Best Historical Benefit the Soviet Union Offered?

[Capitalist Octopus]

Most people on here are pretty critical of the SU (as am I). Regardless, I'm wondering what you think the best benefit the SU offered historically to the state (as in condition) of the left/communism/genuine revolution. Even if the SU failed in most ways, was there anything especially important it did (any by it I mean that agency can be attributed to any person/thing within the SU). Also, one catch. Try to avoid giving the answer of the fight against the Nazi's since that probably won't be new info for anyone.

[adipocere]

The Soviet Union supported, in various ways, a lot of revolutionary leftist movements around the world and provided a counterbalance to the west. Since it's collapse, the US has basically taken over the entire world with fascistic neoliberalism. I mean you really can't say too much about that aspect.

[IBleedRed]

Most people on here are pretty critical of the SU (as am I). Regardless, I'm wondering what you think the best benefit the SU offered historically to the state (as in condition) of the left/communism/genuine revolution. Even if the SU failed in most ways, was there anything especially important it did (any by it I mean that agency can be attributed to any person/thing within the SU). Also, one catch. Try to avoid giving the answer of the fight against the Nazi's since that probably won't be new info for anyone.

Its mere existence as a nominally socialist republic was an inspiration to many leftists around the world.

To be sure, I don't think the existence of nominally socialist republics is a good thing or represents genuine success. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did what the United States does now for capitalism and "liberal democracy": it was a highly influential agent of propaganda. Look at the world today and you'll see that nearly every intervention or insurrection is framed in the context of "democracy", even though we can all agree that the United States is not democratic and the excuse of "spreading democracy" is bullshit.

The Soviet Union (at least in its earlier years) legitimized the radical left and served as a balance to American influence.

Besides this difficult-to-describe benefit, there are clear accomplishments such as its being the first country to send a man into space, to send a satellite around the moon (Space Race in general); sponsoring students from the Third World to study for free at top-notch Soviet universities; supplying the North Vietnamese; etc

[Ritzy Cat]

I always found it really interesting that, from the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917, one of the most backwards countries in the world, within 50 years came to launch the first man-made satellite into space. The economic and industrial development that was seen under the early-mid Soviet Union (notably under Stalin) was very substantial. Just imagine if like, Chile, for example, went a revolution and then in 50 years became a major superpower. Nobody would have expected it. Without its rough history, modern-day Russia would not look anything like it is today. It is a developed European country, in contrast from what was a completely agrarian society before revolution.

The economic, industrial, technological change see under the Soviet Union was extensive. Forgotten Russia became the passive 'leader' for half of the world. Out of nowhere spawned a true threat to American "democracy" - the USSR. This was what made it so prolific, for what could possibly infringe upon the great American republic?? Nothing, of course! Unfortunately, the oppression and ruthless nature of Stalin pretty much set up the Soviet Union for the remainder of its future.

If we're talking from a leftist political stance, in my opinion and may others agree, the USSR became mostly state capitalist; Failing to possess any sort of actual communist qualities, classes stayed, the elite still controlled the government affairs. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a proletarian revolution but failure to keep the bourgeois subdued and rise of conflicting ideologies to Lenin sort of corrupted what could have been something more ideal.

[IBleedRed]

I always found it really interesting that, from the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917, one of the most backwards countries in the world, within 50 years came to launch the first man-made satellite into space. The economic and industrial development that was seen under the early-mid Soviet Union (notably under Stalin) was very substantial. Just imagine if like, Chile, for example, went a revolution and then in 50 years became a major superpower. Nobody would have expected it. Without its rough history, modern-day Russia would not look anything like it is today. It is a developed European country, in contrast from what was a completely agrarian society before revolution.

The economic, industrial, technological change see under the Soviet Union was extensive. Forgotten Russia became the passive 'leader' for half of the world. Out of nowhere spawned a true threat to American "democracy" - the USSR. This was what made it so prolific, for what could possibly infringe upon the great American republic?? Nothing, of course! Unfortunately, the oppression and ruthless nature of Stalin pretty much set up the Soviet Union for the remainder of its future.

If we're talking from a leftist political stance, in my opinion and may others agree, the USSR became mostly state capitalist; Failing to possess any sort of actual communist qualities, classes stayed, the elite still controlled the government affairs. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a proletarian revolution but failure to keep the bourgeois subdued and rise of conflicting ideologies to Lenin sort of corrupted what could have been something more ideal.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the highlighted part, which is just silly language.

[Ritzy Cat]

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the highlighted part, which is just silly language.

Yeah I agree with this point.

[reb]

Providing the basis and completion of the capitalist revolution and thus creating the foundation for a socialist revolution? Eliminating the Junker class in Prussia and Germany? How much support does a bourgeois state need from communists?

[reb]

The Soviet Union supported, in various ways, a lot of revolutionary leftist movements around the world and provided a counterbalance to the west. Since it's collapse, the US has basically taken over the entire world with fascistic neoliberalism. I mean you really can't say too much about that aspect.


Its mere existence as a nominally socialist republic was an inspiration to many leftists around the world.

To be sure, I don't think the existence of nominally socialist republics is a good thing or represents genuine success. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did what the United States does now for capitalism and "liberal democracy": it was a highly influential agent of propaganda. Look at the world today and you'll see that nearly every intervention or insurrection is framed in the context of "democracy", even though we can all agree that the United States is not democratic and the excuse of "spreading democracy" is bullshit.

The Soviet Union (at least in its earlier years) legitimized the radical left and served as a balance to American influence.

Besides this difficult-to-describe benefit, there are clear accomplishments such as its being the first country to send a man into space, to send a satellite around the moon (Space Race in general); sponsoring students from the Third World to study for free at top-notch Soviet universities; supplying the North Vietnamese; etc

Wow, so politically for you two the main benefit of the soviet union was that it was a political power that acted against the US and the west. Supporting one group of capitalists over another seems to be a thing amongst those who claim the USSR was some how a good thing for communism. Oh, and IBleedRed, here's a tip; it sounds better if you don't contradict your opening sentence with your second sentence. People might take you more seriously.

[Arlekino]

As my mother was had disability she used get extra money top up of wages. Apparently even blind people was at work, with extra disability money. Factories paid for holiday resorts, subsidies theatre tickets prices with free transport.

[reb]

As my mother was had disability she used get extra money top up of wages. Apparently even blind people was at work, with extra disability money. Factories paid for holiday resorts, subsidies theatre tickets prices with free transport.

Again, support for the USSR amounts to little more than social-democracy and the Keynesian welfare state. There's nothing communist (or socialist or whatever word people want to use to mean proletarian emancipation) about it beyond the completion of the capitalist revolution. Why don't we have threads about the "historical benefit" of the Nordic countries? Of post war Britain if we are to use the exact same categories?

[Sea]

Well, it probably lead some people to read Marx ("hey maybe I should learn more about this communism thing") and then promptly turn against both the USSR and the USA after reading a page or so. Of course, that's iffy.

I know Progress Publishers and International Publishers are big sources for material on the MIA what with a lot of it in the public domain. Even well past the 60's there were at least some Soviet academics who wrote from a (pseudo-)Marxist perspective but it's not like that's exclusive to the USSR.

Politically you'll be hard-pressed to find anything past a certain point, that point varying depending on what sort of sectarianism you subscribe to.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Maybe it's influence through the anti-colonial struggles which coincided with rising life expectancies in the "third world"? Probably can't all be attributed to the former USSR but life expectancy in a lot of the poorest countries rose significantly in the Cold War years, which probably had something to do with countries either affiliating with the USSR or trying to go a "third way" like the non-aligned movement, which usually involved developing infrastructure and such. All that may have happened without the USSR around but the history of western benevolence towards the developing world up until the point hadn't been exactly great, to say the least.

All of that doesn't have much to do with establishing communism or anything, though. That should go without saying. As far as what the USSR did best on that front, I'm not sure...serve as a warning, maybe?

[Sabot Cat]

The Soviet Union's best contribution is less about what they did, but what they could have been. I'll be criticized on this, but I think Gorbachev had some good ideas buried in his policies, like the 1988 Law on Cooperatives (if I'm understanding it correctly as creating autonomous workers' enterprises), Demokratizatsiya, and Glasnost. It is a dreadful shame that the USSR collapsed through a power grab by the bureaucrats and would-be nationalist capitalists on either side.

In a political atmosphere where communism and socialism, even just the titular variants, were praised, and there existed yet no corporate buying of elections (that I'm aware of in the 1991 Soviet Union, although I'm open to other evidence), I could see very easily how people who would want to put into place a more decentralized workers' democracy could be elected into power. If only the nation had survived that long, or had taken one of the many roads to proletarian autonomy offered to them all throughout the 20th Century.

[Ember Catching]

The Soviet Union's best contribution is less about what they did, but what they could have been. I'll be criticized on this, but I think Gorbachev had some good ideas buried in his policies, like the 1988 Law on Cooperatives (if I'm understanding it correctly as creating autonomous workers' enterprises), Demokratizatsiya, and Glasnost. [...] I could see very easily how people who would want to put into place a more decentralized workers' democracy could be elected into power.
The absurdity of the democratic principle is laid completely bare when an anarchist can invoke it to defend Gorbachev.

[Crabbensmasher]

Again, support for the USSR amounts to little more than social-democracy and the Keynesian welfare state. There's nothing communist (or socialist or whatever word people want to use to mean proletarian emancipation) about it beyond the completion of the capitalist revolution. Why don't we have threads about the "historical benefit" of the Nordic countries? Of post war Britain if we are to use the exact same categories?

Why can't we recognize this? Talk of whether or not it was revolutionary, inspiring, or potent for the cause is nothing but speculation.

All we do know for certain are objective facts. Healthcare, infrastructure, communications, technology, the introduction of education and academia to a relatively illiterate and backwards country; it was all revolutionary. This mass mobilization of human potential, it had never been attempted before. To industrialize a country of peasants, to go into space, in such a short period of time was virtually unheard of. It was awe inspiring and a little scary. Illiteracy was a thing of the past, vaccines became commonplace, medical care was provided for everyone.

What I'm saying is, in terms of objective reality, it set a new bar for human potential. Actually, it was a showcase for human potential. And this is all proven by sheer facts. Numbers. Hell, I won't speculate if it has much merit beyond this, but the numbers, we know for certain.

So people nowadays will ask, why can't we have things like that? Why does our government do nothing? Why can't I feed my kids? Why can't I be given a home? Well, the Soviet Union kind of proved, that this human potential is possible. We can get things done if we really want to. Humans are capable of this!

I know this sounds a bit idealist, but just run through the amazing feats in your head: Shifting their entire production base east when the German army was marching to Moscow. (Sorry, had to mention it!) Sputnik! Mass collectivization, done no matter the cost. The goddamn rubiks cube. Of course, they aren't all pretty, but they are amazing feats nonetheless.

Now compare that, to, say, the government shutdown in the US. Or the debate on climate change, which has been on the table for over 20 goddamn years. Doesn't it make life today seem a bit, insufficient, especially given the amount of legitimate problems in the world?

Even if we don't agree with the ideals or reality behind the Soviet Union, it does rekindle a flame of optimism and idealism in a world increasingly marked by apathy and self interest. Long story short, people tend to forget what we're capable of.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution

All most all the Revolutions listed, (besides the ones before the USSR existed or if the revolutions occurred after the USSR dissolved.) were all supported by the USSR.

..So they did their fair share of trying to spread communism. .....I guess ☭☭☭

[celticnachos]

Most people on here are pretty critical of the SU (as am I). Regardless, I'm wondering what you think the best benefit the SU offered historically to the state (as in condition) of the left/communism/genuine revolution. Even if the SU failed in most ways, was there anything especially important it did (any by it I mean that agency can be attributed to any person/thing within the SU). Also, one catch. Try to avoid giving the answer of the fight against the Nazi's since that probably won't be new info for anyone.

Yes there was something especially important it did. We can attribute this importance to the Communist Party and it's ideological foundations. However, only up to the point when revisionism took it's course and the socialist Soviet Union began to die. Under the leadership of the communist party, Russia went from a feudal backwards country, with an economy solely based in agriculture, to an industrial superpower. Compare the development of Russia to that of a western country and you will find that it took the capitalist countries a much longer time to produce large economies. With the Soviet Union we see how a backwards country can undergo development into a socialist one. And that is very important.

[Sabot Cat]

The absurdity of the democratic principle is laid completely bare when an anarchist can invoke it to defend Gorbachev.

I thought I was lamenting what the Soviet Union could have done with a democracy that had yet no corporate-run media complex, with a populace steeped in socialist ideology even if it may not have been reflected by the upper echelons of its bureaucracy. Evidently, when I hesitantly said that there was some good ideas in the push for autonomous workers enterprises and enabling the Soviet proletariat to have more of a say in its leadership, I was writing apologia for Gorbachev.

[Ember Catching]

I thought I was lamenting what the Soviet Union could have done with a democracy that had yet no corporate-run media complex, with a populace steeped in socialist ideology even if it may not have been reflected by the upper echelons of its bureaucracy. Evidently, when I hesitantly said that there was some good ideas in the push for autonomous workers enterprises and enabling the Soviet proletariat to have more of a say in its leadership, I was writing apologia for Gorbachev.
It wouldn't have made a shred of difference if it were Pravda or Izvestia controlling the flow of information as opposed to the corporate media in today's Russia: they're all organs of the ruling class.

Depending on how absolutely skewed your analysis is, demokratizatsiya and self-management may have represented immediate gains for the Soviet working class, but immediate "gains" are never worth supporting if they are made at the expense of the strength and independence of the communist movement — doubly so if said gains make the rebirth of the dead communist movement from ashes that much more difficult and tormented.

I can't tell you how overjoyed I'll be to hear the facts behind your claim that the Soviet working class was "steeped" in any ideology passably "socialist". Truly, it would make my year.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Soviet Union supported, in various ways, a lot of revolutionary leftist movements around the world and provided a counterbalance to the west. Since it's [sic!] collapse, the US has basically taken over the entire world with fascistic neoliberalism. I mean you really can't say too much about that aspect.

I suppose I shouldn't expect materialist analysis or Marxism from a Stalinist but neoliberalism is not the product of an ideological tug of war that ended in favour of the Thatchers and Reagans of this world. Its materialist underpinning was the expansion of the volume of methods of transportation which weakened the bargaining power of the working class and its organisations. Irrespective of the existence of the Soviet Union, neoliberalism would have consolidated itself in the West and the rest of the world.

Also, don't use "fascistic" or "fascism" as a buzzword. It simply does not apply here.

[adipocere]

I suppose I shouldn't expect materialist analysis or Marxism from a Stalinist but neoliberalism is not the product of an ideological tug of war that ended in favour of the Thatchers and Reagans of this world. Its materialist underpinning was the expansion of the volume of methods of transportation which weakened the bargaining power of the working class and its organisations. Irrespective of the existence of the Soviet Union, neoliberalism would have consolidated itself in the West and the rest of the world.

Also, don't use "fascistic" or "fascism" as a buzzword. It simply does not apply here.
I don't think you should expect anything when your contrarianism is the presumptive, uncomprehending kind that corrects simple misspellings with "thus was it written!"

[thc]

I suppose I shouldn't expect materialist analysis or Marxism from a Stalinist but neoliberalism is not the product of an ideological tug of war that ended in favour of the Thatchers and Reagans of this world. Its materialist underpinning was the expansion of the volume of methods of transportation which weakened the bargaining power of the working class and its organisations. Irrespective of the existence of the Soviet Union, neoliberalism would have consolidated itself in the West and the rest of the world.

Also, don't use "fascistic" or "fascism" as a buzzword. It simply does not apply here.

Maybe I don't understand, but I think neoliberalism was the product of economic crisis, particularly in the 1970s, as a response to the failures of Keynesianism in managing economic crisis. Although, with the emergence of Kenynesianism we to some extent identify it as a challenge against the eminent Bolshevik revolution. Observing crisis as something external to capitalism, through determining complications that disrupt the market, is the ultimate parallel these two ideologies share. Contrary to bourgeois economics, Marx sees the antagonisms of capitalism internally. I think what adipocere was trying to say is that the ideology the Soviet Union conceded with posed a direct threat to bourgeois property relations, therefore it also poses a threat to the bourgeois ideology which gives sway to the capitalist. The western world feared the Soviet Union in that regard, hence the counterbalance. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think you should expect anything when your contrarianism is the presumptive, uncomprehending kind that corrects simple misspellings with "thus was it written!"

What an obnoxious and pathetic response for being called out for your idealism. This ad hominem (as I presume you mean to say I'm wrong on account of my supposed contrarianism, tendency for Grammar nazism, and whatnot) is no substitute for an argument, one which I presume you cannot produce otherwise you would have.


Maybe I don't understand, but I think neoliberalism was the product of economic crisis, particularly in the 1970s, as a response to the failures of Keynesianism in managing economic crisis. Although, with the emergence of Kenynesianism we to some extent identify it as a challenge against the eminent Bolshevik revolution. Observing crisis as something external to capitalism, through determining complications that disrupt the market, is the ultimate parallel these two ideologies share. Contrary to bourgeois economics, Marx sees the antagonisms of capitalism internally. I think what adipocere was trying to say is that the ideology the Soviet Union conceded with posed a direct threat to bourgeois property relations, therefore it also poses a threat to the bourgeois ideology which gives sway to the capitalist. The western world feared the Soviet Union in that regard, hence the counterbalance. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting.

No, neoliberalism emerged as a result of globalisation. Larger cargo shipments resulted in increased global competitiveness between national economies, and enabled Western industry to move abroad when they were targeted by unfavourable regulations or working class action. Social rights for members of the working class undermines the competitiveness of a national economy and so trade unions were busted, social welfare diminished, workers' wages stagnated, and flexibilisation on the labour market dynamics imposed.
adipocere suggested as if neoliberalism was enabled by an ideological tug of war, spearheaded by the USSR and the USA -- an idealist analysis, which is not an incidental but a structural feature of Stalinism, as I pointed out. Invalidated, apparently, because I corrected "it's".