60 percent of Russians want communism back

[boiler]

60 percent of Russians want communism back


About 60 percent of Russians believe there were more positive than negative aspects to life in the former Soviet Union, an opinion poll suggests.
Of the 1,000 people whom Russia’s Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) interviewed by telephone in a survey last month, 14 percent said the word communism had percent “very pleasant,” “positive” or “wonderful” connotations for them and 12 percent said they were nostalgic about the Soviet era.
Communism was just a thing of the past for 11 percent, but the same proportion believed communism meant good and stable life.
To 7 percent, the word communism gave a sense of “disgust” or “sad associations” or meant “something negative” generally.
For 5 percent, it stood for dreams of a “radiant future” that had never come true (“it’s a great pity that we never came to see it”).
Asked by pollsters to explain the meaning of the word communism, 23 percent said that for them it meant a just society where everyone is equal and all property is common.
For 9 percent, the word primarily stood for a specific economic and social system, while for 8 percent it represented a life better than today’s (“we were better off, people were taken better care of,” and “people were more plain and life was more plan as well”).
Six percent said communism represented good and stable life for them, and praised the official Soviet era principle “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
Five percent dismissed communism as a utopia or fairytale.
Respondents were also asked to explain what they might see as positive and negative aspects of the Soviet system.
In response, 33 percent credited it with good social security guarantees, stability and good care of people, 14 percent said it had been a system of justice and social equality, 9 percent said the Soviet Union was a land of rule of law and discipline, 7 percent praised the country’s guaranteed employment, and another 7 percent claimed that people were more willing to help each other then than they are today.
On the other hand, 9 percent criticized Soviet-era restrictions on rights and liberties, 7 percent accused the Soviet system of suppressing personal individuality, another 7 percent said shortages of basic consumer goods were that system’s main defect, 6 percent slammed abuse of authority in that period and 5% condemned the repressive rule in the Soviet Union.
By and large, 59 percent of respondents believed there were more positive than negative aspects to communism. In that category, 69 percent were people aged 60 or more and 47 percent people aged between 18 and 30.
Moreover, 43 percent would have welcomed Russia’s re-adopting the communist ideology, 38 percent were not happy with the idea, and 19 percent were undecided on this point.

MORE…
http://rbth.ru/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good _system_-_poll_30755.html

[Remus Bleys]

They don't want communism back.
They want a social democracy that waved redflags and had socialistesque rhetoric.
They want a return to the glorious days of the USSR (nationalism).

This also isn't news.

[revolutionarymir]

The age of the respondents shows us all we need to know; the longer you lived in the USSR, the more likely you are to respond favorably.

[Comrade Jacob]

They better get the real thing next time.

[Per Levy]

edit: what am i even writing. cant think today. remus bleys is spot on, pretty much nothing to add there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

For something to come "back" it had to have been there in the first place.:rolleyes:

[tachosomoza]

Yeah, they also support throwing all gays, jews and people of color into labor camps, or killing them. They want ultranationalism and totalitarian oppression of those the majority don't like. That's not socialism, and Lenin would be greatly distressed at what Russia has come to. Actually, in current Russia, Lenin would probably be dead for voraciously upholding the rights of minorities and lambasting the fact that Russia has more fascists than any other country.

[Comrade Samuel]

Yeah, they also support throwing all gays, jews and people of color into labor camps, or killing them. They want ultranationalism and totalitarian oppression of those the majority don't like. That's not socialism, and Lenin would be greatly distressed at what Russia has come to. Actually, in current Russia, Lenin would probably be dead for voraciously upholding the rights of minorities and lambasting the fact that Russia has more fascists than any other country.

The fact that so many Russians today are closet fascists masquerading as socialists should concern everybody.

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -some bearded dude

[Stalinist Speaker]

They don't want communism back.
They want a social democracy that waved redflags and had socialistesque rhetoric.
They want a return to the glorious days of the USSR (nationalism).

This also isn't news.

you remember what i wrote at the DPRK thread the same conserns the soviet union and the KPRF.

[motion denied]

So... Russians should be fascists to combat Us imperialism? Who cares about class struggle anyway...

The unending wisdom of stalinists :rolleyes:

[Remus Bleys]

you remember what i wrote at the DPRK thread the same conserns the soviet union and the KPRF.
I don't remember.

Its a damn shame you aren't even anti-revisionist, and could instead interpret what i said as a criticism of khruschev or brezhnev.

[Stalinist Speaker]

I don't remember.

Its a damn shame you aren't even anti-revisionist, and could instead interpret what i said as a criticism of khruschev or brezhnev.
you wasn't writing anything about krushev and brezhnev, how am i supposed to know that you weren't talking about Stalin's time? 2. it was not social democratic under any time in the USSR it almost became social democratic under gorbatchev but it fell before that. 3 im not an anti revisionist? please.
I would recommend you learning Dialectic Materialism.

[Stalinist Speaker]

So... Russians should be fascists to combat Us imperialism? Who cares about class struggle anyway...

The unending wisdom of stalinists :rolleyes:

what are you talking about? fascism? when did i ever name that? are you saying that the soviet union was fascist?

[Remus Bleys]

you wasn't writing anything about krushev and brezhnev,
I was writing about all of the USSR poststalin and stalin included

how am i supposed to know that you weren't talking about Stalin's time?
Why wouldn't that have included brezhnev and khruschev?

3 im not an anti revisionist? please. You say this, yet you then say this:
2. it was not social democratic under any time in the USSR it almost became social democratic under gorbatchev but it fell before that.Then what the fuck was it? Socialist? Even under brezhnev and krushchev? The entire point of anti-revisionism is that only stalin ussr was socialist. You. Goddamn. Tankie.

I would recommend you learning Dialectic Materialism.
Holy hell. http://i.qkme.me/3sqgo0.jpg


How the fuck is the current Communist Party even remotely close to socialism?

I mean, im not even a committed believer of diamat, and i can tell your using it wrong.

[motion denied]

what are you talking about? fascism? when did i ever name that? are you saying that the soviet union was fascist?

No, I'm saying that a bunch of Russian 'communists' are nothing more than fascists in denial. Saying that communists should be chauvinists to combat US (because that's the only imperialism that there is, right?) imperialism is laughable. Want a good way to combat imperialism? Combat capitalism, you can't have one without the other.

[Stalinist Speaker]

I was writing about all of the USSR poststalin and stalin included

Why wouldn't that have included brezhnev and khruschev?
You say this, yet you then say this:Then what the fuck was it? Socialist? Even under brezhnev and krushchev? The entire point of anti-revisionism is that only stalin ussr was socialist. You. Goddamn. Tankie.

Holy hell. http://i.qkme.me/3sqgo0.jpg


How the fuck is the current Communist Party even remotely close to socialism?

I mean, im not even a committed believer of diamat, and i can tell your using it wrong.

When you wrote it i thought you meant that it wasn't socialism under the whole time the USSR existed (1917-1991) (The KPRF wants to return to stalinist principles and not krushev or brezhnev so they are anti-revisionists) Social democracy is completely different (its basically capitalism like every where else waving a red flag and speaking like a socialist but they never do what they say) Was there privatization in the soviet union no but there is under social democracy, was there bourgeoisie democracy in the USSR, NO! but thats the whole reason social democracy exist, was there a huge bourgeoisie class, business/land owners Big economical difference between the people, unemployment? NO NO NO NO and NO there wasn't only because they are revisionist it doesn't make them social democrats, I've even lived under social democracy so i know what that is.
Well since the KPRF says its goal is to return russia into Stalin's time they should by logic be communists, and just go read their party program they have one on english on their website.

In what way am i Using dialectical materialism wrong? please since your an professor on the topic pleas explain what i'm doing wrong.

[Stalinist Speaker]

No, I'm saying that a bunch of Russian 'communists' are nothing more than fascists in denial. Saying that communists should be chauvinists to combat US (because that's the only imperialism that there is, right?) imperialism is laughable. Want a good way to combat imperialism? Combat capitalism, you can't have one without the other.

Do you know what Fascism is? its when you believe that one race is superior to another when did the KPRF claim that? and they want to combat both imperialism and capitalism when have they said the opposit, that was a complete strawman argument.

[Yuppie Grinder]

What does OP mean by "back"?

[motion denied]

Do you know what Fascism is? its when you believe that one race is superior to another when did the KPRF claim that? and they want to combat both imperialism and capitalism when have they said the opposit, that was a complete strawman argument.

What a great explanation on fascism, eh. Fascism is not only racism, but chauvinism, a reaction against workers' struggle and state monopoly capitalism. Fascists are conservatives and anti-liberal, be it socially or economically. They use populist rhetoric and syncretic politics. Militarism is also an extra addition.

Guess what, many 'communists' buy shit like that in the name of anti-imperialism!

The KPRF (see, this party does not represent all russian 'comunists') fits in at least chauvinism, conservatism and, well, state capitalism. Even orthodox priests who have nothing to do with Liberation Theology are supporters of the KPRF!

Ever heard of Zyuganov?

[Stalinist Speaker]

Even orthodox priests who have nothing to do with Liberation Theology are supporters of the KPRF!

Ever heard of Zyuganov?

yes the preists support the KPRF is because the KPRF supports the church and is accepting religion, also they support the KPRF due to religious belief like they want to remove poverty, and KPRF wants that to.
Zuganov is an stalinist

[Remus Bleys]

When you wrote it i thought you meant that it wasn't socialism under the whole time the USSR existed (1917-1991) I did. But it didn't need to be interpreted that way.

(The KPRF wants to return to stalinist principles and not krushev or brezhnev so they are anti-revisionists)They aren't even consistent stalinists, and if they were, they still aren't communists. Stalinism is a bourgeoisie ideology.

Social democracy is completely different (its basically capitalism like every where else waving a red flag and speaking like a socialist but they never do what they say) I know what social democracy is. With that in mind, how was the ussr ever anything else? And social democrats are usually anti-communist

Was there privatization in the soviet union no but there is under social democracy, I don't know what you are saying. In all seriousness, no passive aggressiveness, the language barrier sucks.

was there bourgeoisie democracy in the USSR, NO! Your right. There was beareaucratic democracy.

but thats the whole reason social democracy exist, was there a huge bourgeoisie class, business/land owners Big economical difference between the people, unemployment? NO NO NO NO and NO YES YES YES YES AHD YES[/QUOTE]

there wasn't only because they are revisionist it doesn't make them social democrats, I've even lived under social democracy so i know what that is. Then what are revisionists according to you? Capitalists? Socialists?

Well since the KPRF says its goal is to return russia into Stalin's time they should by logic be communists NO! By logic they are the butcher of the revolution (not that trotsky would have done different mind you)[/QUOTE]

and just go read their party program they have one on english on their website.Okay. Lets see what they say.



Stop the extinction of the country, restore benefits for large families, reconstruct the network of public kindergartens and provide housing for young families. Communists, Social Democrats, and fascists all advocate for this.

Nationalize natural resources in Russia and the strategic sectors of the economy; revenues in these industries are to be used in the interests of all citizens.Nationalization =/= Socialism

Return to Russia from foreign banks the state financial reserves and use them for economic and social development. Yeah. OUR COUNTRIES BANKS AND CAPITAL IS BETTER!! Total fascism.

Break the system of total fraud in the elections.Weren't you just whining about bourgeoisie elections? They should advocate for a single party state, not for "fair elections." Which is also a downright lie.
They'd do the same as United Russia.

Create a truly independent judiciary.LIES!

Carry out an immediate package of measures to combat poverty and introduce price controls on essential goodsDidn't Nixon do this? They want "price control" not expropriation.

Not raise the retirement age. Both Social Democrats and Communist advocate this.

Restore government responsibility for housing and utilities, establish fees for municipal services in an amount not more than 10% of family income, stop the eviction of people to the streets, expand public housing.Good on them. Again, social democrats also advocate this.

Increase funding for science and scientists to provide decent wages and all the necessary research.Obama has done this.

Restore the highest standards of universal and free secondary and higher education that existed during the Soviet era.Good aim, what commies should advocate for. However, social democrats do this as well.

Ensure the availability and quality of health care.See above.

Vigorously develop high-tech manufacturing.How is this communist?

Ensure the food and environmental security of the country and support the large collective farms for the production and processing of agricultural products.This is a dream. Also, the kibbutz weren't communist. Why is this?

Prioritize domestic debt over of foreign (to compensate for household deposits, burnt in the disastrous years of "reform")Some more nationalism. Why not "FUCK DEBT!!" like the bolsheviks orginally did iirc?

Introduce progressive taxation; low-income citizens will be exempt from paying taxes.Social Democrat.

Create conditions for development of small and medium enterprises. I spy with my little eye PETTY BOURGEOISIE!

Ensure the accessibility of cultural goods, stop the commercialization of culture, defend Russian culture as the foundation of the spiritual unity of multinational Russia, the national culture of all citizens of the country.I spy with my little eye NATIONALISM!

Stop the slandering of the Russian and Soviet history.DONT MAKE FUN OF OUR GLORIOUS PAST!

Take drastic measures to suppress corruption and crime.LIES!

Strengthen national defense and expand social guarantees to servicemen and law enforcement officials.Fascist.

Ensure the territorial integrity of Russia and the protection of compatriots abroad. What the hell does this even mean?

Institute a foreign policy based on mutual respect of countries and peoples to facilitate the voluntary restoration of the Union of States With Russia in charge, yes?

Also, there sympathetic to the Orthodox Church. And I am a member/sympathizer of institutional religion, but the Russian Orthodox Church? First of all, this is under the area of "revisionist." Secondly, the Russian Orthodox Church is one of the most oppressive forces in all of Russia.
Combine all of that with this. (http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/11/russian-mps-vote-overwhelmingly-to-outlaw-gay-propaganda/)

Face it, the Russian "Communist" Party is a bunch of fascists that miss the Soviet Union.


In what way am i Using dialectical materialism wrong? please since your an professor on the topic pleas explain what i'm doing wrong.
I mean, im not even a committed believer of diamat, and i can tell your using it wrong. Wow. You're a bigger asshole than i am.
And are you referring to your nk thing? Or are you just going

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/300x300/38434142.jpg

And leaving it at that?

Or is collaboration with fascism "thinking dialectical"?

[Per Levy]

(The KPRF wants to return to stalinist principles and not krushev or brezhnev so they are anti-revisionists)

as the leading anti-revisionist on this board i think ismael wants to have a word with you.


Social democracy is completely different (its basically capitalism like every where else waving a red flag and speaking like a socialist but they never do what they say)

well yes social democracy is capitalist, also most social dems dont wave red flags or "speak like a socialist"(how do you speak like a socialist?), except of course if see mos of the official "communist" partys as social democratic than it would be true, but that wasnt what you said.


Was there privatization in the soviet union no but there is under social democracy, was there bourgeoisie democracy in the USSR, NO! but thats the whole reason social democracy exist, was there a huge bourgeoisie class, business/land owners Big economical difference between the people, unemployment? NO NO NO NO and NO there wasn't only because they are revisionist it doesn't make them social democrats, I've even lived under social democracy so i know what that is.

was there wage labour in the SU? yes. were the workers exploited in the SU? yes. was there commodity production in the SU? yes. had the workers power in the SU? no. sounds pretty capitalist to me, you know statecapitalist. also what is social democracy to you? i lived under a social dem gouvernment wasnt all that different from the conservative led gouvernment tbh.


Well since the KPRF says its goal is to return russia into Stalin's time they should by logic be communists, and just go read their party program they have one on english on their website.

the kprf are nationalistic, chauvinistic, homophobic social conservatives, they adore stalin the way nazbols adore stalin as a great leading figure of russia. they are the loyal opposition to putins united russia, so yeah, not much communistic stuff there.

[motion denied]

yes the preists support the KPRF is because the KPRF supports the church and is accepting religion, also they support the KPRF due to religious belief like they want to remove poverty, and KPRF wants that to.
Zuganov is an stalinist

Accepting religion being 'beating the shit out of sexual diversity parades' and making homophobic statements. See: engli sh.pravda.ru/russi a/politics/09-06-2006/81793-co mmunist_pa rty-0/

(I can't post links yet)

I'd be ashamed to identify myself with Zyuganov (as you did, you're both stalinists according to you).

[Sasha]

But than again the Russian police arrested tonight 200 people of a huge crowd that wanted to start an racist pogrom, so I take these kind of polls not really as an sign of the progresive sentiments of the Russian majority.

[Arlekino]

But than again the Russian police arrested tonight 200 people of a huge crowd that wanted to start an racist pogrom, so I take these kind of polls not really as an sign of the progresive sentiments of the Russian majority.

Yes that what democracy gave to Soviet Union, I dont remember in Soviet Union shouting loud about racism.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes that what democracy gave to Soviet Union, I dont remember in Soviet Union shouting loud about racism.
I don't anyone here was in favor of the USSR dissolving.

There is a difference between being anti-soviet and pro-federation.

[Lam]

Let's face it,communism should have born on a country far more developed than russia, like england or even germany for example. Russia was a rural country it couldnt handle a massive industralization that was needed to fight world potencies, too many thing happened in a short period of time, the country was too big and have too much racial differences especially after USSR were created

[Yuppie Grinder]

But than again the Russian police arrested tonight 200 people of a huge crowd that wanted to start an racist pogrom, so I take these kind of polls not really as an sign of the progresive sentiments of the Russian majority.

wow
could i get a link to that story if there is one in english?
i know russia's in a bad state in many ways but i thought that sort of thing was in their past

[Per Levy]

wow
could i get a link to that story if there is one in english?
i know russia's in a bad state in many ways but i thought that sort of thing was in their past

http://www.france24.com/en/20131013-thousands-riot-russia-over-migrant-blamed-murder

i think psycho meant this.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'd thought it was common knowledge that a good chunk of the Russian populace pine for the Soviet days (specifically the 70s and 80s). This has less to do with politics and more to do with the fact that the living conditions of the average Soviet citizen was actually better before the Union was dissolved. You'll find this same sentiment in parts of (former) East Germany, where they will tell you that the authoritarianism sucked, but at least they still had a job, healthcare, a dwelling, food, etc.

(This should be something the U.S. must take to heart: If your government can't provide for your citizens, your government doesn't deserve its existence)

[Remus Bleys]

Let's face it,communism should have born on a country far more developed than russia, like england or even germany for example. Russia was a rural country it couldnt handle a massive industralization that was needed to fight world potencies, too many thing happened in a short period of time, the country was too big and have too much racial differences especially after USSR were created
You dirty Menshevik, racist, scum.
What do you even mean by that, too many racial differences?

[tachosomoza]

You dirty Menshevik, racist, scum.
What do you even mean by that, too many racial differences?

I think he was referring to the cosmopolitan nature of the USSR and that he thinks it was a bad thing, which it most definitely wasn't.

[Rurkel]

Yeah, they also support throwing all gays, jews and people of color into labor camps, or killing them. They want ultranationalism and totalitarian oppression of those the majority don't like.While it's true that polls like this should not be taken as indicators of Russia being "Red" (notice also that the percent of those who want to being "communist ideology" back is lower then 60%) and that the KPRF leadership are mostly nationalistic social democrats with a Stalin fetish and wingutty social options, such comments borer on chauvinism. I'm pretty sure that 60% of Russians don't want want to throw all "Jews and people of color" into concentration camps, where they'll be "totalitarially oppressed". And while homophobia is indeed quite widespread in Russia, I doubt that 60% of all population would support such a measure, either.


What do you even mean by that, too many racial differences?
Going about "racial differences" sounds much more right-wing then Menshevism, honestly.

[Remus Bleys]

Going about "racial differences" sounds much more right-wing then Menshevism, honestly.That was more in reply to "Hur durr russia needed capitalism first"

[Red_Banner]

The "KPRF" are much more Great Russian exceptionalist than socialist/communist.

[Japan]

Russia was never communist, unless you count the primitive communists.

[Lam]

You dirty Menshevik, racist, scum.
What do you even mean by that, too many racial differences?
calm down, i was talking about how lots of different groups MAY NOT have the same motivation, what leads to an ideologic impairment of the union

[Remus Bleys]

calm down, i was talking about how lots of different groups MAY NOT have the same motivation, what leads to an ideologic impairment of the union

So your just saying the Chechen and Georgian can't get along?

Which forgets the bolsheviks allowed nationalities to secede (something I disagree with, but they did it anyway).

Maybe your Menshevik position is debatable, but your weird anti-multiculturalism is not.

[Lam]

So your just saying the Chechen and Georgian can't get along?

Which forgets the bolsheviks allowed nationalities to secede (something I disagree with, but they did it anyway).

Maybe your Menshevik position is debatable, but your weird anti-multiculturalism is not.
I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they may not accept, its a possibility, one theory for the end of the USSR. Don't try to deny me that on the beginning of the revolution lots of groups tried to get the power with they own ideologies, the conflicting ideas may bring an uncertainty to the system

[RedHal]

60% of the Russian people are in favor of the positive aspects of the Soviet Union, and all we get on revleft is a bunch of grumpy posts, I sure hope real communists in Russia don't just toss this out and make grumpy posts on the internet :laugh:

[Red Commissar]

60% of the Russian people are in favor of the positive aspects of the Soviet Union, and all we get on revleft is a bunch of grumpy posts, I sure hope real communists in Russia don't just toss this out and make grumpy posts on the internet :laugh:

The problem I see here is what they perceived as "positive" about the Soviet Union wildly differs. For some it was the sense of economic safety. Others, stability. Maybe it was the crime aspect, or maybe that "morals" were more respected then. The popular associations of it come off as more populist in the end. This is ignoring of course many of KPRF's problematic views.

This isn't a bad thing in the sense that there is disillusionment with the promises of neoliberalism in Russia- but the fact of the matter is that communists might not be the only ones looking at this data. Putin for one hasn't been shy of boasting of Russia's power during the USSR period and alluding to an eventual return to a world power, often with promises that this Russia will be able to restore dignity (read above grievances) to the citizens of the country.

That being said this kind of study isn't unique, we can pretty much pick out from any year a similar poll as other users mentioned- not just in Russia but in other countries that made up the eastern bloc with respect to the services and sense of stability/order the previous order provided. What I'd be more interested in is if this sentiment has remained constant over the past few years, and whether this is something that the youth also feels or only the aging older generation who had lived through the Soviet Union.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

60% of the Russian people are in favor of the positive aspects of the Soviet Union, and all we get on revleft is a bunch of grumpy posts, I sure hope real communists in Russia don't just toss this out and make grumpy posts on the internet :laugh:

The problem is that we can't tell if the "positive aspects" that they approve of are universal, free health care, or the fact that "bourgeois decadent homosexuals" were thrown in jail. The point is that what many Russians see as "communism" is quite problematic.

[reb]

Many people of a certain age often dream of living back in the good old days when capitalism was expanding. Us communists really shouldn't be endorsing capitalism, no matter how nice it was for some people.

[O.f.A.]

Stalinism is a bourgeoisie ideology.

I am not all that familiar with stalinist thought, so could you elaborate just a little as to why you say it is a bourgeoisie ideology?

[Thirsty Crow]

I am not all that familiar with stalinist thought, so could you elaborate just a little as to why you say it is a bourgeoisie ideology?
It proposes the expropriation of the individual capitalists in favor of the satate monopoly on capital and foreign trade. It's an ideology of the restructuring of class relations, and of the ruling class.

[reb]

I am not all that familiar with stalinist thought, so could you elaborate just a little as to why you say it is a bourgeoisie ideology?

As with all bourgeois ideology, it seeks to mask and obfuscate the capitalist nature of the state that it is operating in. This was done under the guise of "socialism in one country". What happened was that the USSR could not over come the capitalist mode of production so just shifted the goal posts and came up with this new thing called "socialism" which wasn't capitalism and wasn't quite communism, despite it having all of the essential characteristics of bourgeois society. They just dressed up their capitalist state in marxist rhetoric and used that to justify the role of the party and it's own social-democratic tendencies.

[reb]

Call it what you will, the USSR was not capitalist for a number of reasons. I have no affection for the Stalinist rulers of the USSR, but clearly the economy was different than capitalist economies. Of course it wasn't socialism, but an economy where there is no competition, profit does not motivate production, and the law of exchange does not hold sway just doesn't line up with any capitalist economy I am aware of.

If it wasn't capitalism or communism, then what was it? The face is, you don't have an explanation for it and you have nothing to really back it up with. The USSR did make profits, there was competition, there was wage-labor and commodity exchange and production, there was money, the law of value was in operation, and not even Stalin could deny that. It was even able to trade with other capitalists outside of the USSR.

[Red_Banner]

It was a transition between the two that was ultimately aborted. Production was not geared to profit in the USSR, that is a fact -- do with it what you will. There was competition? Between competing capital? News to me. There was wage labor, as Engels and Marx noted there would be in the transition to socialism. And there was commodity exchange -- but the law of exchange absolutely did not hold. And, duh, there was money. So, in this particular case you are going to trust what Stalin said? Your premise seems to be that either something is capitalism or communism -- it is a false premise.

Yeah, escept for Perestroika and maybe the NEP, there wasn't capitalism in the USSR.

Very corrupt and bureaucratic, but not capitalist

[Super international]

Ech. Just sounds like more Nationalistic bs:glare:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't anyone here was in favor of the USSR dissolving.

There is a difference between being anti-soviet and pro-federation.

The fail of the soviet union meant the destruction of the world's largest, strongest, superpower. It was a victory for the peoples throughout the world who suffered under the yoke of Soviet Imperialism and for that reason ought to be marked as a special holiday for Communists

[Bolshevik Sickle]

They don't want communism back.
They want a social democracy that waved redflags and had socialistesque rhetoric.
They want a return to the glorious days of the USSR (nationalism).

This also isn't news.

Exactly. You even see Russian Neo-Nazis waving cccp flags or having hammer&sickle tattoos. Especially the Nazbols (Communazis, don't know how that works).

They just want that authoritarian strict order back, the USSR was anything but communist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The fail of the soviet union meant the destruction of the world's largest, strongest, superpower. It was a victory for the peoples throughout the world who suffered under the yoke of Soviet Imperialism and for that reason ought to be marked as a special holiday for Communists

The USA had an economic and geopolitical edge during the entire Cold War. That's how they won.

[Tim Cornelis]

Call it what you will, the USSR was not capitalist for a number of reasons. I have no affection for the Stalinist rulers of the USSR, but clearly the economy was different than capitalist economies.

That's circular reasoning. The Soviet Union wasn't capitalist because it was different from capitalist economies, because it wasn't capitalist. If the Soviet Union was capitalist then the argument that it was different from capitalist economies does not hold, obviously.


Of course it wasn't socialism, but an economy where there is no competition, profit does not motivate production, and the law of exchange does not hold sway just doesn't line up with any capitalist economy I am aware of.

There was competition, though not mediated through competitive markets. Profits regulated production. I wouldn't know about "the law of exchange", what do you mean exactly?


It was a transition between the two that was ultimately aborted. Production was not geared to profit in the USSR, that is a fact -- do with it what you will. There was competition? Between competing capital? News to me. There was wage labor, as Engels and Marx noted there would be in the transition to socialism. And there was commodity exchange -- but the law of exchange absolutely did not hold. And, duh, there was money. So, in this particular case you are going to trust what Stalin said? Your premise seems to be that either something is capitalism or communism -- it is a false premise.

Of course production was geared toward profits. If plant A, B, and C in the same sector produce -10,000R, 25,000R, and 5,000R in profits respectively then obviously plant A will eventually be shut down for its inefficient use of resources.
Socialist emulation was used to stimulate competition between workers, enterprises, and sectors.
Wage-labour is abolished in the transition to socialism. I have never read about Marx and Engels saying otherwise, and if they did they are dead wrong. Wage-labour relations is the basis for capitalist production, it makes no sense for this to be perpetuated into the transition toward socialism. It makes no sense as wage-labour necessarily implies an exploited working class and an exploiting class, the capitalist class.

The Soviet Union was definitely capitalist.

[Red_Banner]

The fail of the soviet union meant the destruction of the world's largest, strongest, superpower. It was a victory for the peoples throughout the world who suffered under the yoke of Soviet Imperialism and for that reason ought to be marked as a special holiday for Communists


Oh what bullshit!

Imperialism got worse after the USSR collapse.

Most people voted to keep the USSR together.

The USSR was going to be peacefully transformed into the Union of Sovereign States.

What screwed it up was the day before the treaty was to be signed, the Gang of 8 bastards started their August Coup.

This scared off the leaders of the Republics from signing the treaty and fueled Yeltsin's flames.

[Tim Cornelis]

Okay, a few points, more to come. Your point about profits is simply not true. Production units had output targets. The managers would try to get low output targets -- as long as production met or exceeded the goal, all was well. This led to all kinds of wild inefficiencies, where managers of a given plant might hoard certain materials, etc. Profit was nowhere to be found as a goal. The Lieberman reforms in the early 60s tried to actually move toward profit as an aim, but they were dead in the water and never took hold.

Profits were perhaps not explicitly a goal. But again, if you take those three plants, A, B, and C, A will be sanctioned for not being profitable and running a loss, B will be rewarded. Otherwise, if all plants were allowed to not run a profit the country would go bankrupt. Profit calculations were an integral part of the Soviet Union's economic system.


If the USSR tried to implement your program, the country would have collapsed immediately. No country can simply abolish wages and implement full communism the day after the proletariat are victorious. It makes even less sense in an economically backward country where the need for "primitive accumulation of capital" exists.

How is it that so many Marxists do not even know the definition of such an elementary concept as wage-labour? Wage labour has nothing to do with wages in itself, wage-labour is the selling of labour-power by a member of the dispossessed working class to the owner of productive resources. That's wage-labour, not being paid wages.


The law of exchange means that anything can be converted to cash and cash to anything (virtually). In the USSR, one could not convert any amount of cash into factories, banks or the like. That is also the essence of capital, it is fully convertible.

I will need to look into that, look up the implications, see how it works in the West and how it worked in the East formerly.


As for the so-called competition, who was competing with whom? The state owned all the factories -- so while there may have been something that one could call competition, there was no competing capital. Do you mean Factory A competing with Factory B? That would be more like two Ford Factories trying to produce more cars. They are not really in competition the way Marx talks about it. They are owned by the same people.

Socialist emulation stimulated competition between workers, between enterprises, and between sectors.
It doesn't matter whether it has the same owners, what matters is what happens in practice. In Das Kapital volume 3 a scenario is sketched where different singular capitals belong to the same owner (joint-venture), yet constitute singular capitals. So in that sense Marx did think it was feasible.

[Rafiq]

Stalinism can be defined through two phrases

The degeneration of the October revolution and the growing class antagonism and systemic contradictions that came with it.

And the Stalinism actualized, which came only after the second world war in the early 50's, from which all remnants of proletarian dictatorship were destroyed and Stalinism as an ideology had stabilised and was able to properly adjust to the death of the revolution as well.

[Tim Cornelis]

Okay, so by your definition, not mine, there was no wage labor either.

That's not my definition, that's the definition. And according to this definition there was wage-labour. The working class sold their labour-power to the owning class, the party-state, which created the basis for the employee-employer relationship.


Marx said in Grundrisse, that the essence of capital was competition -- this really was absent in the thoroughly nationalized economy of the USSR. I really don't know about joint-venture instance you raise. I doubt it would encompass an entire economy.

If feel no particular obligation to uphold anything Marx said a priori, I only apply Marxism insofar it has proven to be correct. I have not yet been able to evaluate the extent to which Das Kapital is accurate, since it's a highly complex theory with extensive criticism and a considerable amount of literature both supporting and of competing theories. But even then we can say that there was competition of capitals facilitated through socialist emulation, which -- again -- stimulated competition between workers, sectors, enterprises.


As for the profit argument you make. It is fundamentally flawed, comrade. Really, it was all too common for enterprises to misuse resources in order to make or exceed quotas, even if it meant operating at a loss. In the USSR, this was considered a success. You produced for the plan, not for profit.

How does exceeding quotas imply a loss? Profits are the revenue earned in excess of production costs (labour, raw materials, etc.). Considering this a success makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing so would be stimulating bankruptcy and negative economic growth.
The difference of profits in the Soviet Union was not that it did not exist, or did not have a regulatory function either implicitly or explicitly, the difference was where these profits went. In liberal capitalism, profits are reinvested or accrued and accumulated privately. In state capitalism, profits are reinvested, used for socialist emulation, or invested in social welfare (generally). That profits serve either a social or private end does not change the manner in which an economic system operates objectively.


A less ironclad example would be the way the Chinese government is willing to lose large amounts of money for a long period of time in certain industries in order to have the capacity to produce a desired something. This simply doesn't happen under capitalism.

With what purpose would they be doing that? What is this "desired something"? Is it a short term loss for a long term gain?

Apparently it happens all the time under liberal capitalism. (A friend working for an electronics shop called Saturn told me this). In the gaming industry consoles are often sold below their cost price to stimulate consumption and they hope to even this out by selling more games. Similarly, that Saturn branch where he works is located in an isolated place with few shoppers so it doesn't appear profitable at all. Yet, it has remained open for years because it can survive on the financial reserves of Saturn and Media Market (its mother corporation). Capitalism is more much complex than a straightforward "profit maximising." Think 'social enterprises' for instance. Additionally, predatory pricing also means running a loss for a period of time and occurs all the time in liberal capitalism.

[Marshal of the People]

Here's a Hungarian joke I read about once:

A women woke up in the middle of the night looking terrified, she ran to her medicine cabinet and opened it, then ran to the window and looked outside, she finally ran to the kitchen and looked in the refrigerator and looked relieved. Her husband said "why did you do that" she replied "I had a terrible dream that we had enough medicine in our medicine cabinet, the street wasn't filled with rubbish and there was enough food in our refrigerator" "How is that a terrible dream?" he asked and she replied "the communists were back in power!"

[ComradeLeninist]

I'd like to see the USSR back but only if its done the way it should be, the way Lenin wanted it to be. But anythings better than the so-called Russian Federation and its disaster caused by its first president Yeltsin.

[The Idler]

How did Lenin want it to be?

[Tim Cornelis]

Give me a break Tim. What kind of a class is a state or a party? What is your operational definition of a class -- in this case a ruling class?

Those labourers that engage the objective conditions of labour as alien property are the exploited class, those that possess the alien property (from the perspective of labour) is the ruling class. The owners of productive resources was the party-state, hence the ruling class.


Tim, you do violence to the Marxian understanding "profits," and "competition."

That is a blanket statement with no argument, it begs the question: why?


Capitalism is plenty complex. More now in Marx's day and it took him three long and dense volumes to treat it. That being said, your example falls way short. The owners of Saturn are either making money or it is part of some other way of making money -- which is a universal means of exchange in capitalism. The Chinese Bureaucracy deems it worthwhile for the good of the country to develop certain industries that don't make money for decades and may never turn a profit -- this does not happen under capitalism, ever.

Petitio principii. You assume the initial point, namely that China is not capitalist, therefore what they do is not capitalist.


Also, the common practice in the tech industries to sell something below cost in order to get consumers to buy more high margin consumables has nothing to do with what I am referring to in China. As for selling prices below cost to drive out competition, well that can happen for a relatively short period -- but if it does not lead to profit fairly quickly, forget it.

Please tell me what you're referring to then, because I can't think of any such example, nor have you provided such an example. I do suspect that there are similar cases under liberal capitalism though, from public education to subsidising art.


Output quotas as a goal meant that profit was orthoganal to success. I would bet that many "successful" enterprises generated surpluses. But, many did not -- indeed some whole branches of industries lost money over the course of many years because of social/political considerations.

Where the "profits" go doesn't matter? I think it matters a lot. You are saying that in the USSR, profits went to "socialist emulation" and social welfare (it was also reinvested in industry). In capitalism it is at the complete disposal of the owners of the means of production, the capitalists. They can and do let entire industries die if there is not enough profit to be extracted. But to say that the in the USSR, the very nature of how surpluses are handled is different is correct -- so why not draw the obvious conclusion and say it is qualitatively different from capitalism?

In the Soviet Union profits were also at the complete disposal of the owners of the means of production, the capitalists. The capitalists used it for socialist emulation, reinvestment and investment in industry and welfare. You assume that because the manner in which capital operated in the Soviet Union exemplified different phenomenal characteristics and expressions in comparison to liberal capitalism that therefore the Soviet Union was not capitalist. However, these characteristics, "through innumerable different circumstances[,] can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations." (p. 6 The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). Showing that the Soviet Union "qualitatively" differed from liberal capitalism on the basis how it employed wage-labour, capital, surplus value, and class property, is not sufficient refutation of its capitalist nature. What matters is that it employed wage-labour, capital, surplus value, and class property -- the objective operating of the economic system in other words.