What should have been done in the USSR?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I have been watching lectures on the Soviet Union, mostly from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. I think it might make for an interesting discussion if we discussed what should have been done in the Soviet Union from different leftist positions.

From the perspective of your specific tendency, (1) what are the major mistakes that Lenin did in the early days of the Soviet Union and (2) what you think should have been done differently? In case someone would pick it up, I would be very glad to hear the same questions answered about Stalin.

However, I don't think that answers such as "all power should have been given to the Soviets" are particularly useful as I see them too simplistic, ignoring the historical circumstances. But regardless, I would be very glad if someone gave some insights from the perspective of their tendencies.

[Remus Bleys]

The German Revolution shouldn't have failed. That's what should have been done differently if we were to see socialism.

[RedCornFlakes]

The opposite of everything mentioned here:
www(dot)worldology(dot)com/Europe/Europe_Articles/causes_soviet_collapse.htm
Definitely far less military spending, they spent more money on missiles than on food.

[Raquin]

Indeed, Remus Bleys. The path to the gates of the promised land of socialism is known only by the Aryan Übermensch. The backwards Asiatics are too primitive for socialism.

:rolleyes:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's exactly what Remus Bleys' argument comes down to - if we ignore the industrial basis of Germany, Germany's central role in European geopolitics, and the fact that the German revolution failed because German communists were immature and unready.

[Sabot Cat]

The German Revolution shouldn't have failed. That's what should have been done differently if we were to see socialism.

I agree. The Free Socialist Republic of Germany with the Free Workers' Union and the Spartacus League (which included revolutionary luminaries like Rosa Luxemburg) was the closest the world has ever come to a true socialist nation.

It's rise would have prevented the rise of a state capitalist Soviet Union, the rule of the Nazis, the Holocaust and World War II, while likely becoming an anti-imperialist, socialist superpower considering scientists like Albert Einstein would still be residing in there; education in general would be receiving proper attention absent an anti-intellectual regime.

The German-Soviet model would have served as an inspiration for revolutionaries worldwide from China to Chile, and I don't doubt that most of that world would have been socialist by now.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I agree. The Free Socialist Republic of Germany with the Free Workers' Union and the Spartacus League (which included revolutionary luminaries like Rosa Luxemburg) was the closest the world has ever come to a true socialist nation.

It's rise would have prevented the rise of a state capitalist Soviet Union, the rule of the Nazis, the Holocaust and World War II, while likely becoming an anti-imperialist, socialist superpower considering scientists like Albert Einstein would still be residing in there; education in general would be receiving proper attention absent an anti-intellectual regime.

The German-Soviet model would have served as an inspiration for revolutionaries worldwide from China to Chile, and I don't doubt that most of that world would have been socialist by now.

I don't mean to be a dick - I really don't - but this sounds like you're envisioning a sort of socialism in one country - only this country is Germany instead of Russia (and the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc.). Prior to the theory of socialism in one country, however, it was understood that the "fall" of Germany to socialism would result in a domino effect, bringing Europe under proletarian rule almost immediately, and the rest of the world soon after.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't mean to be a dick - I really don't - but this sounds like you're envisioning a sort of socialism in one country - only this country is Germany instead of Russia (and the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc.). Prior to the theory of socialism in one country, however, it was understood that the "fall" of Germany to socialism would result in a domino effect, bringing Europe under proletarian rule almost immediately, and the rest of the world soon after.

Socialism shouldn't just exist in one country, but it can't just happen everywhere all at once logistically speaking. Nonetheless, it would be my hope, and I believe I stated as much, that Germany helps trigger socialist revolutions in other nations until the entire globe is under the control of the proletariat eventually.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Socialism shouldn't just exist in one country, but it can't just happen everywhere all at once logistically speaking. Nonetheless, it would be my hope, and I believe I stated as much, that Germany helps trigger socialist revolutions in other nations until the entire globe is under the control of the proletariat eventually.

Socialism isn't something that happens, though, unless you think that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, as our Marxist-Leninist comrades argue. It is something that is constructed. The point is the spreading of the revolution - the only process that can counter imperialist encirclement. If the revolution stopped in Germany, it would be the same as if it had stopped in Russia, or China, or wherever.

[Sabot Cat]

Socialism isn't something that happens, though, unless you think that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, as our Marxist-Leninist comrades argue. It is something that is constructed. The point is the spreading of the revolution - the only process that can counter imperialist encirclement. If the revolution stopped in Germany, it would be the same as if it had stopped in Russia, or China, or wherever.

I believe socialism is when the proletariat is empowered through their control of the means of production. If all of the German proletariat satisfies that condition, then Germany can be said to have achieved socialism within its own economy even if that's not the case for the rest of the world.

Furthermore, I wouldn't want the revolution to stop, but I believe there is a big difference between limited socialism, that hopefully spreads farther, and state capitalism, as seen in Russia and China.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I believe socialism is when the proletariat is empowered through their control of the means of production.

Yes. The proletariat. Not the German proletariat or the proletariat of Ufa guberniya or the proletariat of a shoe-making cooperative. According to you, Mondragon must be an example of socialism in one corporation.

(Note that I am fully aware that this isn't the M-L argument for SioC - I am responding specifically to Red Rose.)


Furthermore, I wouldn't want the revolution to stop, but I believe there is a big difference between limited socialism, that hopefully spreads farther, and state capitalism, as seen in Russia and China.

Why would socialism in one country be different in Russia than in Germany?

[Tim Cornelis]

The German Revolution shouldn't have failed. That's what should have been done differently if we were to see socialism.

The German Revolution failed, what would you do, or advocate to be done, with the Soviet Union?

[Sabot Cat]

Yes. The proletariat. Not the German proletariat or the proletariat of Ufa guberniya or the proletariat of a shoe-making cooperative. According to you, Mondragon must be an example of socialism in one corporation.

Mondragon isn't an entire economy.


Why would socialism in one country be different in Russia than in Germany?

Germany had a lot more going for it in terms of socialism because the proletariat was more organized and economically involved, while its Marxist theoreticians weren't as revisionist.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Mondragon isn't an entire economy or populace.

Germany isn't an entire economy, given its place in the imperialist system.


Germany had a lot more going for it in terms of socialism because the proletariat was more organized and economically involved, while its Marxist theoreticians weren't as revisionist.

I don't know if I should laugh or bang my head against the desk.

Workers' soviets succeeded in seizing power in Russia - they did not succeed in Germany. Most German Marxist "theoreticians" were revisionists and accomplices to murder like the right wing of the SPD. The revolutionary leadership in Germany was indecisive and immature - which is why they could not lead the proletariat to the seizure of state power.

[reb]

Indeed, Remus Bleys. The path to the gates of the promised land of socialism is known only by the Aryan Übermensch. The backwards Asiatics are too primitive for socialism.


I think it's a little disturbing and tasteless that you are using this racist language as a defence of socialism in one country.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yo, stop with the shitty one-liners everyone. This is learning.

[Red Shaker]

Looking back on the Russian Revolution we can think of many things that should have been done better, but the fact is they had very little historical experience to go on. First the party was very small in October 1917. 15,000 members at most. By the end of the civil war less than 10% of the original Bolsheviks were still active. Many of the new members who had joined had little knowledge of Marxism and many others joined for opportunistic reasons. Given these conditions and the fact the German Revolution was not going anywhere, a new plan for building communism was needed. The plan centered around increasing the productive forces of society rather than attempting to win the workers and peasants of Russia to communist ideas, i.e. ending the wage system, defeating racism and sexism etc. Without the struggle for communist ideas being primary, capitalist ideas and practices took hold and eventually overthrew the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union. There were many external factors influencing this process but I think the internal ones were primary.

[Remus Bleys]

The German Revolution failed, what would you do, or advocate to be done, with the Soviet Union?
There would be nothing to be done. What they could hope for at the best was social democracy. I don't really think something like Stalinism could have been avoidable unless the german revolution succeeded.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I have a legitimate question for those who are criticizing socialism in a specific area instead of the entire world. Do you seriously think that the revolution is going to happen simultaneously around the world? So if one country achieves socialism, it should give it up since the rest of the world did not become socialist at the same time? Does nobody see how ridiculous this is?

By the way, I am NOT a ML at all. Not even close. I am very anti-Stalin and would love for there to be international revolution. But this is just asinine and completely unrealistic. Socialism in one country MUST be achieved before that socialist country can aid the rest of the world and incite revolutions in other places. Let's say Germany achieves socialism. Awesome! Now, while there is only socialism in Germany, their duty is to fund and aid revolutionary leftist groups in other countries and establish a socialist trading network between them once they have achieved it as well. One by one. Then, eventually, bam, you have world socialism. But you are kidding yourselves if you think it will happen all at once. This is such absurd idealism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The German Revolution failed, what would you do, or advocate to be done, with the Soviet Union?

There is really nothing that could be done above what the bureaucracy already did - policies like the Ural-Siberian method, collectivization, five-year plans etc. were a necessity for the construction of the planned economy. Later, an important opportunity to automatize much of the COMECON economies was missed in the seventies. But without an international revolution, no policy could break the imperialist encirclement from the inside. A political revolution was necessary after a certain point, to purge the party and the soviet system - but even after the success of that revolution, the question of imperialist encirclement would remain.


I have a legitimate question for those who are criticizing socialism in a specific area instead of the entire world. Do you seriously think that the revolution is going to happen simultaneously around the world? So if one country achieves socialism, it should give it up since the rest of the world did not become socialist at the same time? Does nobody see how ridiculous this is?

The point is that one country can't achieve socialism, unless you consider socialism to be equal to the DotP. Revolutions will not happen simultaneously - but the revolution either advances or it is in retreat. "Digging in" just exacerbates the pressures of imperialism on the proletarian dictatorship.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

There is really nothing that could be done above what the bureaucracy already did - policies like the Ural-Siberian method, collectivization, five-year plans etc. were a necessity for the construction of the planned economy. Later, an important opportunity to automatize much of the COMECON economies was missed in the seventies. But without an international revolution, no policy could break the imperialist encirclement from the inside. A political revolution was necessary after a certain point, to purge the party and the soviet system - but even after the success of that revolution, the question of imperialist encirclement would remain.



The point is that one country can't achieve socialism, unless you consider socialism to be equal to the DotP. Revolutions will not happen simultaneously - but the revolution either advances or it is in retreat. "Digging in" just exacerbates the pressures of imperialism on the proletarian dictatorship.

Well then what exactly is the difference between the dotp and the workers seizing the means of production? What specific elements? I am asking because perhaps I am unaware of a few key differences. As I said, I do not support Stalinist policies, but that is only because of the inability to manage famines and feed everyone and the police state agenda. If it were not for those factors, I might not think he was all that bad. I understand that in a perfect world, the revolution would spread like a wildfire around the globe, but do you really think that is even remotely plausible?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well then what exactly is the difference between the dotp and the workers seizing the means of production?

Socialism is not simply "workers seizing the means of production", but (again, except in M-L theory) the lower stage of communist society, a classless global order.


What specific elements? I am asking because perhaps I am unaware of a few key differences. As I said, I do not support Stalinist policies, but that is only because of the inability to manage famines and feed everyone and the police state agenda. If it were not for those factors, I might not think he was all that bad.

The Soviet Union collapsed - that is the chief fault of the late soviet system. Stalin could have handed out rainbow-colored kittens to smiling children, but if the Soviet Union collapsed anyway, what would be the point? Conversely, if the SU was able to maintain a DotP indefinitely, that would be a vindication of the soviet model even if Stalin ate the smiling children and their rainbow-colored kittens too.


I understand that in a perfect world, the revolution would spread like a wildfire around the globe, but do you really think that is even remotely plausible?

Why shouldn't it be?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Socialism is not simply "workers seizing the means of production", but (again, except in M-L theory) the lower stage of communist society, a classless global order.



The Soviet Union collapsed - that is the chief fault of the late soviet system. Stalin could have handed out rainbow-colored kittens to smiling children, but if the Soviet Union collapsed anyway, what would be the point? Conversely, if the SU was able to maintain a DotP indefinitely, that would be a vindication of the soviet model even if Stalin ate the smiling children and their rainbow-colored kittens too.



Why shouldn't it be?

So the only reason you fault Stalin is because the Soviet Union failed? Nothing about the mass starvation and police state? What does the failure of the USSR have to do with him anyway, he died like 40 years before it collapsed.

And well it SHOULD, that's the point. But isn't pragmatism important? Would you rather socialism happen slowly or not at all?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I would say the the fact the USSR ever occurred to begin with would be the biggest thing. The RPAU seemed to have been heading in a better direction. Further the importance of Germany here, I feel is being over-stated as well.

[Broviet Union]

IIRC, Lenin intended for the NEP and semi-capitalist accumulation of capital to continue for up to several generations. That, frankly, might have been a decent idea. Whether the SU could have survived against the Nazis like that, however, is an open question. All the ways that the Soviet Union failed seem ridiculous now in retrospect, precisely because we know the end of the story.

The most positive thing to say about the USSR is that now we know a way NOT to go about attempting to achieve communism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

So the only reason you fault Stalin is because the Soviet Union failed? Nothing about the mass starvation and police state? What does the failure of the USSR have to do with him anyway, he died like 40 years before it collapsed.

The general structure of the soviet economy dates to the "Stalin years" - unless you think, like certain anti-revisionists do, that a state can be deformed into capitalism through increasing market mechanisms. And yes, assuming that the Soviet Union was able to successfully construct a lasting socialist society, "mass starvation and police state" would have been an unimportant historical footnote.


And well it SHOULD, that's the point. But isn't pragmatism important? Would you rather socialism happen slowly or not at all?

But the point is that "socialism happening slowly" translates into "socialism not happening at all".

[Kill all the fetuses!]

There is really nothing that could be done above what the bureaucracy already did - policies like the Ural-Siberian method, collectivization, five-year plans etc. were a necessity for the construction of the planned economy.

That's the thing that makes me feel rather uncomfortable, i.e. when every policy of the Soviet Union is seen as a necessity and the best one considering the material conditions... I find it rather ridiculous to say the least.

Just to add to this discussion, which is about something I didn't intend it to be about, but what about building actual communism in the USSR? I mean, you know, classless, moneyless, stateless society? The USSR existed for more than have a century, the State had an absolute control of the entire lives of people as far as it can go. Why not teach people how to organize their lives and manage the economy on their own? Why not gradually grant more power to the Soviets? Why not allow gradual transition to libertarian democracy?

It took around the same time in Spain to radicalize people despite State repression, to an extent that they were able to build much more efficient and humane society than that in the USSR. Why couldn't have the Soviet leadership at least tried to move to that direction?

I oftentimes see it justified as a necessity to defend the "revolution". Well, then why not centralize the military and allow some gradual transition towards people organizing their own lives?

[Blake's Baby]

I have a legitimate question for those who are criticizing socialism in a specific area instead of the entire world. Do you seriously think that the revolution is going to happen simultaneously around the world? So if one country achieves socialism, it should give it up since the rest of the world did not become socialist at the same time? Does nobody see how ridiculous this is?...

It is ridiculous, yes. It's ridiculous because it equates 'socialism' with 'the revolution' and 'the revolution' with 'the overthrow of the government of a single country'. Can't you see how ridiculous this is?

The revolution in Russia was only a part of what was happening in 1917-27. It was a very important part, but by no means the only. To look at it in isolation an then to say 'what went wrong with the revolution in Russia?' is to miss the point that the overthrow of the government in Russia was never the 'end goal'.

The working class in Russia turned out for the world revolution in the expectation that the working class in other countries would also be coming to the party. But no-where else was the working class able to establish itself over the bourgeoisie for more than a few months.

So the situation of an isolated revolution was already a failure. After that, different policies can only retard or speed up the degeneration of the revolution, they can't reverse it.

http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y436/slothjabber/modelsofdecline_zpsd3331e51.gif

That's a very schematic set of models. But they illustrate the basic point I'm trying to make.

The first is of a rapid return to 'p=0' (ie the proletariat has no power); the second is a slow return to p=0; and the third is a model of decline to p=0 where certain events trigger rapid decline an certain events retard the decline slightly.

But without expansion of proletarian power, that is, the proletariat holding a revolution in more territories, p never increases above the maximum value that it has at the beginning.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

But without expansion of proletarian power, that is, the proletariat holding a revolution in more territories, p never increases above the maximum value that it has at the beginning.

I really have a hard time understanding this position. Do you hold it as an axiom that communism must be global or do you somehow reason your way into such a position? What if you do have an absolutely self-sufficient moneyless, stateless, classless society, which can defend itself? If it's not communism then what is it?

[Blake's Baby]

You have a stateless state? Is that what are you are asking?

If there was an economy that was utterly cut off from the rest of the world an neither we nor they knew of the other (there isn't an isn't going to be, so you may as well ask 'but what if magic unicorns were real, couldn't they burp communism?') then sure it coul be communist 'on its own'.

Yes, it's an axiom that communism must be worldwide. I'm not a national socialist. A system of states 9no matter whether the working class is in charge politically) is not communist.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The general structure of the soviet economy dates to the "Stalin years" - unless you think, like certain anti-revisionists do, that a state can be deformed into capitalism through increasing market mechanisms. And yes, assuming that the Soviet Union was able to successfully construct a lasting socialist society, "mass starvation and police state" would have been an unimportant historical footnote.



But the point is that "socialism happening slowly" translates into "socialism not happening at all".

A semi-police state I MAY be able to forgive if it actually resulted in lasting socialism. Maybe. And that is only because I would never be targeted by the police state because I would be on board. But mass starvation, an unimportant historical footnote? I don't know about that…. I think that if you let people starve, you have already failed in achieving socialism. See, part of the whole point of achieving socialism is so that people have their basic needs met, and then work up from there to eventually allocate resources above and beyond the basic needs of the people. Food is THE most basic need out there. If a socialist state cannot even achieve that, then it is quite a failure. That being said, over all I surprisingly admire the USSR. The only reason I am nitpicking is because I am arguing with fellow socialists. Keep in mind, if some non-leftist was bashing the USSR, I would be defending it.

Also, I think socialism happening slowly is the only way it can actually happen unless the governments of the world take a drastic action that results in people in the Western middle class struggling to feed their kids. Right now, the middle class in the West is docile and severely brainwashed. The main instigators of revolution will most likely be in "third world" areas.


It is ridiculous, yes. It's ridiculous because it equates 'socialism' with 'the revolution' and 'the revolution' with 'the overthrow of the government of a single country'. Can't you see how ridiculous this is?

The revolution in Russia was only a part of what was happening in 1917-27. It was a very important part, but by no means the only. To look at it in isolation an then to say 'what went wrong with the revolution in Russia?' is to miss the point that the overthrow of the government in Russia was never the 'end goal'.

The working class in Russia turned out for the world revolution in the expectation that the working class in other countries would also be coming to the party. But no-where else was the working class able to establish itself over the bourgeoisie for more than a few months.

So the situation of an isolated revolution was already a failure. After that, different policies can only retard or speed up the degeneration of the revolution, they can't reverse it.

http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y436/slothjabber/modelsofdecline_zpsd3331e51.gif

That's a very schematic set of models. But they illustrate the basic point I'm trying to make.

The first is of a rapid return to 'p=0' (ie the proletariat has no power); the second is a slow return to p=0; and the third is a model of decline to p=0 where certain events trigger rapid decline an certain events retard the decline slightly.

But without expansion of proletarian power, that is, the proletariat holding a revolution in more territories, p never increases above the maximum value that it has at the beginning.

I do understand your point pretty clearly. Nevertheless, I still don't consider it a failure if people in at least one country can start receiving a near-equal share of wealth. We need more and more experiments in different areas for it to catch on. If the USSR had never existed, it would have seriously hindered the world communist movement, along with many other places. Even though these places do fail, it slowly pushes the pendulum closer to eventual revolution that expands to a larger area. Then, that may fail, but the next will be even larger, and so forth.

[Blake's Baby]

Can't quote your post for some reason. Never mind:

"...I still don't consider it a failure if people in at least one country can start receiving a near-equal share of wealth..."

Depends what you're trying to acheive. If you're trying to acheive social democracy, it's a success. If you're trying to acheive communism, it's a failure.

"... We need more and more experiments in different areas for it to catch on..."

Not sure that I'd agree, what we need is for working class revolution.

"... If the USSR had never existed, it would have seriously hindered the world communist movement, along with many other places..."

The USSR did seriously hinder the world communist movement. The last 90 years have been the failure of the Soviet Union's legacy.

"... Even though these places do fail, it slowly pushes the pendulum closer to eventual revolution that expands to a larger area. Then, that may fail, but the next will be even larger, and so forth..."

Another way to look at this is 'we have to try to learn from our mistakes'. that I hope is what we're all trying to do.

[Rafiq]

The German Revolution shouldn't have failed. That's what should have been done differently if we were to see socialism.

Alternatively, had the conquest of Poland been successful - the spreading of the revolution (A la Napoleonic wars) westward would have been inevitable as well.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

A semi-police state I MAY be able to forgive if it actually resulted in lasting socialism. Maybe. And that is only because I would never be targeted by the police state because I would be on board.

I don't mean to be rude but I have never been able to understand this. If you don't approve of the idea of a group of psychotic vigilentes enforcing the will of the state in situation A, how exactly is it different in situation B? To me both situations are fucked and indicative that something is most definitely wrong on a fundamental level and the whole abstract notion is inherently wicked to begin with. By calling the rod that beats you "the people's stick," I really don't think it's going to hurt any less or be anymore "humane." It's kind of like how all the liberals and Democrats ranted and raved about Bush but if Obama does something similar if not worse then it's totally cool, its "happening for the right reasons under the right guy." When in reality, all of the actions being observed are objectively, morally and ethically wrong. The majority of history's evils were committed with "humanitarian," intentions.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick."-Bakunin.

[Rafiq]

Indeed, Remus Bleys. The path to the gates of the promised land of socialism is known only by the Aryan Übermensch. The backwards Asiatics are too primitive for socialism.

:rolleyes:

Germany is significant not only for the reasons users have already mentioned, it is significant because it had the largest class conscious proletariat in all of Europe, and among all of Europe's powers, it was the most likely to undergo a proletarian revolution. To add insult to injury, there was a German revolution, it was, however, repressed. Indeed, where the capitalist mode of production was not completely solidified, where remnants of feudalism remained, where the class from which Communism itself is derived does not compromise a significant percentage of the populace and does not possess independent political power, it is "too primitive for socialism". Get over your pathetic, ideologically impotent and worthless Western guilt.

[Rafiq]

The German Revolution failed, what would you do, or advocate to be done, with the Soviet Union?

The consolidation of power by the Soviet military apparatus, led by Frunze or Tukhachevsky (who were in league with the secret police as well as the 'fanatical' intelligentsia) which would denote a mass scale revolutionary war of conquest. A westward invasion of Europe, after the failure of the Spartacus uprising, was the only hope the october revolution had.

[Rafiq]

Workers' soviets succeeded in seizing power in Russia - they did not succeed in Germany. Most German Marxist "theoreticians" were revisionists and accomplices to murder like the right wing of the SPD. The revolutionary leadership in Germany was indecisive and immature - which is why they could not lead the proletariat to the seizure of state power.

The industrial proletariat in Russia was more class conscious and successful than any other in Europe, however, the problem resided with the fact that they remained a demographic minority. Their political dictatorship, thus, necessitated an alliance with the peasantry which greatly complicated things. The seizure of state power by Communists in Germany, however incompetent, would have guaranteed the success of socialism in Europe.

[Sabot Cat]

Can't quote your post for some reason. Never mind:

"...I still don't consider it a failure if people in at least one country can start receiving a near-equal share of wealth..."

Depends what you're trying to acheive. If you're trying to acheive social democracy, it's a success. If you're trying to acheive communism, it's a failure.

I don't think failure is quite the right word for it. If my family and I build a house, with the intent of assisting others in building their own houses so as to make an entire neighborhood, we didn't fail at our goal. We're just not done yet.

[Prof. Oblivion]

That's the thing that makes me feel rather uncomfortable, i.e. when every policy of the Soviet Union is seen as a necessity and the best one considering the material conditions... I find it rather ridiculous to say the least.

Just to add to this discussion, which is about something I didn't intend it to be about, but what about building actual communism in the USSR? I mean, you know, classless, moneyless, stateless society? The USSR existed for more than have a century, the State had an absolute control of the entire lives of people as far as it can go. Why not teach people how to organize their lives and manage the economy on their own? Why not gradually grant more power to the Soviets? Why not allow gradual transition to libertarian democracy?

It took around the same time in Spain to radicalize people despite State repression, to an extent that they were able to build much more efficient and humane society than that in the USSR. Why couldn't have the Soviet leadership at least tried to move to that direction?

I oftentimes see it justified as a necessity to defend the "revolution". Well, then why not centralize the military and allow some gradual transition towards people organizing their own lives?

Because history isn't designed.

[Leftsolidarity]

The consolidation of power by the Soviet military apparatus, led by Frunze or Tukhachevsky (who were in league with the secret police as well as the 'fanatical' intelligentsia) which would denote a mass scale revolutionary war of conquest. A westward invasion of Europe, after the failure of the Spartacus uprising, was the only hope the october revolution had.

One of the major reasons the revolution happened was because the Russian workers and peasants were devasted by war. So you propose that they just say "fuck it, you're going back to war anyways" and go into a most likely suicidal conquest of Europe? Russia needed relief by a German revolution, they weren't in the position to go on an adventurous invasion of Europe.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Russia was also at the time in the grip of an economic catastrophe (perhaps even collapse), a massive food crisis, internal political and economic conflict, invasion from hostile forces, civil war, etc.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Can't quote your post for some reason. Never mind:

"...I still don't consider it a failure if people in at least one country can start receiving a near-equal share of wealth..."

Depends what you're trying to acheive. If you're trying to acheive social democracy, it's a success. If you're trying to acheive communism, it's a failure.

"... We need more and more experiments in different areas for it to catch on..."

Not sure that I'd agree, what we need is for working class revolution.

"... If the USSR had never existed, it would have seriously hindered the world communist movement, along with many other places..."

The USSR did seriously hinder the world communist movement. The last 90 years have been the failure of the Soviet Union's legacy.

"... Even though these places do fail, it slowly pushes the pendulum closer to eventual revolution that expands to a larger area. Then, that may fail, but the next will be even larger, and so forth..."

Another way to look at this is 'we have to try to learn from our mistakes'. that I hope is what we're all trying to do.

Honestly, I think we are more or less on the same page here. I agree with everything you are saying. The only difference is that I think you have more of an optimistic view of the revolutionary wave. I think that you are sort of shunning some legitimate progress because it isn't perfect. But I'm talking about pragmatism. The fact is, if a revolution occurs, we would love for it to spread around the world and have everyone hold hands and begin coordinating among democratically-run workers' councils and immediately begin our world communist utopia. I would also love that, and I think if we all had the say, it would work like that. But then there is the real world, and it becomes more complicated. Take the USSR again. What were the Bolsehviks supposed to do? They HAD to create something of a state apparatus even if it was unorthodox and deviant from communism to secure their occupied space (Russia) from the outside world. Had they not, then the imperialists would swoop in (which they tried to do) and the revolution would go nowhere. And that is the point. Real world application as opposed to fantasizing on paper.


I don't mean to be rude but I have never been able to understand this. If you don't approve of the idea of a group of psychotic vigilentes enforcing the will of the state in situation A, how exactly is it different in situation B? To me both situations are fucked and indicative that something is most definitely wrong on a fundamental level and the whole abstract notion is inherently wicked to begin with. By calling the rod that beats you "the people's stick," I really don't think it's going to hurt any less or be anymore "humane." It's kind of like how all the liberals and Democrats ranted and raved about Bush but if Obama does something similar if not worse then it's totally cool, its "happening for the right reasons under the right guy." When in reality, all of the actions being observed are objectively, morally and ethically wrong. The majority of history's evils were committed with "humanitarian," intentions.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick."-Bakunin.

I absolutely love that quote and you are right. I am adamantly opposed to police states. However, I will take a police state that supports my views over the current police states we have today. Is that a very positive line of thinking? Well, no. But then again my view on human nature is bleak. As I said above, there must be practical application. If I were running the country, I would NEVER ever have any kind of police state. I think we both agree and have the same views. I was simply trying to defend my position as whoever I was debating with (I think it was "criminalize heterosexuality") said that a police state was justified if it resulted in building socialism. So I conceded that perhaps if you subscribe to utilitarianism it might be better than what we have now. It may sound defeatist, but I don't see it that way. Again, I am very anti-police states.

[Blake's Baby]

... But I'm talking about pragmatism. The fact is, if a revolution occurs, we would love for it to spread around the world and have everyone hold hands and begin coordinating among democratically-run workers' councils and immediately begin our world communist utopia. I would also love that, and I think if we all had the say, it would work like that...

I don't think a 'world revolution' is possible that doesn't include the world working class tackling the problems of capitalism on a world basis. The idea that only one part of the proletariat is going to feel the effects of capitalism is... wrong. It's as if you believe that 'capitalism' is not real. Instead there is Afghan capitalism, and Algerian capitalism, Angolan capitalism, and Barbadian capitalism, and Belizian capitalism, and Belgian capitalism, and Benian capitalism... and all these different capitalisms have different working classes attached to them.

I don't see it like that. The current global capitalist crisis (that has now been going on in its current phase for about 6 years and is the latest phase of a crisis that errupted in the late 1960s) demonstrates that this perspective is just not true. Capitalism is an interlinked system, an the working class has the same interests in overthrowing it everywhere. How can the revolution not be a world revolution?



... But then there is the real world, and it becomes more complicated. Take the USSR again. What were the Bolsehviks supposed to do? They HAD to create something of a state apparatus even if it was unorthodox and deviant from communism to secure their occupied space (Russia) from the outside world...

The 'had' to create a state apparatus? How about, there was no possibility of doing away with the state? A state and therefore a state apparatus would exist no matter what the will of the Bolsheviks.

'Deviant from communism'? Yes, in the same way that death is 'deviant from life' I suppose.

What were they supposed to do? Well that's a good question. If you're sailing across the Pacific and your boat sinks, what are you supposed to do? Keep yourself alive I guess. But what I most object to is the notion that you cling to you bit of driftwood while telling everyone else that this is what Japan looks like.

The biggest failure of the Bolsheviks in the early days of the revolution in my opinion was the creation of the council of people's commissars. The soviets - the actual organs of the working class - should have been the supreme decision-making body in the liberated territory that became the Soviet Union.

But what the Bolsheviks 'should' have done is less significant than what they 'could' have done. In a situation where the revolution is isolated they could do nothing of great significance. There is no national reform of capitalism to any great advantage. And the Bolsheviks - and the working class in Russia for the brief time it can be thought to be in control - weren't in a position to bring about anything other than a national reform of capitalism.

Without world revolution there is no 'solution'. No country, individually, is 'ready for socialism'. That has to be worldwide. On a national level, all there is is 'holding on' until everyone else catches up. That holding on is subject to entropy (the forces of the counter-revolution) and can only last so long.



... Had they not, then the imperialists would swoop in (which they tried to do) and the revolution would go nowhere. And that is the point. Real world application as opposed to fantasizing on paper...

Oh, I agree. The real-world counter-revolution beats any fantasising on paper you might make about what was possible to an isolated regime. It rather proves my point, doesn't it, that an isolated revolution will die? Real world capitalism beats guff about 'socialism in one country' any day of the week.

[Rafiq]

The consolidation of Poland would have given the Russians a necessary advantage. Albeit it would have been a few years before such an invasion could occur... Remember the state of France during austerlitz. Tukhachevsky was arguably the most skilled military leader since Napoleon.

[Leftsolidarity]

The consolidation of Poland would have given the Russians a necessary advantage. Albeit it would have been a few years before such an invasion could occur... Remember the state of France during austerlitz. Tukhachevsky was arguably the most skilled military leader since Napoleon.

I feel like this still completely ignores the actual conditions of the time, though. I don't think a few years would have been enough time to recoup from the devastation of The Great War, fight off imperialist invasion/civil war, or to deal with the pressing need of socialist construction. I can't really give an opinion on their military leadership skill but it doesn't really matter because history isn't made by great men alone.

[Rafiq]

No, history is not made by great men. But in those conditions which lay the basis, which open the doors for exceptional leaders, Alexander, and so on, "greatness" can be demonstrated. And conditions were certainly ripe. A war of conquest would have rescued Russia, any idiot knows this is a logical result of mass scale war. By 1919, the Soviet Union was more than capable of launching such an offensive. The failure to conquer Poland, Lithuania and so on wasn't a result of economic turmoil, but a result of inter political conflicts (I.e. the failure of Stalin's camp to come to the aid of Tukhachevsky in Poland in time for that reason). The war of conquest is not some dream, it had actually started in Poland with the backing of the international revolutionary proletariat. The failure in Poland marked the end of such 'adventurism'.

[Rafiq]

It is not as though Russia would launch a single decisive battle against all of Europe, wars of conquest are gradual, and which each victory strength would be gained.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's the thing that makes me feel rather uncomfortable, i.e. when every policy of the Soviet Union is seen as a necessity and the best one considering the material conditions... I find it rather ridiculous to say the least.

Except I never claimed that all decisions of the bureaucracy were necessary, only that necessary policies were enacted as the bureaucracy found itself pushed around by the material conditions in the Soviet Union and the material reality of imperialist encirclement. Consider the NEP for example - the alliance of the Right and the Stalin faction of the centrists wanted to extend NEP indefinitely. The poor harvests and difficulties in supplying the cities with food forced the Stalin faction - the Right was expelled for claiming that the new methods constituted "military-feudal oppression of the peasantry" and then unsuccessfully tried to be readmitted, while maintaining that the Party was carrying out "military-feudal oppression" - to enact, first a return to the methods of War Communism (the Ural-Siberian method), and then collectivization.


Just to add to this discussion, which is about something I didn't intend it to be about, but what about building actual communism in the USSR? I mean, you know, classless, moneyless, stateless society? The USSR existed for more than have a century, the State had an absolute control of the entire lives of people as far as it can go.

That is simply not true. The treatment of both the average citizen and political dissidents was roughly similar in "the East" and "the West" - in fact most countries of "the East" were slightly more pleasant.


Why not teach people how to organize their lives and manage the economy on their own? Why not gradually grant more power to the Soviets? Why not allow gradual transition to libertarian democracy?

What does it mean for the people to "manage the economy on their own"? There were economic plans, which were voted upon by the representatives of the workers. Generally speaking, there was a democratic deficit. However:

(1) this deficit could be addressed without changing the preeminent role of the bureaucracy, which was dictated by the material conditions of imperialist encirclement;

(2) the material basis for all functions of the state being purely administrative and open to the worker of average education and skill level was not available.


A semi-police state I MAY be able to forgive if it actually resulted in lasting socialism. Maybe. And that is only because I would never be targeted by the police state because I would be on board. But mass starvation, an unimportant historical footnote? I don't know about that…. I think that if you let people starve, you have already failed in achieving socialism. See, part of the whole point of achieving socialism is so that people have their basic needs met, and then work up from there to eventually allocate resources above and beyond the basic needs of the people. Food is THE most basic need out there. If a socialist state cannot even achieve that, then it is quite a failure. That being said, over all I surprisingly admire the USSR. The only reason I am nitpicking is because I am arguing with fellow socialists. Keep in mind, if some non-leftist was bashing the USSR, I would be defending it.

The French Revolution established a bourgeois dictatorship in France, and in most of Europe. The French revolutionaries succeeded in their historic mission. To do so they were forced to use means that were neither democratic nor in line with bourgeois ideology. Yet they succeeded. That is why the French Revolution is remembered fondly, and why the bloodletting in the Vendee, for example, is relegated to a footnote in history.

And yes, I realize you admire the USSR - in fact you might admire it more than I do, since I do not think the deep structural problems of a revolution isolated in one country - or one power-bloc - and experiencing severe bureaucratic degeneration could be resolved by a set of policies. I might think that even in the context of the bureaucratically-led Soviet Union, certain decisions were outright stupid - the Kosygyn reforms, the failure of cybernetization etc. - but all in all the bureaucracy did what it could. But the only thing that might have saved the Soviet Union - a political revolution - is something the bureaucracy could not do. And even a political revolution would have been a massive gamble.


Also, I think socialism happening slowly is the only way it can actually happen unless the governments of the world take a drastic action that results in people in the Western middle class struggling to feed their kids. Right now, the middle class in the West is docile and severely brainwashed. The main instigators of revolution will most likely be in "third world" areas.

A socialist revolution that needs to wait for the "middle class" is a curious thing. Your analysis completely disregards the only possible agent of change in "First World" countries - the proletariat.