Social Democrats in Russia?

[Goatse]

(When I say social democrats, I mean the party who believed they should have went through capitalism first after the revolution... sorry if this is wrong.)

If these guys had taken over, what do you guys think the situation would be today? Better? Worse? A hole in the ground?

Obviously I know Russia is a capitalist hellhole now, but if they had decided to go through capitalism first, would Russia be in a better situation today? Could they even have achieved socialism? Or is it simply impossible to tell?

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:30 AM
(When I say social democrats, I mean the party who believed they should have went through capitalism first after the revolution... sorry if this is wrong.)

If these guys had taken over, what do you guys think the situation would be today? Better? Worse? A hole in the ground?

Obviously I know Russia is a capitalist hellhole now, but if they had decided to go through capitalism first, would Russia be in a better situation today? Could they even have achieved socialism? Or is it simply impossible to tell?
Well, that's exactly what the Kerensky government was (especially in the last stages after kicking out the Cadets), a government of reformists. The trouble is that it would never have lasted. When you stand in the middle of a street, you tend to get hit by traffic coming from both directions (both Kornilov and Lenin).

The social-democrats prooved incapable of either furthering the interests of the proletariat or of the bourgeoisie. They didn't have either leg to stand on. The eventual outcome would in every case be either the continuation of the permanent revolution towards socialism, or a reactionary regression either back towards feudalism or towards some form of facism (most likely facism).

[GoaRedStar]

It would have develope into the same "capitalist hellhole" that Russia is now.

I mean what do you think the USSR was , plain and simple it was a highly regulated capitalist society.

Why do you think the transition from so call "socialism" to capitalism was so easy?

All they needed to do was to remove all there social reforms and bang they have the same system that the US had in the 1850s.

The points is that you cant skip capitalism so either way it would have develope into what it is today and what it was during the USSR a capitalist society with different levels of regulation.

Another thing I must say is that I sometimes wonder whether you Leninist spent so much time trying to make sense of the confusing shit that is dialectical materialism that you guy completely forget about historical materialism.

[Xanthus]

I mean what do you think the USSR was , plain and simple it was a highly regulated capitalist society.
The evolution of the USSR was not plain, simple, or capitalist. The mode of production was quite concretely proletarian, even though it was heavily corrupted as a beurocracy formed.


All they needed to do was to remove all there social reforms and bang they have the same system that the US had in the 1850s.
Wow, dead wrong. The US had private enterprise, private ownership, and market capitalism, the USSR had none of these things.


Another thing I must say is that I sometimes wonder whether you Leninist spent so much time trying to make sense of the confusing shit that is dialectical materialism that you guy completely forget about historical materialism.
Historical materialism stands on the shoulders of dialectical materialism. The dialectic is the method behind the historical analysis. Without a through understanding of dialectical materialism (and until you reach that understanding, yes it is "confusing shit"), there is no basis to develop a marxist analysis in line with historical materialism. Mistakes such as your's end up being made.

To help understand what the USSR was, and why it was NOT capitalist, I will provide you with a brief historical example, from the bourgeois revolution in France. Rather then spend a long time explaining the concept I mean to bring up, I will quote from Ted Grant his explaination.


To understand the Russian Revolution we can take the analogy of the French Revolution which is striking in its similarity and course although obviously on a different economic basis. As is known, the rule of the bourgeoisie was ushered in in France in the revolution of 1789. Marx explains the progressive rule of the revolutionary Jacobins: this revolutionary dictatorship of the sans culottes went further than the bourgeois regime. Because of that they made a clean sweep of all feudal rubbish, and did in months what the bourgeoisie would have required decades to achieve. This was followed by the Thermidorian reaction and the Bonapartist counter-revolution.

Anyone who compared the Bonapartist counter-revolution with the revolution - at least in its superstructure - would have found as great a difference as between the regime of Lenin and Trotsky in Russia and that of Stalin in latter years. To superficial observers the difference between the two regimes was fundamental. In fact, insofar as the superstructure was concerned, the difference was glaring. Napoleon had reintroduced many of the orders, decorations and ranks similar to those of feudalism; he had restored the Church; he even had himself crowned Emperor. Yet despite this counter-revolution, it is clear that it had nothing in common with the old regime. It was counter-revolution on the basis of the new form of property introduced by the revolution itself. Bourgeois forms of property or property relations remained the basis of the economy.

When we study the further history of France, we see the variety of forms of government and of the superstructure which developed in the course of the class struggle. The restoration of the monarchy after the defeat of Napoleon, the revolutions of 1830 and of 1848 - what was the class struggle there? There was a different division of the income, but after all these revolutions the economy remained bourgeois.

The subsequent history of France saw the dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte, the restoration of bourgeois democracy and the Republic and, in recent days, the regime of Petain. Under all these regimes there were differences in the division of the national income between the classes and between different strata of the ruling class itself. Yet we call all these regimes bourgeois. Why? It can only be because of the form of property.

Given the backwardness of the Soviet Union, which is very well explained by Cliff, and the isolation of the revolution, why should not a similar process take place? In fact it did. Let us return to Trotsky's book Stalin. The Old Man was clear. After the quotation where Trotsky shows that the substance of the Thermidor could not but be social in character and was the struggle for the surplus product, he went on to explain what was meant. Let us continue where Cliff stopped:

"Here the analogy with French Thermidor ceases. The new social basis of the Soviet Union became paramount. To guard the nationalisation of the means of production and of the land, is the bureaucracy's law of life and death, for these are the social sources of its dominant position. That was the reason for its struggle against the kulak. The bureaucracy could wage this struggle, and wage it to the end, only with the support of the proletariat. The best proof of the fact that it had mustered this support was the avalanche of capitulations by representatives of the new Opposition.

"The fight against the kulak, the fight against the right wing, the fight against opportunism - the official slogans of that period - seemed to the workers and to many representatives of the Left Opposition like a renaissance of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist revolution. We warned them at the time: it is not only a question of what is being done, but also of who does it. Under conditions of Soviet democracy, ie, self-rule of the toilers, the struggle against the kulaks might not have assumed such a convulsive, panicky and bestial form and might have led to a general rise of the economic and cultural level of the masses on the basis of industrialisation. But the bureaucracy's fight against the kulak was single combat (fought) on the backs of the toilers; and since neither of the embattled gladiators trusted the masses, since both feared the masses, the struggle assumed an extremely convulsive and sanguinary character. Thanks to the support of the proletariat, it ended with victory for the bureaucracy. But it did not lead to a gain in the specific weight of the proletariat in the country's political life." (Stalin page 408, our emphasis)

When Trotsky speaks here of 'the creation of a new substratum for the economically dominant class' what is clearly meant is the proletariat, which dominates through the form of property. Cliff says: 'One of the pretenders to the role of the economically dominant class, he says, is the bureaucracy. Great emphasis is lent to this formulation…' Here we see the dangers in the method of working on the basis of preconceived ideas and the attempt to select quotations to fit into these ideas.

In this same chapter, Trotsky shows the similarity and the differences with the French revolution and why the reaction took a different form in France to that which it took in Russia:

"The privileges of the bureaucacy have a different source of origin. The bureaucracy took for itself that part of the national income which it could secure either by the exercise of force or of its authority or by direct intervention in economic relations. In the matter of the national surplus product the bureaucracy and the petty bourgeoisie quickly changed from alliance to enmity. The control of the surplus product opened the bureaucracy's road to power." (Stalin, page 40)

The theme of Trotsky is sufficiently clear. The struggle for the surplus product can be waged not only between different classes, but between different strata and different groupings representing the same class.

-From Against the Theory of State Capitalism - Reply to Comrade Cliff (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/9/reply_to_tony_cliff.html)

[GoaRedStar]

WTF is this suppose to mean.


he evolution of the USSR was not plain, simple, or capitalist. The mode of production was quite concretely proletarian, even though it was heavily corrupted as a beurocracy formed.

Are you trying to say that it was controlled by the worker and at the same time by a separate bureaucracy.

Seriously I can even begin to understand wtf your are trying to say here.



By the way you Leninist are some of the most stubborn fucker I have ever argue with in the political spectrum.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:11 PM
WTF is this suppose to mean.


he evolution of the USSR was not plain, simple, or capitalist. The mode of production was quite concretely proletarian, even though it was heavily corrupted as a beurocracy formed.

Are you trying to say that it was controlled by the worker and at the same time by a separate bureaucracy.

Seriously I can even begin to understand wtf your are trying to say here.



By the way you Leninist are some of the most stubborn fucker I have ever argue with in the political spectrum.
What I meant is that it still operated under a planned economy with a state monopoly in all industries, and with the abolision of private property in production. Perhaps it would have been better to have refered to it as a socialist mode of production, but either way, it is vastly different from capitalism... and no, I'm not saying the USSR was socialist, just that it was the defining characteristic of it's economic system. Read over the French example, I'm sure you'll find the similarities.

The beurocracy was a leech upon the socialist mode of production, and at the same time obstructed it from properly developing by denying it participatory democracy, but merely leeching and obstructing does not deny the existence of that mode in the first place.

[GoaRedStar]

The US , Sweden , and China have different economic system but there are all still capitalist society.

So in part the USSR was a HIGHLY regulated capitalist society.


The beurocracy was a leech upon the socialist mode of production, and at the same time obstructed it from properly developing by denying it participatory democracy

Its kind of funny the dislike that you have against the bureaucratic element of the USSR when thats what you Leninist are known for.

WTF do you think is the leadership ?

Remember kids you most never question the bureaucracy. :P


Historical materialism stands on the shoulders of dialectical materialism. The dialectic is the method behind the historical analysis. Without a through understanding of dialectical materialism (and until you reach that understanding, yes it is "confusing shit"), there is no basis to develop a marxist analysis in line with historical materialism. Mistakes such as your's end up being made.

Its funny how you try to turn my comments against me.

I bet I know more about Historical Materialism then all of the Leninist in this board combined.

Remember you are the guy who claim that it is possible to create a communist society in a backward country.

I mean come on do you know how ridiculous that sounds.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:47 PM
The US , Sweden , and China have different economic system but there are all still capitalist society.

So in part the USSR was a HIGHLY regulated capitalist society.


The beurocracy was a leech upon the socialist mode of production, and at the same time obstructed it from properly developing by denying it participatory democracy

Its kind of funny the dislike that you have against the bureaucratic element of the USSR when thats what you Leninist are known for.

WTF do you think is the leadership ?

Remember kids you most never question the bureaucracy. :P


Historical materialism stands on the shoulders of dialectical materialism. The dialectic is the method behind the historical analysis. Without a through understanding of dialectical materialism (and until you reach that understanding, yes it is "confusing shit"), there is no basis to develop a marxist analysis in line with historical materialism. Mistakes such as your's end up being made.

Its funny how you try to turn my comments against me.

I bet I know more about Historical Materialism then all of the Leninist in this board combined.

Remember you are the guy who claim that it is possible to create a communist society in a backward country.

I mean come on do you know how ridiculous that sounds.
Excuse me??? What we Trotskyists are most famous for is fighting against the encroachment of bureaucracy. Note my avatar, that is Trotsky. Trotskyism is an extension of Leninism, who also faught against the bureaucracy from his deathbed. Unfortunitely, not all know this as all documents of evidence of Lenin's struggle were surpressed by Stalin. Most have been recovered more recently though.

If you want to educate yourself further on the specifics of this, here is an excellent resource: Lenin's Struggle against Bureaucracy (http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/chapter07.html)

The US, Sweden, and China (at present), all have private property in production, and operate under capitalist markets. The USSR did not. What is your point?

And I claimed it was possible to build a communist society in a backwards country? You must have me mistaken for a Stalinist. I am a Trotskyist, as any Stalinist on this board will attest to before they slam me for not agreeing with the "theory" of socialism in one country.

As for your knowledge of Historical Materialism, I only go by what you've said in this topic, and you have made many mistakes in the realm of Historical Materialism here alone. I must conclude that your general knowledge runs along the same lines. I may be wrong, but somehow, I doubt it.

[GoaRedStar]

The US, Sweden, and China (at present), all have private property in production, and operate under capitalist markets. The USSR did not. What is your point?

You seem to be unable to understand socio-economics.
So let me give you a basic lesson on the way the USSR was set up.

The USSR had a state monopoly on the means of production.

This state was control by a bureaucracy (in other words the leadership)which was compose of so call "professional revolutionarys".

These "professional revolutionarys" were the ruling class of the USSR.

So they control the means of production.

These society was structure like a capitalist SOCIETY.

Get it.


As for your knowledge of Historical Materialism, I only go by what you've said in this topic, and you have made many mistakes in the realm of Historical Materialism here alone. I must conclude that your general knowledge runs along the same lines. I may be wrong, but somehow, I doubt it.

Mistakes :huh:

Leninforbid that I call all those revolution that you guys partake in (those so call workers revolution) a bourgeois revolution .:rolleyes:

[Xanthus]

The USSR had a state monopoly on the means of production.
Yes, as opposed to a capitalist market, which is how a capitalist economy regulates it's self.


This state was control by a bureaucracy (in other words the leadership)which was compose of so call "professional revolutionarys".
Right, this was the fundamental problem and the reason why the economy collapsed, but I still don't see how this makes it capitalist.


These "professional revolutionarys" were the ruling class of the USSR.
Right. Of course to call them revolutionarys is something beyond a stretch, counter-revolutionarys is more appropriate. I assume by your quotes, you agree. Again though, how does this make it capitalist? Feudalism had a ruling class too, and every other form of class society has had a ruling class... and they were not all capitalist.


So they control the means of production.
Indeed they do. They corrupted the workers' means of control for their own ends. But were they in that position because they invested money to purchase the means of production as a capitalist does? No, I think not. In slave society, items were produced by slave labour, and those slaves were very much controled by the slave-owning class. Therefore, the slave-owners also controled the means of production. But that was not capitalism. So how again is this capitalism?


These society was structure like a capitalist SOCIETY.
Hmm, so what you're saying is: there was a ruling class, it was control of the means of production, therefore it is capitalist???
Erm... you must have an extremely loose definition of capitalism.


Get it.
Well, no actually, I still don't buy it. You certainly haven't given me a concrete reason to consider the economy of the USSR capitalist, unless you have a very different definition of the word "capitalist" then my own.

[GoaRedStar]

What I am trying to say is that the socio-economics structure of the USSR is very simular to any other capitalist society in the world.

You see a society is define by its socio-economics structure so for example a society
in the form of the capitalist social structure could have a laissez faire capitalist economic system or a welfare state.

In the end it would still be define as a capitalist society regardless of what form of economic system its built on.

So this is why I wrote this


I mean what do you think the USSR was , plain and simple it was a highly regulated capitalist society

A HIGHLY regulated capitalist society.

Let put it like this the capitalist is like the Linux Kernal and everything else are add ons

By the way that is why I wrote this as well.


All they needed to do was to remove all there social reforms and bang they have the same system that the US had in the 1850s.

Which mean all they needed to do was to deregulate the system and "bang" you have a society now which looks a lot like the US did in the 1850s

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:55 PM
What I am trying to say is that the socio-economics structure of the USSR is very simular to any other capitalist society in the world.

You see a society is define by its socio-economics structure so for example a society
in the form of the capitalist social structure could have a laissez faire capitalist economic system or a welfare state.

In the end it would still be define as a capitalist society regardless of what form of economic system its built on.

So this is why I wrote this


I mean what do you think the USSR was , plain and simple it was a highly regulated capitalist society

A HIGHLY regulated capitalist society.

Let put it like this the capitalist is like the Linux Kernal and everything else are add ons

By the way that is why I wrote this as well.


All they needed to do was to remove all there social reforms and bang they have the same system that the US had in the 1850s.

Which mean all they needed to do was to deregulate the system and "bang" you have a society now which looks a lot like the US did in the 1850s
So, you keep telling me that it's capitalist. And the more ways I proove that it isn't capitalist, the more you condecend without actually stating ANY ways that it's like capitalism, other then that it had more then one class... so if capitalism is like Linux, then please describe what consists of the core?

Yes, a society is defined by it's socio-economic system, but at the same time, the system in place during the USSR is VERY different then any capitalist system... so again, I can't see that you have a point.

And yes, when nearly everything public was privatised, markets were opened to competition, and the government was completely changed in a counter-revolutionary movement, then yes, capitalism was restored. But that's because the socio-economic system was completely changed. That is why they call it the "restoration of capitalism".

I think it's becoming quite obvious that you don't actually have anything resembling a valid argument. If you come up with one, it would be great (you can start by describing your "core"), but if not, why do you keep replying???

Edit, oh yes, one more thing:

In the end it would still be define as a capitalist society regardless of what form of economic system its built on.
Note that socio-economic is a compound word. It is used to describe the social and economic relations, when taken as a whole. So when you're saying socio-economic system, includeded in that term is the "economic system it's built on".

Care to explain how if a society is defined by it's socio-economic system, it doesn't matter what socio-economic system society is built on?

[GoaRedStar]

I never stated that the reason the USSR was a capitalist society because it had more then one class what I said was that it is structure in the same social order as all capitalist societies.


Note that socio-economic is a compound word. It is used to describe the social and economic relations, when taken as a whole. So when you're saying socio-economic system, includeded in that term is the "economic system it's built on".

Care to explain how if a society is defined by it's socio-economic system, it doesn't matter what socio-economic system society is built on?

Let me answer by asking a question if I may .

Are you implying here that laissez faire capitalist economics and Keynesian economics cannot exist in the same capitalist social structure?

[Xanthus]

I never stated that the reason the USSR was a capitalist society because it had more then one class what I said was that it is structure in the same social order as all capitalist societies.
Right, I was reaching. I was reaching because you haven't provided one tiny crumb of evidence to back up that statement. When I asked you straight up for a crumb, you refered to a ruling class developing and to them controling the means of production. So I assumed that was your explaination, because of no other evidence whatsoever. Was I wrong?


Let me answer by asking a question if I may .

Are you implying here that laissez faire capitalist economics and Keynesian economics cannot exist in the same capitalist social structure?
Not in the least! I am implying that laissez faire capitalist economics and Keynesian economics did not exist either together or apart in the USSR.

Now, if you'd care to either give some actual analysis to proove me wrong, or stop replying and looking foolish, we could both go on with our lives.

[GoaRedStar]

I gave you evidence after evidence but some how you are to stupid to see it.

So here it goes make sure you read it real slow.

It was STRUCTURE in the same SOCIAL FORM

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by GoaRedStar
The US , Sweden , and China have different economic system but there are all still capitalist society.

So in part the USSR was a HIGHLY regulated capitalist society.

The US, Sweden and China do not have different economic systems, what the hell are you talking about?

Do you even know that capitalism in and of itself is an economic system? You just contradicted yourself by saying they have different economic systems 'but are all still capitalist societies'.

Sure, the USSR can be described as a 'highly regulated capitalist society', the person describing it as such must have near zero knowledge of Marxist economic theory though.

Capitalism is basically an economic system in which the anarchy of production reigns, the anarchy of production did not reign in the USSR, i.e., it was not capitalist. It's as simple as that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ScottishPinko+--> (ScottishPinko)If these guys had taken over, what do you guys think the situation would be today? Better? Worse? A hole in the ground?[/b]

I suspect you're referring to the Mensheviks' here, and to tell the truth, I haven't a clue! :lol:

A Menshevik dominated Government, may have developed Russia effectively, or they might have capitulated to the interests of foreign capital -- lowering Russia to the status of a colony! :o

A more interesting scenario, in my opinion anyway, is what would have happened if the foreign investment that Lenin asked of in 1923 (?) had been given. Would Russia have formerly "renounced" its Socialist rhetoric? ....or would they "do a China" -- i.e. call Capitalism "Socialism with Chinese (in this case Russian) characteristics".

Another interesting scenario would have been if the Workers' Opposition had won at the 10th congress. Would Russia have functioned, albeit temporarily, as a communist society, or, would the the primitive levels of the productive forces in Russia have made everything go to shit, right away.

Another potentially interesting scenario would have been if the Bolsheviks' had directed their energy away from recapturing certain parts of the Russian Empire and instead supplied support -- financial and perhaps military -- to the uprisings in both Finland and Germany.

All interesting scenarios, but unfortunately, all scenarios that we can only speculate on. :(


Originally posted by Xanthus+--> (Xanthus)The mode of production was quite concretely proletarian, even though it was heavily corrupted as a bureaucracy formed.[/b]

Really???

As poor as I am in the field of Marxist economics, one thing I do know, is that wage-labour which was the predominant (maybe only?) form of labour in Russia from 1917 onwards is a hallmark of a Capitalist mode of production.

A proletarian mode of production as it were, would be one where the individual Marx referred too, is free to be an individual -- i.e. instead of doing set labour, s/he does whatever they find enjoyable as an individual.

I'm not aware of anything like this in the Soviet Union, indeed if I'm not mistaken, the Russian Constitution stated that every able person must do some form of set labour -- i.e. compulsory wage-labour.

There wasn't even the dole! :o

Of course, if you have any information that disputes this, I would be very grateful if you were to present it. :)


Originally posted by Xanthus
....the USSR had none of these things.

There was, as far as I know, "private enterprise", farming comes to mind, "private ownership", there still some, if limited, private property in place and to some degree or another, goods were still sold under a "market capitalism" type system, albeit a highly regulated Market.

Even under Stalin, I'm unaware of any of this changing and post-1956, there was quite a lot of "private enterprise".


Originally posted by Ted Grant
The theme of Trotsky is sufficiently clear. The struggle for the surplus product can be waged not only between different classes, but between different strata and different groupings representing the same class.

Only if you accept that the "bureaucracy" was part of the working class, which I don't accept.

For instance, Trotsky himself states....


Originally posted by Trotsky
The privileges of the bureaucacy have a different source of origin. The bureaucracy took for itself that part of the national income which it could secure either by the exercise of force or of its authority or by direct intervention in economic relations. In the matter of the national surplus product the bureaucracy and the petty bourgeoisie quickly changed from alliance to enmity. The control of the surplus product opened the bureaucracy's road to power.

Is this not an accurate description of how any bourgeoisie acts?

Don't other Capitalists also take for themselves "that part of the national income which it could secure either by the exercise of force or of its authority or by direct intervention in economic relations"? ....in other words, they (the bourgeois) take a portion of the workers labour value for themselves and they maintain this system -- social relation -- through either the "exercise of force" or the threat of force.

Indeed, it is through this system that the bourgeois is able to rise to power and to stay in power -- "The control of the surplus product opened the bureaucracy's road to power."

So what exactly makes the "bureaucracy" represent the same class, the working class, and not perform the function of a bourgeois? ....low wages? :lol:

The Soviet bureaucracies relationship to the means of production was that of a de facto owner. And for this reason, I see no way you could consider them anything other than a nascent bourgeois.


[email protected]
What I meant is that it still operated under a planned economy with a state monopoly in all industries....

In all industries? ....I'm pretty sure there were some petty-capitalists operating throughout the existence of the Soviet Union.

Aside from that, the "Black Market" was rather large and undeniably Capitalist in its operations.

Indeed, if you're definition of a "socialist mode of production" is one where the economy is Nationalised and "planned" -- every economy is "planned" -- was the Coal Industry in Britain under a "socialist mode of production" before Thatcher?


Marxism-Leninism
Capitalism is basically an economic system in which the anarchy of production reigns, the anarchy of production did not reign in the USSR, i.e., it was not capitalist.

It's also an economic system where the predominant form of labour is wage-labour, something which the Soviet Union had throughout its existence.

On a side note, in your opinion, when was Capitalism "restored" in Russia?....1923? ....1956? ....1991?

[enigma2517]

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

The Restoration of Capitalism In the USSR

Check it out.

[вор в законе]

Tell me Armchair ''Socialist'', if Soviet Union was capitalist then what was the Cold War about ? Eh ? What was all the fuss about ? :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 26 2006, 04:13 AM
Tell me Armchair ''Socialist'', if Soviet Union was capitalist then what was the Cold War about ? Eh ? What was all the fuss about ? :lol:

Can't you figure this one out on your own?

It's fairly simple really, post-1945 America emerged as the main imperial power, but the Soviet Union also emerged as an imperial power -- between the two countries they had most of Europe under control.

The traditional superpowers in Europe, England, France and so on, couldn't afford to keep their colonies or their Empires anymore due to the massive costs of rebuilding post World War Two.

So around that time, many countries which had been under the control of this or that European power, were "up for grabs" -- some African countries spring to mind and of course, the Middle East.

Therefore, given that there was now a new "market niche" for imperial superpowers, both America and the Soviet Union went about constructing their respective Empires.

Perhaps the only reason there wasn't another inter-imperialist war, was the massive amount of nuclear weapons both sides possessed.

If you wanted to argue that the Soviet Union's imperialism was more benevolent, then I likely agree with you -- outside of the Eastern bloc, the ruling class of the Soviet Union's strategy was mainly to create spheres of influence, where as America's strategy in the "third world", was to completely control the countries via a lackey bourgeoisie.

The same type of thing is happening today. China and Russia simply try to exert influence over other countries in the hope of gaining valuable resources, where as America wants to own whole countries!

So there you have it, the Cold War post-1945, was an inter-imperialist rivalry.
____________

On a side note, the other large "workers' state", China, sided with America during this period -- presumably because they felt that was a more useful way of furthering their material interests.

[Kaze no Kae]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:36 PM
(When I say social democrats, I mean the party who believed they should have went through capitalism first after the revolution... sorry if this is wrong.)

If these guys had taken over, what do you guys think the situation would be today? Better? Worse? A hole in the ground?

Obviously I know Russia is a capitalist hellhole now, but if they had decided to go through capitalism first, would Russia be in a better situation today? Could they even have achieved socialism? Or is it simply impossible to tell?
Impossible to tell, really. Capitalism has administration positions the same as Soviet socialism does, so Stalins could have still come to office.

And, social democrats dont believe in capitalism (semi-capitalism at the most), they believe in democracy. Theres a pretty big difference there.

I say this as a democratic socialist, so believe me :P

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
It's also an economic system where the predominant form of labour is wage-labour, something which the Soviet Union had throughout its existence.


Who said there would be no wage-labour in Socialism?


On a side note, in your opinion, when was Capitalism "restored" in Russia?....1923? ....1956? ....1991?

Capitalism was restored after Brezhnev's reforms, late 70's, early 80's, that was when the 'profit motive' was re-established in the economic system.

Read Profit as the Regulator of Production (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.html).

[Syndicalista]

[QUOTE]"Assassin Posted on Mar 26 2006, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (ScottishPinko @ Mar 17 2006, 07:36 PM)
(When I say social democrats, I mean the party who believed they should have went through capitalism first after the revolution... sorry if this is wrong.)

If these guys had taken over, what do you guys think the situation would be today? Better? Worse? A hole in the ground?

Obviously I know Russia is a capitalist hellhole now, but if they had decided to go through capitalism first, would Russia be in a better situation today? Could they even have achieved socialism? Or is it simply impossible to tell?

Impossible to tell, really. Capitalism has administration positions the same as Soviet socialism does, so Stalins could have still come to office.

And, social democrats dont believe in capitalism (semi-capitalism at the most), they believe in democracy. Theres a pretty big difference there.

I say this as a democratic socialist, so believe me"

In sweden they have a social democratic goverment. They are just as capitalist as any other goverment. They are more centristic then most other parties that is supposed to be centristic. According to the goverment there should exist no form of monopoly what-so-ever in the market and at the same time they state owns the monopoly on the gaming and alcohol industry.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Who said there would be no wage-labour in Socialism?

No one that I am aware of, however, we do know that the blueprint of a communist society is one where there is no wage-labour and where the individual is free to be an individual.

Therefore, with regards the socialist stage -- or the lower stage of communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat and so on -- one would expect that at some point, most likely relatively soon after the revolution, the issue of wage-labour would come up.

As it happens, the issue of wage-labour did come up in the Soviet Union and the question of abolishing it. This happened in 1921 when the Workers' Opposition proposed that the transition to communism should begin -- increased workers' power, removal of bureaucratic layers and so on.

Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all opposed the Workers' Opposition, preferring instead to advocate the New Economic Policy -- which in reality, was the admission that communist production was impossible in the Soviet Union and that Capitalism was needed.

Indeed, the defeat of the Workers' Opposition was the point when the new Russian ruling class dealt the final death blow to workers' power in the Soviet Union.

So whilst there is no time limit with regards how long wage-labour will last after a revolution, over 50 years of wage-labour with no further serious attempts to abolish it, is seriously taking the piss!

The equivalent I suppose, would be if the post-revolutionary bourgeois maintained feudal relations, intercourse as Marx liked to call it, for over half a century.

You could expect some remnants from the feudal epoch to still exist, but you wouldn't expect them to be the dominant feature of the bourgeois epoch the way in which wage-labour was the dominant (perhaps only?) form of intercourse present throughout the existence of the Soviet Union.

Additionally of course, as far as I'm aware, the anarchist territories in Spain during the Civil War did make some tentative steps towards the abolition of wage-labour -- and this was during a Civil War!

So I'd say, that one would expect wage-labour to be completely eradicated under a proletarian mode of production within a decade, or maybe two.

Any longer, and I suggest that whatever rhetoric emerging from the said area is hot air! And additionally, that the productive forces of said area can't provide the basis for a communist society, which we know was the case in Russia.

On top of that, I think that it's pretty safe to conclude that Marx was right, in that he contended that certain productive forces gave rise to definite forms of intercourse. And in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China I think we've seen the validation of that particular hypothesis.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair
Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all opposed the Workers' Opposition, preferring instead to advocate the New Economic Policy -- which in reality, was the admission that communist production was impossible in the Soviet Union and that Capitalism was needed.
The Workers Opposition were in favour of a more free market economy and Lenin proposed the NEP as a compromise. It contained most of the WO's demands and was a retreat from the militarisation of industry that Trotsky had been pushing. At the time Stalin had not taken a firm position on the issue, which was normal for him.

Secondly it was never pretended that the Soviet Union did not "need" capitalism. Remember that it was not announced that socialism had been reached until the thirties (after the first five year plan I believe).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)The Workers Opposition were in favour of a more free market economy....[/b]

Care to present a source which backs up the accusation that the Workers' Opposition were libertarians at heart? ....and by the way, whatever Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky said on the matter isn't what I'd consider a reputable source.

Because, from all the literature I've read on the subject, the Workers' Opposition opposed one man management and favoured collective management.

From section 4, State And Party....


Originally posted by Kollontai+--> (Kollontai)The Party, therefore, finds itself in a difficult and embarrassing situation regarding the control over the Soviet state. It is forced to lend an ear and to adapt itself to three economically hostile groups of the population, each different in social structure. The workers demand a clear-cut, uncompromising policy, a rapid, forced advance towards Communism; the peasantry, with its petty- bourgeois proclivities and sympathies, demands Afferent kinds of "freedom", including freedom of trade and non-interference in their affairs. The latter are joined in this demand be the burgher clad in the form of (agents' of Soviet officials, commissaries in the army, etc., who have already adapted themselves to the Soviet regime, and sway our policy toward petty-bourgeois lines.[/b]

http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works...sition/ch01.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/1921/workers-opposition/ch01.htm)

Plus, from section 8, The Programme of The Opposition....


Originally posted by Kollontai
The cardinal point of the controversy that is taking place between the Party leaders and the Workers' Opposition is this: to whom will our Party entrust the building of the Communist economy - to the Supreme Council of National Economy with all its bureaucratic branches? Or to the industrial unions? Comrade Trotsky wants 'to join' the trade unions to the Supreme Council of People's Economy, so that, with the assistance of the latter, it might be possible to swallow up the former. Comrades Lenin and Zinovieff, on the other hand, wanted to 'bring up' the masses to such a level of Communist understanding that they could be painlessly absorbed into the same Soviet institutions. Bukharin and the rest of the factions express essntially the same view. Variations exist only in the way they put it ; the essence is the same. Only the Workers' Opposition expresses something entirely different, defends the proletarian class viewpoint in the very process of creation and realization of its tasks. The administrative economic body in the workers' republic during the present transitory period must be 'a body directly elected by the producers themselves. All the other administrative economic Soviet institutions should serve only as executive centres of the economic policy of the all-important economic body of the workers' republic. ' All else is goose-stepping, that shows distrust towards the creative abilities of the workers, distrust which is not compatible with the professed ideals of our Party, whose very strength depends on the perennial creative spirit of the proletariat. There will be nothing surprising if at the approaching Party congress, the sponsors of the different economic reforms, with the single exception of the Workers' Opposition, will come to a common understanding through mutual compromise and concessions, since there is no essential controversy among them.

The Workers' Opposition alone will not and must not compromise. This does not, however, mean that it is aiming at a split'. Not at all. Its task is entirely different. Even in the event of defeat at the Congress, it must remain in the Party, and step by step stubbornly defend its point of view, save the Party, clarify its class lines.

Once more in brief : what is it that the Workers' Opposition wants?

(1) To form a body from the workers - producers themselves - for administering the people's economy.

(2) For this purpose, (i.e. for the transformation of the unions from the role of passive assistance to the economic bodies, to that of active participation and manifestation of their creative initiative) the Workers' Opposition proposes a series of preliminary measures aimed at an orderly and gradual cessation of this aim.

(3) Transferring of the administrative functions of industry into the hands of the union does not take place until the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the trade unions has found the said unions to be able and sufficiently prepared for the task.

(4) All appointments to the administrative economic positions shall be made with consent of the union. All candidates nominated by the union to be non-removable. All responsible officials appointed by the unions are responsible to it and may be recalled by it.

(5) In order to carry out all these proposals, it is necessary to strengthen the rank and file nucleus in the unions, and to prepare factory and shop committees for running the industries.

(6) By means of concentrating in one body the entire administration of the public economy (without the existing dualism of the Supreme Council of National Economy and the All-Russian Executive Committee of the trade unions) there must be created a singleness of will which will make it easy to carry out the plan and put 'to life the Communist system of production. Is this syndicalism? Is not this, on the contrary, the same as what is stated in our Party programme, and are not the elements of principles signed by the rest of the comrades deviating from it?

http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works...sition/ch02.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/1921/workers-opposition/ch02.htm)

And there's also the glossary of the Workers' Opposition and what they stood for....

http://marxists.org/glossary/orgs/w/o.htm#workers-opposition

I don&#39;t know quite how workers&#39; control of industry could be called "a more free market economy", but I&#39;m willing to listen to what you have to say. <_<


Originally posted by ComradeOm
....and Lenin proposed the NEP as a compromise.

Huh? :huh:

The Workers&#39; Opposition wanted less one man management and more collective management for the working class, so Lenin "compromised" by introducing petty-capitalism for the peasant class.

What a strange compromise&#33; :P


[email protected]
At the time Stalin had not taken a firm position on the issue, which was normal for him.

As Kollontai commented, whatever the individual views of the Party leadership, they all opposed the Workers&#39; Opposition. As Lenin commented, Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed by the trade unions, 9/10 of whose members are nonparty workers?" (http://marxists.org/glossary/orgs/w/o.htm#workers-opposition)

That&#39;s right Vlad, workers&#39; control means no job for you or the rest of the Bolshevik cabal -- horrors&#33; :lol:


ComradeOm
Secondly it was never pretended that the Soviet Union did not "need" capitalism.

Well, the perception was that capitalist development could be carried out under a proletarian mode of production.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 27 2006, 05:10 PM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Mar 27 2006, 05:10 PM)
ComradeOm
Care to present a source which backs up the accusation that the Workers&#39; Opposition were libertarians at heart? [/b]
I believe I read it in "The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 : a short history" by James D. White. Unfortunately I no longer have the book.

Its actually a decent overview of the early stages of the revolution.


....and by the way, whatever Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky said on the matter isn&#39;t what I&#39;d consider a reputable source.
And Kollontai is? :lol:


I don&#39;t know quite how workers&#39; control of industry could be called "a more free market economy", but I&#39;m willing to listen to what you have to say. <_<
Don&#39;t confuse free market with capitalism. A open market and collective management (go italics&#33;) are not mutually exclusive. Well they probably are but that thought didn&#39;t seem to cross the minds of the WO.

The WO were opposed to the increasing centralisation of the economy into what would become the command economy of Stalin&#39;s time. Lenin was in favour of this as he saw it as the formation of monopolies that he believed signalled the death of capitalism while Trotsky wanted to go even further and turn the country into a Red Army camp. Obviously the WO were opposed to this and desired far less centralised planning... ergo they were in favour of freer economic practices.

The NEP in this context was a step back from centralisation and was certainly more to the liking of the WO than Trotsky. Aside for its necessity it was a sop to help soften the ban of factionalism.


Well, the perception was that capitalist development could be carried out under a proletarian mode of production.
The proletarian mode of production is socialism. The USSR never reached that stage and this was freely admitted this until Stalin become top dog. The idea was that capitalist development, which was believed to be on its last legs, could be accelerated during the revolutionary period.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)I believe I read it in "The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 : a short history" by James D. White. Unfortunately I no longer have the book.[/b]

Well this does present some problems. <_<

I&#39;ve had a look on wikipedia and he&#39;s not listed, and after having a quick search on Google, I can&#39;t find what his political views are. So far I&#39;ve been able to ascertain that he&#39;s a Professor of History who&#39;s written about Russia and Marxism and that&#39;s about it.

So really, without knowing who the author is and, more importantly, what he wrote, I&#39;m gonna&#39; stick with my version of events for now. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)And Kollontai is?[/b]

When she is articulating the exact demands made the Workers&#39; Opposition at the 10th Congress then I think she is a good primary source.

However, as you know, her personal opinions on this matter wouldn&#39;t be of much use....even though she remained fond of Lenin.

Basically, if you want to know what the Workers&#39; Opposition actually wanted, then I think their demands are a pretty good place to start....agree?


[email protected]
Well they probably are but that thought didn&#39;t seem to cross the minds of the WO.

I&#39;ve got a feeling that Mr. White is a distinctly bourgeois ideologue who only views two types of economy....free-market and state-monopoly capitalism. He likely thinks workers&#39; control is impossible.

So if he&#39;s what you&#39;re basing all this on, then I&#39;d be very wary.

Additionally, of course, you can always check the primary sources I quoted and use those to present your case as it were, which shows that the Workers&#39; Opposition were, as Mao would say, "capitalist roaders". :lol:

As far as I can tell, collective management was all they wanted with regards the economy.


ComradeOm
Aside for its necessity it was a sop to help soften the ban of factionalism.

I can&#39;t see quite how the NEP was a "sop" to the Workers&#39; Opposition. After all, the NEP concerned the Russian peasantry and the Workers&#39; Opposition were, well....workers.

And the Workers&#39; Opposition may have been "officially" banned, but at the 11th Congress everyone realised they were still active and Lenin&#39;s response was not a lot of carrot and the massive threat of the stick&#33;

So his "sop" didn&#39;t work well.


The proletarian mode of production is socialism.

I&#39;ve been discussing this with Trots recently and they have hundreds of stages which fall under the term proletarian mode of production -- just look at page 1 of this thread, Russia was considered a proletarian epoch by them.

However, this doesn&#39;t neuter my point if I just change the wording; the perception was that capitalist development could be carried out under a worker controlled society.

Do you agree or disagree that this was the popular perception within the Bolshevik Party?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2006, 12:17 PM
So really, without knowing who the author is and, more importantly, what he wrote, I&#39;m gonna&#39; stick with my version of events for now. :P
He&#39;s an historian. That&#39;s all I know and frankly that&#39;s as far as my interest in him or his political views goes. Having read the book I can say that it is fairly balanced and certainly don&#39;t try to vilify any party during those years. As I said, a good introduction to the period... even if it is a simple retelling of the facts without attempting to extrapolate theoretical conclusions.

The Tenth Congress dealt with the issue of who would control the economy. The WO wanted it to be the Unions, Trotsky wanted it to be the Army/Party. Meh, i&#39;ll deal with that below.


When she is articulating the exact demands made the Workers&#39; Opposition at the 10th Congress then I think she is a good primary source.
And when Lenin lays out his views in black and white paper you point to his actions and label him bourgeois ;)

But I&#39;ve no doubt that these are Kollontai&#39;s views and that they are essentially well meaning.


I&#39;ve got a feeling that Mr. White is a distinctly bourgeois ideologue who only views two types of economy....free-market and state-monopoly capitalism. He likely thinks workers&#39; control is impossible.
Oh that was me speaking there. I get my facts from books and draw my own conclusions.

But again look at the context of the situation here. The 10th Party Congress revolved around what degree of control should be exercised over the economy. On the one hand you had Trotsky and on the other the WO with Lenin sitting in the middle. The WO wanted a withdrawal from the position of centralised planning and bureaucratic control while Trotsky wanted the opposite. Now the former position is clearly the more free market of the two; not in the form of "rule of the jungle" capitalism but of a reduction of government control of the economy.

The quote you gave above says it all - a reduction of Party and government influence in economic matters with increasing power given to the unions.


As far as I can tell, collective management was all they wanted with regards the economy.
Collective management cannot exist in state capitalism.


I can&#39;t see quite how the NEP was a "sop" to the Workers&#39; Opposition. After all, the NEP concerned the Russian peasantry and the Workers&#39; Opposition were, well....workers.
As I&#39;ve said it was a withdrawal from centralisation of economic planning in the state. This position would be reversed during the first five year plan. This did not address the core issues raised by the WO but was enough to swing the vote in Lenin&#39;s favour.


And the Workers&#39; Opposition may have been "officially" banned, but at the 11th Congress everyone realised they were still active and Lenin&#39;s response was not a lot of carrot and the massive threat of the stick&#33;
Every faction was banned. The fact that none were purged demonstrates the myth of Lenin the Tyrant


However, this doesn&#39;t neuter my point if I just change the wording; the perception was that capitalist development could be carried out under a worker controlled society.

Do you agree or disagree that this was the popular perception within the Bolshevik Party?
Have I ever argued that it wasn&#39;t? Modernisation was one of the key policies of the Bolsheviks right from the start. In order to arrive at socialism most of the country would have to be dragged through capitalist development. As I&#39;ve mentioned Lenin saw the development of monopolies and state capitalism as a welcome sign.

Perhaps it was this rapid transformation to capitalism, and the degree of progress that it represented, that blinded so many when Stalin began campaigning for power.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm
Collective management cannot exist in state capitalism.

Quite true, but that has nothing to do with my original point with regards the Workers&#39; Opposition in this thread.

My original point was along the lines of had there been a proletarian mode of production in Russia -- which was Marxism-Leninism&#39;s opinion on the matter (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47507&view=findpost&p=1292041826) to which I was responding -- then the Workers&#39; Opposition would have won out because they were the faction that most represented the class interests of the Russian working class.

Regardless of whether their collective management polices were feasible, a raw and materialist analysis would suggest that a proletariat with State power would have attempted them.

And been as the Workers&#39; Opposition were thwarted, the point I was making was that the proletariat did not have State power -- contry to the suggestion of the initial poster.

This is then further evidence with regards my proposition that the Bolshevik cabal were a emerging bourgeois who did hold State power and were intent on opposing the working class.

That was the point and whether the policies of the Workers&#39; Opposition were feasible, is, in my opinion, irrelevant to this discussion because back then, like now, people could only make informed guesses.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2006, 02:11 PM
Quite true, but that has nothing to do with my original point with regards the Workers&#39; Opposition in this thread.
When have any of our argum... civil discussions stayed on tpoic? ;)

My original post was merely commenting on the fact that it was the WO, and not Trotsky et al, who were in favour of a freer market, as opposed to state control. To be perfectly honest I&#39;m not really interested in who was right in this squabble.