Fall of the USSR

[EMS]

According to Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, when the ruling class can no longer contribute to the progress of society, they will be eliminated and replaced. The revolution in 1917 removed the inefficiency of the bourgeois. However the inefficiency of the bourgeois was only replaced by that of the proletariat, and the committed few(about 10% of the population) kept the economy going and growing. Now the proletariat were the fetters on production, and they were replaced by the bourgeois(the CPSU) around 1973 when the public domain laws were repealed.

[Rage Against the Right]

Interesting.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marx
Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate.

The italics are Marx's; the bold is my emphasis.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kaan]

Russia was semi-feudal before the revolution, the Bourgeoisie were not the ruling class yet, the objective conditions for revolution were not there, thats why the USSR fell, not because 90% of the population wasn't into socialism or anything.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:57 PM
Russia was semi-feudal before the revolution, the Bourgeoisie were not the ruling class yet, the objective conditions for revolution were not there, thats why the USSR fell, not because 90% of the population wasn't into socialism or anything.
You are not quite right. The main cause is economic one which was quite understandably described in Engels' work "Anti-Duhring". Economy must be either market (capitalist or socialist) or nonmarket (communist). All attempts to give unusual function to real money namely to be a real money and also to be a simple labour calculation (market which is nonmarket simultaneously) are doomed to fail. It was predicted by Marx and Engels long before the USSR.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:50 AM
According to Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, when the ruling class can no longer contribute to the progress of society, they will be eliminated and replaced.....
Now the proletariat were the fetters on production, and they were replaced by the bourgeois(the CPSU) around 1973 when the public domain laws were repealed.
That's right. The ruling class proclaimed equality and bla-bla-bla.......a lot of things. But at the same time they were a pretty definite bourgeoisie.
Ordinary people felt like they were shit or smth like this. That's why, I believe, none of my relatives that lived in the Soviet times don't want back inspite of all good things that existed there. Except my granpa, but he was the colonel of the Soviet Army, ha-ha-ha...........

[apathy maybe]

Interesting how the rise of a state like the USSR was predicted by Anarchists. Bakunin wrote of how a new ruling class would emerge, and it was so.

We must always oppose the centralisation of power into the hands of a few. They may think that they are doing what is right, but in many cases may not be.

[encephalon]

Interesting how the rise of a state like the USSR was predicted by Anarchists. Bakunin...

It was predicted by Marx as well, but for different reasons. That makes neither of them justifiably right or wrong in their reasoning.

[Salvador Allende]

The USSR had been moving towards destruction ever since 1956. Khruschev's abandonment of Marxism-Leninism and the reintroduction of exploitation in the USSR showed fundamental flaws in Socialist construction and the fall of the USSR and it's lackeys showed some key flaws in Marxism-Leninism and it's application. Socialism must be applied in a way to ensure the creativity, independance and consciousness. While Marxism-Leninism did provide a good scientific analysis proving why the bourgeois would be overthrown and also provided good steps for revolution, it never provided any formula for the main phase of Socialism, this led to many errors and the revisionism and dogma of the Socialist world from 1956-1992. The surviving two Socialist states have managed to apply Socialism in a way that ensures the creativity, independance and consciousness of it's people and are focused on ideological teachings. It is no coincidence that only Cuba and Korea have remained, they have applied Socialism to their countries and have not applied it dogmatically or sacrificed revolutionary principles.

[redstar2000]

I think it would be more accurate to describe Cuba as a "mixed economy" with a large and growing private sector dominated by multi-national hotel corporations.

In the case of North Korea, the phrase I would use is "Confucianist Despotism"...I don't see anything "socialist" about it at all -- unless you want to argue that Imperial China was "socialist" because the government had a monopoly on salt and tea.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

In the case of North Korea, the phrase I would use is "Confucianist Despotism"...I don't see anything "socialist" about it at all -- unless you want to argue that Imperial China was "socialist" because the government had a monopoly on salt and tea.


Connolly made a similar comment on Fabian socialists who argued that socialism = state ownership. If that were so, Brittania would've been the most socialist on the planet. :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:50 PM
According to Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, when the ruling class can no longer contribute to the progress of society, they will be eliminated and replaced. The revolution in 1917 removed the inefficiency of the bourgeois. However the inefficiency of the bourgeois was only replaced by that of the proletariat, and the committed few(about 10% of the population) kept the economy going and growing. Now the proletariat were the fetters on production, and they were replaced by the bourgeois(the CPSU) around 1973 when the public domain laws were repealed.
That's self-contradictory: if Marx's theory predicts the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, and that happened in 1973 not 1991, how did Marx's theory predict the fall of the USSR?

I've got a better prediction for the fall of the USSR: "As long as capitalism and socialism exist we cannot live in peace; in the end, one or the other will triumph--a funeral dirge will be sung over either the Soviet Republics or over world capitalism." Lenin.