Life in the Marxist-Leninist states?

[RedWorker]

For example in the Soviet Union.

How was the economic development?
Were there really shortages etc. all the time?

How was poverty, homelessness and other social problems?
Did more people lead a decent life than under the liberal-capitalist states now?
Better education and healthcare?

What were some positive things?

Are there statistics or studies on this?

[tuwix]

For example in the Soviet Union.


I've been once in the SU but I was living in Poland in such system and I remember it very well.



How was the economic development?


Economic growth was pretty good sometimes but the problem was that the most of it was for military and industry. Very rarely for consumption.



Were there really shortages etc. all the time?


Yes. But not all of things. Vinegar you could buy in hardest times.



How was poverty, homelessness and other social problems?


In Poland, we didn't have collective agriculture and farmers were much richer than workers employed by states. I was feeling poorer comparing to them. Homelessness was matter of choice, but I didn't know any homeless man then. Now I see them. Crime was a problem although much lesser than now.



Did more people lead a decent life than under the liberal-capitalist states now?


I don't think so. A quality of life is now better than then. However, problems are completely different.



Better education and healthcare?


Education was better, but healthcare more reliable. It wasn't better because science was growing in this terms all the time.



What were some positive things?


Lack of unemployment was the best.



Are there statistics or studies on this?

Surely. But I don't know anything in English in these terms.

[Five Year Plan]

In Albania you couldn't wear bell-bottoms, as they were considered revisionist. :ohmy:

[Alexios]

Lack of unemployment was the best.

Considering unemployment was forbidden by law and wages were deliberately kept low, I'm not sure how this is an improvement over Western capitalist states.

[tuwix]

^^ In Poland, unemployment wasn't forbidden by law. In fact, you could choose your employer. The state really cared to create sufficient amount of jobs. And it is really difference comparing to classic capitalism.

But there are some men who were avoiding permanent employment and they were pursued by state. They were alcoholics in majority.

[Orange Juche]

In Albania you couldn't wear bell-bottoms, as they were considered revisionist. :ohmy:

Probably for the best :lol:

[Wht.Rex]

I interviewed many older people (including my parents) who grew up and lived in USSR for college research. In conclusion, you did not have to worry about future in USSR. You knew that you always will have housing, job, healthcare, someone to socialize with etc. It was harder to lose job than to find one. People back then were much friendlier and intelligent. When your car had problems during road, no one will ignore you and will help you out fixing it. When you had no place to stay during roadtrip, anyone was glad to welcome you into house or apartment to stay, no one was pointing gun at you ("Get out of my property!" style).
Average work hours were around 7-8 per day. More was against worker rights. All were paid according to their needs and skills.
Any education was free, even doctor's degree. Already starting in kindergarden, you could sign up for youth scouts (October children). During summer, you had to help and work in farming, as children you had lot of free time for sports activities, extra education (musical instruments etc.). Student years were considered best. You could have free housing near your university, you could work part time job and get extra money, education was for free (but it was hard as hell), during their student days, many men have served military, after military you had garunteed job and education you want.
There were parliamentary, republic and local elections, but one gave a f*ck about them, people did not care about changes in politics much, all people were satisfied back in 50's - early 80's. Who wanted to be political activist, could actually easly get involved in local government. My grandmother was policewoman but later also decided to become deputy. Politician wages were not better than average worker, that is why many politicians worked extra job. Politics were just part-time job, except for those who worker in State government.
Overall, honestly, it was average people paradise. There was no luxury, but people were happy with what they had.

"How was the economic development?" - Very high actually. During 1923 to 1989 USSR had 9800% economic growth, compared these years to USA, which had only around 700%. Difference was, it was not for luxury, it was for society (housing, healthcare, education, enviroment, industry, military etc.) overall social policy was at maximum.

"Were there really shortages etc. all the time?" - Not all the time. Most shortages were after 1986 when Gorbachev's government "reformed" politics in USSR. Soviet Union sold most products to foreign countries and did not leave any for themselves, so was artificial deficit created. Before Gorbachev there was actually rarely any shortages, everyone could get what they needed for basic stuff.

"How was poverty, homelessness and other social problems?" - People did not even know such thing as homelessness. Basic housing was almost for free, rent, gas, water, electricity and heat was very cheap. My mother alone worked and studied during 80's, she recieved slightly more than 140 roubles income month (part time job wage + medschool stipendy). That was much more enough to pay for 2 room apartment rent and communal price. She was bascilly rich for Soviet people standarts. She also tought buying house in outter-city suburbs. Many that had more than 2 people in family did not even think about a such thing as poverty.
There were no other problems, alcoholism might have been slight problem for some (my grandfather including), but it wasn't on large scale.

"Did more people lead a decent life than under the liberal-capitalist states now?" - Yes. Average life standarts were much higher back then. Especially here in Latvia. Latvia during Soviet rule was one of richest republics, but now it is in horrifying shape. Our industry is destroyed, our country has become Western shopping mall, agricultural sector has many problems (that includes agricultural people social lives), working conditions are much more worse. Even through we can buy lot of stuff, but not all can afford such "luxury".

"Better education and healthcare?" - Education was 5 times better than current here. Even through it was typical pro-communist, but we had so many opportunities. Today people don't have opportunities for desired education and neither money. Propaganda changed from pro-communist to anti-communist, except that education itself is cr*p now. I studied in high class public school, our education was harder compared to other school's in town, but my friend studied in lower class, worse school. I got in economics class 8 out of 10 at end, but my friend 9 out of 10, even through he doesn't know jack sh*t about economics at all. This itself shows as example how education works nowdays here.
Healthcare was completaly free back then and pretty high quality too for that time. Today here we don't have bad healthcare, but government pays only 20% for it, so it is pretty expensive now and many people can't even afford going to dentist.

"What were some positive things?" - Everything was better for average citizen. Average life standarts were higher. Military was stronger and people actually felt real pride for Motherland. :lol:
My family lives good life now under capitalist system, guess I was lucky to grow up in good family, but I see how rest of people live in large poverty and inbetween corrupt burgoise government.

"Are there statistics or studies on this?" - Yes, lot of my arguments are also by Alexander Nove and Sergey Lopotnikov, two great proffessors that studied Soviet economy. You can easly find them in internet. Sergey Lopotnikov also made article about comparing today's USA and Soviet 70's and 80's life standarts. I recommend checking them out.

Other than that, some of these are my qualitative researches for university I did last year and possibly will do more next year.

[Ismail]

Considering unemployment was forbidden by law and wages were deliberately kept low, I'm not sure how this is an improvement over Western capitalist states.Because, as Marx put it, "Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction" under capitalism. Capitalist restoration in the USSR and other states in the 50s-60s brought forth "unofficial" unemployment and the ability for managers to hire and fire in the name of maximizing profits. In Yugoslavia unemployment was so obvious that Yugoslav "theorists" portrayed it as a normal phenomenon under socialism and workers were encouraged to go abroad as migrant laborers in Western Europe.

Albania was the only exception to this trend.

[Tim Cornelis]

Some comments:
Economic growth in the Ussr was in fact geared toward capital goods and workers' needs were residual, unlike what wht rex claims. He also implies militarism and nationalism are positive things, which is typical of nationalist stalinists motivated by romanticism and nostaligia.

Full employment was a problem in stalinist states as it undermined the ability to discipline labour. Labour as resource for capital accumulation was maximised and labour productivity could not be increased by invoking discipline through threatening with unemployment. As such more repressive measures had to be taken.

[Alexios]

Because, as Marx put it, "Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction" under capitalism. Capitalist restoration in the USSR and other states in the 50s-60s brought forth "unofficial" unemployment and the ability for managers to hire and fire in the name of maximizing profits. In Yugoslavia unemployment was so obvious that Yugoslav "theorists" portrayed it as a normal phenomenon under socialism and workers were encouraged to go abroad as migrant laborers in Western Europe.

Albania was the only exception to this trend.

So you believe there was no unemployment in the USSR prior to 1956? Whatever you say bro.

[Krasnyymir]

My parents lived in Poland in the 50ies, 60ies and 70ies, and from what they've told me yes, there were shortages some times for certain things, which mostly meant that you had to stand in line for a while.

Things like shoes or clothes cost much more relative to your income. (For example: You might have earned 1500$ a month, but a pair of shoes cost $200 and a suit 3-500$) on the other hand, that meant that quality was much higher and it lasted longer, since you got your suit from an actual tailor who fitted you for it.

You'd also repair more things (like shoes) instead of throwing them out.

The positive side: Things you might see today in Poland: Old retired people going through a trashcan to find food or bottles, you'd never see back then. Everyone was a little less well off than the typical middle class family might be today, but you didn't see real poverty like you might see today either. The standard was lower in general, but the bottom was much higher, you might say.

Most places of employment had many more worker than they needed. A factory with 1500 jobs for example, might have 2000 people employed. That meant that you didn't have to work too hard, no one was cracking the whip over you, and people in general had much more free time.

I have a lot of memories myself from Poland in 88, 89 and 1990, and I can also ask my parents if there's anything specifically you'd like to know more about.

[Wht.Rex]

So you believe there was no unemployment in the USSR prior to 1956? Whatever you say bro.

Yeap, there was no significant unemployment. It was de-facto illegal to be unemployed. For example, if police saw you somewhere on street around noon during work days, they could come and ask you, what are you doing. If you were some slacker, you would probably be taken to your workplace and asked manager, why you are not in work. It was harder to lose job, than to find one.
Work area was always balanced with residental area, where ever they built industrial complex or offices, there always were residental zone built for people that worked there.

[Alexios]

Yeap, there was no significant unemployment. It was de-facto illegal to be unemployed. For example, if police saw you somewhere on street around noon during work days, they could come and ask you, what are you doing. If you were some slacker, you would probably be taken to your workplace and asked manager, why you are not in work. It was harder to lose job, than to find one.

Wow, sounds like a real proletarian dictatorship. Workers of the world: you have nothing to lose but your lunch breaks!

Why are you using this as a positive example?

[tuwix]

(For example: You might have earned 1500$ a month, but a pair of shoes cost $200 and a suit 3-500$)

Example pretty good but scale absolutely not. In fact, average Pole in 80's was earning equivalent of $20-30 according to black market price. In official bank you could only buy $20, if you were to visit any Western country that was virtually almost impossible. And for that salary, there was no famine but pretty decent nourishment. However, there were shortages. If you didn't wake up at 6 am to buy a bread, you didn't eat it.
But at once there were shops for dollars and other Western currencies, where there was no shortages at all. When you went there, you come to completely different world. And vodka and other alcohols according to black market prices, were cheaper in shops for dollars than in shops for local currency. And certainly in ordinary shops there were shortages of vodka...

[Hit The North]

In Albania you couldn't wear bell-bottoms, as they were considered revisionist. :ohmy:

Quite right. Hoxha didn't fight the punk wars for nothing.

[Alexios]

Quite right. Hoxha didn't fight the punk wars for nothing.

I eagerly await the creation of an Anti-Punkvisionism theory.

[Ismail]

"In the capitalist and revisionist countries, the number of hippies is increasing, narcotics, degenerate music and striptease are spreading far and wide, all kinds of theories to degenerate the people and youth are being propagated everywhere. By propaganda and demagogy, they try to introduce into our country all these evils that are occurring in their countries, but we have blocked the way, we fight them and develop and spread our own beautiful, pure, progressive and revolutionary life." - Enver Hoxha, On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, 1974, pp. 232-233.)

[Five Year Plan]

"In the capitalist and revisionist countries, the number of hippies is increasing, narcotics, degenerate music and striptease are spreading far and wide, all kinds of theories to degenerate the people and youth are being propagated everywhere. By propaganda and demagogy, they try to introduce into our country all these evils that are occurring in their countries, but we have blocked the way, we fight them and develop and spread our own beautiful, pure, progressive and revolutionary life." - Enver Hoxha, On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, 1974, pp. 232-233.)

Did Hoxha do nothing besides rail against "hippies" and bell-bottoms? Incredible.

[Ismail]

Did Hoxha do nothing besides rail against "hippies" and bell-bottoms? Incredible.Two other excerpts from the same speech (the context is the 60th anniversary of Albanian independence in 1972, which was proclaimed in Vlora):

"Some one may say with a smile: 'But would the imperialist powers be afraid of acting against socialist Albania?' We reply to this that the Albanian people are not afraid of them either. The imperialists and social imperialists are afraid of the people, of revolution, and of Marx's ideas, which inspire the people and lead them forward. Socialist Albania is marching in the forefront of this proletarian revolution, and it is not alone, its friends and faithful comrades are the peoples of the world...

What in fact is the aid [the imperialists and social-imperialists] claim they would give us through their credits? It means selling out our country to them, allowing the imperialists and revisionists to invest their capital in Albania, to suck the blood and sweat of our people, so that we become satellites of the big monopolies and metropoles, so that we adopt their degenerate way of life, so that we establish in our country their consumer society with all its attendant evils...

Where do these modern robbers get this capital with which they so 'generously' seek to 'aid' other backward peoples? From the terrible exploitation of their working class and of other peoples... These super-profits impoverish the working class, while making it possible for the capitalists to invest their capital elsewhere, in order to exploit and oppress other peoples, to colonize further countries, allegedly for the sake of progress and supermarkets filled with commodities which cannot be bought and which were made with the sweat and blood of the workers.

No! The Albanian people and their Party will never be deceived into turning their socialist society into this hell. In our country there may not exist supermarkets, our shops today may still lack certain commodities, but our people know that, in contrast with the past, these commodities have greatly increased, and are fully convinced that through their tireless efforts, our people will continue to increase them in the future, but in freedom and independence." (pp. 230-232.)

"The modern revisionists have utterly destroyed the socialist system in their countries, turning it into a capitalist system, while they have now turned the Soviet Union itself into a social-imperialist state... the 'mutual socialist collaboration' claimed by the Soviet revisionists is the same as 'the sincere collaboration' of the imperialists. The two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, which are preparing for a hot war, are striving, through their allegedly generous aid, to enslave you, to seize you in their economic and political grip, to place you in their spheres of influence and to colonize you...

This same heroic Vlora saw Khrushchev [in 1959], too. When this renegade to Marxism-Leninism found himself before the marvellous bay of Vlora, he was stunned, and on one occasion I heard his collaborator Malinovsky whisper in his ear: 'Do you see, Nikita Sergeyevich? With rockets from Berlin and East Germany we can now hit Gibraltar, while from the bay of Vlora we have the whole Mediterranean in our grasp.' But they had only the wind in their grasp, for our Party and government frustrated their plans. Vlora will never fall into the hands of foreigners. This same Malinovsky said again to Khrushchev at Butrint: 'What a beautiful lake this is. If the coast is cut through nearby, a marvellous submarine base could be built, and then Greece would also be ours'. I shivered, and recalled that dark night in Tirana [during the National Liberation War] when together with Vasil Shanto we put up posters on the walls: 'Down with Italian fascism! Long live the fraternal Greek people who are fighting for freedom!'" (pp. 234-235.)

So yeah quite a bit more than just talking about hippies.

[Five Year Plan]

I guess my point is that the only person who could praise the Mujahideen more profusely, or criticize the hippies more sharply, than Enver Hoxha was the one and only Ronald Reagan himself.

[TheEmancipator]

I guess my point is that the only person who could praise the Mujahideen more profusely, or criticize the hippies more sharply, than Enver Hoxha was the one and only Ronald Reagan himself.

''The religion of Albanians is Albanianism''

Only quote I need to know from Hoxha.

BTW OP, Albania's living standards in the 1960s actually went down. Keep in mind they were under the rule of an Albanian irredentist with little consideration for his own people, or Marxism for that matter.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But there are some men who were avoiding permanent employment and they were pursued by state. They were alcoholics in majority.

So you're saying that it was people's own faults they were unemployed?

[Wht.Rex]

Wow, sounds like a real proletarian dictatorship. Workers of the world: you have nothing to lose but your lunch breaks!

What's exactly wrong with it? No one lost lunch breaks, dummy. Every industrial park had public cafeteria or house with cafeteria nearby.


Why are you using this as a positive example?

I don't see anything bad in such policy that you have to work, unless you are lazy slacker, who sits home, depending on welfare.


wages were deliberately kept low, I'm not sure how this is an improvement over Western capitalist states.

Low wages doesn't mean anything. With those "low" wages, you could afford lot of stuff, not even counting that which were given for free. Average life standarts back in 70's and early 80's in USSR were much higher than even today's USA. As I already stated in my previous posts, my mother durign student years worked and studied at medschool. Her income was around more than 120 roubles per month but she had free 2 room apartment (only communal price for water, electricity, telephone etc. which was not higher than 20 roubles), her education was free

[Alexios]

''The religion of Albanians is Albanianism''

Not that I feel the need to defend Hoxha, but I don't believe this is his quote. If I'm correct it's actually an old saying used to refer to the lack of a single religious identity in Albania.



I don't see anything bad in such policy that you have to work, unless you are lazy slacker, who sits home, depending on welfare.

But that's not what socialism is supposed to be about. Those conditions can easily be achieved within capitalism. Communists should seek to abolish coercive labor.

[Zoroaster]

I don't see anything bad in such policy that you have to work, unless you are lazy slacker, who sits home, depending on welfare.

Get your Republican horseshit out of here.

[Wht.Rex]

Communists should seek to abolish coercive labor

I don't think you know what is communism or socialism about. It is not about abolishing completaly coercive labour, but abolishing UNNECESSARY labour for humans. Idea in Soviet Union was to create in future technology that would change that, that robots will do hard physical labour, while humans will work in 4th economic sector, by researching and creating new technology (class of workers/farmers changed to class of intelligentia)

And there is nothing wrong to have manditory job, some capitalist countries see it as advantage. If you did not work, then you atleast had to study or serve military.


Get your Republican horseshit out of here.

How the hell is that "Republican horseshit"? Are you trying to tell me that unemployment is great? Let me guess, you are one of those pseudo-socialists, that think socialism is about welfare and progressive taxes. :lol:

[Five Year Plan]

How the hell is that "Republican horseshit"? Are you trying to tell me that unemployment is great? Let me guess, you are one of those pseudo-socialists, that think socialism is about welfare and progressive taxes. :lol:

The whole question is moot, anyway, since Eastern Bloc countries did experience unemployment and underemployment. It was certainly lower than in the Western capitalist countries, and they certainly did do a better job of hiding it. But they did have it, regardless of what the official state propaganda claimed.

All this reminds me of a famous saying by Eastern Bloc workers: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Out of curiosity, what exactly is a "left patriot" supposed to be? Is that like "progressive nationalist"? I do love oxymorons.

[Wht.Rex]

The whole question is moot, anyway, since Eastern Bloc countries did experience unemployment and underemployment.

It was non-existable on statistical scale, atleast in Latvian SSR. It is social problem, that effects many, one of reason there it is, is if people see it as problem and not any media or propaganda. As I said in one of mine previous posts, people simply did not know what it is. My parents never heard such word in any Soviet language as "unemployed", before capitalist takeover.


what exactly is a "left patriot"

It is leftist national organization, now also party, that fights against economic problems and not political.
How is it oxymorons exactly? Do you know word national has tons of meanings?

[Five Year Plan]

It was non-existable on statistical scale, atleast in Latvian SSR. It is social problem, that effects many, one of reason there it is, is if people see it as problem and not any media or propaganda. As I said in one of mine previous posts, people simply did not know what it is. My parents never heard such word in any Soviet language as "unemployed", before capitalist takeover.

Your sources for this are? Because I can cite studies of unemployment in Eastern bloc countries that show it was not virtually "non-existent." Lower than the West? Yes.

[motion denied]

I don't think you know what is communism or socialism about. It is not about abolishing completaly coercive labour, but abolishing UNNECESSARY labour for humans.

Try to match your view on labour (and socialism) with this:



What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague

[Alexios]

I don't think you know what is communism or socialism about. It is not about abolishing completaly coercive labour, but abolishing UNNECESSARY labour for humans. Idea in Soviet Union was to create in future technology that would change that, that robots will do hard physical labour, while humans will work in 4th economic sector, by researching and creating new technology (class of workers/farmers changed to class of intelligentia)

And there is nothing wrong to have manditory job, some capitalist countries see it as advantage. If you did not work, then you atleast had to study or serve military.



How the hell is that "Republican horseshit"? Are you trying to tell me that unemployment is great? Let me guess, you are one of those pseudo-socialists, that think socialism is about welfare and progressive taxes. :lol:

“‘Labour’ by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of ‘labour’.” Marx, Notes on Frederich List, 1845

[Ismail]

''The religion of Albanians is Albanianism''

Only quote I need to know from Hoxha.It's actually from a poem by Pashko Vasa, and its content was clearly progressive.

Albanians, you are killing each other,
You are divided into a hundred factions,
Some say "I believe in God", others "I in Allah";
Some "I am a Turk", others "I am Latin"
Some say "I am Greek", others "I am Slav",
But you are all brothers, you miserable people!
Priests and hoxhas [Hoxha is a sort of Islamic priest] have deceived you
To divide you and to keep you poor.
Awake, Albanians, wake from your slumber,
Let us all, as brothers, swear an oath,
Not to mind church or mosque,
The faith of the Albanians is Albanianism!Unlike the rest of the Balkan peoples, there was no "national" church in Albania: if you were a Muslim then you were to self-identify as a "Turk" and uphold Pan-Islamism. If you were of the Orthoodx faith then you were somehow "Greek" and if you thought differently you often found yourself harassed and even killed by Greek chauvinists, as was the case with a number of Orthodox Albanian priests and teachers who advocated Albanian-language education and the like. If you were a Catholic you were given the ambiguous identification of "Latin," and there were cases in Serbian areas of Albanian families being forced to self-identify as Slavs as well.


BTW OP, Albania's living standards in the 1960s actually went down. Keep in mind they were under the rule of an Albanian irredentist with little consideration for his own people, or Marxism for that matter.Is it so surprising that living standards for a time dropped when the USSR suddenly imposed an economic blockade on Albania and halted construction of various projects (which the Albanians had to continue building mainly with their own forces)? In any case living standards certainly rose by the end of the decade.

And the "irredentist" claim is baseless, the Albanians reiterated time and time again that they had no territorial designs on Yugoslavia and supported the continued existence of a federation, if not how the Titoites were managing said federation.

[DannyMorin]

I don't see anything bad in such policy that you have to work, unless you are lazy slacker, who sits home, depending on welfare.

Non-communist people read things like this and think there's not much difference between capitalists and socialists. Two different brands of wage slavery.

[Viktor]

Because, as Marx put it, "Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction" under capitalism. Capitalist restoration in the USSR and other states in the 50s-60s brought forth "unofficial" unemployment and the ability for managers to hire and fire in the name of maximizing profits. In Yugoslavia unemployment was so obvious that Yugoslav "theorists" portrayed it as a normal phenomenon under socialism and workers were encouraged to go abroad as migrant laborers in Western Europe.

The reserve army of labor is a tendency in capitalism, not an absolute law. In accordance to the conditions, this tendency can be suppressed to a greater or lesser degree as needs dictate. The real criterion to establishing the presence of capitalism is private property. Nothing you've said so far addresses this. According to your own arguments, there is absolutely no basis for concluding that there was such a thing as "capitalist restoration" in the Soviet Union in the 1950's.

Have you ever heard of a non sequitur? Every 'argument' you've posed thus far has been one. The only thing you've established so far is that Stalinist states pursued reactionary policies. Big surprise there, but as far as the actual social basis of these states goes, you have been absolutely silent.

[Ismail]

The reserve army of labor is a tendency in capitalism, not an absolute law. In accordance to the conditions, this tendency can be suppressed to a greater or lesser degree as needs dictate.It can be suppressed, but it cannot be eliminated under capitalism. Following capitalist restoration in the USSR labor-power once more became a commodity and the search for work became the norm for an increasing number of workers. In Yugoslavia where market mechanisms were most developed "socialist unemployment" became an everyday part of life, to be alleviated through working abroad for West European companies due to the inability of the "worker self-managed" enterprises to actually employ sufficient amounts of workers.


The real criterion to establishing the presence of capitalism is private property. Nothing you've said so far addresses this. According to your own arguments, there is absolutely no basis for concluding that there was such a thing as "capitalist restoration" in the Soviet Union in the 1950's.The idea that for capitalism to exist property needs to be avowedly private is silly. It assumes that state property somehow transcends classes and that the class exercising state power somehow has no influence over it. The Albanians noted that what existed in the USSR after the 50s was a form of state monopoly capitalism. Speaking at the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981, Hoxha noted that "Khrushchevite revisionism is the ideology and policy of state capitalism which dominates the whole life of the country. The Soviet Union's return to capitalism could not fail to have its own special features... many socialist forms of property, organization and management are retained, but their content has changed radically... they are used in the interest of the new bourgeois class which is in power, and because it is precisely this class which appropriates the labour of workers and peasants." (Selected Works Vol. VI, 1987, p. 432.)

[Five Year Plan]

Ismail, why do you constantly refer to "the Albanians" saying things, when the only people you really ever cite are Enver Hoxha (95% of the time), and a few other top Albanian bureaucrats besides (5% of the time)? One would get the impression from your interchanging these figures with "the Albanians" that Albania is a lightly populated country indeed, consisting of only a handful of people.

[Wht.Rex]

Your sources for this are? Because I can cite studies of unemployment in Eastern bloc countries that show it was not virtually "non-existent." Lower than the West? Yes.

Alexander Nove, Sergey Lopotnikov, then couple Latvian historians, currently I don't remember their names, I had them saved in bookmarks, but are deleted unfortunately, and furthermore, as I said, unecmployment is social problem, and social problem defines as "If many aknowledge it as problem, that it exists", none of many people I interviewed knew back then what is unemployment, eveyrbody they knew had somewhat job.

[Five Year Plan]

Alexander Nove, Sergey Lopotnikov, then couple Latvian historians, currently I don't remember their names, I had them saved in bookmarks, but are deleted unfortunately, and furthermore, as I said, unecmployment is social problem, and social problem defines as "If many aknowledge it as problem, that it exists", none of many people I interviewed knew back then what is unemployment, eveyrbody they knew had somewhat job.

I would like specific book titles, please.

[Wht.Rex]

I would like specific book titles, please.

If I remember "Glasnost in action", it described how USSR policies changed throught time and what Gorbachev's reforms changed in state, using some statistics. Also other sources, if you understand Russian: youtube.com/user/LORD13VV/videos
This author has uploaded old Soviet and some modern documentaries which describe life in USSR.
I can't currently specific video, but there was one video, which described life, work and housing policy in Soviet Baltic states, how those policies prevented unemployment etc.

[Five Year Plan]

If I remember "Glasnost in action", it described how USSR policies changed throught time and what Gorbachev's reforms changed in state, using some statistics. Also other sources, if you understand Russian: youtube.com/user/LORD13VV/videos
This author has uploaded old Soviet and some modern documentaries which describe life in USSR.
I can't currently specific video, but there was one video, which described life, work and housing policy in Soviet Baltic states, how those policies prevented unemployment etc.

According to David Granick's book Job Rights in the Soviet Union, unemployment was normally between 2 and 3 percent (pp. 81-82). Paul Gregory and Irwin Collier arrive at similar figures in their article "Unemployment in the Soviet Union: Evidence from the Soviet Interview Project" (American Economic Review, 1988).

[Viktor]

It can be suppressed, but it cannot be eliminated under capitalism. Following capitalist restoration in the USSR labor-power once more became a commodity and the search for work became the norm for an increasing number of workers. In Yugoslavia where market mechanisms were most developed "socialist unemployment" became an everyday part of life, to be alleviated through working abroad for West European companies due to the inability of the "worker self-managed" enterprises to actually employ sufficient amounts of workers.

The reserve army of labor is a dynamic of capitalism. Its presence or lack thereof has no bearing on the existence of capitalist exploitation. It is not integral to capitalism. There is no reason at all that unemployement could not be abolished in a capitalist society neither in theory nor practice. It is unlikely, but certainly possible.

The idea that for capitalism to exist property needs to be avowedly private is silly. It assumes that state property somehow transcends classes and that the class exercising state power somehow has no influence over it. [/QUOTE]

Of course Marxism is silly to you. As usual, there is nothing but smoke and mirrors here. In order for the bourgeoisie to be the ruling class, there must first be a bourgeoisie, and for the bourgeoisie to exist, there must be a social basis for it; private property is the social basis of the bourgeoisie. Your inability to understand this is just reflective of your political illiteracy. It is these property forms that determine the nature of exploitation. Of course, for you, exploitation is a moral category rather than reflective of a concrete social reality, hence your assertion that exploitation existed in 1960, but not 1940.

In order for the allegedly socialist order in the Soviet Union to have been overthrown in the 1950's, it would have first been necessary for a bourgeoisie to exist to take power. The only way this could have worked is if there existed in what you proclaim to be socialism a bourgeoisie. The only possible alternative to this is that you believe a bourgeoisie materialized out of thin air and took power.

Property forms in the 1960's remained just as they were in the 1940's. You must constantly dodge this issue since it is literally impossible to have a class analysis of the Soviet Union that would conclude that there was somehow a qualitative difference between 1940 and 1960.

The overthrow of a ruling class is always an event of world significance, yet according to you this occurred and only a tiny handful of people on Earth noticed it. Apparently the working class was overthrown without realizing it or caring; that the nature of the state can be changed through reform rather than revolution.


The Albanians noted that what existed in the USSR after the 50s was a form of state monopoly capitalism. Speaking at the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981, Hoxha noted that "Khrushchevite revisionism is the ideology and policy of state capitalism which dominates the whole life of the country. The Soviet Union's return to capitalism could not fail to have its own special features... many socialist forms of property, organization and management are retained, but their content has changed radically... they are used in the interest of the new bourgeois class which is in power, and because it is precisely this class which appropriates the labour of workers and peasants." (Selected Works Vol. VI, 1987, p. 432.)

There is no argument put forth in this quote that would allow anyone to conclude that capitalism existed in the Soviet Union. It seems that there never existed in Albania or China a single work of political economy which comprehensively laid out the socio-economic basis of the Soviet Union, the massive counter-revolution which overthrow the working class without anyone noticing, and the basis and dynamics of state capitalism. This is a political slur, not an argument.

Again, you haven't actually put forth a single argument as to how the Soviet Union could have been capitalist. Your strategy consists of repeatedly stating that it was capitalist without making any kind of explanation from a Marxist framework. It's hard to say whether you're aware on some unconscious level that this is entirely nonsense and that this is merely a strategy of self-hypnosis, or whether your intellectual poverty and bankruptcy has degenerated to such a level that you actually believe that something becomes true on the basis of repetition.

The Soviet Union was capitalist. Why? Hoxha said so, of course it's true. You disagree? Here's a fine quote of Hoxha slurring it as capitalist, which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it was.

[quote]The Soviet Union's return to capitalism could not fail to have its own special features... many socialist forms of property, organization and management are retained, but their content has changed radically...

It is ironic that we see here nothing other than Trotsky's formulation of a degenerated workers state repeated here in a very distorted and confused way.

[Ismail]

Ismail, why do you constantly refer to "the Albanians" saying things, when the only people you really ever cite are Enver Hoxha (95% of the time), and a few other top Albanian bureaucrats besides (5% of the time)? One would get the impression from your interchanging these figures with "the Albanians" that Albania is a lightly populated country indeed, consisting of only a handful of people.The position that capitalism was restored in the USSR was taken up not just by Hoxha and other Politburo members, but by the media of the country (Zëri i Popullit, Bashkimi, Zëri i Rinisë, Puna, Nëndori, etc.), by Albania's ambassadors to the UN, etc., and I could cite all of them on this subject. I don't see how it's any more troublesome than referring to policies upheld by the Soviets, by the Chinese, and what have you.

[Five Year Plan]

Taken up by the media, which of course operated completely independently of Hoxha and the Albanian bureaucracy, right?

[Ismail]

Taken up by the media, by the foreign representatives of Albania, and by the government itself. I'd say that constitutes enough influence for one to speak accurately of the Albanian position on X or Y.

Hoxha is generally quoted in preference to other Albanian sources because his writings and speeches summarized the positions of the Party of Labour of Albania as well as the Albanian state. The Albanians did, however, translate numerous excerpts from their newspapers, speeches from ambassadors, from other members of the Politburo, etc., each tending to give more "specialized" analyses on different angles of Soviet revisionism and other subjects. So for instance the newspaper Puna (press organ of the Trade Unions) would focus more on the specific issues faced by workers in the revisionist regimes, Zëri i Rinisë would focus on the problems of youth in those countries, the ambassador to the UN would note the social-imperialist policy of the USSR in foreign affairs, etc.

Hoxha's reports to party congresses, concluding speeches at plenums of the central committee, and on other occasions, gave a generalized picture of Soviet revisionism, touching upon its various features. It is thus easy to see why Hoxha is quoted more often than, say, an article in Shqiptarja e re (press organ of the Women's Union of Albania), although if the subject is about women in the revisionist countries then it would certainly be appropriate to quote at length from such articles, which would go into specific situations and phenomena.

[Tim Cornelis]

“‘Labour’ by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of ‘labour’.” Marx, Notes on Frederich List, 1845

Does this mean you are unfamiliar with Marx's and Engel's concept of communism as based on associated labour, which is directly social labour?

[Wht.Rex]

unemployment was normally between 2 and 3 percent (pp. 81-82). Paul Gregory and Irwin Collier arrive at similar figures in their article "Unemployment in the Soviet Union: Evidence from the Soviet Interview Project" (American Economic Review, 1988).

Interesting, I will look it up. By any chance, would there be any online links?
Also, which years of unemployment they are writing about? If it is about years after Andropov, then no wonder.

[Ismail]

The reserve army of labor is a dynamic of capitalism. Its presence or lack thereof has no bearing on the existence of capitalist exploitation. It is not integral to capitalism. There is no reason at all that unemployement could not be abolished in a capitalist society neither in theory nor practice. It is unlikely, but certainly possible.


In order for the bourgeoisie to be the ruling class, there must first be a bourgeoisie, and for the bourgeoisie to exist, there must be a social basis for it; private property is the social basis of the bourgeoisie.As Engels noted (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/AD78.html), "neither conversion into joint-stock companies [and trusts] nor conversion into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. This is obvious in the case of joint-stock companies [and trusts]. But the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes over into its possession, the more it becomes a real aggregate capitalist, the more citizens it exploits."

The class nature of a state determines the character of the property under its control. The idea that the bourgeoisie cannot rule over state property is asinine, just as asinine as the idea that state property must necessarily be socialist. It's particularly amusing that you say "Marxism is silly to you" when there is nothing Marxist about the existence of "degenerated" or "deformed workers' states."


In order for the allegedly socialist order in the Soviet Union to have been overthrown in the 1950's, it would have first been necessary for a bourgeoisie to exist to take power. The only way this could have worked is if there existed in what you proclaim to be socialism a bourgeoisie. The only possible alternative to this is that you believe a bourgeoisie materialized out of thin air and took power.Certain strata of Soviet society sought the restoration of capitalism: those elements within the party and state bureaucracy, among the managers of enterprises, and those elements among the intelligentsia. They sought to replace the proletarian line in various fields with a bourgeois line while Stalin was alive (e.g. the cases of Varga and Voznesensky, to give two examples of men both rehabilitated by the revisionists.) Having seized state power after Stalin's death, they proceeded to carry out the restoration of capitalism. Obviously those in charge of this process wouldn't do it if they were not to become its principal beneficiaries and assume the role of a new bourgeoisie.

Your attack is particularly silly since, using your logic, there was no basis for types like Yeltsin to exist, since this was also seemingly a case where "a bourgeoisie materialized out of thin air and took power."


Property forms in the 1960's remained just as they were in the 1940's.State industry also plays an important role in modern-day Russia. Are you going to argue it was a "degenerated workers' state"


You must constantly dodge this issue since it is literally impossible to have a class analysis of the Soviet Union that would conclude that there was somehow a qualitative difference between 1940 and 1960.There have been plenty of analyses, case in point being Bill Bland's work Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html) which relies almost exclusively on the economic writings and regulations of the Soviet revisionists themselves.


The overthrow of a ruling class is always an event of world significance, yet according to you this occurred and only a tiny handful of people on Earth noticed it. Apparently the working class was overthrown without realizing it or caring; that the nature of the state can be changed through reform rather than revolution.Again, you could make the same sort of argument in regards to the rise of Yeltsin and Co., the only difference being that they had no need to wave a red flag anymore.


There is no argument put forth in this quote that would allow anyone to conclude that capitalism existed in the Soviet Union.It is merely Hoxha pointing out the character of the Soviet state and its economy. It's no more an "argument" (and was not intended to be) than Lenin saying "Marxism is omnipotent because it is true" was meant to be proof in itself that the Marxist analysis of philosophy, economics and history is true.


It seems that there never existed in Albania or China a single work of political economy which comprehensively laid out the socio-economic basis of the Soviet Union, the massive counter-revolution which overthrow the working class without anyone noticing, and the basis and dynamics of state capitalism. This is a political slur, not an argument.There were quite a few articles and papers put out on the subject, one example being Soviet Revisionism and the Struggle of the PLA to Unmask It (https://archive.org/download/SovietRevisionismAndTheStruggleOfThePLAToUnmaskIt/Soviet%20Revisionism%20and%20the%20Struggle%20of%2 0the%20PLA%20to%20Unmask%20It.pdf).


It is ironic that we see here nothing other than Trotsky's formulation of a degenerated workers state repeated here in a very distorted and confused way.Apparently the idea that the outward form of something can be different from its essence was never before broached until Trotsky came along.