The October Revolution & The Soviet Union: What went wrong?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As the title says. I hear all the time that the reason was because Russia was very disconnected from the rest of the world and that it's infrastructure was annihilated, but is this really the only explanation? How did a supposedly fast-growing and vibrant mass worker's movement full of aware and motivated people transform so quickly into an oppressive, bureaucratic, anti-working class and chauvinist nation? Does anyone know some legitimate statistics for when the Soviets began to lose their political power, what the pre-Stalinist USSR planned to do now that Europe's nations had turned themselves into a united wall and who else besides the big bad mo was pushing for these disturbing transformations?

Where did that enormous proletarian body disappear to?

I'd very much like the opinions of some well read comrades on this one.

[TheEmancipator]

Firstly, there was no "enormous proletarian body", Russia was a kind of feudal state with very little emphasis on the working proletariat and heavily reliant on the peasantry. I think this had something to do with things going wrong, and Lenin recognised that they had missed a step in comparison to Europe.

Linked to this, the big problem was Russia itself. If you look at successful implementations of communism, it is done on far smaller scale than the beast that is Russia (Paris Commune, Catalonia). This coupled with Lenin's vanguard was always going to be a major issue, as the centralised state could not possibly monitor and manage all its holdings and they appointed corrupt warlords as "party members" on the ground who were never going to take Lenin seriously.

Then we have historical circumstances which were out of the Soviets' control. The Civil War for me was pointless and after that the intimidation of the Western powers and the rise of Nazi Germany meant they had to prioritise protecting the nation more than anything else.

Lastly, Stalin. I know there are a few Stalinists on here but the fact remains he was simply a power hungry tyrant. Lenin saw this, Trotsky saw this, and Stalin's successors saw this. It became a one-man state. The Party itself was just his tool.

[TiberiusGracchus]

In The State and Revolution Lenin hammers nails the thesis that the bourgeoisie state must be "smashed to atoms". And so was done. But on the proletarian uprising in october/november the european revolution did not follow. The world revolution proved not to be an event, but an historical epoch. After the russian revolution (it was a revolution, if not on the country side so at least in the industrial cities) followed years of foreign intervention, civil war and protracted defensive war. In this malestream the thin lines of proletarians drowned and passed away. The new society lost what was supposed to be it's ruling class.

Sure, there were still some revolutionary proletarians left and there were still a few old bolsheviks, Lenins theoretically educated and european schooled avantgarde. But they were not enough to block the authoritarian development.

A new "soviet" state had been founded. But who bore it up? Stalin discovered that. On an inspection at the Volga-region soon after the civil war he found that the new state organs on regional and local level to 90% were manned by old tsarist officers, the same ol' chinoviks. The state had been smashed into atoms; but the atoms had reunited themselves and formed a new.

Some would have been terrified by this discovery. Stalin realised that he could use it. It became the foundation of his politics. It was under his rule that this basicly pre-revolutionary state got, and in fact created, it's ruling class. And since the dominating mode of production was state capitalism this class became a state-bourgeoisie; but since the rural areas lived under what closest can be described as state feudalism (a.k.a. "the asiatic mode of production") this class, the "nomenklatura" gained clear feudal traits of personal boss rule ("chefstvo"). The high-handedness of this state made the development exceptionally linear and clear. The only disturbing element was Stalin himself, who neatly saw to erasing all branches of the new plant that could have become an obstacle for his personal exercise of power.



There is no such thing as "totalitarian states". There's no good or bad states. No states has any necessary limits to it's own power. I am a marxist and I do believe in the (sad) necessity of a revolutionary proletarian transitional state. But we must watch over it and keep it under control. We must have a plan for it's successive desolvation.

[RedSun]

A new "soviet" state had been founded. But who bore it up? Stalin discovered that. On an inspection at the Volga-region soon after the civil war he found that the new state organs on regional and local level to 90% were manned by old tsarist officers, the same ol' chinoviks. The state had been smashed into atoms; but the atoms had reunited themselves and formed a new.

Some would have been terrified by this discovery. Stalin realised that he could use it. It became the foundation of his politics. It was under his rule that this basicly pre-revolutionary state got, and in fact created, it's ruling class. And since the dominating mode of production was state capitalism this class became a state-bourgeoisie; but since the rural areas lived under what closest can be described as state feudalism (a.k.a. "the asiatic mode of production") this class, the "nomenklatura" gained clear feudal traits of personal boss rule ("chefstvo"). The high-handedness of this state made the development exceptionally linear and clear. The only disturbing element was Stalin himself, who neatly saw to erasing all branches of the new plant that could have become an obstacle for his personal exercise of power.





Lastly, Stalin. I know there are a few Stalinists on here but the fact remains he was simply a power hungry tyrant. Lenin saw this, Trotsky saw this, and Stalin's successors saw this. It became a one-man state. The Party itself was just his tool.

What bothers "stalinists" is not the critic that he was "a power hungry tyrant" but this attempt of re-writting history to dissociate Lenin from Stalin. Let's see:

Who repressed the soviets, instituted the secret police, the firsts forced labor camps, the ban of parties except the Bolshevik and factions within the Bolshevik party? Try to guess the author of this quote:

"all members of the Russian Communist Party who are in the slightest degree suspicious or unreliable ... should be got rid of"

I'll give you some help, it was not Stalin. Even Lenin was the first to launch a purge within the party. The 90% of ex-tsar officers were already in the state apparatus with Lenin. He even admitted the soviet state to be the tsarist bureaucratic machine slightly anointed with soviet oil.

Moreover, Lenin was also the first to launch his armies to recover the territory lost after the fall of the Russian Empire.

The truth is that the civil war is a very piss pooring justification and even considering it, the war ended in 1922 and none of those measures was reverted. As far as the ban on factions goes there is no evidence in the text that the measure was meant to be only temporary. The secret police was reorganized way after the civil war ended.

Trotsky while he had political responsibilities in Russia never contested those measures, supported it and even proposed even more authoritarian measures (militarization of labor). He only became concerned about the party internal democracy when he realized Stalin's threat.

When people say that Stalin betrayed the revolution and Lenin's ideas they are intentionally ignoring this part of history. The truth is that it was Lenin who first betrayed the revolution. Stalin simply took it to the extreme.

That is no problem in calling Stalin a power hungry tyrant but at least be coherent in your analysis specially on Lenin's and Trotsky's role.

[Blake's Baby]

OK; back to basics.

A proletarian revolution happens in a country with a couple of million workers and some of the most advanced capitalist enterprises in the world, in the world's 5th biggest economy - which was however in a country of tens of millions of peasants.

But it is impossible for an isolated revolutionary state to build 'socialism'. Socialist society will be created after capitalism, and capitalism is obviously still with us. It is a world system and needs to be defeated as a world system. It wasn't.

So, what could be created in Russia? Not socialism. Only another form of capitalism. There is no other option, I don't think.

It's a bit egotistical maybe to quote one's own posts but a couple of days ago I posted this explanation of the situation in the early 20th century, regarding Russia and the prospects of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which relate to the question being asked here:


"In the Critique, Marx says “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”.

So, for Marx, the DotP is a 'political transition period' which corresponds to a transition in the economy.

But as socialism in one country is not possible, the DotP can only be a period of political transition corresponding to an economic transition if the world revolution succeeds. If there is no possibility of the transition to socialism - because of 9mm's 'unfavourable material conditions' (ie the defeat of the world revolution) - then what becomes of the DotP? It's a political form that doesn't correspond to any kind of material reality, a 'political transition period' that doesn't correspond with an economic transition period. All that the dictatorship can do, isolated in one revolutionary territory, is seek to organise capitalism (not transform it) in order to defend any 'gains' of the revolution, though of course, as we have seen in the 20th century, it is at the same time dying on its feet as it is deprived of any material basis other than the continued existence of capitalism. A revolutionary political form cannot survive in a non-revolutionary period, because the basis of the revolutionary political form is the suppression of capitalism; and by the early 1920s the revolution was in retreat and the capitalist powers once more on the attack. The 'unfavourable material conditions' did not allow the revolution to extend and thus what came out of the defeat of the revolution was a - I hesitate to use the word - 'deformed' version of the DotP, which had not begun the transition to socialist society because it had been prevented from doing so. "

[Red Enemy]

As the title says. I hear all the time that the reason was because Russia was very disconnected from the rest of the world and that it's infrastructure was annihilated, but is this really the only explanation? How did a supposedly fast-growing and vibrant mass worker's movement full of aware and motivated people transform so quickly into an oppressive, bureaucratic, anti-working class and chauvinist nation? Does anyone know some legitimate statistics for when the Soviets began to lose their political power, what the pre-Stalinist USSR planned to do now that Europe's nations had turned themselves into a united wall and who else besides the big bad mo was pushing for these disturbing transformations?

Where did that enormous proletarian body disappear to?

I'd very much like the opinions of some well read comrades on this one.
As was said, there wasn't an enormous proletarian body to begin with. There was a majority of them as revolutionary, but the proletariat were not the majority. The civil war saw the proletariat population decimated.

We turn to the context of the situation again. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw a coming German, and thus world, revolution to save them from the underdeveloped nature of Russian capital and everything else.

[l'Enfermé]

We don't even have to go as far in time as the defeat of the world revolution in, say, 1923, to see when things really started to go wrong. During the October Revolution, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established. It was based on a very theoretically advanced and militant working class(probably the most theoretically advanced working class in the world, after the German, actually, it's not a coincidence that German Marxist literature was translated more into Russian than any other language). Then during the course of the Civil War and the Imperialist Intervention, industry collapsed, most of the advanced sections of the proletariat were butchered at the fronts, the cities were depopulated, and so on. The Russian proletariat pretty much ceased to exist as a class. International capital and its lackeys killed it. Under such conditions, it's ridiculous to speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a proletariat for that. The party tried to substitute itself for the class but under the existing unfavourable conditions that was impossible, and perhaps it would have been impossible under much more favourable conditions.

As for the Soviets, did they ever lose political power? I don't think so. Because I don't think they ever had any. Political power was in the hands of the RCP(b), exactly where it should have been. The Bolsheviks used the Soviets just as a tool to legitimatize their power. Soviets were just councils, whoever had the majority in them had the power, and the Bolsheviks never lost their majority, except for in some of the provincial Soviets where Menshevik and SR scumbags temporarily gained majorities in 1918(at the second Congress of the Soviets, 390 of the 649 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the third Congress(Jan 1918), 860 out of 1648 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the 4th(March), 795 out of 1204, at the 5th(July), around 750 out of 1164, at the 6th in Nov 1918, 963 out of 1296, at the 8th in December 1920, 2284 out of 2537, and so on), but never in the centers of political power like Petrograd and Moscow.

The Soviets were always impotent on their own, they were relevant only because of the parties that were represented in them(Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs, mostly, delegates not belong to those 3 parties were were almost non-existent). They weren't even inherently revolutionary on their own until the Bolsheviks won a majority and turned them into their organs. See, for the example, the Soviets where the Menshevik-SR won majorities, after October, on a platform that proposed abolishing "Soviet power" and handing over pretty much all political power to the bourgeois parliament that was to be reconvened. Or the councils of the German Revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

I'd say that the single biggest factor was in capturing power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists, which can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism. This was the problem the Bolsheviks faced. In administering capitalism they were compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labor, and ruthlessly suppress the proletariat.

[commieathighnoon]

We don't even have to go as far in time as the defeat of the world revolution in, say, 1923, to see when things really started to go wrong. During the October Revolution, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established. It was based on a very theoretically advanced and militant working class(probably the most theoretically advanced working class in the world, after the German, actually, it's not a coincidence that German Marxist literature was translated more into Russian than any other language). Then during the course of the Civil War and the Imperialist Intervention, industry collapsed, most of the advanced sections of the proletariat were butchered at the fronts, the cities were depopulated, and so on. The Russian proletariat pretty much ceased to exist as a class. International capital and its lackeys killed it. Under such conditions, it's ridiculous to speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a proletariat for that. The party tried to substitute itself for the class but under the existing unfavourable conditions that was impossible, and perhaps it would have been impossible under much more favourable conditions.

As for the Soviets, did they ever lose political power? I don't think so. Because I don't think they ever had any. Political power was in the hands of the RCP(b), exactly where it should have been. The Bolsheviks used the Soviets just as a tool to legitimatize their power. Soviets were just councils, whoever had the majority in them had the power, and the Bolsheviks never lost their majority, except for in some of the provincial Soviets where Menshevik and SR scumbags temporarily gained majorities in 1918(at the second Congress of the Soviets, 390 of the 649 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the third Congress(Jan 1918), 860 out of 1648 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the 4th(March), 795 out of 1204, at the 5th(July), around 750 out of 1164, at the 6th in Nov 1918, 963 out of 1296, at the 8th in December 1920, 2284 out of 2537, and so on), but never in the centers of political power like Petrograd and Moscow.

The Soviets were always impotent on their own, they were relevant only because of the parties that were represented in them(Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs, mostly, delegates not belong to those 3 parties were were almost non-existent). They weren't even inherently revolutionary on their own until the Bolsheviks won a majority and turned them into their organs. See, for the example, the Soviets where the Menshevik-SR won majorities, after October, on a platform that proposed abolishing "Soviet power" and handing over pretty much all political power to the bourgeois parliament that was to be reconvened. Or the councils of the German Revolution.

No serious scholars dispute that the RCP(b) would have lost the majority to the July 1918 Congress to the Left SRs if they had not jerrymandered the apportionment of seats/stacked the chamber for their benefit.

The working-class was severely deformed and weakened by the war, but it is simply idiocy to suggest it "ceased to exist"--the someone after all organized the strike waves in Petrograd and Moscow in 1921 (loyally timed and organized not until after Wrangel was expelled from the Crimea and thus the consolidation of soviet power not seriously in doubt) and worked the munitions factories for starvation rations, after all. Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat: The Soviet workers and the rise of the new communist elite 1920-4 demonstrates there was the political desire and consciousness across the working class masses, and the desire even to form new and independent from compromised parties, organization. The capacity for coalition between Communist and "non-party" (though surely they would've eventually organized as some party or fraction if permitted) workers in the structure of the soviets existed, and could have been turned to. A substitutionist dictatorship was consolidated as an alternative.

[Le Socialiste]

It doesn't cover everything you're asking, but I'd refer you to this post I made over a week ago. It covers the sharp decline of Russia's urban population over the course of the civil war, and how these demographic shifts partially contributed to the transformation of the Bolshevik party:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573571&postcount=73

If you don't feel like reading through the entire post, here's that specific part in full:


Some statistics: in 1918 alone, Petrograd lost approximately 850,000 people; a handful of cities (including Pskov and Nizhny-Novgorod) last half or more of their populations between 1917-20; Moscow's declined by 40%. The atomization of the working-class undermined the basis of Soviet power, and by extension that of the Bolshevik party.

The fact of the matter is, you need to take all these aspects into account and assess how each factored into and impacted the other. The Russian economy was devastated over the course of WWI; collapses in international and domestic trade during the period between 1914-1916 were exacerbated by inflation, and by 1918-20 Russia's industrial output amounted to less than 20% of prewar levels. The Treaty of Brest-Litvosk deprived the country of essential agricultural and industrial land(s), which Lenin and others believed would be ameliorated by revolution in Germany. Within mere months of the October revolution civil war broke out, with the Whites aided and abetted by the Allied powers. Britain, Japan, and the U.S. (among several others) intervened in the conflict, providing military support and material aid for the counterrevolution.

Of course, in the wake of all this the international - and domestic - scene was changed considerably: Germany was in the throes of revolutionary upheaval (though by 1922-23 this had moderately receded), and the radical wave of revolt that had swept across Europe after the events of 1917 had by and large given way to a gradual, but shaky, recovery. The revolution in Russia was isolated politically and economically. Nearly a full decade of devastating wars and upheavals had left the economy in tatters, its working-class atomized and reabsorbed into the peasantry (or killed at the front). The Bolsheviks were confronted with the reality of ruling in the name of a class and revolution that were on its last legs. The party fell victim to substitutionist tendencies that effectively minimized the importance of class struggle and the hegemony of the proletariat.

In the midst of all this was the development and entrenchment of state capitalist relations amongst all layers of socioeconomic and political life. While not wholly similar to a bourgeois class, the core function of the bureaucracy bore some striking resemblances, including the aim of capital accumulation, commodity production, the extraction of surplus-value from the proletariat and its realization as profits of the state - which in turn went towards the furtherance of other productive means. Amidst these conditions the social and political transformation of the Bolshevik's role as a party gave way to a deeply conservative, and ultimately reactionary tendency. One can point to Stalin as the culmination of these processes (indeed, he headed the party during this formative period), which subsequently resulted in the curbing - if not outright dismantlement - of those gains made during and after the events of 1917.

[Art Vandelay]

I'd say that the single biggest factor was in capturing power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists, which can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism. This was the problem the Bolsheviks faced. In administering capitalism they were compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labor, and ruthlessly suppress the proletariat.

This runs on the assumption that the Russian Revolution's goal was to create socialism in one country. They were internationalists and had the world revolution as their only goal. The point isn't whether or not the conditions were viable in Russia, but were they viable on a global scale. After all Lenin himself stated that he would sacrifice October for a revolution in Germany. Also can you point me to a source that you've used to formulate the opinion that the majority of the Russian proletariat were not socialists? I've seen you make this claim a few times now and wonder where you're getting your information.

[Narodnik]

What went wrong? Lenin and Trotsky established party power, and made the single-party state the new master of the working people.

About the concrete situation, read Berkman's "The Bolshevik myth" and Goldman's "My disillusionment in Russia".

[Tim Cornelis]

Insisting that the Russian revolution degenerated in the way that it did solely due to its isolation and backward material conditions is false, in my view. Arguably, we can identify the above as the cause of the degeneration, but not the direction and shape this degeneration developed into. To say that state-capitalism in the manner in which it manifested itself in Russia and the Soviet Union was the inevitable outcome of the material conditions implies that the material conditions dictate everything and human action is futile (which would also mean that we should seize class struggle and just await it to spontaneously burst) as it is reduced to those conditions. I contend that the material conditions shape our choices, direct our society, but that human action can influence the shape, however constrained by said material conditons, of society nonetheless. In other words, objective conditions shape, broadly, our society, and subjective conditions that stem from the objective influence its details.

The question we need to ask is not why did the Russian revolution degenerate (which was due to its isolation and its backward material conditions), but why did it degenerate the way it did? In other words, why did it degenerate into state-capitalism and not self-managed capitalism, or private capitalism for that matter.

If we look at the Zapatistas in Chiapas Mexico we see that they face similar conditions the Russian revolution faced, only in a miniature variant. It is an underdeveloped, poor area dominated by peasants, that waged a revolution for socialism. Yet it became isolated and under siege. Both degenerated, but in entirely different directions. The Russian revolution degenerated into state-capitalism controlled by a bureaucracy from above, the Zapatista-controlled areas degenerated into self-managed capitalism based on democratic communes and self-managed peasant cooperatives. This, I think, indicates that the Russian revolution, if under alternate leadership, could have degenerated into self-managed capitalism based on cooperatives and workers' councils.

It was thus the deployment of erroneous means to deal with the unfavourable conditions in which the Russian revolution occurred that lead to this monstrosity called the Soviet Union that masqueraded as socialism. The centralisation and top-down implementation of various policies including Taylorism, strict worker discipline, and produce confiscation were not inevitable. Had instead the Bolsheviks not disintegrated bottom-up soviet democratic control, the Russian revolution would still be capitalistic, but at least self-managed that could have increased the sympathy for socialism (rather than decrease it) and served as the basis for a future regional and global socialist revolution (whereas under state-capitalism a new revolution altogether would be necessitated).

[Narodnik]

the Zapatista-controlled areas degenerated into self-managed capitalism
I don't know if you realize that self-managed capitalism is a contradiction in terms, if there is self-management, there is no capitalism. AFAIK, Zapatista communities are horizontal, therefore, no one can have subordinated people to take the products of their labor (suplus value), thus- there can be no capitalism there.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't know if you realize that self-managed capitalism is a contradiction in terms, if there is self-management, there is no capitalism. AFAIK, Zapatista communities are horizontal, therefore, no one can have subordinated people to take the products of their labor (suplus value), thus- there can be no capitalism there.
No, it most certainly is not a contradiction in terms since capitalism is not based only on legal expression of ownership (private individuals) and the issue of control and workplace relations. Your viewpoint implies that capitalism can be abolished in one enterprise alone (nevermind the one country thesis), which is ridiculous.

[Narodnik]

Your viewpoint implies that capitalism can be abolished in one enterprise alone (nevermind the one country thesis), which is ridiculous.
I don't see how. It just means that capitalism is abolished in that enterprise, but is practiced outside of it. If some enterprises use slave-labour, but some have stopped using it, that's not rediculous, that's slavery being abolished in that enterprises, but it is practiced in others. Same with coutries.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see how. It just means that capitalism is abolished in that enterprise, but is practiced outside of it. If some enterprises use slave-labour, but some have stopped using it, that's not rediculous, that's slavery being abolished in that enterprises, but it is practiced in others. Same with coutries.

You do not change the fact that this enterprise is forced to engage in competition, which necessarily implies the following: (exchange) value production, exploitation, and profit. In this case, it is not important how profit is divided among workers (who would presumably hold shares) and what relations of control and management are developed. Stilly you have the basic economic unit of capitalism - the isolated enterprise - engaging in capitalist production and competition.

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

[Narodnik]

You do not change the fact that this enterprise is forced to engage in competition, which necessarily implies the following: (exchange) value production, exploitation, and profit.
Exploitation means someone taking a part of someone's product of labor and doesn't have anything to do with competition or exchange. An enterprise can barter or sell it's products and be non-capitalistic - if there is no exploitation in it.


Stilly you have the basic economic unit of capitalism - the isolated enterprise - engaging in capitalist production and competition. Being that there is no exploitation, that enterprise cannot be capitalistic.

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

[Art Vandelay]

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

Its quite clear that you don't have much of an understanding about economics, the claims you are making here are ridiculous. I'd suggest doing some reading on the matter before going around talking authoritatively about something you clearly don't understand. Its only going to make you look foolish. By your logic Tito's Yugoslavia was socialist.

[l'Enfermé]

No serious scholars dispute that the RCP(b) would have lost the majority to the July 1918 Congress to the Left SRs if they had not jerrymandered the apportionment of seats/stacked the chamber for their benefit.
Not in the worker's soviets, but in the peasants' Soviets, probably. But you say that like you're reproaching the Bolsheviks. Why? The Bolsheviks should have allowed for the Soviets to be diluted by allowing an inherently anti-socialist, propertied class, the peasantry, to be as well-represented as the workers in the Congresses?


The working-class was severely deformed and weakened by the war, but it is simply idiocy to suggest it "ceased to exist"--the someone after all organized the strike waves in Petrograd and Moscow in 1921 (loyally timed and organized not until after Wrangel was expelled from the Crimea and thus the consolidation of soviet power not seriously in doubt) and worked the munitions factories for starvation rations, after all. Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat: The Soviet workers and the rise of the new communist elite 1920-4 demonstrates there was the political desire and consciousness across the working class masses, and the desire even to form new and independent from compromised parties, organization. The capacity for coalition between Communist and "non-party" (though surely they would've eventually organized as some party or fraction if permitted) workers in the structure of the soviets existed, and could have been turned to. A substitutionist dictatorship was consolidated as an alternative.
I have read Pirani's book and a few of his articles online. It's inaccurate and politically biased. Not a fan of his Putin book either.


Had instead the Bolsheviks not disintegrated bottom-up soviet democratic control, the Russian revolution would still be capitalistic, but at least self-managed that could have increased the sympathy for socialism (rather than decrease it) and served as the basis for a future regional and global socialist revolution (whereas under state-capitalism a new revolution altogether would be necessitated).
In order for the Bolsheviks to disintegrate "bottom-up soviet democratic control", it would have had to have existed in the first place, which it didn't. As far as the Soviets go, at first they were powerless opposition organs, then an appendage of the SR-Menshevik Provisional Government, then they were crushed after the July Days, and then you had the Bolshevik dictatorship.

[Le Socialiste]

I contend that the material conditions shape our choices, direct our society, but that human action can influence the shape, however constrained by said material conditons, of society nonetheless. In other words, objective conditions shape, broadly, our society, and subjective conditions that stem from the objective influence its details.

Don't know if any of this was directed at me, but in any event I agree with you on this point. Material conditions certainly don't predetermine the shape and content of society, though they play an integral role.

[Let's Get Free]

This runs on the assumption that the Russian Revolution's goal was to create socialism in one country. They were internationalists and had the world revolution as their only goal. The point isn't whether or not the conditions were viable in Russia, but were they viable on a global scale. After all Lenin himself stated that he would sacrifice October for a revolution in Germany. Also can you point me to a source that you've used to formulate the opinion that the majority of the Russian proletariat were not socialists? I've seen you make this claim a few times now and wonder where you're getting your information.

A worldwide socialist workers revolution was simply not a possibility for one simple reason- there was not a mass mandate for socialism anywhere in the world, especially not in Europe, the proletariat of which had just got finished patriotically butchering each other. The militant Russian workers were concerned about wages, food and fuel prices, not so much with creating a classless, stateless commonwealth. The Bolsheviks garnered support not for creating such a society, but for their reform program- peace land and bread and all that- which are all noble sounding intentions but by themselves have got nothing to do with communism.

[Captain Ahab]

A worldwide socialist workers revolution was simply not a possibility for one simple reason- there was not a mass mandate for socialism anywhere in the world, especially not in Europe,
What about Germany?

[Let's Get Free]

What about Germany?

Nope. The Spartakus uprising was pretty much doomed from the beginning.

[Art Vandelay]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?

[Let's Get Free]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?

i'm not saying the Russian proletariat wasn't class conscious, they were. However, being class conscious is still a long way away from being socialist conscious, which the Russian proletariat or the proletariat in any other nation clearly were not. lenin himself acknowledged this to be the case.

"Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160 million and spread over eight and a half million of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the north, the struggling peasant proprietors of the south, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces and the wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity for, and equipped with the knowledge requisite for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place or an economic change immensely more rapidly than history has ever recorded, the answer is 'NO!'"(August 1918).

[Red Enemy]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?
Of course he can't. He can't even explain how the majority of workers are supposed to achieve socialist consciousness (which, I don't know if this means a general agreement to revolutionary anti-capitalists socialism and the tactics and programme of the party OR if it means the workers have to be fully read in the Hegelian dialectic, capital, and everything else)

[Blake's Baby]

I'm afraid 9mm has hit the nail on the head, and coup d'etat is acting (consciously? unconsciously?) as an anarchist cover for the SPGB-derived line here. The distinction between 'class consciousness' and 'socialist consciousness' is one that many of those that have a past with the SPGB come out with. Rather than seeing consciousness as being born from struggle (consciousness ultimately being a product of conditions) it's seen as a thing to be acquired (consciousness as specialised knowledge). It goes back to Kautsky and beyond, seeing socialism as a pedagogic project not a living movement.

[Let's Get Free]

I'm afraid 9mm has hit the nail on the head, and coup d'etat is acting (consciously? unconsciously?) as an anarchist cover for the SPGB-derived line here. The distinction between 'class consciousness' and 'socialist consciousness' is one that many of those that have a past with the SPGB come out with. Rather than seeing consciousness as being born from struggle (consciousness ultimately being a product of conditions) it's seen as a thing to be acquired (consciousness as specialised knowledge). It goes back to Kautsky and beyond, seeing socialism as a pedagogic project not a living movement.

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.
Well, no -- the concept of a revolution in an advanced industrialized nation in the interest of capital is a non-starter. But I agree that there is a dialectic between consciousness and workers struggle. But your idea of the "impossibility" of proletarian revolution in Europe following WWI is simply misguided hindsight. In Germany in particular, the conditions were ripe. The Spartakist uprising was premature, yes. Had Luxembourg and Leibncht had not been murdered with the help of the SDs, 1921 or 1923 might well have seen a workers revolution in Germany. For a detailed view of this kind of misguided historical determinism see Trotsky's The Lessons of October.

[Art Vandelay]

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.

[Thirsty Crow]

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.
I don't think you're being fair in portraying coup's views:


Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill.


It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement.This isn't some advopcacy of obscure theory being drilled into workers' heads as a precondition for social revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.

And how do you deduce that this is what I'd be doing from what i've said? No,That's not what I'd be doing at all. What i want to do is to point out the dangers that face a revolutionary or insurrectionary proletariat – to expose those ideas and practices that will lead back to subordination. If we want to have the capability to do this when and if the time comes, then we had better start training ourselves now. Too often in the past, as at Kronstadt, the stand against the recuperation of a new oppressive ruling class was made too late.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And how do you deduce that this is what I'd be doing from what i've said? No,That's not what I'd be doing at all. What i want to do is to point out the dangers that face a revolutionary or insurrectionary proletariat – to expose those ideas and practices that will lead back to subordination. If we want to have the capability to do this when and if the time comes, then we had better start training ourselves now. Too often in the past, as at Kronstadt, the stand against the recuperation of a new oppressive ruling class was made too late.
You are right that there must be preparation and education but the "education" received during a revolutionary upsurge is rather profound. The proletariat in Russia frequently moved past all but the most revolutionary of party leaders in 1917. And I doubt that any degree of education on the part of the Russian Proletariat would have prevented the Thermidor. You seem to not have gotten the newsflash that the Russian proletariat was almost liquidated as a class by the end of the Civil War. Not quite, of course, but the ranks of the proletariat were decimated.

The stuff about Kronstadt and a "new ruling class," are, IMO, nonsense. The Soviet Bureaucracy was not a new class, as shown by their disappearance after the counterrevolution in 1991. This would make them, the most ephemeral class to ever emerge in all human history. To show that they were a class, in an historical and material sense, would be impossible.

There have been many threads about Kronstadt on the RL boards. Those that rail about it are just wrongheaded. The idea that the rebellion would have led to anything other than counterrevolution, putting the Whites in power, is pure fantasy.

[Let's Get Free]

You are right that there must be preparation and education but the "education" received during a revolutionary upsurge is rather profound. The proletariat in Russia frequently moved past all but the most revolutionary of party leaders in 1917. And I doubt that any degree of education on the part of the Russian Proletariat would have prevented the Thermidor. You seem to not have gotten the newsflash that the Russian proletariat was almost liquidated as a class by the end of the Civil War. Not quite, of course, but the ranks of the proletariat were decimated.

The stuff about Kronstadt and a "new ruling class," are, IMO, nonsense. The Soviet Bureaucracy was not a new class, as shown by their disappearance after the counterrevolution in 1991. This would make them, the most ephemeral class to ever emerge in all human history. To show that they were a class, in an historical and material sense, would be impossible.

There have been many threads about Kronstadt on the RL boards. Those that rail about it are just wrongheaded. The idea that the rebellion would have led to anything other than counterrevolution, putting the Whites in power, is pure fantasy.

The Bolsheviks weren't a new ruling class? Don't make me laugh. 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 which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms. As for Kronstadt simply being a White plot, that is a common Trotskyist slander which is completely false.

[Captain Ahab]

I don't see the bureaucracy disappearing after 1991 but rather changed into full fledged bourgeoisie under a different name.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The Bolsheviks weren't a new ruling class? Don't make me laugh. 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 which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms. As for Kronstadt simply being a White plot, that is a common Trotskyist slander which is completely false.

Yeah. It was just capitalism, comrade. That's why it drew vicious hostility from all the extant capitalist countries. That's why there was no significant private industry (yup, capitalism, in Marxian terms, has a bit to do with private ownership of the means of production).

I did not say Kronstadt was simply a White plot. That the Whites were involved seems clear. The Kronstadt Rebellion "succeeding" would have led to the victory of the Whites, or perhaps simply a resurrected Autocracy supported by imperialist powers. There is no vaguely plausible scenario where it would have led to anything better in the USSR.

[Let's Get Free]

Yeah. It was just capitalism, comrade. That's why it drew vicious hostility from all the extant capitalist countries.
So what? Capitalists are not some rock solid homogeneous group who meet in some secret boardroom to conspire to squash any flicker of rebellion. Believe it or not, capitalists are in bitter competition with each other. Capitalist nations are constantly hostile to one another. Or what, do capitalist nations not go to war with each other?


That's why there was no significant private industry (yup, capitalism, in Marxian terms, has a bit to do with private ownership of the means of production).

Your definition of what constitutes capitalism contains all the superficiality of a bourgeois commentator. As I've said many times before the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property. People who call themselves Marxists should not hold such a superficial notion on what capitalism is. They should look at what actually holds on the ground. The relationship of the ruling state capitalist class to the means of production was totally different to that of the ordinary Russian worker. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny this. This class had absolute control over the disposal of economic surplus unlike the ordinary Russian workers. The overwhelming control that it exerted over the means of production by virtue of its absolute control over the state amounted to de facto ownership of those means by this class. Not as individual capitalists but as a collective capitalist class. This is not a new development. The upper echelons of the catholic church during feudal times owned large swathes of property, not as individuals, but collectively.


I did not say Kronstadt was simply a White plot. That the Whites were involved seems clear. The Kronstadt Rebellion "succeeding" would have led to the victory of the Whites, or perhaps simply a resurrected Autocracy supported by imperialist powers. There is no vaguely plausible scenario where it would have led to anything better in the USSR.


The Whites at this point were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it. You accusations are groundless.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So what? Capitalists are not some rock solid homogeneous group who meet in some secret boardroom to conspire to squash any flicker of rebellion. Believe it or not, capitalists are in bitter competition with each other. Capitalist nations are constantly hostile to one another. Or what, do capitalist nations not go to war with each other?


Your definition of what constitutes capitalism contains all the superficiality of a bourgeois commentator. As I've said many times before the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property. People who call themselves Marxists should not hold such a superficial notion on what capitalism is. They should look at what actually holds on the ground. The relationship of the ruling state capitalist class to the means of production was totally different to that of the ordinary Russian worker. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny this. This class had absolute control over the disposal of economic surplus unlike the ordinary Russian workers. The overwhelming control that it exerted over the means of production by virtue of its absolute control over the state amounted to de facto ownership of those means by this class. Not as individual capitalists but as a collective capitalist class. This is not a new development. The upper echelons of the catholic church during feudal times owned large swathes of property, not as individuals, but collectively.



The Whites at this point were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it. You accusations are groundless.

The relationship of a union bureaucrat to the means of production is rather different than that of a regular worker. Does that make the bureaucrat a capitalist? "Collective capitalist class," is an oxymoron. So, the Catholic Chruch was not capitalist in the Middle Ages -- I agree.

Your creative use of the notion of class is outside the bounds of Marxism. As a Trotskyist, I have no love for the Stalinist bureaucracy, but as L.D. himself said, "we must begin by calling things by their correct names."

[Thirsty Crow]

The relationship of a union bureaucrat to the means of production is rather different than that of a regular worker. Does that make the bureaucrat a capitalist? It certainly makes him an appropriator of and commander over surplus labour.



"Collective capitalist class," is an oxymoron. So, the Catholic Chruch was not capitalist in the Middle Ages -- I agree. You should pay more attention to the idea that never could have been developed by Marx, the idea of the abolition of private property on the very basis of capitalism itself.


Your creative use of the notion of class is outside the bounds of Marxism. If you conceed that the bureaucracy was positioned in relation to the means of production and conditions of labour in a fundamentally differen way than workers, then yes we're talking about full blown social class here, and not a "caste" (really, how did this clumsy transposition from "feudal" Indian society to a workers' state ever happen?).


As a Trotskyist, I have no love for the Stalinist bureaucracy, but as L.D. himself said, "we must begin by calling things by their correct names."Then you might go back and examine the Marxist notion of social class without embarassing attempts at dodging the issue.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Guess I'm just shameless. "Caste," is a bit clumsy, but elevating the bureaucracy to "class" status is incorrect. Marx held that classes were historical necessities -- the Soviet Bureaucracy (and Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc.), were anything but.

The bureaucracy's relationship to the means of production was qualitatively different than the bourgeoisie. And I agree that the idea of capitalism without private property was an idea that would have been impossible for Marx to come up with -- because it involves a misunderstanding of his theories.

A ruling class that does not own the means of production is fanciful. And whatever your take on the Soviet Bureaucracy, they did not own the means of production. Unless you stretch the meaning of "own" past the breaking point. "Appropriator and commander," is that a new relationship to the means of production? Very creative, comrade. The same could be said about the "labor lieutenants of capital," the union bureaucracy. They too are a conduit of class alien attitudes and ideas into the proletariat. They too, try to force the workers to act against their own interests. They too gain material benefit from this. They are still members of the working class -- they are not capitalists and they are not some new class.

You seem to think that these things are moral categories. Since you hate the bureaucracy (and I'm with you on that, comrade), poof, they become the bourgeoisie. It is all about the relationship to the means of production.

[Captain Ahab]

Was not the control of the means of the productions handed to the state? Was not the state controlled by the bureaucracy?

[Thirsty Crow]

Guess I'm just shameless. "Caste," is a bit clumsy, but elevating the bureaucracy to "class" status is incorrect. Marx held that classes were historical necessities -- the Soviet (and Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc.), were anything but. You're evading the question. Not only is the use of the notion of caste clumsy, but is directly connected to the impossibility of some currents to engage with the reality of the Soviet Union through the lens of the Marxist notion of class, which I briefly sketched in my prior post.

So, let's not dance around this issue anymore. First, is my understanding of the notion of class (appropriating surplus product and appropriating labour through a concrete way it is alienated from the worker - slavery, feudal relations of servitude, wage labour; in short, relationship to the means of production and conditions of labour) correct, and if yes, then what about the acknowledged difference between workers' and bureaucrats' relationship to the means of production in USSR.


The bureaucracy's relationship to the means of production was qualitatively different than the bourgeoisie. And I agree that the idea of capitalism without private property was an idea that would have been impossible for Marx to come up with -- because it involves a misunderstanding of his theories. Marx talked about just what I wrote, "the abolition of private property on the basis of capital itself". Are you aware of this?


A ruling class that does not own the means of production is fanciful. And whatever your take on the Soviet Bureaucracy, they did not own the means of production. This is an old trick of arguing from the standpoint of legal relations and legally recognized (constitution, laws) forms of property ownerhsip. Marxist class analysis nowhere in sight.


Unless you stretch the meaning of "own" past the breaking point. Interesting. I thought that Marxists should be examinging the relations of production, and not just the legal relations.


"Appropriator and commander," is that a new relationship to the means of production? Very creative, comrade. This is absurd.

It's clear as day that what I did is abstract from the concrete differences of the historical class societies and thus put forward a notion of class which accounts for their common characteristics.




The same could be said about the "labor lieutenants of capital," the union bureaucracy.The union bureaucrats usually do not employ wage labour for the sake of production of capital. And they do not bond the worker as serf to a piece of land. They do not enslave the worker.



They too are a conduit of class alien attitudes and ideas into the proletariatI'm not talking about a "conduit of class alien attitudes and ideas". There you go again with this exclusive attention to ideological and legal relations.



You seem to think that these things are moral categories.Is crap like this really necessary? I mean, only a fool could conclude that, or a person desperately trying to evade the question.

[Luís Henrique]

Was not the control of the means of the productions handed to the state? Was not the state controlled by the bureaucracy?

If so, where did the competition that is absolutely necessary to the existence of capital go?

Luís Henrique

[Captain Ahab]

If so, where did the competition that is absolutely necessary to the existence of capital go?

Luís Henrique
Why is competition absolutely necessary for the existence of capital? Is it not wage-labour that is as said by Marx?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So what? Capitalists are not some rock solid homogeneous group who meet in some secret boardroom to conspire to squash any flicker of rebellion. Believe it or not, capitalists are in bitter competition with each other. Capitalist nations are constantly hostile to one another. Or what, do capitalist nations not go to war with each other?


Your definition of what constitutes capitalism contains all the superficiality of a bourgeois commentator. As I've said many times before the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property. People who call themselves Marxists should not hold such a superficial notion on what capitalism is. They should look at what actually holds on the ground. The relationship of the ruling state capitalist class to the means of production was totally different to that of the ordinary Russian worker. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny this. This class had absolute control over the disposal of economic surplus unlike the ordinary Russian workers. The overwhelming control that it exerted over the means of production by virtue of its absolute control over the state amounted to de facto ownership of those means by this class. Not as individual capitalists but as a collective capitalist class. This is not a new development. The upper echelons of the catholic church during feudal times owned large swathes of property, not as individuals, but collectively.



The Whites at this point were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it. You accusations are groundless.

My definition of a capitalist class is that the have a characteristic relationship to the means of production, OWNERSHIP. The SB simply did not have that, ever. And you betray your idealism when you bring in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church during feudal times -- they were capitalist? Really:rolleyes:? Another example of capitalists without capitalism. Do you just label any ruling group some kind of capitalist class? Groupings that concentrate political power into their hands are not necessarily capitalists.

The impressionistic, anti-Marxist view of state cappers usually comes down to this formula: The bourgeoisie own the means of production in capitalism. In the SU, the bureaucracy controls the state, which collectively owns the means of production and therefore they are the new bourgeoisie, collectively. When Napoleon became head of state in France, did that mean a return to feudalism? No it did not. Same with the USSR, in the new Thermidor, property and class relations were not overturned. It is a bit complex. So we don't just tar the Stalinists as being the new bourgeoisie because the exert a high degree of control over production.


the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property.No it depends on them de facto and dejure OWNING the property and having fairly free reign to do with it whatever they desire. Like shut it down, like give it to their children, like sell it and take the profit and move to Tahiti. These things and many others that are the right of the bourgeoisie everywhere (well, almost everywhere) did not exist in the USSR.

As for my "accusations" about the Whites -- it is a judgment that the victory of the rebels would have lead to the downfall of the Bolsheviks and counterrevolution. The Rebels consisted of a heterogenous bunch -- no way they bring about a new and improved version of October.

[Captain Ahab]

I don't think Marx ever implied that there is only one necessary condition for the existence of capital - or for its domination of the productive activity.

Yes, but when did he argue that competition is absolutely needed for the creation of capital?


He is quite clear that capitalism can only exist on the basis of the production of commodities though, and it is hard to see what the necessity of commodities would be if there was no private property - who would sell and who would buy those commodities, if not separate private proprietors?
Commodities are things people want and there will be a demand for them regardless of who creates them. The states sells the commodities and the workers buy them. State-capitalism is bound not to resemble free market capitalism just like a tendency here not being identical to another doesn't mean it isn't socialist.


(But, even if Marx never said that capitalist exploitation cannot exist without competition, LinksRadical does:
I've only skimmed through your spar with LinkRadical and don't particularly care what he says as he is not Marx.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, but when did he argue that competition is absolutely needed for the creation of capital?

Well, he certainly says this:


Conceptually, competition is nothing other than the inner nature of capital, its essential character, appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals with one another, the inner tendency as external necessity.) (Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals, and its self-determination therefore appears as their reciprocal interaction with one another.) Capital is just as much the constant positing as the suspension of proportionate production. The existing proportion always has to be suspended by the creation of surplus values and the increase of productive forces. But this demand, that production should be expanded simultaneously and at once in the same proportion, makes external demands upon capital which in no way arise out of it itself; at the same time, the departure from the given proportion in one branch of production drives all of them out of it, and in unequal proportions. So far (for we have not yet reached the aspect of capital in which it is circulating capital, and still have circulation on one side and capital 'on the other, or production as its presupposition, or ground from which it arises), even from the standpoint of production alone, circulation contains the relation to consumption and production -- in other words, surplus labour as counter value [Gegenwert], and differentiation of labour in an ever richer form.

(Grundrisse, Notebook IV; all emphases mine)

I am pretty sure there are other paragraphs by him on the subject, but I haven't been able to find them on a cursory search. Anyway, the drive of his reasoning seems pretty clear to me: capital can only exist through competition.


Commodities are things people want and there will be a demand for them regardless of who creates them.

A lettuce is a commodity, and it is a "thing people want" - but a lathe is a commodity, not a thing people want - it is only a use value for capital.


The states sells the commodities and the workers buy them.

Which then means a very strange form of capitalism that produces means of consumption as commodities, but means of production as... non-commodities?

The historical experience shows otherwise: means of production in the Soviet Union and similar social formations were produced as commodities, and sold by companies to one another, as if they were independent and competing capitalist enterprises.


I've only skimmed through your spar with LinkRadical and don't particularly care what he says as he is not Marx.

Fair enough.