Why did the Soviet Union Fail from an Economic Standpoint

[Ocean Seal]

I want to know the answer to this question from a non-sectarian perspective. Every answer I've heard has been based on some vague diatribe about socialism in one country, revisionism, imperialism, or something of the sort.

Why did the socialist mode of production degenerate in one country?

Why can't socialism in one country exist?

What mistakes were made economically?

What could have been planned better using the hindsight of the Soviet Union?

Why was the Soviet Union (at the point where you no longer consider it socialist) less productive than the Western countries? Was it because of Western imperialism? Which of course makes the West (all non Soviet non Chinese sphere of influence countries) actually poorer than the East? Shouldn't basic Keynesian economics tell us that regulation makes capitalism much more efficient?

[Let's Get Free]

Here's something i read from a book called "Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Workers Councils"


It is beyond the scope of this work to give a detailed analysis of the social and economic relationships which underlie the "Leninist mode of production". We can instead briefly summarize these relations by pointing out that, in Leninist state capitalism, the ruling class establishes a position of dominance by its collective bureaucratic control of the state and economic apparatus. The Leninist economy works by extracting a surplus from the peasantry and using this to invest in industrial production, which in turn extracts a surplus from the workers. This produces a steady flow of wealth to the collective ruling class. The collectivization of agriculture and the centrally-commanded industrial program are relationships of exploitation.
The programs undertaken by the Leninist state quickly industrialize the economy and allow society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled, however, a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words, the Leninist mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.
These relationships are the product of a trend in the Leninist economies to underproduce consumer-oriented commodities and to overproduce capital-oriented commodities. These contradictions produce a tendency towards decentralization, in which the local factory managers must be given an increasing share of economic decision-making power. The factory managers come to take more and more the role of an individual controller of capital.
The Leninist state attempted to maintain its dominant position over these new managers with the introduction of perestroika, or "restructuring". Perestroika was nothing more than an attempt by the Leninist bureaucrats to introduce the decentralization which the economy demands while at the same time keeping it under control--to grant the local factory managers freedom of action, but only within narrowly-defined limits, i.e., in such a way that it did not threaten the interests of the ruling class.
This attempt failed, and the Leninist bureaucracy collapsed from its own weight. Economic conditions now demand that the lower levels of the economic apparatus, the enterprise managers, will assume de facto control of the economy and its social relationships. The Leninist state falls and is replaced by a series of capitalist republics.
The capitalist economists and politicians who are happily declaring the "end of socialism", however, are missing the point. The downfall of the Leninist mode of production did not occur because it "didn't work"--rather, it fell precisely because it did work, and accomplished the changes in social relationships which were demanded by circumstances, i.e., it industrialized the means of production. The "historical role" of the Leninist regime had been completed, and it fell to a system which is better suited for carrying out the next "task".

[Ocean Seal]

The capitalist economists and politicians who are happily declaring the "end of socialism", however, are missing the point. The downfall of the Leninist mode of production did not occur because it "didn't work"--rather, it fell precisely because it did work, and accomplished the changes in social relationships which were demanded by circumstances, i.e., it industrialized the means of production. The "historical role" of the Leninist regime had been completed, and it fell to a system which is better suited for carrying out the next "task".Let's assume that this is true. If so why then did the Leninist countries recede into these vulture capitalist states if the historical role of Leninism was completed? Shouldn't it have been a socialist revolution which followed the decline of Leninism rather than a neo-liberal counter-revolution?

Edit: Second question. If the Soviet States did create an industrialized capitalism why were they not equipped to deal with the results, whereas the free market imperialist countries remained roughly intact throughout the 20th century. Was it simply due to luck that groups likes the RAF, the Winter of Discontent and the Mai 68 movement failed, whereas Solidarity among others succeeded?
What exactly was the cause of the appearance of these groups in the Eastern bloc in the 80's?

[Let's Get Free]

Let's assume that this is true. If so why then did the Leninist countries recede into these vulture capitalist states if the historical role of Leninism was completed? Shouldn't it have been a socialist revolution which followed the decline of Leninism rather than a neo-liberal counter-revolution?

Edit: Second question. If the Soviet States did create an industrialized capitalism why were they not equipped to deal with the results, whereas the free market imperialist countries remained roughly intact throughout the 20th century.

With the diversification of the economy, growth slowed significantly and it was already becoming obvious that the cumbersome state capitalist "command economy" model was becoming more and more unwieldy, inefficient and uncompetitive in an increasingly globalized and competitive world market. Also, the Red "fat cats" among the state capitalist ruling class got the whiff of more profits to be had by dismantling the lumbering state capitalist system and conveniently positioned themselves to grab a piece of the action.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Let's assume that this is true. If so why then did the Leninist countries recede into these vulture capitalist states if the historical role of Leninism was completed? Shouldn't it have been a socialist revolution which followed the decline of Leninism rather than a neo-liberal counter-revolution?


If the ruling class is not committed to Leftism anymore and is unaccountable to the workers, what's to stop that from happening? Especially as this ruling class had through their self-interested state propaganda come to define the terms "communism" and "socialism", which meant workers were demoralized and cynical about the possibilities of real socialism.



Edit: Second question. If the Soviet States did create an industrialized capitalism why were they not equipped to deal with the results, whereas the free market imperialist countries remained roughly intact throughout the 20th century. Was it simply due to luck that groups likes the RAF, the Winter of Discontent and the Mai 68 movement failed, whereas Solidarity among others succeeded?
What exactly was the cause of the appearance of these groups in the Eastern bloc in the 80's?

The answer to the first part is an interesting question, and I've heard that issues such as over-militarization, the refusal to focus on consumer goods and the inefficiency of their bureaucracy as different alternatives, and I'm sure those in turn have complex explanations. I'd guess the answer to the second part of your question has something to do with the demoralization I mentioned.

[subcp]

A command economy cannot simulate market forces as efficiently as a 'mixed market economy'- i.e. the global tendency toward state capitalism since the early 20th century- China is a case in point. The command-economy gave way to the more efficient state capitalism of the mixed-market economy.

However, similar dynamics that brought the downfall of the USSR (since the restructuring of the NATO bloc countries especially in the 1960's-1970's) are at work now in the West- stagflation. Instead of a depression level boom-bust cycle, intervention by the state in the economy (state capitalism) has instead produced a long bleeding out, the lengthy inflation-stagnation we've experienced since the 1970's due to the inability to offset the falling rate of profit overall.

The political ramifications of moving from a command-economy to the standard state capitalist economy of the Western nation-states and China/Vietnam/etc. were too great for the USSR to remain intact for this transition.

Edit: Keynesian economics failed to fulfill its task: to stop the cycles of capital accumulation from producing recession/depression crises following a growth period. While the mixed-market state capitalism of the West and China is more efficient than the command economy of the former USSR, the tendency toward centralization of capital, it is not a remedy for the internal contradictions of the mode of production itself. We're now living through what Keynesian economics actually does- prevents a severe dropoff for a short time, but not able to offset the FROP.

[Geiseric]

the economy stagnated while the population grew, to put it simply, and the bureaucracy didn't have a problem looting the economy due to the liquidized state of the soon to be working class.