Soviet Union's collapse

[WUOrevolt]

In Noam Chomsky's book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, there is a chapter entitled: Socialism, Real and Fake. In this chapter he states that anyone can debate as to what socialism really, but, if socialism means anything it means the control of the means of production by the workers themselves. So therfore one can argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism, as socialism did arise during the russian revolution, but once Lenin took power, and his creation of a labor army (which was criticized by Trotsky and Emma Goldman), Socialism was destroyed and continued to be destroyed through the whole history of the Soviet Union, leaving it to become a degenerated workers state, practicing state capitalism.

So what are your thoughts?

[vladimirm]

Lenin stated that freedom cannpot exist whilst the state does, this istrue. The whole point of a communist state is to amke it a temporary one. Once the capitalistsare defeated adn the world made ready the state has a duty ot stand aside adn create teh true socialist paradise

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:43 AM
Lenin stated that freedom cannpot exist whilst the state does, this istrue. The whole point of a communist state is to amke it a temporary one. Once the capitalistsare defeated adn the world made ready the state has a duty ot stand aside adn create teh true socialist paradise
But it really seems that the Soviet leaders were more interested in becoming a superpower in competition with the U.S. and holding onto their power, than doing anything to create the true socialist paradise.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm see once true communism is achieved and there is no state, what happens to criminals? if there is no state then there is no one to prosecute them is there? also every freedom u can throw at a man even communist paradise isnt going to stop people raping and murdering people

[DisIllusion]

hmm see once true communism is achieved and there is no state, what happens to criminals? if there is no state then there is no one to prosecute them is there? also every freedom u can throw at a man even communist paradise isnt going to stop people raping and murdering people

That is a typical anti-anarchist arguement. Marx did believe that free communism would eventually lead into anarchy and voluntary self-rule. But then again, he and Che did also believe that true communism and it's end results would probably be for a more advanced society and kind of human beings. One who cares more about the common good than themselves. But you can go on and on about this, so just ask any anarchist.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes i do also believe society would greatly benefit this and also the majorty of man, but what happens with the odd 5% of people who r raping and murdering? would there be peoples jails? peoples court? or would that be seen as a so called '2nd state' ? but would this mean the '2nd state' would rule out the name of communist paradise becoz there is another athority figure? or would it still been seen as 'communist paradise' becoz it is in workings mans control?
lol hope u understand wht i mean

[DisIllusion]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I too, believe that anarchism is a little too utopian. Communism might be possible with our current human mindset, but volutary self-rule seems a little out of the picture. There will always be that 5% of people who fuck things up to better themselves, even in socialist/communist countries. So I don't blame you for not believing in anarchy, the utopian idea.

[ReD_ReBeL]

cool thanks for being understanding ive noticed other people on this site going crazy at people for thm doubting anarchism etc etc, yes Utopia in my eyes is very not possible becoz people are built to think for themselves and there are always going to be ppl who reject this so called 'utopia' in favour for there own ideas and beliefs.

[Punk Rocker]

Even Stalinists agree the USSR had totally screwed over socialism by the time it collapsed.

Still the collapse was more of a victory for capitalism than it was for socialism.

Take Uzbekistan, it used to be part of the USSR. Now it's ruled by a Bush-funded dictatorship that massacres protestors with machine guns and tortures muslims by boiling them alive. That is some messed up shit.

[WUOrevolt]

Well a friend of mine said that state capitalism, like the USSR, is even more dangerous than free market capitalism.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:16 AM
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I too, believe that anarchism is a little too utopian. Communism might be possible with our current human mindset, but volutary self-rule seems a little out of the picture. There will always be that 5% of people who fuck things up to better themselves, even in socialist/communist countries. So I don't blame you for not believing in anarchy, the utopian idea.
Need I remind you that anarchism and communism end up in the same place.

[Paradox]

Even Stalinists agree the USSR had totally screwed over socialism by the time it collapsed.

Even? They blame it on the revisionists that took over after Stalin's death. I say it never collapsed (though others say socialism existed for a brief period before the bolsheviks took over) because it never existed.


Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I too, believe that anarchism is a little too utopian. Communism might be possible with our current human mindset, but volutary self-rule seems a little out of the picture.

Check Makaveli_05's post for my response to this.


The whole point of a communist state is to amke it a temporary one.

There is no state in communist society.


Well a friend of mine said that state capitalism, like the USSR, is even more dangerous than free market capitalism.

That, I think, is a tricky question. Lenin himself advocated a period of state capitalism in order to reach a stage where a transition to socialism could take place. The industrialization came rapidly, though at the cost of many, many lives, under Stalin. I think Stalinism is dictatorial crap, but during that period Russia became a superpower. So the question is, does state capitalism develop a nation more rapidly than if that nation were subject to imperialist control and free market capitalism? Of course, state capitalism could be done without the harsh dictatorship of Stalinism. I see Venezuela as a positive example.

[khalam_1232000]

yes, but really u have to have a state until the entire world has a revolution, so really any communist nation, is going to have to stay in tact for some time, and they must help other revolutions

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:22 AM
yes, but really u have to have a state until the entire world has a revolution, so really any communist nation, is going to have to stay in tact for some time, and they must help other revolutions
You haven't reached communism until society is stateless (and classless, moneyless, etc., of course), hence there is no such thing as a "communist state." But yes internationalism is a key factor in reaching that stage.

[viva le revolution]

I can't help but comment on the first post:
Lenin did not argue for the militarization of labour, it was Trotsky. Get your facts straight.

[Punk Rocker]

Lenin did not argue for the militarization of labour

Lenin lead a worker revolution. That's "militarization of labour" for you.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Going back to what the original post was about, I think the collapse of the USSR was definitely a defeat for socialism rather than a victory.

Here is a quote from Michael Parenti's book "Blackshirts and Reds":

'According to Noam Chomsky, communism 'was a monstrosity' and 'the collapse of tyranny' in Eastern Europe and Russia is 'an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity'. I treasure freedom and human dignity' yet find no occasion for rejoicing. The postcommunist societies do not represent a net gain for shuch values. If anything, the breakup of the communist states has brought a colossal victory for global capitalism and imperisalism, with its correlative increase in human misery, and a historic setback for revolutionary liberation struggles everywhere. There will be harder times ahead even mor modestly reformist nationalist governments, as the fate of Panama and Iraq have indicated. The breakup also means a net loss of global pluralism and a more intensive socio-economic inequality throughout the world'
The peoples of Eastern Europe believed they were going to keep all the social gains they had enjoyed under communism while adding on all the consumerism of the West. Many of their grievances about existing socialism were justifieed, but their romanticized image of the capitalist West was not. They had to learn the hard way. Expecting to advance from Second World to First World status, they have been rammed down into the Third World, ending up like capitalist Indonesia, Mexico, Zaire and Turkey. They wanted it all and have been left with nothing'

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27 2005, 09:19 PM
Going back to what the original post was about, I think the collapse of the USSR was definitely a defeat for socialism rather than a victory.

Here is a quote from Michael Parenti's book "Blackshirts and Reds":

'According to Noam Chomsky, communism 'was a monstrosity' and 'the collapse of tyranny' in Eastern Europe and Russia is 'an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity'. I treasure freedom and human dignity' yet find no occasion for rejoicing. The postcommunist societies do not represent a net gain for shuch values. If anything, the breakup of the communist states has brought a colossal victory for global capitalism and imperisalism, with its correlative increase in human misery, and a historic setback for revolutionary liberation struggles everywhere. There will be harder times ahead even mor modestly reformist nationalist governments, as the fate of Panama and Iraq have indicated. The breakup also means a net loss of global pluralism and a more intensive socio-economic inequality throughout the world'
The peoples of Eastern Europe believed they were going to keep all the social gains they had enjoyed under communism while adding on all the consumerism of the West. Many of their grievances about existing socialism were justifieed, but their romanticized image of the capitalist West was not. They had to learn the hard way. Expecting to advance from Second World to First World status, they have been rammed down into the Third World, ending up like capitalist Indonesia, Mexico, Zaire and Turkey. They wanted it all and have been left with nothing'
There were communists who joined non communists to fight the USSR in the middle east becuase they felt that the USSR using the title of socialist was a disgrace to the name of socialism, as my best friend who was born there says, so therfore I would have to say that it was more of a victory for socialism, although the fate of the people there has not improved much, if at all(with the exceptions of those who are no longer in the gulags).

[refuse_resist]

The fall of the Soviet Union, as Fidel Castro put it, was the greatest set back to the workers struggle in history.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 27 2005, 06:51 AM


Lenin lead a worker revolution. That's "militarization of labour" for you.
So in the light of your original post, any revolution is bad because of 'militarization of labour'.
Coming back to logic, a revolution is an uprising of the masses through either mass action or armed struggle. Militarization of labour is organizing labour in factories along military lines and introducing dicipline into the workplace. This was proposed not by lenin but by Trotsky. and opposed by Lenin and Stalin.

[Xiao Banfa]

The fall of the Soviet Union was a reality check. It was a stupid bankrupt system- it wasn't actually socialism (after Stalin died anyway.)
And when Stalin was alive the socialism was ruined by the opressive aspects of the regime.
The USSR encouraged the socialist camp to depend on it. Now it's obvious who ones friends and enemies are.
Also Gorbachev was a capitulationist traitor who needs to be drawn and quartered.

[Led Zeppelin]

The fall of the USSR was a "good thing" not a "bad thing", do you people even realize that the USSR was just another (social) imperialist superpower?

Of course I rather wanted the US to go down, but it wouldn't have made a difference, we would have been fighting the revisionists today instead of the US.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:37 AM
The fall of the Soviet Union, as Fidel Castro put it, was the greatest set back to the workers struggle in history.
He would say that, after all he lost one his main pay masters.

The collapse was not a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

It was a step sideways - from state to private capitalism.

For socialists of this generation, it was probably useful. We don't have to deal with endless debates over the nature of the Soviet Union - it's been answered. The system was fatally flawed. It wasn't socialist (or the workers would have defended it).

The new market systems of Eastern Europe have been a disaster for the people. That particular 'experiment' in capitalism has proven an unmitigated catastrophe.

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually I said it was a good thing.

And I say that because it was a social-imperialist superpower.

[YKTMX]

Sorry about that, misread.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There were communists who joined non communists to fight the USSR in the middle east becuase they felt that the USSR using the title of socialist was a disgrace to the name of socialism, as my best friend who was born there says, so therfore I would have to say that it was more of a victory for socialism, although the fate of the people there has not improved much, if at all(with the exceptions of those who are no longer in the gulags).

Are you kidding? The people in the former Soviet Bloc are much worse off now under capitalism -- even by the capitalists own admission!

And those "communists" who fought along side the reactionary, US-funded mujahideen in Afghanistan should be real proud of themselves: together they managed to destroy the most progressive social system that country ever had..

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think that the collapse of the USSR (as we are begining to see now) will in retrospect be seen as a short-term victory for capitalism, but in the long-run be much better for workers movements.

When the USSR collapsed, capitalists were quick to hail "the end of history" and the "end of -isms" and quickly set about gutting social programs in the Americas and Europe and so on. But now we are beginning to see the reimergence of social struggle in many countries. THese movements are in their infancy and are trying to grapple with how to change society in new ways.

But the end of USSR sytle "socialism" means that there is a better chance for workers and revolutionaries to return to the roots of socialism and fight for democratic worker's power from the bottom rather than Stalinism or Maoism because it is a "practical" alternative.

[ReD_ReBeL]

was a good thing and bad, bad as in it was a victory for capitalism, but good becoz it brought an end to them Authoritarian retrictive twats who call thmselfs communists, only good leaders in the Soviets where Lenin and Gorbachev, the rest where complete murderious wanks

[rebelworker]

Two thoughts, firstlyto anarchist utopians...

Anarchist are always called this, if a stateless equal society is what we are all working for then we baeeter come up with some hard answers.

The reality is that human behavor is influenced by many factors, not just economics.
Anyone who limits revolution to economics is no revolutionary, just a social science student....

Liberation includes all forms of opression, racism, patrichy, conservative moral values around sexuality(and union ect...). My point is that for freedom we need a stateless society, but we also need a better society. Anarchists are some of the only people I have met who on aday to day level in mass numbers(we are talking about tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in north america alone) who are trying to deal with the real problems of Sexual assault, Violence, mens domination of women ect...

It is unfortunate that most of these people(mostly punx and zine readers) stop there. But the reality is that most of the poor and working clas people i know are dealing with these things in their lives to one degree or another. How? through models of personal empowerment and comunity dialogue.

These will be the trademarks of a functioning stateless society, not new names for police....

As for the soviet Union, of course it was a victory, the soviet Union had nothing to do with a workable solution to capitalism, at best it was a short term economy builder that lead to alienation and opression of russian workers and an international misstep for communists.

The soviet union, althought a brief(in historical terms) bost for the confidence of the working class movemnt ,it eventually has lead to a mass dissatisfaction with communism. read the letters section of the comunist party newspaper from the 1930's. its ful of letters from dissatisfied workers who are questioning the centralised and authoritarian style of leadership. In Norht America communism has dissaperaed as a working class movement because of this failure of the promise of the Socialsit paradise of the soviet union and the fucked up leadership style it spawned.

In the seventies quebec had a rebirth of maoism(not just a few student bombers, 10's of thousands of workers) because of the struggle against english shovanism and political domination by the Catholic church. That movemnt has totally dissapeared because so many people got dissalusioned with the way they were lied to. I have a friend who rememebrs the first time she saw her father crying when he realsied that cuba wasnt a real workers paradise.

The same failures in the Black Panthers has lead to most ex members becoming religeous Nationalist, or a few handful, mostly in prison, turning towards antiauthoritarian revolutionary politics(see Lorenzo Kamboa, Kwasi Balagoon, Ashanti Alston and the Black Dragon Collective to name a few examples).lMass Revolutionary Communist Parties only still exist where conditions are so bad that anything would be better and even in thoes places they are stagnant or becoming less popular.

The only way communism will be re established in the working class in most contries is if we bring it back to what it used to mean before the perversion of lenninism(how come Trotsky and the Left alternative were not defended by the mass of workers against Stalinism, because the workers already hated the Bolshevik beurocractic dictators).

Communism is about the liberation of opressed people, workers liberating themselves, women liberating themselves, people of color liberating themselves, gay people liberating themselves.

Not about building a new class of political managers to decide whats good for us.

Fuck the soviet union! Fuck maos China! Cuba will only be a real sucess if people at the grassroots continue to take controll of their workplaces and communities(without Fidel or his brother seting the limits of debate).

For arevolutionary internationalsit workers movement
rebelworker

[Martyr]

I'am glad the ussr is finished

[ReD_ReBeL]

Martyr was communist country did ur father live?

[Martyr]

Poland before you say anyhting my dads life was threatend by the secret police because my dad went to church and my mom lived through poverty because she also live in poland and russia.

[YKTMX]

Are you kidding? The people in the former Soviet Bloc are much worse off now under capitalism -- even by the capitalists own admission!


But that isn't an argument for Stalinism. It's a argument against the rampant free market, though.

[Xiao Banfa]

The USSR was an artificial bubble which gave the progressive forces of the world a false sense of security.
Gorbachev was a capitulationist failure who ruined it even further.
I think about the time Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan was when things started to go really wrong.

However there is one objective historical fact- the USSR and the so called "peoples' democracies" had an objectively positive influence on the world situation.

Think of all the heroic African progressive guerilla groups' who were attempting to liberate their super-exploited countries with soviet aid.

I'm sorry but the anti-USSR slander is exactly the kind of bullshit that comes from 15 year old anarchist punk kids who have know not a clue about pragmatism.

Try reading something else rather than shitty photocopies of 3rd rate anarchist pamphlets with one-liners about how the Soviet Union was "authoritarian"

Try fighting the US with fucking "workshops" and "networks". Where are the anarchists groups when the 3rd world is trying to kick out imperialists?

They have not so far made a contribution.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrade Tino Rangatiratanga - I agree with you. Anarchist and left anticommunist groups keep slagging of this or that revolution or system because the leaders are too decisive or indecisive, too authoritarian or not authoritarian enough, but they always seem to support every revolutionary movement except the ones that actually work and improve people's lives.

[norwegian commie]

good leaders in the Soviets where Lenin and Gorbachev
thats just stupid! Gorbachev was nothing but a puppet and his "reforms" led to the fall of sovjet leaving noyhing but a capitalist superower, the US.

he was nothing but a whore of the cappies and a traitor of the people.
his rule eventualy led to several millions of deaths and a fucked up country.
people starving, suffering from diseases, alkoholism, and the mob terrorising them.

To compare him with a man like Lenin, is nonsense.
hell. look at the posts about gorbachev, you can even find a commercial with him, Pizza hut. its discusting.

[YKTMX]

Think of all the heroic African progressive guerilla groups' who were attempting to liberate their super-exploited countries with soviet aid.



What about all the Poles, Czechs, Hungarian, Afghans etc. etc. trying to 'liberate themselves' from Soviet oppression?

Where does the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring fit into their heroic 'anti-imperialist struggle'?

[viva le revolution]

The Prague springs movement was the brainchild of a few bourgeois intellectuals with heavy nationalist overtones. It used the cover of cultureal movement to reintroduce capitalism. Whether the Soviets were right or not in sending tanks into the country can be debated since it directly contravened the line of the the marxist-leninsits regarding national questions, summarized in comrade Stalin's 'marxism and the national question'. but the assertions proved true when after the soviets left, the country reverted to full-blown capitalism. Defending prague springs means assuming the position that the movement was supported the majority of the working class, which it was clearly not.

[YKTMX]

The Prague springs movement was the brainchild of a few bourgeois intellectuals with heavy nationalist overtones.

Well, I don't accept that, but even if it was true, so what? That describes the Cuban revolution almost perfectly.

The Czech workers had no hand in creating the Stalinist regime and no say in how it was run, so why would they want to defend it?

Domination by foreigners tends to create 'nationalist overtones', especially when it comes to the movement against the imperialist domination.


Whether the Soviets were right or not in sending tanks into the country can be debated

Sure it can. Just like we can 'debate' whether the US was justified in bombing Indochina back to the stone age to prevent the spread of 'Soviet Communism' - which is, after all, the same as what you're saying.

[El-Bortukali]

the collapse of the soviet union was perhaps one of the most terrible epocs in time, yet it was something that was sure to happen sooner or later.
The soviet union, has the first working class state created was founded with the ideals of socialism, it was perhaps one of the biggest advances in human history and gave a fresh new hope for the working class movement around the world, it was the first state to implement all the labour laws we now fight for, it was the first state to banish machism, racism and man to man exploitation. Yet, somewhere during the long cold war (and by cold war i dont mean the post WWII cold war, i mean all the atempts of imperialism and capitalism to destroy the USSR) its ideals were lost.

From my perspective, the soviet union grand ideals started to fade away during the Stalinist era, Stalins alienation of Bolchevism and its paranoia helped to fragilize even more the democratic aspect of the soviet union, and soon what was a fight for freedom became a fight for mantaining a state.
Yet we cannot blame only Stalin, we have also to blame imperialism and capitalism for its efforts to detroy USSR, also we cannot forget the impact that post Stalinist leaders had in USSR, eventually what was a great working class state became a decrepited corrupted empire, and so the construction of a socialist society was then a even greater task and at the same time a more distant reality.

We also have the Afghan war and the space programs that totally mined the soviet economy...

In short, we cannot blame the fall of the USSR in one cause, the Soviet union degradated itself and lost its way....



Yet this cannot be an excuse to allow capitalism to triumph and exist, by the contrary, we must take the soviet unions history has an example, an example of how things can and should be done, and how to avoid all the problems that hit the soviet union.

[Morpheus]

Don't forget the USSR's suppression of the Hungarian Workers Councils, as well.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrade Martyr, I feel for you family. But my family lived in Kazan and then in Riga, Latvia. And my great grandmother AND grandparents AND parents were given free flat and a lot of support by the government, and they did not live in poverty.

My great-great grandparents were teachers trying to educate poor peasant children. Their house was burned down and destroyed by kulaks for helping these people. So you see, not everyone lived in "poverty" in the USSR and was threatened every day be secet police.

Comrade YouKnowTheyMurderedX, you quote about the bombing of Indochina and occupation of Prague is merely an indication of the Soviet Union's humanity to its peoples. They could have bombed the Czech Republic back into the stone age along with half of Eastern Europe and other Eastern nations, but instead they preferred to bring it out of the stone age and improve people's lives.