you failed to actually counter my arguments.


First of all, the USSR never had anything resembling a socialist mode of production. And your ridiculous theory that the socialism in the USSR was defeated because the wrong set of Great Leaders were in power is idealistic beyond description.

[Comrade Hill]

First of all, the USSR never had anything resembling a socialist mode of production. And your ridiculous theory that the socialism in the USSR was defeated because the wrong set of Great Leaders were in power is idealistic beyond description.

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims with evidence. Your silly "nuh uh" answer doesn't suffice as an argument.

And...people don't have any ability to influence their conditions? It's important to know that what Khrushchev and his body of followers thought he was doing was "returning to Leninism." The restoration of capitalism wasn't established according to his "will" or anything. It also wasn't some "automatic" process that suddenly happened.

[Ostrinski]

And that's exactly what happened, the revolution created a modern capitalist state, not communism.I don't understand the need to point this out though. It shouldn't be a point of interest to anyone except the Marxist-Leninist who believes that the establishment of a socialist economy is possible within national confines. That the revolution degenerated should come as no surprise to the Marxists and anarchists that since the 19th century have always placed importance on the need for international revolution to create a socialist economy.

[Let's Get Free]

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims with evidence. Your silly "nuh uh" answer doesn't suffice as an argument.

And...people don't have any ability to influence their conditions? It's important to know that what Khrushchev and his body of followers thought he was doing was "returning to Leninism." The restoration of capitalism wasn't established according to his "will" or anything.

First of all, if the revision of Marxism is why all attempts at socialism have failed, then we will never, ever, ever, ever have socialism. Marxism is not some divine ordinance that we must strictly follow and abide by, lest we stray from our path. That is idealism of the filthiest sort, in fact it's borderline religious fanaticism. And let me ask you a question: Did the revolution create a socialist state? If so, when did the USSR turn into a capitalist state? Why were the masses not able to tell the difference between the capitalist restorations of the evil revisionist Kruschev and the true socialism of the glorious leader Stalin? Could it be because the USSR never had socialism in the first place?

[Comrade Hill]

First of all, if the revision of Marxism is why all attempts at socialism have failed, then we will never, ever, ever, ever have socialism.


Where exactly does the idea that "socialism failed" come from, hmm? It was established, wasn't it? The Soviet Union built a heavy industry, right? It took the Soviet Union 30 years what took many capitalist nations several decades, didn't it? Even with all the bureaucracy, the soviets still gave the system a more democratic character than exploitative capitalist enterprises, didn't they?

How we can establish socialism, yet alone communism, without the science of Marxism? How will we do that? What is your alternative theory to Marxism? The fight against revisionism is all part of class struggle. To refuse to combat revisionism is to demonstrate consent to pseudo-Marxist trends that benefit the bourgeoisie and imperialism.


Marxism is not some divine ordinance that we must strictly followed and abided by, lest we stray from our path. That is idealism of the filthiest sort, in fact it's borderline religious fanaticism.


It is a science that any revolutionary communist must follow if they want to achieve communism successfully in a world of material conditions.

Be aware that you're saying this right after you quoted Kropotkin, completely out of context, as if he is some kind of grand, magical authority on how a state in a modern society functions. That is not a dialectical analysis.



And let me ask you a question: Did the revolution create a socialist state?


It created the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state later had a socialist character when the capitalist class was expropriated, and the means of production were allocated based on use and not profit.

Lenin did admit that the Soviet state did maintain some "bourgeois elements." Yet, an analysis of an economic system isn't an analysis of the what "elements" the state has. It is an analysis of the mode of production as a whole, of class as a whole.



If so, when did the USSR turn into a capitalist state? Why were the masses not able to tell the difference between the capitalist restorations of the evil revisionist Khrushchev and the true socialism of the glorious leader Stalin?


This is probably the 4th or 5th time you've asked me this question. I already answered it above, and in many other threads. The Civil War and World War II helped halt the construction of socialism. There was a profound lack of Marxist education in the Soviet Union. The people of the Soviet Union were not socialist minded for this very reason, and were thus able to be easily deceived by Marxist sounding slogans like "being against the cult of personality" and "returning to Leninism."

The masses do not automatically gain a socialist conscious under socialism. That is something you refuse to accept. There will be no further answers to this question.



Could it be because the USSR never had socialism in the first place?


No. The word socialism is not something you can adjust for your own purposes.

[Ismail]

Gladiator there were all sorts of works written in the 70's alone which discussed the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. One of the basic texts is Martin Nicolaus' Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR which can be viewed here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html

A more detailed work, How Capitalism Has Been Restored in the Soviet Union and What This Means for the World Struggle, can be bought for I'd imagine not a lot of money.

Nor does opposing revisionism mean that Marxism is "some divine ordinance that we must strictly follow and abide by, lest we stray from our path." Albania carried out its own revolution; it was the only country in Eastern Europe in which the Red Army played no part whatsoever in its liberation. It carried out its economic policies on the basis of the concrete situation existing in the country. Albanian materials regularly noted that by doing this they had the experience of the USSR before them, but that they also had their own experience with its peculiarities the Soviets did not have, and that in undertaking the construction of socialism they proceeded on their own path, one in full conformity with the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.

The "foco" theory of Castro and Che was not a "creative development" of Marxism, and I'm sure you'd agree even though both men presented it as such. Eurocommunism and other reformist courses were not "creative developments" of Marxism by "taking account" of the fact that Italy, France, Spain, etc. had obvious differences in some aspects compared to 1917 Russia. Nor is Juche a "creative" endeavor except in how to creatively posture Kim Il Sung as a greater philosopher and theoretical genius than Marx and Engels and to creatively negate Marxism-Leninism in all fields.

Likewise the "creative development of Marxism-Leninism" pursued by Khrushchev, Brezhnev (let alone Gorbachev), Mao and so on were right-wing deviations. They were conducted for opportunistic and anti-revolutionary ends.

[Let's Get Free]

Where exactly does the idea that "socialism failed" come from, hmm? It was established, wasn't it? The Soviet Union built a heavy industry, right? It took the Soviet Union 30 years what took many capitalist nations several decades, didn't it?

Yes, all that is true, but what they had was state capitalism, not socialism.


Even with all the bureaucracy, the soviets still gave the system a more democratic character than exploitative capitalist enterprises, didn't they?
State capitalism in the USSR wasn't any more democratic or any less exploitative than capitalism elsewhere.


How we can establish socialism, yet alone communism, without the science of Marxism? How will we do that? What is your alternative theory to Marxism?

Socialism and communism are the same thing. And Marxism is an approach to social science, not a damn religion.



Lenin did admit that the Soviet state did maintain some "bourgeois elements." Yet, an analysis of an economic system isn't an analysis of the what "elements" the state has. It is an analysis of the mode of production as a whole, of class as a whole.

If the Bolsheviks smashed the Tsarist feudal state, and created a new 'workers state', why didn't the revisionists or bourgeoisie smash this so-called 'workers state' in turn when they reintroduced capitalism? The simplest and best explanation is simply that the Russian revolutions was bourgeois revolution, and not proletarian revolution.


The Civil War and World War II helped halt the construction of socialism. There was a profound lack of Marxist education in the Soviet Union. The people of the Soviet Union were not socialist minded for this very reason, and were thus able to be easily deceived by Marxist sounding slogans like "being against the cult of personality" and "returning to Leninism.
So the existence of socialism depends on a single Great Leader staying alive, without which the ignorant masses will be fooled into turning back to capitalism?

[Ismail]

So the existence of socialism depends on a single Great Leader staying alive, without which the ignorant masses will be fooled into turning back to capitalism?It is undeniable that the economic "reforms" began shortly after Stalin died. See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm

An excerpt, giving just one example:

Stalin's proposal, approved by the 19th Congress of the C.P.S.U., to gradually introduce products-exchange between town and country in place of commodity circulation was effectively ended from May 1953 and a programme for extending commodity circulation was adopted under the slogan of expanding 'Soviet trade'. The sphere of Gosplan in the Soviet economy was progressively restricted with the expansion of the economic rights of the All-Union Soviet Ministries in April 1953 and by the extension of the powers of the Directors of Enterprises and the Ministries of the Union Republics in 1955. The system of centralized directive planning as law inherited from the Stalin period was ended from 1955 and replaced by a new system of 'coordinative planning' by Gosplan and the All-Union and Union Republic Ministries. The two years after the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. witnessed further radical changes in the running of the Soviet economy. Under Resolution Number 555 of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. dated 22nd May, 1957 the system of allocation of the products of the State sector was brought to an end and a multitude of centralized sales organizations was created under Gosplan to sell industrial products manufactured by Soviet industry. The elimination of Molotov, Kaganovich and Saburov from the leadership of the C.P.S.U. had an immediate impact on economic policy. The transformation of the means of production into commodities was clearly accomplished by Resolution Number 1150 of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. on September 22nd,1957, by which enterprises was expected to operate on the basis of profitability.

The Third Edition of the 'Political Economy Textbook' which appeared in 1958 accurately reflected the new economic system by stating that the means of production circulated within the State sector as commodities (Ostrovityanov, K.V., et al, 'Politicheskaya Ekonomiya, Uchebnik', 3rd edition, Moscow, 1958, p.505.).Obviously the trends which led to the restoration of capitalism could not have been overcome by just one man, but Stalin did indeed criticize them in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which was denounced as a "left-deviationist" work after his death.

[Robocommie]

Yes, we'd like to think this because it would give legitimacy to our beliefs in direct democracy, worker's control, and all the other little candies that we as socialists strive for, however unfortunately the facts don't line up with what our greatest wishes might be. It was a lot worse than "not hunky dory" and to simply call it a mess would be a grave understatement.

I expect that you know that your claims are extremely controversial and by that by extension significant support and evidence is required to sustain your claim?

I'm convinced by the argument, but my question to you would then be, what vindicates our belief in direct democracy, worker's control and all those other socialist candies? After all, we're supposed to be scientific socialists.

[Grenzer]

There were reforms in the times of Khrushchev, but they never fundamentally altered the character of the Soviet social system and economy. Whatever it was in the 1940's, it remained in the 1950's to a very large degree.


As Kropotkin said, a centralized state running the economy was “undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.”

Kropotkin also said that it would be a good idea to support World War 1, so he can go fuck himself, frankly.

[Ostrinski]

I'm convinced by the argument, but my question to you would then be, what vindicates our belief in direct democracy, worker's control and all those other socialist candies? After all, we're supposed to be scientific socialists.You misinterpreted me. What I was saying was that Gladiator's argument would provide a convenience for the argument for those things, however fact doesn't line up with the narrative. I wasn't arguing against democracy, worker control, or anything else.

[Comrade Hill]

Socialism and communism are the same thing. And Marxism is an approach to social science, not a damn religion.


Socialism, or the "lower stage of communism" is not a full development of communism, which is a stateless, classless society. Thus, they are not the "same."

If you know that Marxism is a social science, then why do you want to deviate from it? Darwinism is a science, isn't it? Should we embrace social-darwinism, which is a revisionist form of darwinism that promotes racism and eugenics? Or should people who consider themselves darwinists fight against this?

Would sticking to Darwinism, and not social-darwinism, be like worshiping a religion? Seriously, come on now.



If the Bolsheviks smashed the Tsarist feudal state, and created a new 'workers state', why didn't the revisionists or bourgeoisie smash this so-called 'workers state' in turn when they reintroduced capitalism? The simplest and best explanation is simply that the Russian revolutions was bourgeois revolution, and not proletarian revolution.


Like I said, this wasn't an automatic process. Does the collapse of the Soviet state ring a bell at all?



So the existence of socialism depends on a single Great Leader staying alive, without which the ignorant masses will be fooled into turning back to capitalism?

You really don't understand what happened, do you? Do you really think the revisionists were going to come out openly against Stalin when he was alive? Do you think that would've looked great in the eyes of the Soviet people, who Stalin garnered popularity from?

Surely Stalin must've contributed something for this to all happen. With much help from the red army, the Soviet organs, and the workers. Of course, not everyone simply liked Stalin because he was a "good Marxist." Still, coming out openly against Marxism-Leninism while Stalin is still alive would be extremely foolish, and would be tantamount to political suicide.

But people contributing things is "Great man theory?" Seriously, enough of your nonsense. You tell me we can "never, ever establish socialism" if we fight revisionism, yet seem you believe we are all powerless people stuck in a vacuum where theory plays no role in people's actions, and is somehow not part of material reality. That is not materialism, and its certainly not science. Whatever that is, it's nonsense, and you can't use this garbage to establish socialism!

[Let's Get Free]

Socialism, or the "lower stage of communism" is not a full development of communism, which is a stateless, classless society. Thus, they are not the "same."

No, socialism is not "the lower stage of communism." Not once did Marx or Engels make this distinction, they used the terms interchangeably. This was a distinction made by Lenin.


Like I said, this wasn't an automatic process. Does the collapse of the Soviet state ring a bell at all?
So the gradually destroyed this workers state, little by little, bit by bit?



You really don't understand what happened, do you? Do you really think the revisionists were going to come out openly against Stalin when he was alive? Do you think that would've looked great in the eyes of the Soviet people, who Stalin garnered popularity from?

Surely Stalin must've contributed something for this to all happen. With much help from the red army, the Soviet organs, and the workers. Of course, not everyone simply liked Stalin because he was a "good Marxist." Still, coming out openly against Marxism-Leninism while Stalin is still alive would be extremely foolish, and would be tantamount to political suicide.

Well, where does this revisionism come from? Revisionism, apparently appearing from nowhere, raises its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. "(They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.") And if Khrushchev really restored capitalism, either immediately or gradually, you would expect the proletariat of the Soviet Union to defend socialism, rather than take capitalist reforms lying down, as they apparently did. To say otherwise is, as the phrase goes, rolling the film of reformism in reverse.

[Robocommie]

You misinterpreted me. What I was saying was that Gladiator's argument would provide a convenience for the argument for those things, however fact doesn't line up with the narrative. I wasn't arguing against democracy, worker control, or anything else.

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply you were. Rather what I'm saying is that if the one-man management and work discipline policies had to be enacted because of the material conditions of the Soviet Union at the time, because of what you said about peasants withholding grain from the cities and what Ismail discussed about the general collapse of the railway system, then what DOES this say about worker's control in general? Was this situation peculiar to the Soviet Union at that time, or is it a more general phenomenon, and if it was peculiar, what caused it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Robo, the production parochialism of factory workers producing just for themselves was more general, not peculiar. "Workers control" is a problematic political concept:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/stakeholder-co-management-t145117/index.html

[Geiseric]

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply you were. Rather what I'm saying is that if the one-man management and work discipline policies had to be enacted because of the material conditions of the Soviet Union at the time, because of what you said about peasants withholding grain from the cities and what Ismail discussed about the general collapse of the railway system, then what DOES this say about worker's control in general? Was this situation peculiar to the Soviet Union at that time, or is it a more general phenomenon, and if it was peculiar, what caused it?

It means that just like with capitalism, it takes a system to run any modern economy, a national system that needs to link every factor of the economy together in order to build up what they needed, which was a planned economy with an agricultural production that was not at the right level by 1921. Whoever is managing it is superfluous as long as the right people, the working class, benefits from whatever decisions are being made.

[Comrade Hill]

No, socialism is not "the lower stage of communism." Not once did Marx or Engels make this distinction, they used the terms interchangeably. This was a distinction made by Lenin.


Okay, so let me get this straight. I'm the one who worships Marx like a religion, yet anything that Marx does not mention is "wrong" in your book? That's sort of a contradiction don't you think?



So the gradually destroyed this workers state, little by little, bit by bit?


I'm not sure what is so hard to accept about this. Things don't happen in a big "kaboom."



Well, where does this revisionism come from? Revisionism, apparently appearing from nowhere, raises its ugly head and takes over the party.


Are you kidding me? Where does revisionism come from? Haven't I answered this question before? It's routed in class contradictions. Why would it come from nowhere? People still carried many previous ideas and conceptions from the old society. There was that, coupled with the rise of imperialism. These conditions are going to give birth to all sorts of pseudo-leftist, class collaborationist elements.



Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere.


That's what you think revisionism is. Some of the bureaucratic organs, coupled with officials getting caught up in formalism, probably aided revisionism. But that's not the same thing as the state somehow causing revisionism. No, that's absurd, and that would be a liberal argument.




To say otherwise is, as the phrase goes, rolling the film of reformism in reverse.

It was not reformism. I'll read you a quote from Martin Nicolaus's work Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR (http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html#s11):


After June, Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich's allies and supporters were one after the other fired from leading posts or expelled altogether from the party and government, while Khrushchev and his group put their followers in all positions. The struggle was over. Khrushchev's program had won.

Though no blood was spilled between the antagonists in the final showdown of June 1957, Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich and their allies were put out of power, fundamentally, by military intervention. The takeover was bloodless and completely "legal" according to party rules; but it was nevertheless in essence a right-wing military coup that insured the Khrushchev victory.

Without a doubt, his power grew out of the barrel of a gun only not the gun of the revolutionary soldiers and peasants, but the gun of a bourgeois officer corps.

Just excuse the Maoist sounding phrase of the "barrel of a gun" as a gun is manufactured by human labor, whose labor power is commanded by the laws of society. Barring a similarity to the bloodless October Revolution where the Bolsheviks established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, these revisionists established a "Dictatorship of the whole people."

[Let's Get Free]

Okay, so let me get this straight.I'm the one who worships Marx like a religion, yet anything that Marx does not mention is "wrong" in your book?
If you haven't noticed by now, I am not a Leninist. I prefer to use the Marxist definitions of socialism and communism, where they mean more or less the same thing.






Are you kidding me? Where does revisionism come from? Haven't I answered this question before? It's routed in class contradictions. Why would it come from nowhere? People still carried many previous ideas and conceptions from the old society. There was that, coupled with the rise of imperialism. These conditions are going to give birth to all sorts of pseudo-leftist, class collaborationist elements.
So the survival of socialism depends on the ideological purity of the party?




After June, Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich's allies and supporters were one after the other fired from leading posts or expelled altogether from the party and government, while Khrushchev and his group put their followers in all positions. The struggle was over. Khrushchev's program had won.

Though no blood was spilled between the antagonists in the final showdown of June 1957, Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich and their allies were put out of power, fundamentally, by military intervention. The takeover was bloodless and completely "legal" according to party rules; but it was nevertheless in essence a right-wing military coup that insured the Khrushchev victory.

Without a doubt, his power grew out of the barrel of a gun only not the gun of the revolutionary soldiers and peasants, but the gun of a bourgeois officer corps.

Similar to the bloodless October Revolution where the Bolsheviks established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, these revisionists established a "Dictatorship of the whole people."


This amounts to nothing more than a changing of the guard- a few of the most prominent leaders from Stalin's time removed from the party and a few others forced into retirement. Plus, you have only been talking about the leaders of the anti-revisionist current- what about the Party membership in general? Where was the struggle against revisionism amongst them? ." A change from one mode of production to another requires revolution or counterrevolution. Coups are neither of those. They are simply a "changing of the guard." ? As far as I know, there were little political/structural changes after the death of Stalin, that allowed for their predecessors to take power. You can blame Kruschev's relatively liberal policies for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, but socialism is not a matter of policy, it is concerned primarily with who owns the means of production.
Kruschev didn't lead a "coup" in the USSR. He rose through the mechanisms of the state to become its leader. And also, the Bolsheviks established a dictatorship over the proletariat.

[Comrade Hill]

If you haven't noticed by now, I am not a Leninist. I prefer to use the Marxist definitions of socialism and communism, where they mean more or less the same thing.


I don't think Marx or Engels would be concerned with such semantics. It's quite obvious that neither of them believed that communism was one stage of development. It's easier to distinguish between them by calling the lower stage of development socialism. As far as the meaning of it goes, Engels quite clearly outlined some of it in anti-duhring, and Karl Marx did with the Critique of the Gotha Programme. As far as the exact details go, they didn't really talk about that.



So the survival of socialism depends on the ideological purity of the party?


I don't know, you tell me. Is Marxism-Leninism an ideology?



This amounts to nothing more than a changing of the guard- a few of the most prominent leaders from Stalin's time removed from the party and a few others forced into retirement.


And your statement amounts to nothing more than a bunch of nonsense, since you describe a "guard" as if it is something that is detached from class struggle, as well as material reality.



Plus, you have only been talking about the leaders of the anti-revisionist current- what about the Party membership in general?


Really? Was I talking about an anti-revisionist current? Perhaps some of them were "good" Marxist-Leninists. However, it is said that Molotov and many others were complacent with revisionism, and did not speak out against it. What happened immediately after Stalin's death was not "Khrushchev's coup," but a wide range of arrests being carried out by the state security apparatus, with Lawrence Beria at its head. Then there was a struggle between Khrushchev and Malenkov between 1953 and 1955.



As far as I know, there were little political/structural changes after the death of Stalin, that allowed for their predecessors to take power.


Actually, there were quite a lot of changes. Over 27 out of the 50 government ministries were abolished. The entire destruction of Stalin's presidium is said to be carried out by Beria and his men. It would be insane to deny that this played a role in establishing Khrushchev as the next leader. With that said, Khrushchev did not suddenly "grow wings" and rise to power.



You can blame Khrushchev relatively liberal policies for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, but socialism is not a matter of policy, it is concerned primarily with who owns the means of production.


Well, yeah. During the socialist period of the Soviet Union, the means of production were organized under a central plan under state property. These plans were guided by directives from the central committee, which would then be guided by other directives from other organs, etc. Since the means of production were allocated according to use by the different organs, and not profit, the means of production didn't operate as commodities. The contradiction between mental and manual labor persisted, as it does under socialism. The job of the management, although it was one-man management, was to produce profit for the state as a whole, and not themselves. No individual could hold shares in the state enterprises. The profits were reinvested back into the economy according to plan.



Kruschev didn't lead a "coup" in the USSR. He rose through the mechanisms of the state to become its leader. And also, the Bolsheviks established a dictatorship over the proletariat.


So a change in the guard happened, but no coup happened? Only a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie can be a dictatorship over the proletariat. The capitalist class successfully deprived of their hegemonic status when the USSR was socialist. The workers had to comply with the directives and the quotas. They operated according to Taylorism (using the most efficient labor techniques as possible). They had to work long hours during the war, and there were many sacrifices. However, these were not sacrifices to some imaginary hegemonic capitalist class that existed in the USSR! It was a society of workers and peasants.

Socialism doesn't mean the restoration of capitalism is impossible.

[Robocommie]

I'm not sure what is so hard to accept about this. Things don't happen in a big "kaboom."


Aha, but what about bombs?

[Ismail]

No, socialism is not "the lower stage of communism." Not once did Marx or Engels make this distinction, they used the terms interchangeably. This was a distinction made by Lenin.In his critique of the Gotha programme, Marx spoke of a lower phase of communism; Engels referred to this as socialism.


So the gradually destroyed this workers state, little by little, bit by bit?Capitalist restoration was a reality by the 60's. Obviously as time went on the "socialist" façade was increasingly corroded, culminating in the rise of Gorbachev who gave up the mask.


Well, where does this revisionism come from? Revisionism, apparently appearing from nowhere, raises its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. "(They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.")Revisionism has various causes with bureaucracy and liberal, capitulationist sentiments being the most obvious. The Albanians stressed the importance Lenin attached to involving the working-class in as much of the affairs of the state as possible, they explicitly said that doing this would significantly bar the way to the restoration of capitalism.


And if Khrushchev really restored capitalism, either immediately or gradually, you would expect the proletariat of the Soviet Union to defend socialism, rather than take capitalist reforms lying down, as they apparently did.Well first off Khrushchev was hardly popular in his time, and as I wrote in another thread:

I do not see why you fail to recognize that the Soviets after 1956 cloaked everything they did as "returning to the path of Leninism." They claimed that not only had socialism been achieved, but that its victory was final and that the USSR would reach Communism by 1980. "By accepting only the narrow understanding of the transition period, the modern revisionists try to clothe it with a content such as would open the road to the theoretical justification of the peaceful counter-revolution, reestablishment of capitalism... it is said that the new economic-social order is not developed through class struggle and that the ideological political and economic-social soil for the reestablishment of capitalism cannot be created." (Hekuran Mera, in Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania and of the Struggle Against Revisionism, 1971, pp. 187-188.)

In the 50's and 60's the Soviet revisionists were also able to take advantage of the economic achievements of the 30's-40's and thus preside over increased living standards. This combined with an end to class struggle (aided, of course, by the low theoretical level of the great mass of the Soviet citizenry, something pointed out by Stalin in one of his last speeches) pretty clearly played a great role in their demagogic activities.


So the survival of socialism depends on the ideological purity of the party?The party is the vanguard of the proletariat, comprised of its most advanced elements. It should be reasonably obvious that any vanguard operating on the principles of, say, Dengism is not going to be a very productive one capable of guiding the process of socialist construction and of correctly assessing internal and external phenomena.


This amounts to nothing more than a changing of the guard- a few of the most prominent leaders from Stalin's time removed from the party and a few others forced into retirement. Plus, you have only been talking about the leaders of the anti-revisionist current- what about the Party membership in general? Where was the struggle against revisionism amongst them? .""Under the slogan of the 'fight against Stalin's personality cult,' or under the pretext of rotation, the Khrushchevite revisionists rode roughshod over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Seventy per cent of the members of the members of the Central Committee elected at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in 1952 were no longer figuring on the list of the Central Committee members elected at the 22nd Congress in 1961. Sixty per cent of the CC members in 1956 were no longer figuring on the list of the CC members that were elected at the 23rd Congress in 1966. A still greater purge has been carried out in the lower party organs. For instance, during 1963 alone, more than 50 per cent of the members of the party central and regional committees in the Republics of the Soviet Union were relieved of their functions, while in the city and district party committees three quarters of their members were replaced with others. The purge of the revolutionary cadres has been carried out on a large scale also in the State organs, and especially in those of the army and State security." (Enver Hoxha, The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, 1972, pp. 498-499.)

Khrushchev defeated the "Anti-Party Group" by having Zhukov (a "victim" of "Stalinism") threaten a military coup. In the Georgian SSR the Soviet revisionists deployed tanks against pro-Stalin rank-and-file communists: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/georgia.htm

Chinese and Albanian materials against Soviet revisionism were verboten. In fact, according to (http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_questions_answers_4.htm) the maintainers of the website enverhoxha.ru in Soviet times you could find various Western publications with ease (along with revisionist publications from the DPRK, Yugoslavia, etc. which got along fine with the Soviets), whereas for instance the Russian edition of New Albania was strictly prohibited and information about Albania itself reduced to the bare minimum.


A change from one mode of production to another requires revolution or counterrevolution. Coups are neither of those. They are simply a "changing of the guard." ?The Chinese and Albanians did note that the Soviet revisionists took power via more or less peaceful means, which they recognized as something obviously unique in history, but then again both Trotskyists and Brezhnevites used/use this as "proof" that the USSR had not restored capitalism.

Of course many Trots adhered to ol' Trotsky's viewpoint:

"As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)

This is why a number of Trots still spoke of the "gains of the October revolution" in Russia as late as 1992 and 1993 being "undermined" by Yeltsin. To this very day there are a handful of Trots (thankfully none that post on RevLeft) who hold that Putin and Co. are representatives of the "Stalinist bureaucracy" and that the Russian Federation is a "degenerated workers' state" because there wasn't a violent counterrevolution.

[Grenzer]

Chinese and Albanian materials against Soviet revisionism were verboten.

I guess that puts the luminaries of anti-revisionism on the same level as Sigmund "Penis Envy" Freud and Friedrich "Superman" Nietzsche. Oh Enver, what company you keep.

[Ismail]

I guess that puts the luminaries of anti-revisionism on the same level as Sigmund "Penis Envy" Freud and Friedrich "Superman" Nietzsche. Oh Enver, what company you keep.Except the Soviets after 1956 mostly rehabilitated Freud.

[Grenzer]

The main problem with the idea that capitalism was "restored" in the Soviet Union is that the proletarian dictatorship can only exist within the context of capitalism because the proletariat can only exist in relation to the capitalist mode of production. If a proletarian dictatorship existed in the Soviet Union, then so did capitalism.. but it's clear that a proletarian dictatorship did not exist, having been liquidated in the early 20's, and that the party leadership took a role very much analogous to that of the bourgeoisie, seeing its ideological reflection in the nationalist distortion of Marxism "Socialism in One Country", nationalist foreign policy, the united and popular front, and promotion of Russian nationalism domestically.

One of the main goals of early Soviet foreign policy was to contain and prevent the possibility of revolution abroad. Revolution would first of all threaten the Soviet leadership with a revolt of its own proletariat, and revolution abroad would destroy the stability of the relationships between the Soviet Union and its fellow capitalist states and possibly cause a war. This can especially be seen in their decisions regarding submission to the KMT. The CCP had a strong position among the Chinese working class before the Shanghai massacre, strong enough to credibility pose itself as the vanguard of the working class and advocate revolution. With a good agrarian policy, they would have been able to co-opt the peasantry. In short, the conditions were nearly ideal for revolution, but if revolution should fail, then the Soviets would be faced with an angry and hostile KMT regime. They prized the stability of their relationship with the bourgeois state of China above the possibility of spreading revolution.

Another good example is the popular front. The popular front had the dual advantage of subordinating would be militants to bourgeois ideology(also true of the united front to a lesser extent) in the form of the Communist Parties thanks to their virtual hegemony on the self-identified anti-capitalist left owing to their Soviet funding, and limiting struggle within the framework of the bourgeois state machinery. The Soviets were able to contain and suppress revolutionary ideology while simultaneously pursuing its foreign policy goals(although one can easily say that these two are essentially inseparable).

The influence of the Communist Parties waned in the post-war period not because of "revisionism"(anti-communism, nationalism, etc had already been endemic in all of the Official Communist parties for at least a decade-and-a-half by this time), but because they had played out their role of suppressing communism and safeguarding the bourgeois order against fascism. Simply put, they were no longer a needed tool for the bourgeoisie.

The Stalinist states and the Stalinist system in general has disappeared because for it was no longer been historically necessary. The primary purpose of the Stalinist states and Stalinism in general was the suppression and destruction of revolution in a revolutionary era. The Soviet victory in World War 2 had already seen to that, so past that point its decay towards the normative aesthetic of bourgeois republicanism was a foregone conclusion.

[Ismail]

This can especially be seen in their decisions regarding submission to the KMT. The CCP had a strong position among the Chinese working class before the Shanghai massacre, strong enough to credibility pose itself as the vanguard of the working class and advocate revolution. With a good agrarian policy, they would have been able to co-opt the peasantry. In short, the conditions were nearly ideal for revolution, but if revolution should fail, then the Soviets would be faced with an angry and hostile KMT regime. They prized the stability of their relationship with the bourgeois state of China above the possibility of spreading revolution.To quote Stalin in July 1927:

"The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat. But the most intolerable thing about this babbling is that the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony—it kills the initiative of the working masses, undermine the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie'... That is why I now believe the question of the party is the main question of the Chinese revolution."
(Lars T. Lih & Olev V. Naumov (ed). Stalin's Letters to Molotov. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1995. p. 141.)

Of course years later Mao used 1927 as "proof" that Stalin was "bad." Trots, of course, use 1927 as "proof" as well.


Another good example is the popular front. The popular front had the dual advantage of subordinating would be militants to bourgeois ideology(also true of the united front to a lesser extent) in the form of the Communist Parties thanks to their virtual hegemony on the self-identified anti-capitalist left owing to their Soviet funding, and limiting struggle within the framework of the bourgeois state machinery. The Soviets were able to contain and suppress revolutionary ideology while simultaneously pursuing its foreign policy goals(although one can easily say that these two are essentially inseparable)Which is why after the Spanish Civil War copious amounts of Republican émigré and Western works discussed how leading members of the Spanish government were "communist dupes" and how the PCE were trying to take over everything.


The influence of the Communist Parties waned in the post-war period not because of "revisionism"(anti-communism, nationalism, etc had already been endemic in all of the Official Communist parties for at least a decade-and-a-half by this time), but because they had played out their role of suppressing communism and safeguarding the bourgeois order against fascism. Simply put, they were no longer a needed tool for the bourgeoisie.More idiocy. First off, Stalin discussed with the French, Italian and Indian CPs the possibility of arming them in the event of bourgeois suppression. The Marshall Plan was enacted not only to meet the needs of US capitalism, but to "rehabilitate" the West European economies in order to discredit the communist parties there which were quite popular at the time.

Revisionism did, in fact, harm the parties. This was demonstrated as late as 1968 when the PCF refused to give leadership to the working-class, discrediting itself quite a bit in the process.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't think Marx or Engels would be concerned with such semantics.
I think they would be very much concerned. The distinction Lenin made between socialism and communism seem innocent looking, but it had far reaching consequences, which were far from innocent. These became convenient instruments for legitimizing and justifying the ideology and every act of the Party-State from 1917 onwards in the name of (building) socialism, which was stressed as the need for the immediate future, and thus shelving all the vital aspects of Marx's immense emancipatory project of the post capitalist society off to the Greek calends of the never-never land of communism, thereby metamorphosing Marx's project of socialism (communism) into an unalloyed, far away utopia to be indefinitely postponed.



And your statement amounts to nothing more than a bunch of nonsense, since you describe a "guard" as if it is something that is detached from class struggle, as well as material reality. And the entire idea that the USSR collapsed because of the "revisionist" ideas of the people in charge is a piece of sheer nonsense and fundamentally detached from any materialist understanding of history that few Marxists actually take seriously.




Really? Was I talking about an anti-revisionist current? Perhaps some of them were "good" Marxist-Leninists. However, it is said that Molotov and many others were complacent with revisionism, and did not speak out against it. What happened immediately after Stalin's death was not "Khrushchev's coup," but a wide range of arrests being carried out by the state security apparatus, with Lawrence Beria at its head. Then there was a struggle between Khrushchev and Malenkov between 1953 and 1955. If Kruschev really restored capitalism in the USSR, I would expect to see a lot more than a few arrests. I would expect to see party purges on the scale of those in the 30s.




Actually, there were quite a lot of changes. Over 27 out of the 50 government ministries were abolished. The entire destruction of Stalin's presidium is said to be carried out by Beria and his men. It would be insane to deny that this played a role in establishing Khrushchev as the next leader. With that said, Khrushchev did not suddenly "grow wings" and rise to power.
If there were any fundametal changes, why did the proletariat not notice them and mobilize to defend their dictatorship when it was under attack by the evil revisionists? Why why why?! And the answer that the destruction of socialism proceeded at such a slow and gradual rate that the working class did not notice it, simply will not do. For Marxists-Leninists the idea of a"socialist state" actually boils down to the notion of the centralized capitalist corporation that controls the totality of national economy, with wage labor being generalized, rather than abolished. This did not change at any time in the Soviet Union after Kruschev came to power.



Well, yeah. During the socialist period of the Soviet Union, the means of production were organized under a central plan under state property. These plans were guided by directives from the central committee, which would then be guided by other directives from other organs, etc. Since the means of production were allocated according to use by the different organs, and not profit, the means of production didn't operate as commodities. The contradiction between mental and manual labor persisted, as it does under socialism. The job of the management, although it was one-man management, was to produce profit for the state as a whole, and not themselves. No individual could hold shares in the state enterprises. The profits were reinvested back into the economy according to plan. Repeat after me, the USSR was never at any point in its history socialist. What you describe is state run capitalism.




So a change in the guard happened, but no coup happened? Only a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie can be a dictatorship over the proletariat. The capitalist class successfully deprived of their hegemonic status when the USSR was socialist.
Again, the USSR was never socialist. Power was not taken from the capitalist class. I question, in any case, whether the local capitalist class had unambihguously captured political power to begin with. The usual argument that has been presented is that this class was too weak and compromised to mount an effective challenge to the precapitalists interests bound up with the old Tsarist state. It was precisely for that reason that the Bolsheviks came into the picture - to finish the task that the local capitalist class were unable effectively to do themselves and to remove all the old institutional barriers to the development of capitalism in the form of state capitalism. And not surprisingly, Lenin began to sound more and more like any other capitalist.

Get down to business all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them, Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running an economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic- Lenin(Collected Works, Vol. 33 page 72).

[Let's Get Free]

In his critique of the Gotha programme, Marx spoke of a lower phase of communism; Engels referred to this as socialism.

It is true that in his Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx wrote of a transition between a lower phase of communism and a higher phase of communism. Marx held that, because of the low level of economic development (in 1875), individual consumption would have to be rationed, possibly by the use of labor-time vouchers. But in the higher phase of communism, when the forces of production had developed sufficiently, consumption would be according to need. It is important to realize, however, that in both phases of socialism/communism there would be no state or money economy. Lenin, on the other hand, said that socialism (or the first phase of communism) is a transitional society between capitalism and full communism, in which there is both a state and money economy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is in direct contrast to latter-day leninists and trots claims of the USSR under Lenin and Trotsky as genuinely socialist.Orthodox Trots say that Russia had a "degenerated worker's state" this is because Lenin and Trotsky took for granted that the state created through the Councils represented a worker's state ("...with bureaucratic features" is how Lenin described it when Bolshevik substitutionism began). Trotsky later believed that the conquest by the Bureaucrats meant that the state was still in form a worker's state, but had degenerated into a sort of rule by reformists who were against worker's power.

I take a "state-capitalist" view of Russia, but I think there is a qualitative difference between the "state-capitalism" of the early couple of years and the "state-capitalism" identified with Stalinism.

Ironically, most of the questions and points you have raised in this thread are refuted in the very articles and speeches by Lenin that you quote.


Lenin wrote:
State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...921/apr/21.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm) - this writing also has much more on state capitalism.

In this same piece he clarifies his view on many of the criticisms you have raised. But in a nutshell, his arguments are based on how to maintain conditions favorable to eventual socialism while keeping the petty-bourgeois subordinate to workers power (hence his formulation is not "socialism" or "state-capitalism" but "petty-bourgeois production" or "state capitalism" as the immediate possibility in Russia) until the revolution spreads to Germany where workers already have more skills in organizing production, the working class is much larger and potentially powerful. In contrast to later state-capitalism in Russia, the goal was not to hold onto whatever they could so that international revolution could revive Russia and the Russian working class; the goal of later state-capitalist policies was to build socialism in one country which means build up wealth and industrialize in an end to itself (or increasing the power of the bureaucrats rather).

[Karl Marx]

Comrades!

In Lenins adress at the 11 Kongress he says

"The mixed companies that we have begun to form, in which private capitalists, Russian and foreign, and Communists participate, provide one of the means by which we can learn to organise competition properly and show that we are no less able to establish a link with the peasant economy than the capitalists"

By link i guess he means something to offer to the peasants... But why are they calling the capitalist? is there no other way to establish this link? Why do they need to "organize competition properly"? WTF does that mean?!?!:confused::confused::confused:
Then he says

"e must concentrate all our attention on this, and not rest content with the fact that there are responsible and good Communists in all the state trusts and mixed companies. That is of no use, because these Communists do not know how to run the economy and, in that respect, are inferior to the ordinary capitalist salesmen, who have received their training in big factorics and big firms. "

and

The whole point is that the responsible Communists, even the best of them, who are unquestionably honest and loyal, who in the old days suffered penal servitude and did not fear death, do not know how to trade, because they are not businessmen, they have not learnt to trade, do not want to learn and do not understand that they must start learning from the beginning."

Seriously wtf?!:ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:?!? Why do they need to learn how to do "buisness" they are COMMUNISTS! They want to abolish that shit! Why is Lenin saying this? Is he making a bigass mistake here or what.:crying:

[Tim Cornelis]

How come no one's registered Karl Marx as username before this bloke? In the 10 year history of revleft, no one has done that?

[Blake's Baby]

In answer to Karl, yes, he's making a 'big ass mistake'.

The revolution failed. The Bolsheviks were left holding on to Russia as the tide of revolution receded around them. Russia was like a whale trying to learn how to breathe on land - desperate and not long for this world.

[MarxSchmarx]

Please don't necro old threads. If you feel so compelled to respond, summarize the authors key point very briefly in a new thread, and present your analysis a new. It's not productive as OP and others are often no longer around etc...

Thread closed.