Why was the USSR not communist?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me as I've become confused. I was debating a capitalist and claimed the USSR was communist I claimed it wasn't, but realized I didn't understand much why it wasn't. Please could anyone explain state-capitalism simply and how it relates to the USSR. Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory? Thanks

[Forward Union]

Why was it not communist and why was it not marxist are two very different questions.

Why wasn't it communist? well communism is a stateless classless society, that is not restricted to a single nation. It's therefor obvious, that the USSR was not communist. It' had money, it's had a state, it had classes. All of which do not fit into any communist society.

I'll let a marxist answer the latter question.

[TC]

"State capitalism" is a make-believe concept that has no empirical basis in reality that Mao essentailly made up because he was bitter that Khrushchev didn't think that he and his late-buddy Stalin were just the coolest people ever...it makes much more sense if you're a maoist and don't understand marxist economics, like, if you think the Great Leap Forward was a good idea, the idea of "state capitalism" might make sense.


And if someone both claims to be a trotskyist and that the USSR was "state capitalist" than they haven't done their homework, tell them go back and get the "proper line" on the status of degenerate workers states.


The USSR was never 'communist' or 'state capitalist', it was a democratic workers state with a socialist economy that eventually resorted to poor mixed economic planning as a result of unsustainable spending during the cold war, allowing a capitalist backed coup detat to take place.

[nickdlc]

State capitalism was orginally either a anarchist or left communist theory and Engels even commented on how state capitalism was not communist/socialist.


The USSR was never 'communist' or 'state capitalist', it was a democratic workers state with a socialist economy This is the standard line given by trotsky, yet one of his followers Tony Cliff had seen how this theory was proven wrong so he developed his own theory of state capitalism.


allowing a capitalist backed coup detat to take place. It's always odd how these "capitalist coups" always happen from people who were within "communist party"

The ussr was not marxist because marx advocated an association of free and equal producers.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:55 PM
State capitalism was orginally either a anarchist or left communist and Engels even commented on how state capitalism was not communist/socialist.



That would have been rather impossible given that Engels died before the left-coms coined the concept. In any case, the anti-revisionists popularized the standard version of it.


of his followers Tony Cliff had seen how this theory was proven wrong so he developed his own theory of state capitalism.
:lol: oh it was 'proven wrong'? Some first world trotskyists so divorced from any relevant politics and first hand experiance of socialism that they mistake meaningless, pointless hypothesis simply to try to attract supporters to their social-group/book-club style parties, developed a "theory"? It has no credibility because it has no material basis. Wacky marginalized first world leftists can come up with whatever dumb self-indulgent 'theories' they want, but that doesn't make them relevant.


It's always odd how these "capitalist coups" always happen from people who were within "communist party"


Uh, no, they don't, they never have, you just made that up, probably out of ignorance of recent history. Boris Yeltsin and his supporters were not members of the Communist Party when they launched a coup detat against the Soviet Union (exploiting the political instability when the Communist Party prevented Gorbachev from overstepping his constitutional authority).


The ussr was not marxist because marx advocated an association of free and equal producers.

The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, a centralized workers state, as Marx advocated. The ruling class is inherently free and that is what the workers in the USSR were.

[nickdlc]

That would have been rather impossible given that Engels died before the left-coms coined the concept. I think they coined the term but Engels just commented that communism through the state was not communism ii.e. left communists continued the marxist tradition :ph34r:


The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, a centralized workers state, as Marx advocated. Something he advocated in 1848 you mean! If the working class had control of the state what use did they have of dictators or leaders at all?


It has no credibility because it has no material basis. It probably doesn't but im not a trotskyist anyway.


Boris Yeltsin and his supporters were not members of the Communist Party wtf? From Wikipedia "Member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) from 1961 to July 1990, he began working in the Communist administration in 1968." Is wikipedia lying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin#CPSU_member

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Wait, how was the USSR democratic? I thought it was a despotism. Look at Stalin and his purges. That wasn't democratic.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Wait, how was the USSR democratic

It wasnt democratic in reality.

There was a very poor attempt at democracy. This inlcuded single candidate elcetions, with madatory voting.

The Soviet Political system, while could have been successful, was totally dominated by the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Being in the Communist party was a privilage.

A one party state is less democratic than a two/multi party state. However, they are both pretty poor systems anyway.

There was however, some quite good things at work for the soviet citizen.

Like, the workers held the power and the boss couldnt really stop them firing him. He couldnt fire workers unless the worker did somthing criminal. So that was somthing positive :)

http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/

thats a copy of tony cliffs: state capitalism in Russia



The USSR was never 'communist' or 'state capitalist', it was a democratic workers state with a socialist economy that eventually resorted to poor mixed economic planning as a result of unsustainable spending during the cold war, allowing a capitalist backed coup detat to take place.

So you think that the USSR changed from a "democratic workers state with a socialist economy" to a Capitalist State by a coup?

Essentially this is not a marxist position i dont think. For capitalism to be installed in the USSR, to change to a capitalist society, a capitalist class would have needed to take power.

Now, if you assume it was a "democratic workers state with a socialist economy" then surely the workers would have tried to stop this from happening?

The fact that the transition in the USSR was fairly easy, that the workers did not defend the "democratic workers state with a socialist economy" means that the working class didnt have power.


The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, a centralized workers state, as Marx advocated. The ruling class is inherently free and that is what the workers in the USSR were.

:blink: Wow thats a criminal thing to say. You were not inherently free in the USSR. You couldnt even talk openly in fear of state punishment.

Censorship of books, freedom of speech and party domination of propaghanda show that the ruling class ( i take it you mean the workers) was not securely in power.

[elmo sez]

I thought the USSR was state capitalist because the soviet councils were brought to an end and there was no democracy within the work place , or in the state its self, the capitalists were simply replaced by party commissars or officals.

Is this right ?

[BobKKKindle$]

For me, there are two key characteristics which meant that the USSR was not an accurate reflection of orthodox Marxism. Firstly, Wage labour still existed - depsite the provision of a range of Welfare services, workers were still forced to sell their labour power in order to survive. Leftists (well, me, at least) believe that work should not be performed as a means to live; in exchange for money; it should instead be performed simply as an end unto itself - because the individual finds in interesting. For work to be an end unti itself, it must be of the Worker's own choosing, unlike the USSR, where the work was delegated with little choice involved.

Secondly, the means of production were not in the hands of the workers - they were not socialised. They were nationalised. No matter what any very well read leninists tell you, no, nationalisation does not mean that the Means of production were owned and controlled by the workers, it means that the MoP were concentrated in the hands of the state - to all intents and purposes, private managers - like Capitalism. this is why the USSr is rightly refferred to as State Capitalist. This is what I think you are getting at el.mozez - I agree with you.


The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, a centralized workers state, as Marx advocated

The USSR was centralised in the sense that power was concentrated in the hands of a small party elite. A Vanguard. Marx never specified that. And I dont think its fair to say that the entire course of the USSR's existance was the DoP - the DoP is supposedly a period in which the revolution is defended and elements of Capitalist society were destroyed. The USSR's DoP was therefore the Civil war. In the case of Russia, which was not an advanced Capitalist country (and therefore apparently not suitable for Socialism) the DoP could be extended to around 1954, because of the Industrialisation (in marxist economics, the rapid development of the Forces of production) required for a socialist economy. But beyond that makes no sense. The Cold war was not defending the revolution, it was simply a paranoid arms race as a result of distrust between the WP and Nato.


it was a democratic workers state with a socialist economy

What time period are we talking about here? the USSR changed a lot. But at no point would i say it possessed any of those characteristics. Especially the Democratic Worker's State bit....

Whatever we individually think, the USSr failed to achieve a new socialist society. I think it was doomed to fail from the moment the Bolshevik Party decided to follow lenin's idea of the party vanguard. tragic clown seems to think the failure was the result of something else. What is most important is that we learn lessons from this experiment.

[Enragé]

i think its simple

Capitalism: control of the means of production by a small group (bourgeoisie)

Control of the means of production by a small group in charge of the state ---> State Capitalism

Socialism: control of the means of production by the proletariate

clearly the second is true.

[Comrade Don]

The USSR was communist until Kruschev, some people on this forum think that nothing is good enough unless they can kill their neigbor and not be punished for it { * Cough Cough Anarchists Cough Cough * }

[Comrade Don]

The USSR was communist until Kruschev, some people on this forum think that nothing is good enough unless they can kill their neigbor and not be punished for it { * Cough Cough Anarchists Cough Cough * }

[Comrade Don]

The USSR was communist until Kruschev, some people on this forum think that nothing is good enough unless they can kill their neigbor and not be punished for it { * Cough Cough Anarchists Cough Cough * }

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:22 PM
I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me as I've become confused. I was debating a capitalist and claimed the USSR was communist I claimed it wasn't, but realized I didn't understand much why it wasn't. Please could anyone explain state-capitalism simply and how it relates to the USSR. Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory? Thanks
There is a wikipedia-article on state capitalism, I have written parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:22 PM
I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me as I've become confused. I was debating a capitalist and claimed the USSR was communist I claimed it wasn't, but realized I didn't understand much why it wasn't. Please could anyone explain state-capitalism simply and how it relates to the USSR. Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory? Thanks
There is a wikipedia-article on state capitalism, I have written parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:22 PM
I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me as I've become confused. I was debating a capitalist and claimed the USSR was communist I claimed it wasn't, but realized I didn't understand much why it wasn't. Please could anyone explain state-capitalism simply and how it relates to the USSR. Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory? Thanks
There is a wikipedia-article on state capitalism, I have written parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Janus]

Wait, how was the USSR democratic?
Democracy was only skin deep. And it was only for party officials but the higher positions were basically arranged through backstage dealings.


Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory?
Simple: Control in the hands of a ruling class and control in the hands of the workers and people.

[Janus]

Wait, how was the USSR democratic?
Democracy was only skin deep. And it was only for party officials but the higher positions were basically arranged through backstage dealings.


Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory?
Simple: Control in the hands of a ruling class and control in the hands of the workers and people.

[Janus]

Wait, how was the USSR democratic?
Democracy was only skin deep. And it was only for party officials but the higher positions were basically arranged through backstage dealings.


Also could anyone lay out the big differences betweem the USSR and true marxist theory?
Simple: Control in the hands of a ruling class and control in the hands of the workers and people.