1991 Soviet coup

[rdr17]

As far as I understood this event it was about saving the country.
Gorbachev's reforms destabilized the Soviet Union economically and its power.

How is it possible that Yelzin and Gorbachev were both "Presidents" one of Russia and the other of the Soviet Union?

Who's side are you on?
I for one find it tragic that the coup didn't succeed.
Lenin's entire work undone in a matter of years.

Thanks for your answers.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's difficult to answer this, because your frame of reference is so divorced from mine. In my opinion the 1917 Russian Revolution failed. Its failure, or degeneration, began in 1918 and was consolidated in 1922. At that point, capitalist relations of production had been cemented and the prospect of communist reconstruction gone. The Soviet Union, throughout its entire history, had been a variant of capitalism based predominantly on state ownership. The idea that 'Gorbachev was to blame', to me, is completely nonsensical when we look at the economy of the USSR. It was simply unsustainable. In the same way that we are not going to blame president X or Y who happens to be president at a time of crisis in whatever country will face blame from Marxists for the rate of profit being low. The USSR faced the crisis of the absolute over-accumulation of capital. See: http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/Soviet_Union

The collapse of the Soviet Union as political entity, or at the very least its economy, was simply inevitable.

Likewise, the idea that a coup can save a mode of production is simply divorced from Marxism.

[Q]

Where to begin with this one...


As far as I understood this event it was about saving the country.
It was indeed an attempt by the bureaucratic ruling elite to save their power on the old status quo. This was mostly coming from the layers that felt they had a lot to loose from the changing conditions of a part of the ruling elite transforming itself into a capitalist oligarchy.


Gorbachev's reforms destabilized the Soviet Union economically and its power.This is factually wrong. Gorbachov came to power after economic decline set in in the 1970's. The biggest problem was that the target economy (I wouldn't call it 'planning') was not propelling society forward, it had failed as a political economy. As such stagnation set in and was dragging the USSR more and more into a very problematic set of conditions. The huge drain of resources on the military wasn't helping either.


How is it possible that Yelzin and Gorbachev were both "Presidents" one of Russia and the other of the Soviet Union?Each of the republics that formed the USSR had its own head of state.


Who's side are you on?25 years after the facts, there is no side to be on...


I for one find it tragic that the coup didn't succeed.It was tragic that the USSR collapsed the way it did, but it had no future in the way it was going. Glasnost and perestroika were desperate attempts at saving the USSR as it was and it was too little, too late.


Lenin's entire work undone in a matter of years.Interesting you should say that. Because between 1917 and 1936 you could describe a whole spectrum of events between revolution and counterrevolution. I think by the time Stalin had consolidated facts on the ground by the 1936 constitution and by killing off the old generation, there was simply no going back. The revolution had failed before it even left the craddle.

This talk by Jack Conrad (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/videos/the-ussr) may be helpful in getting more factoids and seeing the bigger picture of why it went wrong.


Thanks for your answers.Anytime.

[rdr17]

Each of the republics that formed the USSR had its own head of state.
That's strange then...
Yeltsin acted like he was "the main guy".
I saw some videos where Yeltsin openly "trolled" Gorbachev.

An example was a speech by Gorbachev where Yeltsin dictated everything.

[Q]

That's strange then...
Yeltsin acted like he was "the main guy".
I saw some videos where Yeltsin openly "trolled" Gorbachev.

An example was a speech by Gorbachev where Yeltsin dictated everything.
Well, there is a difference between how things were formally arranged and the actual power struggles between different factions of the regime. Russia was obviously by far the biggest part of the USSR, had the biggest clout on things, so Yeltsin used his influence the way he could.

[RedKobra]

The Jack Conrad talk is indeed interesting, I would highly recommend it.

[RedMaterialist]

As far as I understood this event it was about saving the country.
Gorbachev's reforms destabilized the Soviet Union economically and its power.

How is it possible that Yelzin and Gorbachev were both "Presidents" one of Russia and the other of the Soviet Union?

Who's side are you on?
I for one find it tragic that the coup didn't succeed.
Lenin's entire work undone in a matter of years.

Thanks for your answers.

Once Stalin decided to limit socialism to one country it was only a matter of time before the USSR collapsed. It was lucky to have survived WWII. It is possible to start socialism in one country, but it is not possible to maintain socialism in one country, just as Lenin and Trotsky predicted.

Capitalists understand very clearly that they must isolate and embargo socialism where ever it comes into existence. They go to war whenever possible. My view is that Venezuela is next on the war/coup list.

[Tim Cornelis]

Or maybe Sweden. The CIA is planning a coup against socialism there for sure.

[Rudolf]

Once Stalin decided to limit socialism to one country it was only a matter of time before the USSR collapsed. It was lucky to have survived WWII. It is possible to start socialism in one country, but it is not possible to maintain socialism in one country, just as Lenin and Trotsky predicted.

Capitalists understand very clearly that they must isolate and embargo socialism where ever it comes into existence. They go to war whenever possible. My view is that Venezuela is next on the war/coup list.


You seem to be implying Venezuela is socialist. If that's the case what do you mean by 'socialism'? As per my understanding of socialism Venezuela isn't socialist and the USSR has never been socialist.

[Creative Destruction]

You seem to be implying Venezuela is socialist. If that's the case what do you mean by 'socialism'? As per my understanding of socialism Venezuela isn't socialist and the USSR has never been socialist.

RedMaterialist is completely taken with the M-L idea that the Soviet Union was, at some point, socialist, or that a proletarian dictatorship is socialism.

[gef-gons]

A proletarian dictatorship meets a def of socialism . Why, what would you-all call it, i guess communism. Lead to the next point - the diff btween soc and comm..
We get overly caught up definitions for words that are merely theoretical expressions.
I love wallowing in theory and yes w/out theory we would all be (theoretically) lost. But to allow theory to keep us apart from one another is a cost we can no longer afford to pay.
Think of the example of the Kurdish people. The largest group of people (who share lang./culture but because of the divide and rule technique employed they have hot achieved a nation state to call there own. They disagree amoung themselves and by not presenting a unified front the Man continualy manipulates for His own ends
We must unify and bond around some value which every humanist shares. The ism which keeps us seperate i.e. maoism vs. socialism - anarcho-feminism vs. crypto -communism. Really, that which keeps us separate is a far smaller thing than the values which we share. The human interest vs. the capital interest.
The planet earth is counting on us sister's and brother's.

[RedMaterialist]

You seem to be implying Venezuela is socialist. If that's the case what do you mean by 'socialism'? As per my understanding of socialism Venezuela isn't socialist and the USSR has never been socialist.

I think socialism is a continuum between capitalism and communism. Stageism, I guess. Socialism in its most developed form is the control of society and the economy by the working class with the aim of suppressing the bourgeois out of existence. it is the ownership of the means of production by the working class, either through the state, bureaucracy, or directly through unions. After a worldwide development of socialism the state will disappear and communism will begin to develop.

Venezuela is in the first stages of transition with some of the means of production (oil production, mainly) owned by the state. The Soviet Union was a fully developed (however degenerated) socialist state. China and Vietnam the same, except they have moved back into a stage of part state ownership and part private ownership.

I think of the process something like this:

Feudalism>....A....B....C....<D...Captitalism>...E...F...G...<H...Socialism

The development is uneven, especially in different societies, it can be reversed, it can be peaceful, or violent and revolutionary, sudden or drawn out. It's just evolution applied to social and economic development.

[RedMaterialist]

RedMaterialist is completely taken with the M-L idea that the Soviet Union was, at some point, socialist, or that a proletarian dictatorship is socialism.


Didn't Marx say that socialism was the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[RedMaterialist]

Or maybe Sweden. The CIA is planning a coup against socialism there for sure.

For a coup to be successful against a (newly developing) socialist state about half the population has to be rabidly fasicst as in Venezuela (Chile, Guatemala, Greece, etc.). This is not to say that Sweden would not support a US war against Venezuela.

In 2015 there will be a black flag operation against Venezuela. Hillary Clinton will be demaning swift action against the brutal regime of Maduro.

[Sasha]

:lol: Ehm, Sweden is not a socialist state, neither is Venezuela, that's was tims point I hazard a guess.

[RedMaterialist]

:lol: Ehm, Sweden is not a socialist state, neither is Venezuela, that's was tims point I hazard a guess.

They are states which are developing towards socialism. There is no such thing as a socialist/non-socialist state. A state or society doesn't go from capitalism one day to socialism the next. It's a question of dialectics, everything is in a process of development. As Engels said about life and death, although the two stages are different, it's impossible to say exactly where one ends and the other begins.

It's easy to see now that feudalism is dead, but who could have said in 1700 that the bourgeoisie would be the new dominant social, economic force?

It is true that Sweden is not a socialist state. But neither is it a capitalist state. It's that tired description of a mixed economy/welfare state.

Does this mean that progressivism has replaced revolutionary political development? No. Vietnam, Angola, South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, and a few other countries have had revolutions.

The former U.S. president Ronald Reagan used to say that Medicare (the U.S. old age health insurance program) was Soviet style medicine. He was half right. It was classic West European, social-democratic welfare state medicine. Now it is, along with Social Security, a sacred political institution in the U.S.

It's one thing to be prepared for a revolution, but it's self-defeating to expect it to start every morning at 8:00 a.m.

[Hrafn]

They are states which are developing towards socialism.

[...]

It is true that Sweden is not a socialist state. But neither is it a capitalist state. It's that tired description of a mixed economy/welfare state.

Please. Don't even start. Sweden is a capitalist state through and through, and is certainly developing in no other direction than that of even more complete and absolute neo-liberalism.

[RedMaterialist]

Please. Don't even start. Sweden is a capitalist state through and through, and is certainly developing in no other direction than that of even more complete and absolute neo-liberalism.

How do you explain free, quality public education, free health care, public retirement, state control or regulation over the largest industries, heavily progressive taxation, limited inheritance rights, very strong unions, etc.?

All of these things were demanded by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Neo-liberalism wants to privatize all those things because they are developments toward socialism.

[Creative Destruction]

How do you explain free, quality public education, free health care, public retirement, state control or regulation over the largest industries, heavily progressive taxation, limited inheritance rights, very strong unions, etc.?

All of these things were demanded by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Neo-liberalism wants to privatize all those things because they are developments toward socialism.

jesus christ. you realize, right, that the impeteus for the welfare state -- the model that the Scandinavian welfare state was based on; the Weimar state -- was put into place specifically to undercut the socialists? Marx even called these kinds of measures "bribes":


As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

The things you're talking about are to happen in a dictatorship of the proletariat when the working class begins socializing the means of production. That is not happening in the Scandinavian countries. I can't believe how fucking backwards your politics are, that you would deny a capitalist state is clearly a capitalist state. That's so far beyond the regular bullshit that M-Ls try to pull. It's pretty incredible, I have to say, that you would even call yourself a revolutionary!

http://media2.giphy.com/media/u8WIuXVR3CHSw/200.gif x 1000

[Creative Destruction]

Didn't Marx say that socialism was the dictatorship of the proletariat?

No, he did not. Nowhere did Marx equate socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Leninists say that.

[Hrafn]

How do you explain free, quality public education, free health care, public retirement, state control or regulation over the largest industries, heavily progressive taxation, limited inheritance rights, very strong unions, etc.?

All of these things were demanded by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Neo-liberalism wants to privatize all those things because they are developments toward socialism.

They are not developments towards socialism. All those things were tools of the Social Democrats, imposed only to effectively stomp out the worker's movement, and to create a Social Democratic state capitalist society.

Also few of these supposed socialist factors exist anymore, to any significant degree. Schooling is class-based and often of far lower quality for the working class, the health care certainly isn't free, the state has extremely few interests in industry left, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

A proletarian dictatorship meets a def of socialism . Why, what would you-all call it, i guess communism. Lead to the next point - the diff btween soc and comm..
We get overly caught up definitions for words that are merely theoretical expressions...

No.

Marx is pretty explicit about this. the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' comes between capitalist society and communist society. It is the start of the one becoming the other.

Marx's schema goes:
1 -capitalist society;
2 - revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;
3 - communist society (first phase);
4 - communist society (higher phase).

The revolutionary dictatorship is when the working class is wresting control of the economy from the capitalist class. It isn't finished until the revolution wins. Until it does, the economic system is still capitalist, even though the working class is attempting to wrest control from the capitalists.

So, no, really the revolutionary dictatorship isn't 'socialism'. It's capitalism.