The fall of the USSR was a great victory for socialism

[Matteo]

Do you agree with this? The Soviet Union was not socialist. Socialism, at its fundamental, ideological core, espouses workers control over the means of production and workers control over state power, and this simply wasn't the case in the USSR. There were, indeed, some signs of it during Lenin's short reign (even discounting the very opportunistic and very sceptical conception of 'revolutionary vanguardism', which, in my opinion, hurt workers control of the state and actually created somewhat of a coercive and oppressive society), but ultimately, the Soviet Union was nothing like socialism. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

The dissolution of the USSR and the triumph of the Soviet people against a despotic elitist working class was a great victory for socialism, if only for a short while.

[The Idler]

The USSR was not ever socialist but neither was the ruling-classes that followed it.

[#FF0000]

I'm not a fan of the USSR but this is delusional. How was this event a victory in any way for the working class?

[Zoop]

The collapse of the USSR was indeed a celebratory event; I'm not so sure how it can be a victory for socialism though, in any meaningful sense.

[Comrade Jacob]

Even though it was a revisionist state at that point it made socialism look like it's a failure of a system and it's cause mass poverty not only in the post-soviet states but it collapsed/crippled nations that where socialist.
Absolutely not a "great victory" or "something to celebrate".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not a fan of the USSR but this is delusional. How was this event a victory in any way for the working class?

Because it means no one will upset student "socialists" by comparing them to the Soviet Union.

The fact that millions of people suddenly found their living standard plummeting - that a lot of them ended up on the street if not dead in the many wars started by the collapse of the Soviet Union - this is all secondary, as it always is to student politicos.

I mean, I'm from the Trotskyist tradition, and we defend what we see as the progressive economic basis of the Soviet Union even though we called for its overthrow by the proletariat. But even if you think the S.U. was capitalist, it is surely outrageous to say its collapse was a great victory for the working class. It's tantamount to saying Pinochet's coup was a great victory for the working class because Allende wasn't a socialist.

[Cliff Paul]

Gramsci certainly wouldn't agree with the op of this thread.

[Art Vandelay]

Socialism, at its fundamental, ideological core, espouses workers control over the means of production and workers control over state power

Socialism is a stateless classless society of free producers, so no.

---

You're correct in stating that the USSR was not socialist, however it's collapse was in no way a victory for the working class; to the contrary, it was a collosal defeat, as has been clearly demonstrated in the ensuing years characterized by a deep erosion of living standards which followed the reintroduction of capital. What needed to be defended - and indeed what communists did defend tooth and nail - was the USSR's property forms. The communist position on the question was clear - unconditional military defence of the SU, while simultaneously calling for a political revolution to oust the parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy.

[Alet]

Maybe it was a victory for Soviet workers claiming political rights, but we never can call this a victory for socialism as an ideology. To most people's minds the Soviet Union stood for socialist theory and praxis. Its collapse made them believe that communism is not only wedded to despotism, but also doomed to failure. Our ideology has been stigmatized with this anti-communist bullshit, it did not benefit us. Of course, even if there had been no collapse or not even a Soviet Union, we would be opposed by liberals, since they have always tried to badmouth socialism, so we might at least accept that the people favored bourgeois democracy over the USSR and therefore it was a victory. But a victory for socialism? Doubt that.

[#FF0000]

"We're against the state, so failed states are good things, right?"

[PhoenixAsh]

I am an Anarchist and even I can see that the fall of the USSR was nothing but a miserable necessity to be able to break down all advantages fought for by workers. For workers across the globe it was a direct tragedy that still reverberates even today.

That said....the USSR would not have brought socialism any nearer...and the disadvantages for workers are only disadvantages in respect of the context of the system itself.

Maybe in a decade 4...5...later we may reap benefits again by restructuring the revolutionary movement and ideology and outgrowing the Stalinist legacy.

[oneday]

so we might at least accept that the people favored bourgeois democracy over the USSR and therefore it was a victory.

Did they? The 1991 referendum seemed to show that there was a majority interest in preserving the USSR in some form.

[Alet]

Did they? The 1991 referendum seemed to show that there was a majority interest in preserving the USSR in some form.

Well, what about these former Soviet states, which separated from the USSR? For example, if they held such a referendum in the GDR in 1989, what result would you have expected? Plus, if they were serious about "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?" the outcome is hardly surprising. However, I don't think it is really that important. My point was that there is no way we could call the collapse a victory for socialism, even if it was a victory for the people.

e: "call". The word I was looking for was "call". I'm ridiculous.

[oneday]

My point was that there is no way we could consider the collapse as a victory for socialism, even if it was a victory for the people.

Ok, not a victory for socialism. How was it a victory for the people, exactly?

[Alet]

Ok, not a victory for socialism. How was it a victory for the people, exactly?

Umm... they did not demonstrate for fun.

[Cliff Paul]

Ok, not a victory for socialism. How was it a victory for the people, exactly?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052156/Nearly-million-Russians-committed-suicide-collapse-Soviet-Union.html

VICTORYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[#FF0000]

Umm... they did not demonstrate for fun.

So they demonstrated for a coup and a hilariously dysfunctional democracy lead by oligarchs from the old regime? You know, even if they did demonstrate for liberal democracy, it's still foolish to say they won, considering what it became so quickly.

[Alet]

I don't know what your point is. By the time I wrote this I did not give a single shit about whether it was actually a victory for the people or not. Even if one thinks it was, might it be true or not, there is no reason to think that it is an advantage for us. That's basically what I wanted to say.

[#FF0000]

I don't know what your point is. By the time I wrote this I did not give a single shit about whether it was actually a victory for the people or not. Even if one thinks it was, might it be true or not, there is no reason to think that it is an advantage for us. That's basically what I wanted to say.

Ah, I think I understand what you're saying, then.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

I am not sure how anybody can look at the trajectory of the revolutionary left and think that the dismantling of the Soviet Union was anything other than a major defeat for the working class.

[ñángara]

The dark side is that the workers never were de ruling class.

The bright side is that any jung marxist-wannabe in RevLeft can correct Lenin and his Bolsheviks, and point out what was wrong with the USSR :lol:

[Homo Songun]

The fall of the USSR was an unmitigated disaster for the working class in all respects. This holds true regardless of the predominant mode of the means of production at any time in its brief lifetime.

The truth is that every single indicator of material and social well being crashed for the working class, mainly inside but also outside the USSR after its collapse. This ain't tankie talk - its legitimate statistics that can be researched quite easily online or at your local library.

Secondly, the idea of Socialism, a worker run society, etc etc took a massive blow in the aftermath of the collapse, and the movement has barely recovered from it all, almost 3 decades later.

Any sane socialist knows that the collapse of the USSR was a unqualified disaster. It ushered in the era of neoliberalism triumphant.

[G4b3n]

Always take Chomsky's slogans with a grain of salt or disregard them. The latter in this case.

[motion denied]

The very existence of the USSR as it were was a defeat for the working class and for socialism. The fall of the aforementioned states were equally as tragic (maybe worse).

Tough times

[Spectre of Spartacism]

The very existence of the USSR as it were was a defeat for the working class and for socialism. The fall of the aforementioned states were equally as tragic (maybe worse).

Tough times

Be honest. You're not old enough to remember the collapse of the USSR.

[Sibotic]

In a sense not, it was more a victory for liberal social policy in the West, due to the Soviet Union in a sense serving as a bulwark against certain tendencies of unrestricted capitalism - which is part of why it was unable to survive otherwise, because it counteracted the tendencies of this while still being opposed to most of the world and not being far enough from a capitalist mode of operation to resist this pressure. That said, their issues would hardly be with 'disagreement' so much as the fact that Cold War issues and the post-WWII situation meant that there were attempts to dissuade people from various things, which did actually occur, in a sense the Soviet Union could only subsist so long as it was kept separated enough by such things, however, so that in a sense capital's increasing weakness led to its removal without its consequences for Russia and so on entirely fading, with the Russian government being dictatorial and such in a sense despite the otherwise tendencies of Putin, etc., and the states surrounding still being understood as in a sense subordinate to Russia or as vaguely shadowy sub-areas, with the exception of perhaps Georgia and to some extent Germany, if that one must be counted honestly. To be fair, the Cold War USA could be understood as being a Soviet satellite at times, whence the name. Anyway, I think it might make sense to treat the working class as a revolutionary class and see things in such a context when inquiring as to the question in relation to socialism, rather than just a group of people who can suffer without this necessarily impinging upon the question in either case. In that sense, they are revolutionary, subordinate to the revolution, or they are nothing, in a manner of speaking.


The dissolution of the USSR and the triumph of the Soviet people against a despotic elitist working class was a great victory for socialism, if only for a short while.

You probably didn't mean that. You mean Gorbachev's reign? Think the only thing great about that was Gorbachev's size, really.

[lutraphile]

Might be good long term in eliminating a pseudo-socialist country, was very clearly damaging in the short term in giving the impression of a permanent victory for capitalism. The "socialist" brand is just now starting to show signs of recovery, while the label "communist" is poison in many countries now.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do you agree with this? The Soviet Union was not socialist. Socialism, at its fundamental, ideological core, espouses workers control over the means of production and workers control over state power, and this simply wasn't the case in the USSR. There were, indeed, some signs of it during Lenin's short reign (even discounting the very opportunistic and very sceptical conception of 'revolutionary vanguardism', which, in my opinion, hurt workers control of the state and actually created somewhat of a coercive and oppressive society), but ultimately, the Soviet Union was nothing like socialism. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

The dissolution of the USSR and the triumph of the Soviet people against a despotic elitist working class was a great victory for socialism, if only for a short while.

I disagree. Pretty strongly at that.

I proceed from the IMO only sensible view - the social reproduction in the USSR was based on class division, consequently exploitation. I'm not sure whether it would make sense to analyse it as capitalist - but that is a secondary point (in a sense; I do think this issue is hugely important for the "deep" conceptual problematics of historical materialism). What is crucial for communists today is to highlight precisely this fact of class division.

But historically, the fall of the USSR (and other nominally socialist regimes) occured as part of a wider historical shift, which saw actual class war being triumphantly fought by the global capitalist class. The hammering, defeat after defeat, of the working classes is the context which is the most appropriate for examining the end of the USSR, and I don't think it makes sense to claim the latter as a victory of any sort (not less given the fact that brutal capitalist rerstructuring took place after it in Eastern Europe). In places like the ex-Yugoslavia, not only did the newly constituted national ruling class successfully dismantle previous forms which buttressed workers' living standards and conditions (to be clear, these weren't anything other than a particular form of the welfare state, with "self-management" sprinkled atop it for a flavor which still tastes damn good in the case of nostalgic "radical" social democrats), but it also spurred a terrible war during which the working class was bled literally and figuratively.

Ideologically, this paved way for "end of history"-like narratives which further cemented the demoralization of both workers' defeats and shifts in class relations (temp work and reorganization of production etc etc).



Any sane socialist knows that the collapse of the USSR was a unqualified disaster. It ushered in the era of neoliberalism triumphant.
No, it didn't.
The shifts in class relations and forms of accumulation that are now tidily labeled "neoliberalism" have started to take root almost a decade prior to the dissolution of nominally socialist states - in (parts of) Europe, South America and North America at least.

[motion denied]

Be honest. You're not old enough to remember the collapse of the USSR.

What? I wasn't even alive in 1991.

[Rudolf]

The real question to be asked is what happened to the living standards of the proletariat and their capability to fight for improvements? That is where you will find the answer to the OP.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, what about these former Soviet states, which separated from the USSR? For example, if they held such a referendum in the GDR in 1989, what result would you have expected? Plus, if they were serious about "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?" the outcome is hardly surprising. However, I don't think it is really that important. My point was that there is no way we could call the collapse a victory for socialism, even if it was a victory for the people.

e: "call". The word I was looking for was "call". I'm ridiculous.

I don't see what relevance is of the GDR's opinion on the Soviet Union, since they were not part of it. The people of the USA and China were probably for it too, but so what?

With the exception of the Baltic states of the USSR - Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - the majority of people actually inside the USSR's borders opposed the breakup, and this was not just true in Russia but especially true in the southern republics of the USSR - Kazakhistan, Uzbekistan, etc.