Why did the USSR fall?

[Xian]

I have this friend who told me that their people were suffering and hungry and thus weren't willing to work. I never finished the conversation (i had to go) but I was wondering why they were so poor. Why didn't USSR have any resources?

But if this is not the reason please tell me why they failed...In simple terms if you can.

And also, were their people supportive of them? Were they happier before the revolution? And why did they have dictatorships like Stalin?

Peace.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

As far as I know the people got fed up with the Dictators, and thier economy was crumbling, but it was better then than it is now, so I don't know, and many other sattalite countrys were starving

[danny android]

basically they fell because of the arms race. Their fear of the U.S. attacking them made them build more bombs and not produce enouf food or other neceities. By the time that the USSR had 1 nuclear weapon the US had over 1,000 realizing this the russians started to creating a whole bunch of nuclear weapons soon they had many more than the US. But while doing this they completly destroyed the economy all the money was being spent on the military and on fear and not enouf on the people. Atleast that is my understading.

[Led Zeppelin]

Because it did not build socialism in time.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 3 2005, 05:08 AM
Because it did not build socialism in time.
explain please, I think danny android was more correct

[Hefer]

explain please, I think danny android was more correct
Because it wasn't true socialism, Bureaucrats(Stalinists) were in power, when it clearly has to be the Porletariat(Working Class).

[anomaly]

For specific reasons, I'd agree with danny. The USSR during the fifties had an economy that was growing faster than the US economy. Their GDP was quite enough to survive upon. The problem is, as danny points out, that the Russians spent most of this on the military and in the famous arms race. Adequete food could have been given to every USSR citizen, but instead this money was spent on the military, and aid to Soviet satellites. But, on a more general level, Hefer is of course correct. Authoritarian socialism cannot work, it's a simple as that. Democratic socialism is a neccesity, one that is, of course, governed by the proletariat. Also, the idea of 'central planning' is seriously flawed. In any socialism, we must have localized planning.

Even so, Russia was decidedly better off as the USSR. One can see the wonders of the 'free market' in Russia today, and all of the former Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe.

[Hiero]

Do you forgot to mention the Class War?

The class war is central to all development, and the class war can go either ways. The revisionist got into power partly through a system that gave them easy access. The used revisionist thinking to overcome try to overcome problems.

This lead into the actually destroying of their economy.

[Led Zeppelin]

Members "anomaly" and "symtoms_of_humanity" are well versed in bourgeois history textbooks.


explain please

When socialism is built it is impossible for it to collapse, that is to go back to capitalism. Because socialism as a historical stage is one step above capitalism.

We can conclude that the USSR never achieved socialism, but was in the process of building it under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, after the revisionist takeover the USSR was no longer buidling socialism, therefore it collapsed.

Very simple actually.

(socialism should have been built before the revisionists took over)

[Xian]

Yeah he said it's hard for a Socialist country to build a military. I think that it's sad that the stupid Cold War forced them to keep their people starving...

Peace.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

I have this friend who told me that their people were suffering and hungry and thus weren't willing to work.

Remember that the Soviet Union was a stalinist country, not socialist. The people were controlled by the state - not by the people. They had to work, wheter they were hungry or not.

The reason the Soviet Union fell was very simple: they tried to do what China did - adopting a market economy (a socialist state has a planned economy, so that there is a plan to where the resources go, what to make of them, and so on - in other meaning, it is adopted into what people need, but this economy can also be used "only by the state", which was the case with the Soviet Union - and that we call state capitalism).

They failed, and China succeeded.


Were they happier before the revolution?

Those with money and power were probably very happy before the revolution. But - the revolution gave more to those who were not rich, nor had any power to do anything about the imperial situation in Russia - which was the majority of the people.

As I see it: The people were better off in Soviet Russia - because they recieved more. The people were actually never given any power during Lenin nor Stalin (which on the contrary took more power away from the people).

Ask me, I don't think the people knew much about democracy or choices - they had lived under tsarist rule for hundreds of years, so to the people Russia was ruled by another man, only with better policies.


And why did they have dictatorships like Stalin?

Soviet Russia was already a dictatorship when Stalin took power. They were on the way to socialism (although some say Lenin never intended to give the people "full rights"), a process that is slow and probably painful since they went directly from feudalism to socialism, skipping capitalism (in a way).


The USSR during the fifties had an economy that was growing faster than the US economy.

Last I heard, the Soviet Union had the largest growing economy during the shortest time in world history, acording to economists. I could be mistaken.


The problem is, as danny points out, that the Russians spent most of this on the military and in the famous arms race.

Sadly (and ironically), there is one existing example of this in the world today: North Korea. Not only is North Korea very poor on resources - they are the only ones with one of the highest spendings on military today. Thus, the reason for the startvation in North Korea.


Democratic socialism is a neccesity, one that is, of course, governed by the proletariat.

Agreed. No democracy = not a socialist system/country.


We can conclude that the USSR never achieved socialism, but was in the process of building it under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, after the revisionist takeover the USSR was no longer buidling socialism, therefore it collapsed.

I don't think Stalin built any socialism at all. Search Wikipedia for Stalin and you'll know why I think so.

China, for example, followed Stalin's example in Russia, so did North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. What they called "communism" was in fact the stalinist regime in Russia. It's easy: Stalin planted stalinism, and other leaders followed him when he died.

Later, these "communist" countries chose their own path in building what they saw as a "just system". North Korea, for example, created "juche", Kim Il Sung (or whatever Kim Jong Il's father's name was) own system. Vietnam and China adopted the market economy, but continued to be dictatorships (which they still are to this day).

The only country "close" to socialism is Cuba - and yet, it is far from it.

[Anti-establishment]

The cost of arms production crippled the Soviet economy, plus the fact that the rest of Eastern Europe showed they were against Stalinism and authoritarian governments, the USSR just followed suit.

[Xian]

Last I heard, the Soviet Union had the largest growing economy during the shortest time in world history, acording to economists.

This may sound stupid, but how did the economy grow? Were people being more efficient?

Peace.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Because Bonapartist dictatorship was made obsolete by industrialization and the growth of an independent bourgeoisie.

DUH.

:P

[Redmau5]

It fell because of Gorbachev and his treacherous policies. :angry:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:49 PM
It fell because of Gorbachev and his treacherous policies. :angry:
"Great Men" don't make history. Blaming Gorbachev is a copout. His policies reflected the necessary outcome because Bonapartist dictatorship was made obsolete by industrialization and the growth of an independent bourgeoisie.

(DUH.)

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:49 PM
It fell because of Gorbachev and his treacherous policies. :angry:
The USSR fell because a new class had developed inside the party, even reaching the highest levels of it. This development started at the Stalin-era and culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[Severian]

As Lenin said from the beginning, "Our backwardness has put us in the forefront, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries."link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/23.htm)

The only surprising thing is, how long the Soviet Union existed as an isolated country, economically and educationally very underdeveloped at the beginning. But the political power of the workers and peasants fell long before that.

Really, the Soviet Union made some impressive economic advances for its first decades - when the challenge was "brute force" development, increasing the amount of coal, steel, etc., that was mined and manufactured. What it failed to do, economically, was increase the quality of more complex manufactured products. That problem had military implications as well, as weapons became more high-tech.

And from a communist viewpoint, the USSR was a much bigger failure in other respects than economically.

Due to its isolation in the capitalist world, the defeat of revolutions in other countries, the economic backwardness and widespread illiteracy in Russia....a privileged elite arose within the party and state bureaucracy. This was evident from the very beginning, and it gained political power, and unleashed bloody repression against working people, with the rise of Stalin and his successors.

[OleMarxco]

It failed, mostly because of reasons already stated (the exhausting military-operations), yes, but ALSO because it wasn't Socialistic - For where was the righteus representatives of all professions within the government, aside from "intellectuals" symbolizing them? BAH! No wonder they were so inept at thinkin' long-range with the economy :P

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't think Stalin built any socialism at all. Search Wikipedia for Stalin and you'll know why I think so.


Wikipedia has about as much factual information on Stalin as a public library has on Marxism, zero.

[danny android]

F-Stalin.

[Deutsche Ideologie]

Simple question for any Socialist.

They adopted Capitalist principles.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 7 2005, 11:09 AM
F-Stalin.
I hear you brother, keep on trucking.

[Colombia]

The USSR failed as soon as the Bolsheviks took over complete power from the Soviets. After that, it never had any hope.

[sanpal]

deleted

[Batman]

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/c-gareth-en.html

[Samuel]

the USSR fell because it put its people down. It was a state, a large one, and a state is not socialistic (at least that is my understanding). Its people also were not happy with their lives or their government. It lost to capatalist nations because of the allure of riches. Its people would always be able to look at other nations and see that people could become rich. Because they were locked in their class, to always be under the upper percentile, the idea of being able to rise up to the top class caused a rift against government. Again, it is impossible for a socialist system to sucussfuly exist in a largly capitalist world.

[YKTMX]

Why did the USSR fall?, In simple terms...

Because decrepit empires tend to.

[Hiero]

Its people would always be able to look at other nations and see that people could become rich.

During the 30's workers in the capitalist countires were looking at the USSR as an alternative. This was because workers had more rights and benifits then workers in the capitalist nations.

While workers in capitalist nations were feeling the depresion, the USSR was growing, and with that worker benifits.

[Samuel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:46 AM
While workers in capitalist nations were feeling the depresion, the USSR was growing, and with that worker benifits.
True True

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Hefer+Jul 3 2005, 05:58 AM--> (Hefer @ Jul 3 2005, 05:58 AM) Because it wasn't true socialism, Bureaucrats(Stalinists) were in power, when it clearly has to be the Porletariat(Working Class). [/b]
So what? Non-socialist systems can last a long, long time. The United States has been non-socialist for its entire existence, longer then the USSR existed, but it hasn't collapsed. Feudal kingdoms have been known to last for millenia. Just because something is non-socialist doesn't mean it has to fall 75 years after it's created. The USSR broke up because of inter-imperialist conflict, as others have said. That includes the war in Afghanistan in addition to the arms race.


Originally posted by "Xian"@
This may sound stupid, but how did the economy grow? Were people being more efficient?

When the revolution happened Russia was mostly an agrarian society. They didn't have very many factories or other modern economic things. Most people were peasants who lived in villages and farmed their own little plots of land. The Tsars had tried to change this over the past half-century (because the lack of a modern economy caused Russia to lose wars) but was only partially sucessfull. Under Stalin, Russia's economy was rapidly transformed from an agrarian one into an industrial one. They quickly built lots of factories, mines, etc. Peasants were forced off their land and into cities or agricultural collectives. In cities they became workers and were employed in factories or other industrial workplaces. Agricultural collectives used more modern farming techniques. Lots of people starved to death in part because they were putting so much into growing the economy that they didn't put much into taking care of their own people. Of course, the bureaucrats weren't the ones who starved to death - it was the common people who paid the cost of Russia's rapid industrialization. Starvation can also be a useful tool to motivate people to work harder: do as your boss says and work really hard or you may denied enough food to eat! Outright forced labor was also used. Russia transformed its economy from an agricultural one to an industrial one faster than any other country in history. It took the US over 50 years to do the same thing.


"Lenin i Stalin"
The USSR fell because a new class had developed inside the party, even reaching the highest levels of it.

Why should that cause the Soviet empire to collapse? Wouldn't the new class want to maintain its empire?

[Bolshevist]

Because full-scale capitalism would provide more profits to them. its no suprise that most of the rich people in Russia today was serving a high-position job in the former USSR.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:47 PM
So what? Non-socialist systems can last a long, long time. The United States has been non-socialist for its entire existence, longer then the USSR existed, but it hasn't collapsed. Feudal kingdoms have been known to last for millenia. Just because something is non-socialist doesn't mean it has to fall 75 years after it's created.
It wasn't capitalist or feudal either. It didn't represent a stable stage in social evolution or a new ruling class in a historic sense. The bureaucratic caste was a cancer, not an organ, in the social body.

As Lenin said, either forward to socialism together with the world revolution, or back to capitalism. The bureaucratized postcapitalist regimes was (and are) inherently unstable and brittle.

Partly because the bureaucracy didn't own property, and so couldn't provide support to their government in the way a capitalist or feudal class, with their property and income, can provide support to a government which serves their interests.

The idea that the USSR was capitalist, whether put forward by Maoists or by "state capitalist" pseudo-Trotskyists, doesn't hold up. It didn't walk, swim, or quack like a capitalist state. It had its own characteristics.

The idea that it represented a new social stage, often called "bureaucratic collectivism" was more defensible...though less often held by far-leftists because this theory leads to political conclusions that take its adherents towards social-democratic or even rightist conclusions. Look up James Burnham and Max Schachtman if you want examples.

The "bureaucratic collectivist" theory was definitively disproven only by the collapse of the USSR; the heyday of the bureaucratic caste lasted only decades, a blip in the long view of history.

[Lord Testicles]

It started the revolution too early. A revolution should start after a country has industrialized. But Stalin didnt help at all i think the USSR would have done a lot better without him maybe it would have survived under Trotsky but i also agree with Colombia

The USSR failed as soon as the Bolsheviks took over complete power from the Soviets. After that, it never had any hope.
it wasnt exacly a socalist thing to do

[comradesteele]

i don't know how much relavence this has but in the USA there were more cases of extreme poverty than in the USSR

[Topcat]

The USSR fell because it showed that Communism couldn't work.

I don't doubt Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were communists, but like in most occasions Power corrupts.

[Black Dagger]

The USSR fell because it showed that Communism couldn't work.

That statement makes no sense.

[Malone]

F-Stalin.

Nice post, Rambo.

I would suggest that the reason the USSR (like all other third world-based revolutions in the last century) failed is because of the revolution occuring in a feudal, non-industrialized nation, the massive threat of imperialism from the US and other capitalist nations, the enormous war fought against every third world revolution, and the faults of the rise of revisionism and contradictions in the various communist parties in the nations.


QUOTE
The USSR fell because it showed that Communism couldn't work.


That's a little simplistic, isn't it now?

[tondraal]

In my opinion, the Ussr was exploted by the leaders who had no will to help the masses, but to exploit them and build profit on them.

[danny android]

Not to mention the one party system, and the fact that being a member of the party had to be rewarded to you. I feel very limited here in Amerika with a two pary system that we ahve. There is hardly any difference between the parties they do almost exactly the same thing they just say things that are different, they are both capitolist parties, netiher of them support the working class it is disqusting. I can't even imagine what it was like in russia when you had to be a part of the "communist" party or just not be politically active at all.

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.

[Redvolution]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 10 2005, 04:30 PM
In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.
Well said.

I hate it when I'm talking to people about Socialism or Capitalism and they automatically assume that:

A) I love and/or worship Josef Stalin

B) Communism goes along with totalitarianism/authoritarianism...argh.

So again, well said!

[Led Zeppelin]

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.


Wrong.

The state is supposed to "wither away" after the world revolution, when the first phase of Communism is achieved.

[dietrite]

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.

No such thing as a "communist state", centralization was called for by most, if not all, leading Marxists in times of increasing imperial and internal problems and threat--without this, you would have a lot of disruption, subversion, revisionism, and general disarray of the socialist state...and I suspect a quickly failed attempt.

[danny android]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 10:54 PM

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.


Wrong.

The state is supposed to "wither away" after the world revolution, when the first phase of Communism is achieved.
Toltalitarianism is still counter-revolutionary.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 04:54 PM

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.


Wrong.

The state is supposed to "wither away" after the world revolution, when the first phase of Communism is achieved.
But the USSR (and PRC, etc.) claimed they had reached "the first phase of communism."

Also known as socialism.

Terminology aside, the USSR claimed that class divisions and inequality had been reduced, and that the only remaining classes were workers, peasants and "intelligentsia" who had no cause for conflict. If that was true, it'd be hard to explain why the repressive machinery of state would greatly expand, become more brutal, etc., instead of beginning to shrink.

But of course it wasn't true; deep class divisions remained.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 11 2005, 04:30 AM--> (Severian @ Jul 11 2005, 04:30 AM)
Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 04:54 PM

In a communist state the government is supposed to slowly dwindle away. In the USSR the government did the exact opposite of this and became more centralized, more toltalitarian and more opressive in all aspects. They were not building communism they were building a despotism.


Wrong.

The state is supposed to "wither away" after the world revolution, when the first phase of Communism is achieved.
But the USSR (and PRC, etc.) claimed they had reached "the first phase of communism."

Also known as socialism.

Terminology aside, the USSR claimed that class divisions and inequality had been reduced, and that the only remaining classes were workers, peasants and "intelligentsia" who had no cause for conflict. If that was true, it'd be hard to explain why the repressive machinery of state would greatly expand, become more brutal, etc., instead of beginning to shrink.

But of course it wasn't true; deep class divisions remained. [/b]
Severian, it's not quite that simple -- in terms of the terminology, I mean. From my dealings with both people from the "official" Communist parties, the Maoists and Hoxhaists, which often are all lumped together in the "Stalinist" category, I've found that they have a different definition of "socialism" than Trotskyists.

For some, mainly in the Maoist camp, "socialism" is more or less synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the "second phase" of the "D-of-the-P". For the "officials", "socialism" is a stage in between the proletarian dictatorship and the lower phase of communism -- some will even argue that it is a completely separate mode of production from both capitalism and communism. (The Hoxhaists are a little more cagey about this.) On the other hand, Trotskyists see "socialism" as synonymous with the lower phase of communism.

(All of this adds a whole new dimension to the "socialism in one country" argument, does it not?)

Say what you will about these views (and I am sure you can say a lot, as can I), but it helps to know exactly what your opponents are saying before criticizing them.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:06 AM
On the other hand, Trotskyists see "socialism" as synonymous with the lower phase of communism.
So did Lenin, and all these people claim to be Leninists. The rest is basically terminological redefinition to excuse the claim to have built socialism in one country.

But there's a reason I said "terminology aside": my post from then on stands regardless of how one defines the terminology.

[Martin Blank]

The ultimate collapse of the USSR was an inevitability from 1931 on, in my view. This was because the class in power (the petty bourgeoisie) would either have to be overthrown by a victorious proletariat, or it would begin to emerge as a full-fledged bourgeoisie and take its place in the international capitalist order.

How it got to that point I discussed in an article for the last (Spring) issue of Workers' Republic, the League's political journal. It's available on our website (http://www.communistleague.org/).

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 11 2005, 05:11 AM--> (Severian @ Jul 11 2005, 05:11 AM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 03:06 AM
On the other hand, Trotskyists see "socialism" as synonymous with the lower phase of communism.
So did Lenin, and all these people claim to be Leninists. The rest is basically terminological redefinition to excuse the claim to have built socialism in one country.

But there's a reason I said "terminology aside": my post from then on stands regardless of how one defines the terminology. [/b]
I'm aware of what Lenin believed. I'm also aware that Lenin, at various times, used the term "socialism" in different ways ... which is where some of the mess over the understanding of the term "socialism in one country" comes from.

At different times, in different writings, Lenin used the term "socialism" to describe the proletarian revolution, the proletarian dictatorship (in the 1915 "On the Slogan of a United States of Europe"), the lower phase of communism (in The State and Revolution) and everything in between. This was a common habit among all socialists of the day, and among socialists throughout the 19th century. This is why Marx and Engels called theirs a communist movement; they saw the term "socialism" as a catch-all, meaning different things to different people.

Miles

[Led Zeppelin]

But the USSR (and PRC, etc.) claimed they had reached "the first phase of communism."


Source? (I don't care about the "PRC", i never said they were socialist)

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 11 2005, 07:07 AM

But the USSR (and PRC, etc.) claimed they had reached "the first phase of communism."


Source? (I don't care about the "PRC", i never said they were socialist)
I think that what Severian was saying is that they claimed to achieve "socialism", which, as I pointed out above (and Severian confirmed), he sees as synonymous with "the lower phase of communism".

Perhaps it would be more educational if you gave us your definition of what is socialism.

Miles

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:31 AM
This was a common habit among all socialists of the day, and among socialists throughout the 19th century. This is why Marx and Engels called theirs a communist movement; they saw the term "socialism" as a catch-all, meaning different things to different people.

Miles
It's so but not only. They saw the different economic ways of reproduction of consumer goods. Any socialism (from bourgeois s. to proletarian one) keeps capitalist way of reproduction (in proletarian as stains) vs. communism founded on communist relations (non-market economic system). Marx and Engels especially emphasize not to confuse this two different ways of reproduction.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that what Severian was saying is that they claimed to achieve "socialism", which, as I pointed out above (and Severian confirmed), he sees as synonymous with "the lower phase of communism".


I know, but where did Stalin say that the USSR had achieved socialism?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 11 2005, 08:50 PM
I know, but where did Stalin say that the USSR had achieved socialism?
You may want to read through Stalin's speech to the XVIII Congress of the CPSU for his own words. (I am not near my library at the moment, so I cannot cite chaper-and-verse.) I can also offer secondary documentation that can safely be said to have been done under his direction.

Article 1 of the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, for example, says: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants." In comparison, Article 1 of the 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR says: "Russia is hereby proclaimed a Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power, centrally and locally, is vested in these Soviets."

Among the documents of the VII Congress of the Communist International is a resolution celebrating "the final and irrevocable triumph of socialism ... in the Soviet Union."

Miles

[Severian]

I'm far from an expert on the works of Stalin, but Dialectical and Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm) is one of his better-known works, right?


The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system, which so far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely cooperation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces; for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production.

Terminological disputes aside, he paints a picture of minimal internal class division.

Similarly: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)
Chapter 4:
Today, the physical workers and the managerial personnel are not enemies, but comrades and friends, members of a single collective body of producers who are vitally interested in the progress and improvement of production. Not a trace remains of the former enmity between them

Why the internal repressive machinery would grow so much, if this description was true....

My earlier description of Soviet claims was based on something similar I once read in a Soviet encyclopedia from the 1980s or so.

[Led Zeppelin]

You may want to read through Stalin's speech to the XVIII Congress of the CPSU for his own words. (I am not near my library at the moment, so I cannot cite chaper-and-verse.) I can also offer secondary documentation that can safely be said to have been done under his direction.

Article 1 of the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, for example, says: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants." In comparison, Article 1 of the 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR says: "Russia is hereby proclaimed a Republic of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. All power, centrally and locally, is vested in these Soviets."

Among the documents of the VII Congress of the Communist International is a resolution celebrating "the final and irrevocable triumph of socialism ... in the Soviet Union."

Miles


Stalin called the USSR socialist because it was building socialism, he did not say "the USSR has achieved socialism, we need not worry anymore". Lenin also called the USSR socialist, what is your point?


Terminological disputes aside, he paints a picture of minimal internal class division.


No he doesn't.


Why the internal repressive machinery would grow so much, if this description was true....


What are you talking about "grow"? Do you have evidence of the state machinery growing from 1940 onwards?


My earlier description of Soviet claims was based on something similar I once read in a Soviet encyclopedia from the 1980s or so.

Emphasize added, the USSR had been revisionist for over 25 years by that time.

Here is what Stalin really thought about Socialism in the USSR:

"Reference is made to the specific role of Soviet government in building socialism, which allegedly enables it to abolish existing laws of economic development and to "form" new ones. That also is untrue." Stalin, Economic problems of socialism in the USSR

Terminology is key.

When Stalin says things like "under Socialism" he is indeed calling the USSR socialist, he calls it socialist in the sense that it is building socialism, not that it has achieved socialism. You have yet to prove that Stalin ever said that the USSR had built socialism.

Of course the economy was socialized and therefore socialist.

[Yazman]

The demise of the USSR was largely political, especially if you look at the actions of Yeltsin etc. in removing the power base there was. Referendums around the time showed that a majority (70-80 percent I believe) wanted the USSR to continue.

WITH THAT SAID, the USSR was definitely not an example of communism, and may not even be an example of socialism.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:27 AM

WITH THAT SAID, the USSR was definitely not an example of communism, and may not even be an example of socialism.
yes especially concidering that it didn't destroy the class system and was not ruled by the proletrait. Insted it mearly replaced the ruling borgeuasie class with party memebers, and the proles with non-partymemebers. There for not even a socialist nation but instead some kind of a twisted oligarchy/dictatorship.

[Entrails Konfetti]

That terminology stuff is really iritating me.

There will be a D of the P,no matter what. The question should be more about ,"how do we keep the won revolution democratic ?" You can argue all you want to about the degrees on socialism,it won't do any good.The state will wither away when it is ready to.But,it can't wither away on its own, practices have to be set up so that it will.

About the collapse of the U.S.S.R, we all know the economy could be considered socialist. However the politics of it truly weren't.
I can draw a few conclusions:

1 .The people weren't that knowledgeable on democractic ideas.They were used to being ruled.A Russian guy I talked to said,"Russias culture was totally lost after the revolutions."

2. Though the economy was large at one point,Stalin or the revisionists(depending on who you ask) were selling most of the countries resources and commodities,so there wasn't enough resources for the workers.

3. Revolutions in other countries failed,so there were fewer trade partners.

4. Theres the factor on the spending of the arms race,most of the economy went into defense,which exhausted the resouces.So many starved.

There are many conclusions that can be drawn.None of them have anything to do with the idea that Socialism doesn't work,they have more to do with the idea that the USSRs framework didn't work.