USSR

[proleterian fist]

It is very upsetting collapse of U.S.S.R.
If it didn't,maybe we would live in a socialist world now.

[BIG BROTHER]

Even though the USSR never really achieved communism, I do regret its colapse. Its a lot harder to start from scratch that it would be to improve the USSR

[jake williams]

Increasingly "Yes" for "end of history" reasons and all that. It's changed the discourse in a very negative way I think.

[Prairie Fire]

I would start even earlier, and say that I regret the capitalist restoration process in the USSR, several decades before it's collapse.

Still, even the fall of the social-imperialist USSR had negative effects for their citizens and the world.

[Dr Mindbender]

i am sort of nostalgic for the pre-perestroika days. Not because I think Gorbachev or the USSR was communist, but because i think it was the only credible counter balance to american/NATO global domination.
Plus the fact that the economies of poor old Cuba and North Korea have went to Shit.

[Holden Caulfield]

while the was a degenerated workers state there was more chance of making a major world power into a true workers state

[Luís Henrique]

The Soviet Union was awful to workers living there, but it was quite good for workers living outside it.

And the Cold War was horrible, but the "Hot Peace" that came after is decidedly worse.

Luís Henrique

[jake williams]

The Soviet Union was awful to workers living there, but it was quite good for workers living outside it.

And the Cold War was horrible, but the "Hot Peace" that came after is decidedly worse.

Luís Henrique
I think I'd basically second that. The Soviet Union was horrible to its own citizens (with a few important exceptions), but it did important things for everyone else. I do tend to think its an opposite sort of deal, in some ways, with the (once Other) Empire, which mostly just kicked the shit out of everyone else in the world and was relatively decent to its own citizens.

[mikelepore]

I dispute the description that the USSR "collapsed." People decided to get rid of it. That's not a collapse. The distinction should be made because the word "collapse" serves the capitalist propaganda that claims that any system that lacks a "free market" is necessarily inefficient to the point of being highly unstable and, due to its inherent nature, must eventually fall apart.

[Dros]

I don't see any hope that the USSR could have transitioned into socialism without a revolution. I see revolution as much more likely in a Bourgeois capitalist (opposed to state-capitalist) country.

While it definitely had bad effects for the people of Russia (yes, even revisionist USSR was okay next to what happened next) and Cuba et. all., I don't really regret it's fall. I think that it is now more (although still extremely unlikely) likely that there could be progress for the Communist Movement in Russia now that the CPSU is caput.

[Xiao Banfa]

The soviet union didn't collapse, it was dissolved by sellout bureaucrats.

[Marsella]

Where did the workers stand up to defend this model?

Did they at all?

[manic expression]

Of course it was a terrible thing for the workers of all countries. The Soviet Union provided a lot of progressive institutions and policies for its own citizens and aided revolutionary movements around the world. Just about every indicator of living standards: housing (homelessness), education, healthcare (life expectancy), racial equality, etc. have plunged dramatically. Anyone who thinks the fall was a good thing is ignorant or malicious or both.

And yes, the bureaucracy was the cause.

[Sky]

The dissolution by the Soviet Union by Yeltsin and his cronies has had social and economic implications of Russia worse than either the Mongol invasions of the second World War. It's interesting to note that while the Russian economy returned to its pre-WW2 level only in 1948, the Russian economy today in 2008 is still below that of its 1990 level. The illegal dissolution of the Soviet Union has only meant a drastic drop in the living standards of the people to the point where it is essentially a developing country with a strong military and vast petroleum reserves. The dissolution of the Soviet Union brought deadly war in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and elsewhere whose effects exceed anything the Soviet people experienced in the 1945-91 period.

[elijahcraignumbatwo]

If you asked this during Stalin or Lenin's time I'd said no; of what it became I'm not sure it could have become anything but a wrong example of socialist position.

I do regret, though, the fall...I would very much like some "SUPERPOWER" to 'offset' the constant torture-war-etc policies of the world in the US.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

even if there were problems with the USSR, you can't say you don't regret its collapse if you're really someone who believe in the people. It's collapse was the greatest regression in human history. basically overnight, millions of people became homeless, unemployed, landless farmers, hungry, industries which had been owned by the people as a whole were sold of to the mob or a couple of Russians who had made money during the opening from 88-91 (future oligarchs), peoples pensions disapeared, throughout the eastern block, education/literacy/healthcare collapse leaving millions of children without adequate textbooks in schools or even schools to go to. entire towns were shut down as indsutry was sold to the imperialists. Life expectancy in Russia decreased by like 10 years and is like the lowest in the industrialized world now that the people don't have healthcare. In exchange for what?

[More Fire for the People]

Neither option is better. The only thing I regret is how it collapsed.

[Colonello Buendia]

the USSR was state-capitalist and incredibly oppressive. They used the KGB to supress the worker and whats worse they did it all in the name of the people. The Soviet officials replaced the bourgeoisie and were elitist pigs.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

the USSR was state-capitalist and incredibly oppressive. They used the KGB to supress the worker and whats worse they did it all in the name of the people. The Soviet officials replaced the bourgeoisie and were elitist pigs.

that's a question of bureacracy not of capitalism. there was no capitalism. And bureacracy can always be cleaned out by the working class like in the GPCR. By Saying that your supprting whats now as better

[Holden Caulfield]

there was no capitalism?
:confused:

[chimx]

"no"

[black magick hustla]

I regret how it collapsed.

I don't like this terrible feeling of being in the "end of history".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

capital was overthrown, the capitalists were expropriated, their factories, shops, mills and shit were taken over by the people as a whole.

[FireFry]

There certainly was capital, and there certainly was people who gained off of capital.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

if you say so then the well established fact that capitalists were expropriated is nullified

[renegadoe]

How can I "regret" the fall, as if somehow I was a part of it?

I assume you're asking whether or not I think it set the workers movement back. I think it clearly vindicated what Marx said: that history works through stages, and you cannot skip them!

[manic expression]

the USSR was state-capitalist and incredibly oppressive. They used the KGB to supress the worker and whats worse they did it all in the name of the people. The Soviet officials replaced the bourgeoisie and were elitist pigs.

These sorts of misconceptions need to be discarded. The Soviet Union was not capitalist, and anyone who analyzes the issue will agree. Soviet elites did not own property, they did not employ workers, they did not buy and sell stocks and bonds, they did not own capital. There were no capitalist social relations in the Soviet Union, there was no capitalist mode of production. The bureaucratic position was tied directly to an abuse of power within a worker state. It is simply irrational and anti-materialist to state that the Soviet Union was, in any way, capitalist.

[Niemand]

Where did the workers stand up to defend this model?

Did they at all?
Yes, they did. In 1993, when Yeltsin dissolved the Supreme Soviet in order to advance with his capitalist-reformist policies. The people did indeed gather to defend the White House and in the end they were overrun by Yeltsin's chronies.

You can read about it more on the crisis's wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993

[Herman]

I think it clearly vindicated what Marx said: that history works through stages, and you cannot skip them!

You realize that everything that Marx said is not dogma. History doesn't follow some "law" which says, "human society must go first through capitalism or else it will disappear entirely by magic!".

[Xiao Banfa]

There certainly was capital, and there certainly was people who gained off of capital.


Bollocks, the soviet government and administrative system had some privileges- as do all personnel in that capacity.

They didn't make money of it, however. That's an example of different class relations, as Manic Expression explained.

[Dimentio]

These sorts of misconceptions need to be discarded. The Soviet Union was not capitalist, and anyone who analyzes the issue will agree. Soviet elites did not own property, they did not employ workers, they did not buy and sell stocks and bonds, they did not own capital. There were no capitalist social relations in the Soviet Union, there was no capitalist mode of production. The bureaucratic position was tied directly to an abuse of power within a worker state. It is simply irrational and anti-materialist to state that the Soviet Union was, in any way, capitalist.

I would say that even if the Soviet bureaucracy did not own the resources, it held de-facto control over them.

Could a Soviet worker for example file in a recall or "vote of no confidence" signature for Brezhnev, Andropov, Gromyko?

[manic expression]

I would say that even if the Soviet bureaucracy did not own the resources, it held de-facto control over them.

Sure, the bureaucracy had control over resources, but it did not profit from them. Controlling something through political power and profiting from something through ownership are two very different things done by two very different groups of people. If you have no private ownership, you have no capitalist social relations; it's really that simple.


Could a Soviet worker for example file in a recall or "vote of no confidence" signature for Brezhnev, Andropov, Gromyko?

No, the Soviet working class had long been isolated from the political process. As I said, the Soviet bureaucrat's existence was directly connected to abuse of power within the worker state apparatus. Worker democracy had been liquidated in the 30's by Stalin and the nomenklatura, which brought deformities to the already-existing worker state. In other words, the bureaucracy conquered political power, at the expense of the working class (and the health of the worker state). However, as the nomenklatura owed its existence to the worker state, it could not easily overturn socialist property relations.

They eventually did, but they soon found out that they were crappy businessmen (the oligarchy outmaneuvered them), and today the bureaucracy of the Russian Federation is quite powerful once again.

If you want to get a more in-depth explanation of these views, read "The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky (and "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" by Marx, which IMO underlines the theoretical basis for such a conclusion).

[Labor Shall Rule]

The fall of the Soviet Union was the single most catastrophic events in decades. They were an inspiration to the oppressed peoples of the world, who knew that if they threw off the yog of colonialism, there would be economic and military aid to help them sustain their independence. Its no coincidence that most of the world's guerrilla movements either drastically declined or died out as a result of the fall of the 'Iron Curtain'.

Now countries like Cuba, Zimbabwe, and North Korea are surrounded by hostile imperialist powers, and have privatized certain sectors of their economy to appease foreign capitalists.

Not to mention, Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has fallen by as much as 40 percent since 1992 and is now only 15 percent of the level of our country in Russia. In their country, unemployment is officially at 12 percent with “many more people ... now engaged in subsistence forms of employment.” The grasp of "free trade" has led to the premature deaths of some 9.7 million men, and their life expectancy fell by four years, more than in any other corner of our planet. Today, the average life expectancy for males in the Russian Federation is just 58 years.

[Saorsa]

I'm torn on this one. Obviously the fall of the USSR, and the destruction of all the safety nets that even state-capitalism was able to provide for the working masses, dealt a terrible blow to the people of Russia. The fact that life expectancy has fallen in Russia by about 20 years since the fall of the USSR is reason enough to say that it was a bad thing for the people of Russia.

However... for the people of the world, and above all for the communist movement, it has been a good thing. The fall of the USSR resulted in the collapse of all the pro-Moscow CPs that remained, such as the "Socialist Unity Party" here in New Zealand.

The USSR, from the time of Kruschchev onwards (and to a much lesser extent under Stalin) had a poisonous effect on CPs around the world, and acted as the spine that held these revisionist, phoney-Marxist reformist parties upright and prevented them from collapsing to the ground.

The pro-Moscow SUP here in New Zealand had a strong position in the trade union movement, one of it's members was actually elected to the position of President of the Council of Trade Unions. And when the government brought in the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) that basically destroyed the union movement, he did not do a single solitary goddamned fucking thing. He did not call for even a single strike, let alone a general strike that would have stopped the bill in it's tracks.

This occured as the USSR was in the process of collapsing, and the subsequent destruction of the Soviet Union resulted in the collapse of the SUP, thus opening up a space in the union movement for real revolutionaries (who weren't constantly getting purged from the unions by SUP thugs), and removed the cancerous presence of the SUP from the New Zealand socialist movement.

The large-scale removal of the revisionist cancer from the world communist movement as a result of the fall of the USSR has been thoroughly beneficial for true Marxists seeking to build a powerful revolutionary movement with a strong base in the working masses.



They were an inspiration to the oppressed peoples of the world, who knew that if they threw off the yog of colonialism, there would be economic and military aid to help them sustain their independence.


Change that to "who knew that if they threw off the yog of colonialism, they would be forced and/or pressured into developing a bankrupt state-capitalist economy based on supplying products such as sugar to the USSR, preventing them from developing real independence which could only come through large-scale self sufficiency, and instead making them pawns in the inter-imperialist struggle between the USSR and the USA."


Now countries like Cuba, Zimbabwe, and North Korea are surrounded by hostile imperialist powers, and have privatized certain sectors of their economy to appease foreign capitalists.

If Cuba had worked towards developing a largely self-sufficient economy following the revolution, instead of just being a supplier of sugar to the USSR, it would not have suffered such economic woes following the fall of the Soviet Union. It would not have been easy, sure, but it would have been able to withstand the "special period" without having to open it's doors to imperialist exploitation once more.

Don't get me wrong - I uphold Cuba and Castro as an example of how even such a flawed semi-socialist system as theirs is a better path for the Third World to follow than capitalism. Cuba has many things to be defended about it, and it's people are genuinely liberated when compared to the people of, say, the Dominican Republic. But the fact remains that Castro developed a state-capitalist supplier economy that was dependent on the USSR for survival,a nd with the fall of the USSR he has had to turn to places such as Western Europe to fill the void.

I'm totally at a loss as to why you'e upholding Zimbabwe as a remotely good example. Mugabe was never a socialist, and he only started redistributing white farms after landless workers and peasants, along with veterans of the liberation war, started doing it of their own accord.Initially he sent in troops to stop them, but following the success of the Movement for Democratic Change (founded by the trade unions and with many socialists in it's ranks, although it has since turned to the West for support and has lost support as a result) in the elections, he cynically changed tack to try and win votes. Noone who bulldozes poor people's homes and turns them into refugees should be upheld as a left winger.

North Korea is in the same boat as Cuba, although it's had an even harder time due to the natural disasters it's been hit by and the fact that Northern Korea is not designed to be a seperate country, as all the good agricultural land is in the South (the North had industry).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anyone who has looked into the situation at all would have to come to the conclusion that the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR dealt a serious blow to the workers of the world.

Other than the sheer human suffering it brought about (a loss of guaranteed housing and employment, universal healthcare and education, a drop in life expectancy unlike anything ever before seen, the reactionary rollback of progressive measures, the reemergence of the reactionary clergy, etc.), it created a world in which imperialism could step up its activities, both internationally (1st and 2nd Iraq wars, invasion of Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands, etc.) and domestically (rolling back gains made by workers, moving against gains like abortion rights, etc.).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Bollocks, the soviet government and administrative system had some privileges- as do all personnel in that capacity.

Well, the privilege can be limited.. in Cuba for example, it is very limited. But that's because the bureaucracy there hasn't usurped political power as it did in the USSR.

But (as Michael Parenti has pointed out*) even in bureaucratic socialist USSR in the 80's, the highest echelons of the bureaucracy had about four times what the average worker had. That's nowhere near the kind of privilege that capitalists and their government representatives have.

* Parenti doesn't agree that the USSR became bureaucratically controlled at a certain point.

[ComradeRed]

Sure, the bureaucracy had control over resources, but it did not profit from them. Controlling something through political power and profiting from something through ownership are two very different things done by two very different groups of people. If you have no private ownership, you have no capitalist social relations; it's really that simple. Uh when the Soviet Union fell, and data about how the Soviet's economy worked there were quite a few serious differences between how the Soviet Union claimed its economy worked and how it actually worked in practice. (See [1] (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=414845)).

Who knew less than a dozen guys couldn't plan an economy for hundreds of millions?! :lol:

There was even serious questions about the nomenklatura system (see [2] (http://www.jstor.org/browse/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0?frame=noframe&[email protected]/01c0a84873005091f7a&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0%3fcitationAction%3dremove%26charset%3du%26frame% 3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%[email protected] u/01c0a84873005091f7a%26config%3d%26citationPath%3d0 0071234-ap010073-01a00010%26PAGE%3d0&config=jstor)).

You can call it "wages"...CEOs and the CFOs certainly do, as well as all bourgeois scum. That doesn't change the fact that its surplus value.

Similarly with the expansion of capital, it presupposes the existence of surplus value.

Simply calling CEOs by another name, and not mentioning the expansion of capital, does not do away with them.

Who knew! :rolleyes:

[Marsella]

You realize that everything that Marx said is not dogma. History doesn't follow some "law" which says, "human society must go first through capitalism or else it will disappear entirely by magic!".Of course! Communists can just jump capitalism! :ohmy:

Let's see what Marx really said:



“And even when a society has got upon the right rod for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement . . . It can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.” Capital, Volume 1, Preface to the German Edition, 1867.



No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room within it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society. Preface to the Critique of Political Economy.

And what ends up happening:

"The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labor, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie…Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate." Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847, Collected Works, Volume 6

[Axel1917]

The collapse of the USSR has got to be one of the most catastrophic non-war related events in history. The living standards plummeted, US imperialism is now able to run around unchecked, proletarian property forms were replaced with bourgeois property forms, fascists are running amok, etc.

In spite of its deformities, the USSR proved once and for all the superiority of a planned economy, as it grew tremendously, far faster than any capitalist nation ever has, being transformed from a backward semi-feudal country to one of the most powerful nations on Earth in several decades. Unemployment was nonexistent, life expectancy was on par with advanced Western nations, the USSR put the first object and people into space, etc.

The gains of the planned economy were present, in addition to proletarian property. History has confirmed the predictions Trotsky made in The Revolution Betrayed (although decades of totalitarianism really had their effect, as Trotsky had predicted that a civil war would break out between those that wanted to keep the planned economy and the bureaucrats trying to turn themselves into capitalists. Hardline Stalnists seemed to have been proven too corrupt to really do anything to stop the sellout).

When it comes proletarian bonapartism (with the exception of Cuba's rather mild form of proletarian bonapartism, which can easily be resolved by mere reform.), you have two options: either the proletariat seizes power via a political revolution or the bureaucrats will eventually sell out to capitalism to further consolidate their privileges.

With the fall of Stalinism and the theory of Socialism in One Country, Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution has also yet again been confirmed in practice (The Chinese and Cuban revolutions were also a confirmation of this theory in a distorted manner.). With the emergence of imperialism, capitalism has emerged too late to play a progressive role in the backward nations (the bourgeoisies of those nations were born totally dependent on their old colonial masters in Africa, for instance.). Any gain by the working class, peasantry, and urban poor cannot be tolerated by the capitalists of those nations. The basic tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution cannot be carried out by the capitalists of those nations, so these tasks can only be done by socialist revolution. These tasks are started and made permanent, while the socialist tasks are immediately carried out, with internationalism spreading the revolution to other countries.

If capitalism is so necessary and progressive, I would really like to see Martov and Stalinist-Mensheviks prove that its is necessary and that there is a progressive bourgeoisie. The experience of the Third World flies in the face of their claims.

[Xiao Banfa]

The pro-Moscow SUP here in New Zealand had a strong position in the trade union movement, one of it's members was actually elected to the position of President of the Council of Trade Unions. And when the government brought in the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) that basically destroyed the union movement, he did not do a single solitary goddamned fucking thing. He did not call for even a single strike, let alone a general strike that would have stopped the bill in it's tracks.


Ken fucking douglas. He had no balls (or the female equivalent). He was an opportunist shit.

As Chris Trotter said, "The SUP would rather keep control of the losing side rather than lose control of the winning side".


However... for the people of the world, and above all for the communist movement, it has been a good thing.

This I have to disagree with. Left wing groups and progressive national liberation movements were enormously empowered by the USSR.

MPLA, ANC, IRA, SWAPO, FMLN, FSLN, PCC, NLF, NJM and many others.

This is just a beginning of a roll of honour of brave comrades who stood up against international capital and the fascist comprador bourgeoisie.

After the USSR collapsed, the more capitalist-accomodating factions of these parties held sway and they became light light-pink soc dems.

[Herman]

Of course! Communists can just jump capitalism! :ohmy:

Let's see what Marx really said:

Capital, Volume 1, Preface to the German Edition, 1867.

Preface to the Critique of Political Economy.

And what ends up happening:
Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847, Collected Works, Volume 6

Ah, let's see what Trotsky added to what Marx said:


But here the following question arises. Rozhkov regards Marx as his teacher. Yet Marx, having outlined the ‘essential prerequisites for socialism’ in his Communist Manifesto, regarded the revolution of 1848 as the immediate prologue to the socialist revolution. Of course one does not require much penetration after 60 years to see that Marx was mistaken, because the capitalist world still exists. But how could Marx have made this error? Did he not perceive that large-scale undertakings did not yet dominate in all branches of industry; that producers’ co-operatives did not yet stand at the head of the large-scale enterprises; that the overwhelming majority of the people were not yet united on the basis of the ideas set out in the Communist Manifesto? If we do not see these things even now, how is it then that Marx did not perceive that nothing of the kind existed in 1848? Apparently, Marx in 1848 was a Utopian youth in comparison with many of the present-day infallible automata of Marxism!

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp01.htm)

And let's see what Marx really says of Russia:


The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882)

So even your lord and master Marx disagrees with you!

[ComradeRed]

Ah, let's see what Trotsky added to what Marx said: It would seem obvious to those that are materialists that post-factum, Trotsky was wrong!



So even your lord and master Marx disagrees with you! Again, if anyone with the least bit of empiricism has even glanced at the USSR, it would be glaringly obvious that in this particular instance Marx was wrong.

He was human, who knew! :lol:

[manic expression]

Uh when the Soviet Union fell, and data about how the Soviet's economy worked there were quite a few serious differences between how the Soviet Union claimed its economy worked and how it actually worked in practice. (See [1] (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=414845)).

Yes, but that is not part of my argument. My argument deals with social relations; I could not care less whether or not the Soviet Union was being fully honest or not. In other words, read my post.


Who knew less than a dozen guys couldn't plan an economy for hundreds of millions?! :lol:

There was even serious questions about the nomenklatura system (see [2] (http://www.jstor.org/browse/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0?frame=noframe&[email protected]/01c0a84873005091f7a&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0%3fcitationAction%3dremove%26charset%3du%26frame% 3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%[email protected] u/01c0a84873005091f7a%26config%3d%26citationPath%3d0 0071234-ap010073-01a00010%26PAGE%3d0&config=jstor)).

You can call it "wages"...CEOs and the CFOs certainly do, as well as all bourgeois scum. That doesn't change the fact that its surplus value.

Are you claiming that Soviet bureaucrats were analogous to capitalist CEOs? Tell me, do Soviet bureaucrats own stocks and bonds? Do they directly employ workers? Do they intend to make capitalist profit for capitalist firms? Of course not, and no one would be silly enough to claim as much. Why, then, are you trying to compare the two?

"A feudal lord utilizes the labor of serfs! He is the same as a bourgeois CEO!"

What nonsense.


Similarly with the expansion of capital, it presupposes the existence of surplus value.

Simply calling CEOs by another name, and not mentioning the expansion of capital, does not do away with them.

Who knew! :rolleyes:

You're assuming the existence of wage-labor, which did not exist; you're assuming the existence of a capitalist mode of production, which did not exist; you're assuming capitalist property relations, which did not exist. Truly, you're merely assuming the prerequisites for your own argument, when in fact they don't exist.

[ComradeRed]

In other words, read my post. I wish you'd follow your own advice..."read my post"!


Are you claiming that Soviet bureaucrats were analogous to capitalist CEOs? Tell me, do Soviet bureaucrats own stocks and bonds? Do they directly employ workers? Do they intend to make capitalist profit for capitalist firms? Of course not, and no one would be silly enough to claim as much. Why, then, are you trying to compare the two? A CEO doesn't necessarily own shares to be a CEO. Often times corporate politics has the CEO be a canary.

So they must be workers when the CEO has no shares, right? :lol:

Further, you ignore the post-factum evidence that the factory managers acted more or less independent of the half dozen or so planners...and more importantly how the factor managers acted.

But hey, you can keep shouting "It was socialism!" all you want. It won't change what happened, but you can keep doing it.


You're assuming the existence of wage-labor, which did not exist; you're assuming the existence of a capitalist mode of production, which did not exist; you're assuming capitalist property relations, which did not exist. Truly, you're merely assuming the prerequisites for your own argument, when in fact they don't exist.You are asserting that wage-labor, etc., "did not exist".

I provided evidence of the contrary.

You ignore it and continue asserting wage-labor, etc., "did not exist".

Worse, your argument is nonexistent.

The various arguments made on wage-labor, etc., not existing are circular ones.

It "couldn't" have been capitalist because they called themselves "socialist".

In a capitalist mode of production, such and such a position would be bourgeois. But because the USSR called themselves socialist, it "surely" means that this position is no longer bourgeois :lol:

Such arguments are idealistic and decoupled from reality...not to mention that they assume the USSR was socialist to prove the USSR was socialist.

[Herman]

It would seem obvious to those that are materialists that post-factum, Trotsky was wrong!

You make an assertion, but do not even explain why or how. How can I argue if there are no arguments made?


Again, if anyone with the least bit of empiricism has even glanced at the USSR, it would be glaringly obvious that in this particular instance Marx was wrong.

He was human, who knew!

How was he wrong? Even left-communists admit to the fact that initially the infant Soviet Republic was truly socialist. If anything happened later on, it is not because Russia did not "have the same relations of production" as the rest of Europe.

[ComradeRed]

[/B]You make an assertion, but do not even explain why or how. How can I argue if there are no arguments made? Particularly concerning is the passage:

Of course one does not require much penetration after 60 years to see that Marx was mistaken, because the capitalist world still exists. But how could Marx have made this error? Did he not perceive that large-scale undertakings did not yet dominate in all branches of industry; that producers’ co-operatives did not yet stand at the head of the large-scale enterprises; that the overwhelming majority of the people were not yet united on the basis of the ideas set out in the Communist Manifesto?

That's the very same argument that vulgar Economists give to "prove" that Marx "must be wrong" (with regards to everything).

Capitalism has been around for, at most, 500 years...and that's in particular regions of Northern Europe.

Feudalism lasted for 1000 years in Europe, and roughly the same length in Asia.

Before that was Oriental Despotism (or if you like, the Asiatic mode of production) which lasted for several thousand years.

And capitalism was supposed to collapse 60 years after the second industrial revolution, according to Trotsky's interpretation of Marx!


How was he wrong? Even left-communists admit to the fact that initially the infant Soviet Republic was truly socialist. If anything happened later on, it is not because Russia did not "have the same relations of production" as the rest of Europe. Exactly how "initial" would you like?

After 1917 but before 1921 (with the introduction of the NEP)? So 4 years...

This would include the period of "War Communism" (started June 1918), a misnomer if there ever was one.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is "socialism" since it was essentially nationalization of the means of production in order for the Bolsheviks to consolidate power.

So you have...from October 1917 to June 1918 (7 months) of possible "socialism".

I'm sceptical that during these 7 months the USSR was socialist. But if you could provide evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

[manic expression]

I wish you'd follow your own advice..."read my post"!

"I know you are, but what am I?" Don't waste my time if you're not willing to address my points.


A CEO doesn't necessarily own shares to be a CEO. Often times corporate politics has the CEO be a canary.Not necessarily. In practice, s/he almost always does. So no, your argument is clinging to insignificant margins.


So they must be workers when the CEO has no shares, right? :lol:Even if we take your semantics and assume that a CEO has no shares, s/he is turning a profit for a private board (a group of owners). Does a Soviet bureaucrat do this? I thought so. Thanks for playing.


Further, you ignore the post-factum evidence that the factory managers acted more or less independent of the half dozen or so planners...and more importantly how the factor managers acted.And?


But hey, you can keep shouting "It was socialism!" all you want. It won't change what happened, but you can keep doing it.And you can keep bolding unsupported and irrational arguments all you want. It doesn't change facts.


You are asserting that wage-labor, etc., "did not exist".

I provided evidence of the contrary.

You ignore it and continue asserting wage-labor, etc., "did not exist".

Soviet workers were not employed in a wage-labor system. That much is part-and-parcel of the entire structure in which they lived.


Worse, your argument is nonexistent.

The various arguments made on wage-labor, etc., not existing are circular ones.

It "couldn't" have been capitalist because they called themselves "socialist".

In a capitalist mode of production, such and such a position would be bourgeois. But because the USSR called themselves socialist, it "surely" means that this position is no longer bourgeois :lol:

Such arguments are idealistic and decoupled from reality...not to mention that they assume the USSR was socialist to prove the USSR was socialist.I really don't care if a country calls itself socialist. I care if they have socialist property relations, I care if they don't utilize the capitalist mode of production. That's precisely what you are showing yourself to be remarkably oblivious to. My argument has little to do with the claims of the Soviet Union and everything to do with the reality of its society. Again, read my post and you might learn something.

Your argument, like that of the ultralefts, defies logic and common sense. You are trying to see capitalism where it didn't exist. Your best attempts have been clumsy parallels that, in fact, show nothing.

[right2rebel]

It's really rather difficult to obtain accurate or factual information on the USSR and the history of it.

With that said, I do regret the collapse of the USSR b/c of the opposition it had against the US. Often it provided a different perspective or counterbalanced the US.

We need this very sorely today,

[ComradeRed]

Not necessarily. In practice, s/he almost always does. So no, your argument is clinging to insignificant margins. The argument is that ownership does not determine class status for a CEO, thanks for completely missing the point.

"The Soviet Bureaucrats didn't own anything", yeah neither does a CEO by definition. :rolleyes:


Even if we take your semantics and assume that a CEO has no shares, s/he is turning a profit for a private board (a group of owners). Does a Soviet bureaucrat do this? How does the expansion of capital happen?

Industrialization, which I doubt any questions the USSR did, requires expansion of capital.

It presupposes the existence of some surplus amount to be used on expanding capital. Marx called it "surplus value".

"Thanks for playing."


And? The decentralized industrial relations of the USSR allowed for factory managers to pocket some money by charging more per unit of output.

I've referenced the papers that outline this fact a number of times in this thread.

"Profit didn't exist in the USSR"...and I'm the queen of France.


Soviet workers were not employed in a wage-labor system. That much is part-and-parcel of the entire structure in which they lived. :lol: And the evidence for this is...?

This is an assertion not an argument. As I said, if you've got evidence then by all means show it...


I really don't care if a country calls itself socialist. I care if they have socialist property relations, I care if they don't utilize the capitalist mode of production. That's precisely what you are showing yourself to be remarkably oblivious to. My argument has little to do with the claims of the Soviet Union and everything to do with the reality of its society. Again, read my post and you might learn something. You've provided assertions but no evidence.

Most unsatisfactory, unscientific, and idealistic.

On the other hand, you've assented that class isn't determined solely by ownership or non-ownership...and you seem to be ignoring post-factum empiricism of the USSR.

Still I should believe you that the USSR was socialist? :lol:

Perhaps you could provide some cogent argument or actual empirical evidence to back your assertions that the USSR was socialist?

Simply asserting "It's illogical to say the USSR was capitalist, so therefore it must be socialist" is not a valid argument...although others have tried it.

[manic expression]

The argument is that ownership does not determine class status for a CEO, thanks for completely missing the point.

"The Soviet Bureaucrats didn't own anything", yeah neither does a CEO by definition. :rolleyes:

And yet most CEOs do. Sorry, but that's how it is in the real world. Nevertheless, a CEO is in the business of turning capitalist profit. Soviet bureaucrats do no such thing. Now you're wrong on two levels.


How does the expansion of capital happen?

Industrialization, which I doubt any questions the USSR did, requires expansion of capital.

It presupposes the existence of some surplus amount to be used on expanding capital. Marx called it "surplus value".

"Thanks for playing."

Industrialization can be pursued by socialist societies. It doesn't take a capitalist mode of production to build and run a factory.

Good to know that you're mistaken AND unoriginal.


The decentralized industrial relations of the USSR allowed for factory managers to pocket some money by charging more per unit of output.

I've referenced the papers that outline this fact a number of times in this thread.

"Profit didn't exist in the USSR"...and I'm the queen of France.

Oh, give me a break. You're taking, once again, marginal occurences and trying to portray them as common. Factory managers "pocketing some money" isn't capitalism, and any idiot can figure that out. Unfortunately, you're so hellbent on promoting your irrational theories that you don't care how much you misrepresent the facts.


And the evidence for this is...?

This is an assertion not an argument. As I said, if you've got evidence then by all means show it...

You're asking me to prove the nonexistence of something? Typical. Try showing us that there were capitalist property relations and a capitalist mode of production; maybe then, just maybe, you'll have an argument, but right now you don't. So far, you've only shown yourself capable of bolding words and using smilies :scared:.


You've provided assertions but no evidence.

Most unsatisfactory, unscientific, and idealistic.

My assertions are quite well supported. By what, you ask? By your own inability to provide an actual argument. My assertions have targeted your fallacious ideas, and so far you have countered with nothing but desperate and empty insults. When you're ready to make a point, let me know.


On the other hand, you've assented that class isn't determined solely by ownership or non-ownership...and you seem to be ignoring post-factum empiricism of the USSR.

I've asserted that CEOs oftentimes own stocks and bonds. You, in place of an argument, have tried to build a strawman. I'm sure you'll continue misrepresenting my arguments, because that's all you have left.


Still I should believe you that the USSR was socialist? :lol:

Perhaps you could provide some cogent argument or actual empirical evidence to back your assertions that the USSR was socialist?

Simply asserting "It's illogical to say the USSR was capitalist, so therefore it must be socialist" is not a valid argument...although others have tried it.

Sorry, but you're the one who doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims. My point has been to question your own assertions: the only evidence I need is your own ineptitude. In this, I have an abundance of evidence.

[ComradeRed]

And yet most CEOs do. Sorry, but that's how it is in the real world. Nevertheless, a CEO is in the business of turning capitalist profit. Soviet bureaucrats do no such thing. Now you're wrong on two levels. You miss the whole point, unsurprisingly enough.

A CEO's class is determined by his relations to the means of production, which you recognize.

You fail to understand that this is the crux of the matter, which is particularly alarming that you can identify such a simple property but fail to apply it.

There are several different relations to the means of production in Soviet society (at a very macro level) generalized to one of three choices: bureaucrat, factory manager, or worker (or peasant).

Do I really need to hold you by the hand and inspect each of these respective groups' relations to the means of production and labor?

It's been done for you... (http://www.jstor.org/view/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0) :rolleyes:


Industrialization can be pursued by socialist societies. It doesn't take a capitalist mode of production to build and run a factory. You're committing the classical fallacy of assuming primitive accumulation is the effect of capitalism.

If you understood Das Kapital, you'd realize it is the cause of capitalism.

Don't feel too bad, Lenin made the same fallacy.


Oh, give me a break. You're taking, once again, marginal occurences and trying to portray them as common. Factory managers "pocketing some money" isn't capitalism, and any idiot can figure that out. Unfortunately, you're so hellbent on promoting your irrational theories that you don't care how much you misrepresent the facts. Ahem, you appear to be ignoring the data (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=414847&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=01&aid=414845&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0022050706000015) and more data (http://www.jstor.org/view/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0).

There appears to be a recurring theme of attacking empiricism. How scientific! :lol:


You're asking me to prove the nonexistence of something? Typical. No, I'm asking you to prove that you're right by showing us some empirical proof supporting your argument.

So far you have given assertions and straw men. "Typical" :rolleyes:

More comically, you've asserted you are correct because you are straw-manning my position.

That's an invalid, not to mention illogical, argument.


Try showing us that there were capitalist property relations and a capitalist mode of production; maybe then, just maybe, you'll have an argument, but right now you don't. So far, you've only shown yourself capable of bolding words and using smilies :scared:. And referring you to articles where this is covered in much more detail.

But you ignore them and simply say "Ah it must be socialist!" :lol:

The old ostrich principle, huh?

Or would you like me to read them for you? :rolleyes:


My assertions are quite well supported. By what, you ask? By your own inability to provide an actual argument. My assertions have targeted your fallacious ideas, and so far you have countered with nothing but desperate and empty insults. When you're ready to make a point, let me know. So you have no empirical evidence?

Why am I not the least bit surprised by this...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, they were CEOs.. the most generous CEOs in the history of earth.

While CEOs in the U.S. rake in 9 digit bonuses to employees' 6 digit incomes, the highest bureaucrats in the USSR made on average only four times what the average worker made. These "CEOs" presided over a system in which employment and housing were guaranteed, in which universal healthcare and education existed, in which millions were brought out of poverty and ignorance, etc..

Indeed this "business" the "CEOs" ran was also very strange in that it was able to grow at a rate never before seen -- with nowhere near the amount of damage inflicted during the industrialization process in England or the U.S. -- and avoid the crises and highs and lows of the capitalist world.

[Comrade Rage]

It is very upsetting collapse of U.S.S.R.
If it didn't,maybe we would live in a socialist world now.I highly doubt that. The USSR had been moving away from socialism since the 50's. Socialism was already long dead in the USSR, Perestroika was just the box they buried it in.

[Comrade Qwatt]

I highly doubt that. The USSR had been moving away from socialism since the 50's. Socialism was already long dead in the USSR, Perestroika was just the box they buried it in.
I agree, in fact the first signs of revisionism came int 1957 at the CPSU Congress, whereafter Khrushchev began liberalizing parts of the Soviet economy and introducing bourgeois market mechanisms. Brezhnevism, it's natural successor, built on this by introducing corporate style fascism, whereby the soviets were replaced by the new 'bosses' and 'socialist profit' was broadened.

Perestroika, as is commonly said, was the collapse of revisionism, this of course was inevitable, as the bourgeois will naturally extract more surplus profit with full-blown bourgeois capitalism rather than state capitalism.

[Holden Caulfield]

cry cry cry we all miss Stalin,
even if the Soviet Union was capitalist i think the fact it exsisted in the heads of its citizens as a communist nation then there could be far more scope for change in comparison to Putins Russia,

[Ismail]

The revisionists ruined the USSR, but even then conditions were better under pseudo-socialism. At least ethnic violence was cracked down on and the trafficking of women and such was rare.

[manic expression]

You miss the whole point, unsurprisingly enough.

A CEO's class is determined by his relations to the means of production, which you recognize.

You fail to understand that this is the crux of the matter, which is particularly alarming that you can identify such a simple property but fail to apply it.

There are several different relations to the means of production in Soviet society (at a very macro level) generalized to one of three choices: bureaucrat, factory manager, or worker (or peasant).

Do I really need to hold you by the hand and inspect each of these respective groups' relations to the means of production and labor?

It's been done for you... (http://www.jstor.org/view/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0)

Yes, a CEO's class is determined by his or her relationship to the means of production. What you continue to ignore is that the Soviet bureaucrat's relationship is vastly different from a capitalist CEO. Allow me to repeat myself yet again, since you seem incapable of grasping an elementary materialist analysis. Soviet bureaucrats did not employ anyone, they did not turn capitalist profit, they did not own property. You had better believe CEO's do all of the above. Why, then, do you try to persist in the delusion that they took the same position?

There are even further holes in your "theory": EVEN IF a bureaucrat was a CEO, who was the board (which directly owned the majority of the firm)? You cannot account for these comical inconsistencies, because your assumptions are comically wrong.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1


You're committing the classical fallacy of assuming primitive accumulation is the effect of capitalism.

If you understood Das Kapital, you'd realize it is the cause of capitalism.

Don't feel too bad, Lenin made the same fallacy.

What a surprise: more unsupported claims. My solitary point was that socialist societies CAN and SHOULD build and run factories. What do I get in response? A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

When you're done making nebulous assertions and ready to make a real point, I'll be ready to address it.


Ahem, you appear to be ignoring the data (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=414847&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=01&aid=414845&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0022050706000015) and more data (http://www.jstor.org/view/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0).

There appears to be a recurring theme of attacking empiricism. How scientific!

I will read those sources and deal with them, but I doubt they help your position any. While I read them (which will take some time), perhaps you could put forth your argument and the significance of those sources, so that we could get to the bottom of this a bit faster.


No, I'm asking you to prove that you're right by showing us some empirical proof supporting your argument.

So far you have given assertions and straw men. "Typical" :rolleyes:

More comically, you've asserted you are correct because you are straw-manning my position.

That's an invalid, not to mention illogical, argument.

You made a strawman by saying that I claimed that class isn't solely determined by ownership or non-ownership, which is patently false. That is a strawman at best. Stop running away from your own words.

Moreover, if you surveyed this discussion, you'd see that the bulk of your posts is dedicated to meaningless rhetoric with no real significance. Your argument is mostly hot-air at this point.


And referring you to articles where this is covered in much more detail.

You have done that just now, and it will take me quite awhile to get through them. In the meantime, care to make a summary, or perhaps outline your argument in clear terms?


But you ignore them and simply say "Ah it must be socialist!" :lol:

The old ostrich principle, huh?
Or would you like me to read them for you? :rolleyes:

So you have no empirical evidence?

Why am I not the least bit surprised by this...

My position has relied on the basic realities of the Soviet Union: bureaucrats owned nothing, employed no one, made no profit. You have flagrantly ignored these facts and continued to repeat the ultraleft myth that bureaucrats are capitalist. Your last refuge is to hide behind statistics, which I will soon analyze and use to disprove your assertions once more.

While I read your sources, perhaps you could be so kind as to read my arguments: namely, the fact that bureaucrats did not own property, did not employ wage-laborers and did not make capitalist profit. These are fundamental truths that you will never be able to reconcile, because your position flies in the face of reality itself.

[Morpheus]

even if there were problems with the USSR, you can't say you don't regret its collapse if you're really someone who believe in the people. It's collapse was the greatest regression in human history.

No, the Bronze age collapse was worse. So was the conquest of the New World and the diseases & slave trade that followed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Small point, but if you count the names recorded in the poll, they do not total 285, or anything near (more like half that figure).

So, where are the missing names?

[Faux Real]

Neither option is better. The only thing I regret is how it collapsed.
This.

Had the anti-bureaucracy movement not been derailed by Yeltsin and the oligarchs, it could have proven to be like the 56 Hungarian revolution - if that revolution was to be successful.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

No, the Bronze age collapse was worse. So was the conquest of the New World and the diseases & slave trade that followed.

the conquest of the new world wasn't a regression, it was a conquest it was like every other imperialist venture. the collapse of the USSR wasn't because an imperialist power invaded or the USSR was colonized like in the casze of the new world. diesease and slave trade were also part of the old world, they were just spread. And the bronze age was before human society industrialized and doesn't count.


The revisionists ruined the USSR, but even then conditions were better under pseudo-socialism. At least ethnic violence was cracked down on and the trafficking of women and such was rare.

no the problem was the formation of the bureacracy.

[Comrade Qwatt]

I've personally never understood the Trot/anarchist obcession with 'bureaucracy', especially when referring to Stalin's time. The fact is simply that such a byzantine and omnipotent bureaucracy did not exist, and has become a mythical bogeyman for the liberal-left. These ultra-leftists spend more time attacking legitimate workers movements and actually existing socialism as 'unjust', 'authoritarian' than they do actually trying to put their theory into reality, instead it seems they hug to their tiny fringe factions and critique. Alot of people around revleft I believe desperately need to stop being such egos, use some self-criticism, and stop thinking that their 'anarchist' 'views' represent the sum of all human knowledge. Marx's writings are acknowledged because they make such a clear and factual analysis of reality.

[Holden Caulfield]

if the man is charge is called General Secetary and came to a seat of power through holding places in the organisational sectors of the party then I think that it is all well and good to refer to the bureaucracy in Stalins time,

if you love Uncle Joe so much then surely you must think the fact so many 'traitors' got into positions of power would be through the bureaucracy,

'those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything' - Stalin said this,

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

'those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything' - Stalin said this,

When did he say this, to whom, and in what context? That is very relevant since one may classify it as a very apt critique of bourgeois democracy.

[Psy]

I've personally never understood the Trot/anarchist obcession with 'bureaucracy', especially when referring to Stalin's time. The fact is simply that such a byzantine and omnipotent bureaucracy did not exist, and has become a mythical bogeyman for the liberal-left. These ultra-leftists spend more time attacking legitimate workers movements and actually existing socialism as 'unjust', 'authoritarian' than they do actually trying to put their theory into reality, instead it seems they hug to their tiny fringe factions and critique. Alot of people around revleft I believe desperately need to stop being such egos, use some self-criticism, and stop thinking that their 'anarchist' 'views' represent the sum of all human knowledge. Marx's writings are acknowledged because they make such a clear and factual analysis of reality.
Take Leningrad after WWII, Stalin purged the officers that defended Lenigrad against all odds because they acted independently of Moscow (they had no choice as they were cut-off), Stalin purged these officers to protect the bureaucracy just like how Stalin purged the army of everyone that fought in the civil-war where many officers had similar situations (of having to make decisions themselves). The bureaucracy that Stalin represented was terrified of a army that could think for itself, yet it was troops thinking thinking for themselves that led to the Russian revolution (Trotsky could not have recruit so many Russian troops for the October revolution if the troops acted like Stalin wanted later on). Stalin is the perfect example of why those that only do half a revolution dig their own grave. not only did revolutionaries get screwed by Stalin crushing revolutions but what gains Stalin kept in Russia was eventually reversed.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Take Leningrad after WWII, Stalin purged the officers that defended Lenigrad against all odds because they acted independently of Moscow (they had no choice as they were cut-off), Stalin purged these officers to protect the bureaucracy just like how Stalin purged the army of everyone that fought in the civil-war where many officers had similar situations (of having to make decisions themselves). The bureaucracy that Stalin represented was terrified of a army that could think for itself, yet it was troops thinking thinking for themselves that led to the Russian revolution (Trotsky could not have recruit so many Russian troops for the October revolution if the troops acted like Stalin wanted later on). Stalin is the perfect example of why those that only do half a revolution dig their own grave. not only did revolutionaries get screwed by Stalin crushing revolutions but what gains Stalin kept in Russia was eventually reversed.

Would it kill you anarchists to actually CHECK some facts before blurting out such nonsense. Do you realize that both Zhukov and Zhdanov were charged with the defense of Leningrad? Neither were purged, quite the opposite actually. In reality, the real problem was a lack of balance between political control and military professionalism, and in reality the latter won out, so if you wanted to throw anything against Stalin it would be that.

But as usual, sometimes Stalin is bad because he was too revolutionary, and then he is also bad for not being revolutionary enough.

[Psy]

Would it kill you anarchists to actually CHECK some facts before blurting out such nonsense. Do you realize that both Zhukov and Zhdanov were charged with the defense of Leningrad? Neither were purged, quite the opposite actually. In reality, the real problem was a lack of balance between political control and military professionalism, and in reality the latter won out, so if you wanted to throw anything against Stalin it would be that.

Most of the leadership of Leningrad (including family members) was secretly purged (declassified records state their secret executions was ordered by Stalin) and there is evidence Stalin probably ordered doctors to give Andrei Zhandov bad medical advice, telling him to exercise when even at the time any competent doctor would advise the opposite for someone with his heart condition.





But as usual, sometimes Stalin is bad because he was too revolutionary, and then he is also bad for not being revolutionary enough.
Stalin was never too revolutionary, even Lenin lumped Stalin with the "old Bolsheviks" that he stated only patriot the party line without using Marxism to analyze events. Like Trotsky said to people that said "only if Lenin was still alive", if Lenin was still alive Stalin would have forced him into exile or killed him (there is some evidence that Stalin might have poisoned Lenin)

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Most of the leadership of Leningrad (including family members) was secretly purged (declassified records state their secret executions was ordered by Stalin) and there is evidence Stalin probably ordered doctors to give Andrei Zhandov bad medical advice, telling him to exercise when even at the time any competent doctor would advise the opposite for someone with his heart condition.

Source please!!

Were you aware that the death of Zhdanov was a huge political blow for Stalin and the real Marxists?





Stalin was never too revolutionary, even Lenin lumped Stalin with the "old Bolsheviks" that he stated only patriot the party line without using Marxism to analyze events. Like Trotsky said to people that said "only if Lenin was still alive", if Lenin was still alive Stalin would have forced him into exile or killed him (there is some evidence that Stalin might have poisoned Lenin)

Wow that's funny because one of the oft-quoted claims against Stalin is that he purged those great "Old Bolsheviks".

[Psy]

Source please!!

Try watching the BBC documentary "Stalin and the betrayal of Leningrad"



Were you aware that the death of Zhdanov was a huge political blow for Stalin and the real Marxists?

Zhdanov actually became highly critical of Stalin after WWII as did the rest of the Leningrad leadership. They saw first hand Stalin was the incompetent boob that Trotsky described him as during civil-war, the Leningrad leadership was well aware of Stalin's insane orders and that the war only turned around when Stalin stopped trying to run the war.



Wow that's funny because one of the oft-quoted claims against Stalin is that he purged those great "Old Bolsheviks".
When Lenin said "Old Bolsheviks" he meant those that still believed in his old works (stuff like the stages theory). Also note Lenin didn't purge them else Stalin would have been one of them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

a BBC documentary should hardly count as a source as BBC is about the most anti-communist peace of shit in the world. It is The British State's Propaganda tool. Some fucking anarchist you are LMAO. Just look at how they report events like for example yesterday Maoists in India attacked a police station and killed 14 officers. The article places full blame on them for all casualties during the peoples war, and calls them terrorists even though they only attack the police and military and state.

At the same time denying the bureacracy is impossible. There are many accounts of genuine communists who had devoted their lives to the party being sent to work camps and arrested for no reason. Was this necessarily Stalin in particular? No. But this was the working of a bureacracy that formed because no one stood up for worker democracy when the time was vital.

[Psy]

a BBC documentary should hardly count as a source as BBC is about the most anti-communist peace of shit in the world. It is The British State's Propaganda tool. Some fucking anarchist you are LMAO. Just look at how they report events like for example yesterday Maoists in India attacked a police station and killed 14 officers. The article places full blame on them for all casualties during the peoples war, and calls them terrorists even though they only attack the police and military and state.

True but the BBC also allows people like Mark Steel and Adam Curtis on the air, also the documentary simply paints Stalin as a incompetent boob during WWII (that Trotsky said Stalin was during the civil-war), that USSR documents and eye witness suggest that WWII had radicalized Leningrad and Stalin purged to defend his power. It is also on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Affair)



At the same time denying the bureacracy is impossible. There are many accounts of genuine communists who had devoted their lives to the party being sent to work camps and arrested for no reason. Was this necessarily Stalin in particular? No. But this was the working of a bureacracy that formed because no one stood up for worker democracy when the time was vital.
Lenin and Trotsky did mention the problem of growing bureaucracy but neither had any real solution at the time.

[manic expression]

I've personally never understood the Trot/anarchist obcession with 'bureaucracy', especially when referring to Stalin's time. The fact is simply that such a byzantine and omnipotent bureaucracy did not exist, and has become a mythical bogeyman for the liberal-left. These ultra-leftists spend more time attacking legitimate workers movements and actually existing socialism as 'unjust', 'authoritarian' than they do actually trying to put their theory into reality, instead it seems they hug to their tiny fringe factions and critique. Alot of people around revleft I believe desperately need to stop being such egos, use some self-criticism, and stop thinking that their 'anarchist' 'views' represent the sum of all human knowledge. Marx's writings are acknowledged because they make such a clear and factual analysis of reality.

Are you kidding me? Stalin formalized the nomenklatura system and consolidated their power; this was arguably one of the most important developments in post-Civil War USSR.

[Holden Caulfield]

a BBC documentary should hardly count as a source as BBC is about the most anti-communist peace of shit in the world.

i dunno Fox maybe, even the english ITV is worse,
not that my point in anyway matters

[nvm]

On the one side i regret it because although the politics were controlled by bureaucrats the economy was still a socialist planned economy which is far better than capitalism.
On the other side the Soviet Union as i said before was controlled politically by bureaucrats so it was not a democratic socialist state where the workers made the decisions .So either the collapse was inevitably going to happen , either there would be a social revolution in the revolution itself in order for the people to take the power again at their hands.
It is sad that after the collapse the conditions for th people are bad in Eastern Europe.
But i hope that we ll learn our lesson for the future and don't let the bureaucrats rise, keep the power to the people , and learn at last that Trotsky was right on all his accusations.
Let us hope that the 21st century will be a century of revolutions that will bring a true workers state into power,as the Soviet Union from stalin and after was a deformed workers state.

[Psy]

On the one side i regret it because although the politics were controlled by bureaucrats the economy was still a socialist planned economy which is far better than capitalism.
On the other side the Soviet Union as i said before was controlled politically by bureaucrats so it was not a democratic socialist state where the workers made the decisions .So either the collapse was inevitably going to happen , either there would be a social revolution in the revolution itself in order for the people to take the power again at their hands.
It is sad that after the collapse the conditions for th people are bad in Eastern Europe.
But i hope that we ll learn our lesson for the future and don't let the bureaucrats rise, keep the power to the people , and learn at last that Trotsky was right on all his accusations.
Let us hope that the 21st century will be a century of revolutions that will bring a true workers state into power,as the Soviet Union from stalin and after was a deformed workers state.
It it would have been better if the US also saw the same kind of uprisings that occurred against the USSR bureaucracy, over Reagan attacking unions. Such uprisings in the US probably have encouraged Russian workers to also to simply take the means of production.

[mario_buda]

I regret that the USSR ever existed.

[Psy]

I regret that the USSR ever existed.
Are you serious? The old ruling class of Russia by the time of the revolution was highly reactionary and being growing fascist. Remember the ruling class in Russia at the time were not real bourgeoisie but the old feudal lords that were highly racist, sexist and superstitious. You'd had a Russian version of Hitler if the USSR didn't come into existence but with far more power as a fascist Russia would have been far more in line with the existing world order the a fascist Germany.

[Red Blue Pen]

I regret the collapse of the USSR, because they did so much to try to spread socialism.

Yes, there definitely were internal problems that were deplorable, but a Socialist superpower was a boon to revolutions everywhere.

[chimx]

^^^ so I take it you believe in quantity over quality?

[Awful Reality]

^^^ so I take it you believe in quantity over quality?

To the contrary, I believe that he is saying that the USSR was a very good start, and later on could have served as a catalyst to world socialism. And after Stalin and before Gorbachev, things were quite good in the Soviet Union.

[Holden Caulfield]

i disagree, after Stalin was more capitalism, and then several 'nationalists' who weren't communists in reality

[BIG BROTHER]

So..I didn't fill like starting a new thread, but rather use this one to ask you guys, what you think about the economic crises that the USSR suffered?

[Static]

It is unfortunate, because I liked Stalin more than I like Mao, and China is the only nation powerful enough at this time to be able to have a chance of acheive what the Union did.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

So..I didn't fill like starting a new thread, but rather use this one to ask you guys, what you think about the economic crises that the USSR suffered?

This was largely the fault of various market reforms. This was especially true in the open treason Gorbachev era, when Soviet papers were running articles directly from the WSJ, and even worse. Basically the idea was try this market reform...OH NO A CRISIS!! What should we do? MORE MARKET REFORMS!! There was little to no discussion about how to solve these problems from a socialist standpoint.

[Lamanov]

Collapse of the USSR is a victory for libertarian communism. Now we have a clear path to build an authentic revolutionary movement without the "Soviet" spectacle.

The poll results show the level of political retardation on this forum.

[Devrim]

Changes in the form of capitalist management are not victories for communism.

Devrim

[Comrade Nadezhda]

While the fall of the USSR (following reformism / development into a social-imperialist state) definitely did not have positive effects; aside from that it opened the door for the imperialist world powers to expand and spread their exploitative means around the globe (which the capitalists view as a benefit, of course) The reforms during the existence of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev bureaucracy reversed revolutionary progress. As a social-imperialist state, the USSR continued to exist. To regret merely the "collapse of the USSR" is minimal. However it makes more sense to regret that capitalism was restored long before the collapse which allowed for development into a social-imperialist state, because the USSR did not function as a proletarian state up until the collapse.

[Lamanov]

Devrim, don't be so exclusive all the time. :D It's not a victory of communism, but it is definately victory for that direction: there's no more Soviet Union to portray itself as "real socialist alternative" and suffocate all other, actual communist movements. Again, there's "no more 'Soviet' spectacle."

[manic expression]

Collapse of the USSR is a victory for libertarian communism. Now we have a clear path to build an authentic revolutionary movement without the "Soviet" spectacle.

The poll results show the level of political retardation on this forum.

How cute. Ultra-lefts cheering the destruction of socialist relations. In case no one told you, the working class of the USSR has been completely and utterly subjugated since the fall. Unemployment, homelessness, untreated sickness, poverty, rampant racism and worse have all stricken the workers of the USSR, and the ultra-lefts can't get enough of it. Real socialists defend gains of the working class against the capitalists; "libertarian communists" do none of this.


Changes in the form of capitalist management are not victories for communism.

Another insipid ultra-left argument. The Soviet Union was not capitalist, and only a fool would claim as much. Property relations, mode of production and otherwise were not bourgeois, so how can one say that the USSR was bourgeois? Private property, direct employment of workers, the market and other fundamental aspects of capitalism had NO PART in the Soviet Union. Your argument is completely irrational.

[Lamanov]

Manic, you're still pushing your little retarded story about "socialist relations"? Interesting. How about growing up, eh?

Defend the socialist gains! Hail inflation of meet prices, hail bread lines and shortages!

Capitalism replacing capitalism, Manic. Only now we get a chance to fight it more efficiently, that is, we get to call it by its real name, because people like you can't complain about defending "socialist relations". See Dev, this is what I'm talking about.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I regret the defeat of the workers within the USSR by the hands of the Bolsheviks.

[Sendo]

I don't regret the collapse of the USSR
But I do regret what took its place. Notably the dismal loss of quality of life from Gorbachev USSR Russia compared with Yelstin's Russia.

As far as the embarrassment of Soviet "Communism" there is the equally propagandist measure of glorifiying Yeltsin. Propagandists will find material, or make it up, without fail.

[Magic Snowman]

The USSR was a crazy fucked-up caricature of a worker's state, but the simple fact that a planned economy could not only survive in the face of the combined forces of world capitalism, but actually outperform them economically for decades, rising from a backwards semi-feudal empire to one of the world's superpowers, was a tremendous statement of the shortcomings of capitalism.

[RedFlagComrade]

I said no because i read the question as 'did you regret the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the corrupt totalitarion Russian Empire that was the soviet union"
I regret the fall of the USSR as a communist country way back when Lenin died and Stalin took over.
Nevertheless many Russians would like to return to the good old days of communism-showing that capitalism wasnt all it was cracked up to be!(the communist party remains one of the largest in Russias Duma

[Psy]

I said no because i read the question as 'did you regret the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the corrupt totalitarion Russian Empire that was the soviet union"
I regret the fall of the USSR as a communist country way back when Lenin died and Stalin took over.
Nevertheless many Russians would like to return to the good old days of communism-showing that capitalism wasnt all it was cracked up to be!(the communist party remains one of the largest in Russias Duma
That corrupt totalitarian empire had a few good points, like far less homeless.

[S.O.I]

no. decentralization is a good thing, although the soviet did some good things to our people fighting the nazis.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

That corrupt totalitarian empire had a few good points, like far less homeless.

Try no homeless.

@SOI: Ordinarily I wouldn't post here anymore but circumstances have dictated a temporary stay. Since this thread got bumped in my User CP, I thought I'd add something. Do not expect a reply however, as it is possible that I will be gone again soon after a certain issue has been resolved.

Decentralization has to be looked at in depth. In general, yes, we can say it is good, particularly in the modern era when communication is better. On the other hand, measures have to be in place to ensure efficiency on a national/international level, and also to prevent regionalism, since certain regions will have more potential wealth than others.

The problem with decentralization in the USSR is that it was carried out with intent to destroy the economic system- decentralized enterprises were basically flying blind, and this gave rise to a class of wealthy middle men who traded resources between the severed enterprises.

[3A CCCP]

The Soviet Union was awful to workers living there, but it was quite good for workers living outside it.Luís Henrique

Comrade:

How long did you live and work in the Soviet Union? Obviously, you must have lived there to be able to make a definitive statement like that. If you didn't live and work there how do you know how the workers lived? Based on U.S. and Western propaganda?? The word of dissidents??? CNN, ABC, CBS, the BBC, etc.????

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[el_chavista]

A bureaucratic party is isolated from the people. So Reagan could pay Yeltsin for collapsing of the CPSU (Yeltsin's daughters still have part of the money in Swiss banks). The light side of the USSR's falling is the Latinoamerican popular movements raising (no more "Moscow's long hand" argument).

[3A CCCP]

A bureaucratic party is isolated from the people. So Reagan could pay Yeltsin for collapsing of the CPSU (Yeltsin's daughters still have part of the money in Swiss banks). The light side of the USSR's falling is the Latinoamerican popular movements raising (no more "Moscow's long hand" argument).

Comrade:

You've got that kind of mixed up. The murderer/plunderer Yeltsin did not collapse the CPSU. He wasn't even a member in good standing when he grabbed power, illegally disolved the USSR in the Byelovyeshchaya Pushcha putsch (with the other two traitors-Kravchuk/Ukraine and Shushkevich/Byelorussia), and took over the Russian Federation as his share of the booty. Yeltsin declared the CPSU "illegal" after the counter-revolution in December 1991.

It was the most vile traitor in the history of Communism, Mikhail Gorbachev, who began undermining the Soviet economy and political structure in earnest from the time he took his position as GenSec of the Party in 1985. The revisionist path begun by Khrushchev ended with Gorbachev deliberately destroying the USSR, Socialism, and opening the door to the gangster Yeltsin to rape and plunder our Motherland.

I would strongly recommend Harpal Brar's book, "Perestroika-The Complete Collapse of Revisionism." I lived in Moscow from 1990-1996 (spent half my time there from 1988-1990). Brar's book will give you the same sense of impending doom that I felt as things seemed to be spinning out of control.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Dean]

It was the most vile traitor in the history of Communism, Mikhail Gorbachev, who began undermining the Soviet economy and political structure in earnest from the time he took his position as GenSec of the Party in 1985. The revisionist path begun by Khrushchev ended with Gorbachev deliberately destroying the USSR, Socialism, and opening the door to the gangster Yeltsin to rape and plunder our Motherland.

This is nonsense. Gorbachev tried to liberalize a stagnating nation which was doomed to collapse onto itself if the people were not given more freedoms. That he failed in effectively maintaining a long-dead revolution is hardly his fault.

[Unicorn]

This is nonsense. Gorbachev tried to liberalize a stagnating nation which was doomed to collapse onto itself if the people were not given more freedoms. That he failed in effectively maintaining a long-dead revolution is hardly his fault.
The USSR was very stable until glasnost and perestroika wrecked it.

And lol @ your claim that Gorbachev wanted to maintain revolution. Gorbachev later said: "I had fulfilled my main aim - the defeat of communism in Europe."

[3A CCCP]

This is nonsense. Gorbachev tried to liberalize a stagnating nation which was doomed to collapse onto itself if the people were not given more freedoms. That he failed in effectively maintaining a long-dead revolution is hardly his fault.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what Gorbachev was all about and have a western view of him and the condition of the Soviet Union when he took over as GenSec.

Firstly, the nation was hardly stagnating when Gorbachev appeared on the scene. In fact, anyone who lived there will tell you that the period prior to the Perstroika/Glasnost cabal was the best as far as living conditions for the Soviet people (and Russian people at anytime in the nations 1,000 year history). While industrial production was not increasing as fast as it had in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s, it was continuing to climb at a decent clip and certainly not stagnating.

Although he covered it up in the beginning with praise of comrade Lenin and Socialism, Gorbachev's program from the start was geared toward dismantling the Soviet Socialist economic system through "Perestroika." "Glasnost" was his propaganda arm that prepared the people's minds for the eventual coming of capitalist exploitation that was still not readily visible on the horizon. (Speaking of "Glasnost" or "openness," it was only applied to people who agreed with Gorbachev's "reforms." Any Communist that spoke out against him was quietly transferred to an obscure position where he/she could not cause "trouble.")

Any economic revisionism that was perpetrated during the years after comrade Stalin was small potatoes compared to Gorbachev's "reforms." In fact, Gorbachev can't be even considered a revisionist. He totally attacked Socialism with the goal of introducing a "free" market capitalist economy.

I lived through Perestroika and suffered the results of it under the gangster regime of the murderer Yeltsin. There is a reason that, according to polls taken by Western sources, next to Adolf Hitler Mikhail Gorbachev is the most hated man in the former Soviet Republics!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[el_chavista]

You recalled the december '91 counter-revolution, tovarishch "ZA SSSR!", and that's the more complicated part of the affaire. Who was behind Gorvachóv's overthrowing? Could Yeltsin and his dollars possibly be? Or were there other members from the nomenklatura implicated?

[3A CCCP]

You recalled the december '91 counter-revolution, tovarishch "ZA SSSR!", and that's the more complicated part of the affaire. Who was behind Gorvachóv's overthrowing? Could Yeltsin and his dollars possibly be? Or were there other members from the nomenklatura implicated?

In retrospect it's not all that complicated. Yeltsin had built himself a base among the underground criminal element that was kept down prior to Perestroika, but allowed to surface under Gorbachev. I have no doubt that Yeltsin was financed (at least to some degree) by U.S. operatives.

Don't forget under Perestroika Gorbachev created the "Presidency" of the Soviet Union and "Presidencies" for each individual republic. Yeltsin was the "President" of the RSFSR and Gorbachev was the President of the Soviet Union. Once Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich secretly and illegally dissolved the Soviet Union Gorbachev was President of NOTHING!!!
Meanwhile, Yeltsin was President of the RSFSR, Kravchuk of Ukraine, and Shushkevich of Byelorussia.

Yeltsin's criminal supporters were rewarded by getting control of the industries the people of the Soviet Union built up since the Great October in 1917. That's where all the oligarchs came from. The Berezovksys, Abramovichs, etc. etc. were given these as a reward for supporting the Yeltsin coup.

As an example of how business was run, the gangsters who were awared the former Soviet Sports Organization used it to import western cigarettes and liquor. The reason I could buy a pack of U.S. Marlboro cigarettes for 90 cents in Moscow was because the government didn't charge any taxes on imported liquor and cigarettes as a "thank you" to that particular gang that supported Yeltsin's takeover.

The kolkhozy (collective farms) collapsed not because they were inefficient. Other gangsters who helped Yeltsin were allowed to import food from overseas and physically blocked collective farmers from bringing their produce into Moscow and other cities. Why? Because they got huge cut backs on imported food from Western Europe and, to a lesser degree, from the U.S.

It was much more profitable to make the country dependent on imported food of dubious (crappy is a better word!) quality than let the collective farms sell their quality produce to the people at much cheaper prices. At one point in the 1990s the Russian Federation was 70% dependent on imported foodstuffs!

The whole Gorbachev/Yeltsin era is a very sordid affair and the U.S. had its hand in it for sure.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Dean]

You obviously don't have a clue as to what Gorbachev was all about and have a western view of him and the condition of the Soviet Union when he took over as GenSec.

Firstly, the nation was hardly stagnating when Gorbachev appeared on the scene. In fact, anyone who lived there will tell you that the period prior to the Perstroika/Glasnost cabal was the best as far as living conditions for the Soviet people (and Russian people at anytime in the nations 1,000 year history). While industrial production was not increasing as fast as it had in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s, it was continuing to climb at a decent clip and certainly not stagnating.

Although he covered it up in the beginning with praise of comrade Lenin and Socialism, Gorbachev's program from the start was geared toward dismantling the Soviet Socialist economic system through "Perestroika." "Glasnost" was his propaganda arm that prepared the people's minds for the eventual coming of capitalist exploitation that was still not readily visible on the horizon. (Speaking of "Glasnost" or "openness," it was only applied to people who agreed with Gorbachev's "reforms." Any Communist that spoke out against him was quietly transferred to an obscure position where he/she could not cause "trouble.")

Any economic revisionism that was perpetrated during the years after comrade Stalin was small potatoes compared to Gorbachev's "reforms." In fact, Gorbachev can't be even considered a revisionist. He totally attacked Socialism with the goal of introducing a "free" market capitalist economy.

I lived through Perestroika and suffered the results of it under the gangster regime of the murderer Yeltsin. There is a reason that, according to polls taken by Western sources, next to Adolf Hitler Mikhail Gorbachev is the most hated man in the former Soviet Republics!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

I'd be interested to know what exactly were the reforms of Gorby's that dismantled socialism and made him a worse traitor than Yeltsin.

[3A CCCP]

I'd be interested to know what exactly were the reforms of Gorby's that dismantled socialism and made him a worse traitor than Yeltsin.

1. Gorbachev formally eliminated the leadership of the CPSU , the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and called for bourgeois democracy instead of a deepening of the class struggle. He even made the statement that he “could envision a time when there would be a non-Communist Party running the Soviet Union.”

2. Gorbachev denied Soviet revolutionary history and parroted western slanders such as “the serious deviations of Lenin” and the “murders perpetrated by Stalin.”

3. Gorbachev stopped short of privatization, but freed state enterprises from the control of central planners to run on their own. “Full cost accounting,” “commodity-money relations” and the “socialist market” were some of Gorbachev’s favorite themes.

4. Perestroika represented the liquidation of the planned economy by the State, yielding to "free competition," and "supply and demand" of the market, determined not by social needs, but by the consumers' buying power.

5. Under Perestroika the sole right to foreign trade was taken away from the state and given to individual enterprises that were free to negotiate on their own with foreign companies.

6. Perestroika opened the flood gates for the rise of the criminal element that had been kept down prior to Gorbachev’s “reforms” and would eventually lift Yeltsin to power.

7. Gorbachev abandoned the Communist Parties of the Warsaw Pact nations and left them to the mercy of the western wolves on their borders.

8. Gorbachev abandoned the Communist government in Afghanistan and allowed the Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadists (including Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen) and their ally, the United States of America, to bring down the people’s government.

EXAMPLES OF THE NONSENSE WRITTEN BY THE ARCHITECTS AND SUPPORTERS OF PERESTROIKA DURING THE GORBACHEV REGIME:

“Changes at the basis of bourgeois society show that the self-regulation of capitalist reproduction is beginning to negate the exploitation of man by man…”
Oleg Shakhnazarov, Research Centre of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions


“... there are no more proletarians, at any rate in the East and West of Europe.
There are workers, farmers, employees, businessmen, professionals, clergymen, students, pensioners, children, servicemen. Their common interest is to live in peace and survive and to preserve their common European home.
Therefore it would seem the time has come for the slogan ‘Workers of all countries, unite!’ to be withdrawn from our state banners..."
Vladimir Stupishin, a D. Sc (Hist) and the Chief Councillor in a department of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Any person that claims to be a Communist is either blind or, in fact, is a bourgeois provocateur if he/she cannot see Gorbachev and Perestroika for what they really were!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Bastable]

Comrade:

How long did you live and work in the Soviet Union? Obviously, you must have lived there to be able to make a definitive statement like that. If you didn't live and work there how do you know how the workers lived? Based on U.S. and Western propaganda?? The word of dissidents??? CNN, ABC, CBS, the BBC, etc.????

3A CCCP!
Mikhail


i take it is your opinion that the USSR was good to it's workers?

[3A CCCP]

i take it is your opinion that the USSR was good to it's workers?

Having visited the Soviet Union numerous times and then having lived and worked there, my answer to that statement is an unequivocal YES!

You received an apartment or house free and it was yours to keep and bequeath to your children if you wished. No property taxes, miniscule utilities bills. And, noone could take it away from you, not even the state. The only thing that was not allowed was to exploit the home by renting or leasing it out. Compare that to the situation of the American worker.

Americans say they are "homeowners," but in fact they do NOT own their own home. The bank holding the mortgage owns it. As we have seen the past year or so these "homeowners" are now living in refrigerator boxes after being kicked out of the home they "owned." The American dream of owning a home is just that - a dream! You have to be asleep to believe it! Not so in the Soviet Union!!!

Four weeks paid vacation with paid trips to spas in various parts of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations for most workers was the norm. Workers in high risk occupations such as mining usually received 6 weeks vacation. How much vacation does the average U.S. worker get? One or two weeks is the norm. But, in fact, many get no paid vacation whatsoever.

Workers had totally free medical, dental, and eye care. Pregnant women received paid time off from work (before and after the delivery) that would make an American capitalist employer choke on his caviar and truffles!

Education was totally free for workers right through the highest levels of schooling. If you had the brains you could go to university or college and not have to worry about paying off student loans when you graduated.

The best thing about the Soviet socialist system was that you didn't have to worry about what was going to happen tomorrow. There wasn't the constant stress that Americans have regarding their future. "Will I get fired or laid off?" "Will the bank repossess my house?" "Will prices rise and will I be able to pay my bills?" These were NOT questions that concerned people in the Soviet Union. They didn't live under the economic sword as the worker does in the U.S.

Also, the psychological lift one gets from working to earn his personal possessions while simultaneously working for his country is tremendous. Here in the U.S. one works to eke out an existence and make some rich guy richer.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Red Equation]

It was the big brother of big brothers, of course anyone would regret that. Ever since then, Cuba has faced starvation and more poverty due to loss of trade and support from the SU.

[Unicorn]

Having visited the Soviet Union numerous times and then having lived and worked there, my answer to that statement is an unequivocal YES!
Hear, Hear!

[The Intransigent Faction]

Definitely. The Soviet Union was far from the perfect model of Communism but considering what followed it..definitely.
I disagree with Stalin's personality cult and the perestroika later on which just showed that the leaders were Capitalist sellouts..but compared to bourgeois Corporatism it was much better. Bourgeois revisionists certainly don't give an accurate account of Soviet history.
It was a depressing time for anyone who supported the Bolshevik's original vision..that's for sure. That and a good friend of mine has family that lived and worked there.
"Long live our Soviet motherland!"
:crying:

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Despotism is unjustifiable, even if it claims to be despotic in the name of the workers.

[Comrade Krell]

Despotism is unjustifiable, even if it claims to be despotic in the name of the workers.
Liberal abstraction much?

I fear many people here on Revleft have only dealt in Communist theory yet have no concept of practise and realism. What do you think revolution is? A revolution by consensus? Where we all sat down and agreed over a cup of coffee? Do you really expect things to change overnight? Do you really expect complete social transformation to be anything but a murderous process? It's a war to build socialism, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads.

[Psy]

Liberal abstraction much?

I fear many people here on Revleft have only dealt in Communist theory yet have no concept of practise and realism. What do you think revolution is? A revolution by consensus? Where we all sat down and agreed over a cup of coffee? Do you really expect things to change overnight? Do you really expect complete social transformation to be anything but a murderous process? It's a war to build socialism, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads.


The USSR fell because the masses were alienated from it, there was little resistance to its destruction. If the USSR was truly a workers state then the Russian workers would have put a real fight and Yeltsin would have sparked a civil-war by the events of 1993.

[sovereign]

Gorbi should of sent the red army into poland!

[3A CCCP]

The USSR fell because the masses were alienated from it, there was little resistance to its destruction. If the USSR was truly a workers state then the Russian workers would have put a real fight and Yeltsin would have sparked a civil-war by the events of 1993.

What the hell do you know about the events of 1993??? I assume you are referring to the Defense of the Dom Sovyetov in Moscow.

I saw the tanks and artillery rumble past my house near metro Yugo-Zapadnoyeh where I lived on the outskirts of Moscow. By the time I got to the Dom Sovyetov it was surrounded by divisions whose commanders had been bought off by Yeltsin and they turned their tank cannons on our patriots defending the building.

There was a hell of a fight. When the building was already in flames our patriots were forced to surrender. Many weren't allowed to surrender. As they came down the staircases to escape the flames with their hands raised they were gunned down. Their bodies were dumped down the elevator shafts and retrieved later and cremated. The crematoriums on the outskirts of Moscow were working overtime through the night to get rid of the evidence.

Fighting raged on in the streets into the night, but the remaining defenders were outnumbered and outgunned.

For your information, patriots from Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovia, Siberia, and other areas swarmed to Moscow to defend the besieged Dom Sovyetov and overthrow Yeltsin. Unfortunately, key commanders in the army were already bought off and our patriots were caught in a trap.

People like you talk through your asshole and parrot crap you have heard here in the West. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Psy]

What the hell do you know about the events of 1993??? I assume you are referring to the Defense of the Dom Sovyetov in Moscow.

I saw the tanks and artillery rumble past my house near metro Yugo-Zapadnoyeh where I lived on the outskirts of Moscow. By the time I got to the Dom Sovyetov it was surrounded by divisions whose commanders had been bought off by Yeltsin and they turned their tank cannons on our patriots defending the building.

There was a hell of a fight. When the building was already in flames our patriots were forced to surrender. Many weren't allowed to surrender. As they came down the staircases to escape the flames with their hands raised they were gunned down. Their bodies were dumped down the elevator shafts and retrieved later and cremated. The crematoriums on the outskirts of Moscow were working overtime through the night to get rid of the evidence.

Fighting raged on in the streets into the night, but the remaining defenders were outnumbered and outgunned.

For your information, patriots from Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovia, Siberia, and other areas swarmed to Moscow to defend the besieged Dom Sovyetov and overthrow Yeltsin. Unfortunately, key commanders in the army were already bought off and our patriots were caught in a trap.

People like you talk through your asshole and parrot crap you have heard here in the West. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail
It was not as bad as the Russian Civil-War, the Spanish civil-war against Francisco, the resistance against French and US imperialism in Vietnam or the resistance against the Contra in Nicaragua.

They lost in Moscow and acted like it was over when it could have just been the beginning by arming the masses. It worked against the Nazi's in the defense of Leningrad and it would have worked again if they handed out RPGs in the streets and were willing to have Moscow burned to the ground through heavy fighting then lose.

[3A CCCP]

It was not as bad as the Russian Civil-War, the Spanish civil-war against Francisco, the resistance against French and US imperialism in Vietnam or the resistance against the Contra in Nicaragua.

They lost in Moscow and acted like it was over when it could have just been the beginning by arming the masses. It worked against the Nazi's in the defense of Leningrad and it would have worked again if they handed out RPGs in the streets and were willing to have Moscow burned to the ground through heavy fighting then lose.

For someone who has gotten as close to Moscow as his internet connection on the computer, you certainly seem to have alot of insight into what occured in 1993 and what should have been done!!!

Again you're talking through that orifice I mentioned in my last post!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Psy]

For someone who has gotten as close to Moscow as his internet connection on the computer, you certainly seem to have alot of insight into what occured in 1993 and what should have been done!!!

Again you're talking through that orifice I mentioned in my last post!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail
I'm simply stating Moscow didn't go down like other armed resistance movements else the fighting would have lasted weeks if not months. Yelsin's forces would have had to cleared each building in Moscow out one by one facing massive casualties if it was a popular armed resistance.

[ern]

One of the early posts on this discussion said that "even the leftist communists see the infant soviet state as socialist". This needs clarifying a bit. For the Communist Left, the October Revolution was proletarian and Russia was a proletarian bastion. However, this does not mean that there was socialism, rather the Russian proletariat was faced with a desperate struggle simply to survive whilst it await the spread of the revolution, which did not come. The proletariat and the Bolsheviks were thus left in the unprecedented situation of being left isolated. The dictatorship of the proletariat could not survive this and was overthrown by the rise of national capital headed by the Stalin fraction which in the name of socialism in one country imposed a brutal form of state capitalism. This does not mean that there are not many vital lessons to be drawn from the experience in order to arm ourselves for the next revolutionary wave. We (the ICC) have recently republished a series of article from the Italian Left Communist Fraction's journal Bilan on this question: The problems of the period of transition. They were written by a comrade of the Belgium Communist Left: Mitchell: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2008/132/bilan1936 http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2008/132/bilan1936 On the nature of social relations in the USSR the following could be of interest: The Russian Experience: private property and collective property http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/russian-experience As for regretting or not the collapse, for the communist left this is not a question because for the communst left the collapse of the USSR was part of the process of the collapse of capitalism. As some contributers have said it let lose a whole new wave of barbarity, but we see this barbarity arising not from the lose of the 'good influence' of the USSR but because one of the two imperialist blocs - that had laid waste to many parts of the world, leaving tens of millions dead during their proxy war: the "cold war"- had collapsed and thrown imperialist relations up in the air causing a profound deepening of imperialist chaos. Those who welcome the fall, whilst seeing that they did not support the USSR as workers state, should step back a bit and see that the fall let lose the most profound ideological attack on the working class since WW2. For nearly 15 years the class was left in a state of disorientation by the bourgeoisie's campaign about the death of communism, the class struggle and the victory of democracy. The bourgeoisie throughout the world milked the collapse of their state capitalist brother for all it was worth. And when it was still existing, as some contributers have pointed out, the bourgeoisie used the nightmare that was meant to be socialism in the Eastern bloc to discredit the idea of socialism. The Stalinist version of capitalism served the bourgeoisie very well; - at the national level it crushed the working class and prepared the massive war machine that would enable it to extended its imperialist empire - at the international level, Stalinism played an important role for mobilising the proletariat for the slaughter of WW2 i.e., the defense of the socialist fatherland - and generally grinding the very idea of socialism into the mud through the dictatorship of the state, the gulags, etc. It is only in the last few years that the international proletariat has been able to begin to recover from the battering it suffered in the aftermath of the collapse.

[commiesinger]

Oh damn I wish the USSR still existed.:crying:
sure it wasn't perfect but damn the took out the Nazis in Stalingrad:D

[Dust Bunnies]

I regret the fall of the Soviet Union only because it hurt so many innocent civilians... a collapse of a government over night cannot be fun.But otherwise the USSR was giving us a bad name every passing day.

[Psy]

I regret the fall of the Soviet Union only because it hurt so many innocent civilians... a collapse of a government over night cannot be fun.But otherwise the USSR was giving us a bad name every passing day.
It would have been nicer if the USSR overcame its failing even if only through reforms, this could have been possible if détente continued and the thawing of the cold war (at least for the USSR, the resason for détente for the US ruling class was to focus on the US's spear of influence) would have allowed for the USSR to address domestic issues far better.

[trivas7]

It would have been nicer if the USSR overcame its failing even if only through reforms, this could have been possible if détente continued and the thawing of the cold war (at least for the USSR, the resason for détente for the US ruling class was to focus on the US's spear of influence) would have allowed for the USSR to address domestic issues far better.

I suspect that the USA in league with its proxies would never have let this happen, would never have relented from the cold war.

[Psy]

I suspect that the USA in league with its proxies would never have let this happen, would never have relented from the cold war.

If Regan and Thatcher sparked a massive uprising in the USA and UK like that in France May 1968 the US and British ruling class would have much bigger problem then pursuing the cold war.

[Charliesoo]

I do regret the collapse.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Yes and no.

I regret that it collapsed and upset the balance of global power. The U.S. is relatively unopposed now.

However, I also do not regret that it collapsed because I think it drifted too far from it's original goal.

It was a valiant effort, but I believe it would be better to start from scratch and learn from the Soviets' mistakes and successes.

[Magdalen]

Yes, I do regret the collapse of the USSR.

The USSR, despite its faults and failings, supported anti-imperialist and national liberation movements throughout the world, and provided large amounts of aid to Cuba. Its collapse was definitely counter-revolutionary, and a set back for the class struggle internationally.

[Lost In Translation]

Yes, I do regret the collapse of the USSR. They were the only country who could stand up to the USA. They were the voice of anti-imperialism and socialism (ok, not really, but to some extent). However, they were able to keep the US in check. It's not until recently that we've seen some fierce opposition to the US.

[Comrade B]

The Soviet Union had an absurd amount of power over those who considered themselves communist. If you want to be considered a real country, you had to be the a puppet for the USSR. It collapsed because the leadership had drifted a huge distance away from communism. It isn't like the soviet union was overthrown, or invaded, it just became another typical capitalist country.

[redarmy652]

yea i wish the USSR never fell, but i watch videos on youtube.com from RussiaToday and even now, the vast majority of Russians who lived through the USSR regret letting it fall

[nobullshit]

I remember that the date was during August of '91. I was 32 years old with a pregnant wife, second child on the way, my first child being a little over 5. And on that day I remember coming home from work, exhausted. It was a sweltering day in Indianapolis and I was sweating like a mother. My wife wasn't exactly happy either: the poor woman was sitting in front of the fan all day, 8 months pregnant, her miserable feeling could be felt from across the room. We weren't doing that well financially: my wife, God love her, was having the worst pains imaginable, and hadn't been to her work in the office for a few weeks. We lived in a one-bedroom apartment, one bathroom on every floor of the apartment building. We saved and saved but it seemed not to be making much of a difference. We were definitely working class (but I believe now we would be called "upper middle class").
I sat on my chair and turned on the TV to CNN, which was reporting the Soviet coup, repeatedly showing the picture of Yeltsin standing on a tank against the coup. They were interviewing all of these people, mainly Washington officials, who were expressing their "most humble of opinions" live. They said that the USSR's fall was pretty much to be expected now, that the world would finally live in peace and harmony when the Red Threat was finally gotten rid of, and her citizens would be at peace. It was truly to be the fall of communism, the Cold War, and all of the world's problems.
Meanwhile there was an eviction every other day in my apartment because a poor guy was too concerned feeding his family to pay the rent on time. As for us we were barely getting by.
So why was it that the fall of the USSR was so influential to our being happy? I remember three years later in '94 we lived in that some apartment and by then the USSR was 15 seperate countries. I finally got offered a better job and our living situation did finally improve, and I could finally manage to afford my two children a tiny amount of luxury as well as feeding them. But that was me, and there were still people that lived on my floor with such broken and messed up lives that three years prior when the Soviet Union finally fell they weren't exactly throwing parties like those on Wall Street did. And Russian citizens aren't exactly living on Cloud Nine right now.
So what did its fall do to improve the lives of citizens?

[OI OI OI]

Of course as a Trotskyist I regret the fall of the USSR.
The nationalized planned economy was an incredible step forward from capitalism. Unfortunately due to objective conditions and the isolation Stalinism arose and the USSR became bureaucratically degenerated. There was a need for a political revolution that would give the power back to the people but unfortunately it did not come and the bureaucrats sold out the planned economy in order to serve their interests.
Of course I support a degenerated workers state compared to capitalism but I always advocate the political revolution .
At least this fall now gives possibilities for a fresh start in Venezuela and the rest of South America for a start and maybe in Pakistan and the rest of the Arab world.
Hopefully we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[KurtFF8]

The people of Russia had a much easier and better life under the USSR from what I understand. Also the USSR was simply a much better alternative to the current Capitalist Russia that exists today and engages in much more exploitation. Although the current Russia can't engage in as much imperialism as the USSR did and can only do so on a regional scale, although Russia seems to be emerging as an imperial power again.

[Uber]

Like a lot of people here it seems i'm in two minds about the collapse of the USSR.

It certainly wasn't socialist but acted as a counter-point to American imperialism. Now the US is unopposed in the world and can act as the imperial power that it is without fear of retaliation.

It also seems that the Russian people had it easier in the USSR than they have it now for example life expectancy rates have dropped considerably.

Also it's really annoying when arguing with Capitalist bastards when they start whining about ' Communism failed, just look at the USSR'. :mad:

[Trystan]

The fall of the USSR was "a small victory for socialism" - Noam Chomsky :)

So I voted "No".

[Psy]

The fall of the USSR was "a small victory for socialism" - Noam Chomsky :)

So I voted "No".
I really don't think the fall of the USSR was any victory for socialism. While it is true the USSR created misconceptions, its failure only created even more misconceptions created due to its collapse. Also think how better off Venezuela would be, being so far away the USSR is really of no threat to to Venezuela but could talk the USSR into sending heavy weapons to Venezuela to give Venezuela a better fighting chance to repel a US invasion.

[Revolutiondownunder]

I know it was far from perfect, I know it was a wreck and a dictatorship that served an elite and not the people....

But I cant help but think that people took the workers struggle a lot more seriously when it was around.:(

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The fall of the USSR was "a small victory for socialism" - Noam ChomskyThis is coming from an "anarchist" that hails the United States as the "freest country in the world" and calls on people to vote for capitalist politicians so you might want to take this statement with a pound or two of salt.

The fall of the USSR dealt a huge setback to the world proletariat. Even in its bureaucratically deranged and distorted form, the USSR still represented many gains for workers.

The counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR brought with it a parade of anti-communist "end of history" bourgeois triumphalism that is only now starting to slow, a huge fall in the living standards and conditions of large numbers of workers in the formerly socialist countries, and left the world with an emboldened imperialist United States which has gone on a military rampage ever since.

As we say, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The USSR was far from perfect, especially in its last years, but that doesn't mean we should bag the October Revolution and its legacy.

As Fidel said, "They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?"

[DancingLarry]

Any chance for socialism in the USSR was doomed when the revolutions in Germany and Hungary failed in 1919. Russia set the pattern of backward countries which had none of the characteristics Marx indicated were required for even beginning the stage of socialist development being the lands where "socialist" revolutions occurred. It should be no surprise to anyone that makes a serious study of the preconditions for socialism, and the nature of class development, that what emerged in those countries was some strange hybrid of neo-feudal mercantilism, state capitalist primitive accumulation, and old fashioned despotism. Instead of the liberation of labor, the so-called socialist states fastened the yoke on labor, using all the political, ideological, administrative and penal tools available to authoritarian regimes to harness labor as a means of accelerating industrial development and superextracting surplus value for maximized accumulation.

Revolutionary socialism was always meant as a political objective of advanced capitalist economies; the failure of"socialism" based on the most backward states on the planet would have come as no surprise whatsoever to Marx and Engels.

Perhaps when a couple of generations have passed after the collapse of the USSR, the incorrect stamp they put on socialism will fade from memory, and the movement can be renewed under the proper circumstances, something the very existence of "existing socialism" rendered impossible.

[Vanguard1917]

Do you regret the collapse of the USSR?


The Stalinist system was antithetical in every key aspect to the socialism envisaged by Marx, Engels, Lenin and the Bolsheviks. From a socialist perspective, it makes no sense to regret the collapse of a system which was economically bankrupt and whose survival was dependent on repressive force and terror against workers.

Having said that, we can't escape the fact that the fall of the Soviet Union dealt a massive blow to leftwing politics worldwide. But this only happened because the bulk of the left in the West, from social democrats to communists to trade union bureaucrats, accepted, whether implicitly or explicitly, the idea that the Soviet system represented the alternative to capitalist society. So when this tinpot dictatorship in the East collapsed, all that was left for leftwing politics in the West was disorientation.

There is room for optimism, however. With the USSR gone, Marxists no longer have to justify on a daily basis the crimes of a dictatorship which professed to be guided by 'Marxism-Leninism'. As much as the USSR provided the labour bureaucracy in the West with a sense of focus, it was also a powerful capitalist propaganda tool againt those who fought sincerely for socialism. In that sense, with the USSR gone, there is an opportunity to build a political movement against a ruling class which is to some extent weakened.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Despite being destroyed by bureaucratism from within and western capitalism from outside, the USSR did achieve things. It took a backward illiterate feudal empire and industrialised it within a generation. It played a key role in the destruction of central European fascism. The USSR raised the standard of living for much of its citizenry, especially women who enjoyed greater rights compared to their western equivalents.

The USSR helped make the end of apartheid in South Africa possible, as well as the expulsion of the disastrous US/SEATO meddling in Vietnam's self-determination. Not to mention countless other anti-colonial wars of liberation worldwide.

For its faults, the loss of the USSR has been detrimental to the worldwide labour and socialist movements. The destruction of the albeit flawed bureaucratic implementation of socialism in the Soviet Union caused standards of living to drop heavily. The Russian Federation's economy is only just approaching 1990 levels again after it was plundered by capitalists and gangsters.

The destruction of the socialist countries in Europe has allowed western capital to plunder the world's resources on levels not seen since the day of the old European colonial empires. In the western industrialised countries, working class power was broken when social democratic parties abandoned all socialist pretentions and embraced neoliberalism.

The support that anti-imperialist forces enjoyed in the past by the Soviet Union is no longer there, and thus worldwide progressive causes are weaker as a result.

The Soviet Union was flawed, flawed in its level of democracy, flawed in its implementation of socialism, and flawed in its occasional resorting to chauvinism. But the standards of living and power enjoyed by the working class in the socialist countries was higher than in the countries that were super-exploited by western capital. The Eastern Bloc just could not compete in the levels of consumer goods enjoyed by working class people in the West that were dependent on Third World super-exploitation. It was this impatience to "catch-up" with the West's consumerism that caused socialist countries to borrow western money and/or divert resources from economic development and social investment.

The collapse of the USSR allows Marxists to reflect and learn from the experience of implementing a state run on Marxist principles. We should take stock of its successes, excesses and mistakes, but we should not discount it as a positive force for good in the Twentieth Century.

[Le Drapeau Noir]

the USSR was state-capitalist and incredibly oppressive. They used the KGB to supress the worker and whats worse they did it all in the name of the people. The Soviet officials replaced the bourgeoisie and were elitist pigs.

Thank you for a voice of reason. The State-capitalist monopolism of the Soviet bureacracy was not in the interests of the workers. The system itself was rife with corruption and undermined workers at every chance.

Started just not 24 hours after the revolution and culminated with Bolshevik gerry-mandering and Lenin's NEP. It went downhill from there. The Soviets and the US played their respective sides of propaganda to sell it to the world that the USSR was, indeed, communist - though I don't think Karl Marx, himself, would declare it such.

Not sure why some Marxists/Leninists still fawn over that oppressive regime.

[Le Drapeau Noir]

I voted no. Perhaps a real socialist/workers' revolution will take place ... here or there, perhaps everywhere.

;)

[PigmerikanMao]

I do in the sense that socialism in Russia collapsed in the 50's, though not in the sense that Russian imperialism fell when the Russian capitalist state crumbled.

[Nakidana]

The system itself was rife with corruption and undermined workers at every chance.

Undermined workers at every chance? What about the modernisation of the country, the rise in living standards, the increase in gender equality, education, health, focus on science, urbanisation, the defeat of Nazi Germany...all the gains that were squandered after 1990.

They don't count for anything?

I think they do. Was the USSR socialist? No. But to look at the system out of its historical context, and state that it didn't make a difference, or was worse than the system before it, is just ignorant. The Soviet system accomplished the task of saving Russia and Europe from the Nazis and afterwards modernising Russia by carrying it through its transition from a rural civilisation to an urban society.

Also the Soviet system wasn't the same all the way through. There were at least 2-3 versions of it. (e.g. during Stalin's rule and post-Stalin)

[manic expression]

Malangyar makes some very important points: to look upon the very complicated history of the USSR and see an unchanging state is ignorant and naive. People are trying to be far too simplistic in looking at the USSR.


Thank you for a voice of reason. The State-capitalist monopolism of the Soviet bureacracy was not in the interests of the workers. The system itself was rife with corruption and undermined workers at every chance.

State-capitalism is basically a fallacy. It cannot really exist. To have capitalism, a society must (for starters) protect private ownership of the means of production and direct exploitation of the working class. The Soviet Union did none of this, not in 1921, not in 1988. Soviet bureaucrats did not own stocks and bonds, they did not own property, they did not employ workers. By any reasonable definition of "bourgeois", the Soviet bureaucracy was certainly not. All they did was carry out perpetual abuse of power within the Soviet state, one which had roots in the party policy adopted in 1921, as well as the party purges in the years 1928-1938 and the structural changes in the Soviet state during the Stalinist years (including the abolition of the Congress of the Soviets). All these changes were tied to material challenges that the Soviet Union faced after the complete destruction of the country during the Russian Civil War, as well as the virtual liquidation of the party that followed.


Started just not 24 hours after the revolution and culminated with Bolshevik gerry-mandering and Lenin's NEP. It went downhill from there. The Soviets and the US played their respective sides of propaganda to sell it to the world that the USSR was, indeed, communist - though I don't think Karl Marx, himself, would declare it such.

More square pegs in round holes. The workers revolution in 1917 created a worker state, one which collectivized the means of production under the control of the working class. To call the Civil War-era policies "gerrymandering" is to ignore all the goings-on of Russia and the world at the time. Furthermore, NO ONE made the claim that the Soviet Union was communist...far from it: the claim was made that it was socialist, and it is not surprising that you miss this distinction.


Not sure why some Marxists/Leninists still fawn over that oppressive regime.

Well, the USSR provided plenty of much-needed support to worker liberation movements around the world. Cuba, Vietnam, many countries of Africa and others found support against the imperialists (again, the USSR cannot be imperialist because it is empirically not capitalist). The collapse of the USSR not only ended this source of anti-imperialism, it also dramatically destroyed the lives of people within the USSR. Ask any Russian or Ukrainian or even East German over 30 what life was like before the collapse and what it is now, and you'll get a window into the tragedy that befell the workers of those nations.

It isn't surprising that those with the most narrow-minded of ideas have the most narrow-minded conceptions of the USSR.

[Trystan]

This is coming from an "anarchist" that hails the United States as the "freest country in the world" and calls on people to vote for capitalist politicians so you might want to take this statement with a pound or two of salt.

Who said he was an anarchist? He describes himself as a libertarian socialist, and an anarcho-syndicalist sympathiser.

[spice756]

I don't see any hope that the USSR could have transitioned into socialism without a revolution. I see revolution as much more likely in a Bourgeois capitalist (opposed to state-capitalist) country.

While it definitely had bad effects for the people of Russia (yes, even revisionist USSR was okay next to what happened next) and Cuba et. all., I don't really regret it's fall. I think that it is now more (although still extremely unlikely) likely that there could be progress for the Communist Movement in Russia now that the CPSU is caput


The USSR put the US in it's place and mow the US is like a wild kid wrecking havoc on the world.

And yes communist party members did exploit the working class people.With low pay and long working hours.Well the communist party members became the capitalists.Alot of the money did not go to the state but communist party members , in charge of sectors. Also in the USSR if you are a high up communist party member and know the right guy you can privatize your sector.

The USSR was very state capitalism.And communist party members having nice house and car.

[spice756]

To have capitalism, a society must (for starters) protect private ownership of the means of production and direct exploitation of the working class.


Some communist party members did own private ownership and the others where communist party members or ministers in charge of secters .

You are saying government owns the stores ,factories and farms every thing and you work for the government , so want you sale on the farm the government tells you how much you have , like money so the money is devided far.

I'm syaing the money did not go past the ministers in charge of the secters , if any very little.They maximize profit by over work and very little pay.

There was no bones or stocks , but primitive capitalism was the same way.





The Soviet Union did none of this, not in 1921, not in 1988. Soviet bureaucrats did not own stocks and bonds, they did not own property, they did not employ workers. By any reasonable definition of "bourgeois", the Soviet bureaucracy was certainly not. All they did was carry out perpetual abuse of power within the Soviet state, one which had roots in the party policy adopted in 1921, as well as the party purges in the years 1928-1938 and the structural changes in the Soviet state during the Stalinist years (including the abolition of the Congress of the Soviets). All these changes were tied to material challenges that the Soviet Union faced after the complete destruction of the country during the Russian Civil War, as well as the virtual liquidation of the party that followed.


I will reply later on this.

[JimmyJazz]

I dispute the description that the USSR "collapsed." People decided to get rid of it. That's not a collapse. The distinction should be made because the word "collapse" serves the capitalist propaganda that claims that any system that lacks a "free market" is necessarily inefficient to the point of being highly unstable and, due to its inherent nature, must eventually fall apart.

This. The "collapse" terminology is a journalists' invention, not (as far as I know) a term which reflects some economic or political reality. Even if you think the Soviet system did collapse because it was unviable, don't use the term 'collapse', since something near 99% of people think that the Soviet Union was socialist and thus believe that socialism is what "collapsed" because of its unviability. It's probably the most important capitalist myth of our day.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

i hated stalin and his dictator ship, but at the end of the USSR it started to change for the better.
so I am sorry to see that it has fallen

[Tatarin]

Hmm. I think I side with "yes". No system is perfect - but the Soviet Union certainly had it's benefits. In this new free market world, they instead get increased criminality, big increase in racism, sweatshops, drug cartels and the trade with human beings. What was once secure - a home, food, health care, equality - were thrown out the window.

But I guess the reason people didn't really oppose capitalism is probably that they didn't know what it really was. People were tired of the secret police, the control, the lack of free speach etc. Now they look back and think (quoting the Manics) "freedom of speach won't feed my children."

However, I tend to think in more positive terms. Sure, the ruling classes wave their flags of "victory" while their peoples are starving. The Soviet Union was, as a friend once told me, a damn good first try. Next time we'll get it right. ;)

[Sweetpotos]

The collapse of the USSR was a tragicomic necessity. What I regret is not that it collapsed but the fact that no socialist revolution in the west came around to save it.

Yes, the restoration of capitalism has been disastrous, but it was unavoidable. No sector of society was satisfied with order of things, neither the workers nor the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy got their way, and outwardly became what they always were inwardly: the Russian bourgeoisie.

[KurtFF8]

Potemkin over at PoFo made a good point about the collapse of the USSR:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1670724#1670724


I agree with Vladimir. So long as the Soviet Union existed, it was impossible to get a real workers' movement off the ground in the West. Communists were regarded as the stooges of Moscow, naive dupes at best or sinister traitors at worst. And so long as the advanced Western powers remained capitalist, there was little hope for the success of the world revolution. The fall of the Soviet Union - which had become hopelessly Revisionist by the 1980s - could be regarded as the clearing away of a blockage in the path of the world proletarian revolution. People no longer regard Communism as the sinister ideology of a deadly enemy state; they are beginning to see it as a viable alternative to the existing, broken system of capitalism. This would have been impossible during the Cold War. We should regard the fall of the Soviet Union as a great historic opportunity which is only now beginning to bear fruit, rather than merely as an unmitigated disaster.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's sad that the USSR collapsed. They may have become corrupted with Stalin, but I think they had great potential, serving as the first model of what a communist society was supposed to be. Too bad Lenin's death brought the end of that.

[KurtFF8]

It's sad that the USSR collapsed. They may have become corrupted with Stalin, but I think they had great potential, serving as the first model of what a communist society was supposed to be. Too bad Lenin's death brought the end of that.

I'm assuming you meant first model of what a socialist society was supposed to be. And it wasn't the first (Paris Commune). I'm not being nitpicky, this is a leftist forum where that basic notion should be understood.

[Revy]

I don't think we would be living in a socialist world now. The USSR was not socialist, it was authoritarian state-capitalist, and those regimes are always destined to fall, as history shows.

The real tragedy is the rise of Stalin and his allies. However, I do think it was bad that the USSR fell, but that it was inevitable, and happened due to the nature of the regime. But the economic fallout and the rise of the far-right are far worse evils, so I'd rather live in the USSR than what there is now.

[Herman]

it was authoritarian state-capitalistNo, no it wasn't. State-capitalism never existed and it is a fallacy and an oxymoron, as capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production, along with other features like a free market.

None of these was present in the Soviet Union, at least not until the Gorbachev era.

People compare the state with a company, but even the structure of a state is vastly different from the structure of a company.

[Labor Shall Rule]

No, no it wasn't. State-capitalism never existed and it is a fallacy and an oxymoron, as capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production, along with other features like a free market.

None of these was present in the Soviet Union, at least not until the Gorbachev era.

People compare the state with a company, but even the structure of a state is vastly different from the structure of a company.

The law of value, and capital accumulation, was still in operation, which necessarily entails the use of exploited labor (the withdrawal of surplus value). It was a 'capitalist' project in the strictest sense. You are acting like it's a bad thing though, and it's not. The political (and legal) definition of the Soviet state could be 'socialist' - Lenin theorized that a worker's state can retain it's proletarian internationalism and socialist construction while simultaneously having trusts and firms under a state 'capitalist' monopoly.

[Herman]

Oh i'm not saying that those laws weren't present. I'm just mentioning that the structure of the state is vastly different to the structure of a company.

The state and a company are different things in definition, even if they operate under similar economic laws.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's sad that the USSR collapsed. They may have become corrupted with Stalin, but I think they had great potential, serving as the first model of what a communist society was supposed to be.
What, the NEP? :laugh:


capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production, along with other features like a free market.
A 'free market'? You're using the Randian deifnition, then? :confused:
Capitalism is determined by class relations. The so-called "Union of Soviet 'Socialist' Republics" had a capitalist and working class (and peasants from feudalism, which quickly joined the working class), as opposed to, say, feudal lords and serfs, or classless society. Crud, what is 'private ownership of the means of production' supposed to mean here? There certainly wasn't public ownership of the means of production.

[Herman]

Capitalism is determined by class relations. The so-called "Union of Soviet 'Socialist' Republics" had a capitalist and working class (and peasants from feudalism, which quickly joined the working class), as opposed to, say, feudal lords and serfs, or classless society. Crud, what is 'private ownership of the means of production' supposed to mean here? There certainly wasn't public ownership of the means of production.Socialists are against private ownership of the means of production, and are for public ownership of the means of production. The latter can take many forms, ranging from centralized state ownership and state management to decentralized worker's direct ownership and management.

There was public ownership of the means of production in the USSR. Capitalism didn't exist, neither did capitalists. Bureaucrats were not a class themselves, but a part of the state, of it's administration.


A 'free market'? You're using the Randian deifnition, then?

Not at all. The free market is opposed to a planned economy, which is what the USSR had. Capitalist production cannot operate within the framework of a planned economy.

[Dr Mindbender]

It is very upsetting collapse of U.S.S.R.
If it didn't,maybe we would live in a socialist world now.

The USSR in any meaningful socialist sense died in 1924.

Even if the Gorbachev era USSR was still with us the only positive thing to come from would be that the USA's opponents such as Cuba would have access to more aid.

EDIT: just noticed this thread is 9 pages long. :blushing:

[Rjevan]

I don't claim that the Soviet Union was perfect but it was obviously better than the current Russian Federation and than many capitalist states were/are. So, yes, I regret its collapse very much. :(

[Cumannach]

Any real progressive regrets the overthrow of the Soviet Union.

[Comrade Anarchist]

its kinda 50 50 for me because i believe that it was nothing more than state capitalist but because it fell it make everybody think that capitalism can overtake communism.

[Bitter Ashes]

The UK has had quite a few migrants from the ex-USSR. All of the ones I've spoken to in the past, who have brought up the subject, were not happy with the old system. At the very least, these people claim to be happier after the collapse.
As they say though, "Never made a mistake. Never learned anything"

[Brother No. 1]

I am depressed that the CCCP fell. If only the it worked then it would still be alive but it will come again.

[Kassad]

Am I depressed that the Soviet Union collapsed, meaning the Soviet Union of the 60's, 70's and 80's that practiced revisionist and market policies that enslaved the working class to be laborers for the bourgeoisie elite once again? The imperialist regime that betrayed the Chinese Revolution in favor of reformist revisionism? No, I'm not dismayed at all.

Now, to be fair, I am very disappointed that we lost the Soviet Union that was being built during the 20's, 30's, 40's and early 50's. The Soviet Union managed to embrace massive modernization projects and military development which helped put a stop to Hitler's war machine. Counterrevolutionary aspects in the Soviet Union, much of them led by Western imperialists, notable the United States, led to the deformation of the workers state. As I've stated many times, the culprit who is responsible for failure in the Soviet Union would be none other than the United States and its Western allies who's consistent imperialism forced what was a steady socialist development into a rapid industrialization of the impoverished state, which led to the deaths of many. Due to the Soviet Union's desperate requirement of military funding, it made it much more difficult to maintain socialist reforms in the Soviet Union. This was a prime example of why developing revolutionary socialism is an incredible difficulty in the face of bourgeoisie colonialism, since most revolutions took place in impoverished nations which had consistently felt the sting of capitalism. As soon as these nations attempted revolutionary socialism, they were suppressed by the corporate imperialists in the interests of furthering the bourgeoisie hegemony.

A prime reason why we must form educational organizations and parties in industrialized nations, so that we can impede the imperialist and militaristic machine. Without revolutions in these nations, revolutions worldwide will be impossible.

[Jack]

I don't think anyone over 18 really does.

[Brother No. 1]

Hey I am 13 and i miss and regret the loss of the CCCP.

[Jack]

how are you to stop someone, with state power invested in them, from betraying Socialism? How are you going to stop a "vanguard party" from betraying the working class and pulling a China? If it is democratic, how are you going to stop someone serving capitalist intrests from playing some of that Trotskyite entryism and passing some of those "market reforms"?

Leninism fails, I hate to break it to you.

[Brother No. 1]

who are you telling this to Jack?

[Pogue]

Hey I am 13 and i miss and regret the loss of the CCCP.

Look into it a bit more. Would you really have wanted to live there?

[Jack]

who are you telling this to Jack?


Originally to Kassad, but more to any Leninist.

[Kassad]

Well, I suppose Leninism 'fails' in impoverished countries that are forced to industrialize in the face of massive colonialism and militaristic threats. I mean, observe the revolutionary socialist movements in South America and Africa. Observe what happened to leaders like Jaime Roldos who were alleged 'Marxist-Leninists'. They were anihilated through military force, overthrow, counterrevolutionary instigation and assassination. That's why revolutionary movements need to form in industrialized countries to oppose these militaristic interventions which stifle potential revolutions.

Let's be rational. Does Leninism fail due to ideological flaws, or are impoverished nations who embrace Leninism fail, due to Western colonialism, trade embargos and other assorted forms of coercion?

[Pogue]

Well, I suppose Leninism 'fails' in impoverished countries that are forced to industrialize in the face of massive colonialism and militaristic threats. I mean, observe the revolutionary socialist movements in South America and Africa. Observe what happened to leaders like Jaime Roldos who were alleged 'Marxist-Leninists'. They were anihilated through military force, overthrow, counterrevolutionary instigation and assassination. That's why revolutionary movements need to form in industrialized countries to oppose these militaristic interventions which stifle potential revolutions.

Let's be rational. Does Leninism fail due to ideological flaws, or are impoverished nations who embrace Leninism fail, due to Western colonialism, trade embargos and other assorted forms of coercion?

Mixture of both. I think the Russian Revolution would have turned out alot better if it had gone all the way in Germany too, but then again if you look at undemocratic failigns of Lenin and the Bolsheviks even in the early stages it didn't look promising. I think the notion of a vanguard is neccesary but I see no reason why it needs to be a party with all the democratic centralist bollocks. Why base your ideology on an concept thats a century old and has never safeguarded against corruption and despotism?

And also, a 'socialist state' is a big no-no, especially when it takes the form it did in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

I don't see why Marxist-Leninists feel the need to 'adhere' to an ideology based upon one man. Surely it just leaves you forever trying to explain any of Lenin (and for the more hardline) and Stalin's mistakes? They were people, for christs sake. No more intelligent than you or me. Why name your beliefs specifically after theirs?

[Brother No. 1]

Now H-L-V-S comrade. to say i want to live there is a different thing. i miss the CCCP and reget that id gone but did I say i want to live there. seems i havent.

[Pogue]

Now H-L-V-S comrade. to say i want to live there is a different thing. i miss the CCCP and reget that id gone but did I say i want to live there. seems i havent.

Well I wouldn't say a place is nice and I miss it if I myself, as a proletarian, would not want to live there. Thats seem to be common sense.

[Pogue]

Its like admitting its nice as a concept and you like it being there whilst recognising its not nice, and actually pretty shit.

[Brother No. 1]

I see. but are you going to make me admit I am wrong.

[Kassad]

Mixture of both. I think the Russian Revolution would have turned out alot better if it had gone all the way in Germany too, but then again if you look at undemocratic failigns of Lenin and the Bolsheviks even in the early stages it didn't look promising. I think the notion of a vanguard is neccesary but I see no reason why it needs to be a party with all the democratic centralist bollocks. Why base your ideology on an concept thats a century old and has never safeguarded against corruption and despotism?

And also, a 'socialist state' is a big no-no, especially when it takes the form it did in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

I don't see why Marxist-Leninists feel the need to 'adhere' to an ideology based upon one man. Surely it just leaves you forever trying to explain any of Lenin (and for the more hardline) and Stalin's mistakes? They were people, for christs sake. No more intelligent than you or me. Why name your beliefs specifically after theirs?

Of course, but we don't assume that one revolution will ignite revolutions everywhere. We've learned from history that an assumption of that nature is untrue, as the bourgeoisie have multiple means of sustaining their corrupt system. Also, I think you're subscribing to bourgeoisie propaganda, honestly. Lenin's actions to oppose counterrevolution and potential destruction of the Bolshevik Revolution were meant to be temporary. Lenin's Bolsheviks did not have majority support, but their support was quickly growing. The October Revolution had to be sustained and I don't think it was authoritarian in any sense to counter reactionary conservative, bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionary protests and actions.

Anyway, I don't align my ideology to one man, two men or any number of men for that matter. I believe that the Marxist-Leninist banner unites workers of a common cause, despite our disagreements. We aren't dogmatic in our support for Lenin, Stalin or Mao. We just have very similar ideological viewpoints on different issues.

[Jack]

Well, I suppose Leninism 'fails' in impoverished countries that are forced to industrialize in the face of massive colonialism and militaristic threats. I mean, observe the revolutionary socialist movements in South America and Africa. Observe what happened to leaders like Jaime Roldos who were alleged 'Marxist-Leninists'. They were anihilated through military force, overthrow, counterrevolutionary instigation and assassination. That's why revolutionary movements need to form in industrialized countries to oppose these militaristic interventions which stifle potential revolutions.

Let's be rational. Does Leninism fail due to ideological flaws, or are impoverished nations who embrace Leninism fail, due to Western colonialism, trade embargos and other assorted forms of coercion?

What is the likelyhood of a Leninist revolution happening in the first world? The working class in the US only makes up about 40% of the population (that is excluding white collar workers, as many Marxists do) and is deep in counterrevolutionary ideology, but moreso anti Leninist ideology (tell the average person you think the USSR was good, or you want a system similar too it, they'll call you crazy and naive).

What's to stop a Socialist state from commiting autrocious acts and abandoning the path to Communism, like North Korea or China. Leninism fails in ideology, and also in practice. How is this state supposed to "wither away" or be truly representative of the working people. How will you stop them from pulling a North Korea?

[Chapter 24]

(tell the average person you think the USSR was good, or you want a system similar too it, they'll call you crazy and naive).

Tell the average person you think anarchism will work.

This isn't an argument about anarchism, but against your false logic that somehow workers in the U.S. will take more kindly to anarchism than an "authoritarian" left trend. They won't, at least off-hand. What Marxism means to workers as brutal suppression of dissent is of the same validity of their views of anarchism, a lawless society where anything goes.

[Jack]

Tell the average person you think anarchism will work.

This isn't an argument about anarchism, but against your false logic that somehow workers in the U.S. will take more kindly to anarchism than an "authoritarian" left trend. They won't, at least off-hand. What Marxism means to workers as brutal suppression of dissent is of the same validity of their views of anarchism, a lawless society where anything goes.

Sure, say what you want, but most people would take no rulers over a brutal dictatorship.

[Chapter 24]

Sure, say what you want, but most people would take no rulers over a brutal dictatorship.

They don't take it as "no rulers". They take it as anarchy and chaos, that was my point. Yes, anarchism of the last century, such as anarcho-syndicalism and the anarchists in Spain, were supported by the masses. But you're talking about a Leninist revolution's chances being slim in the first world, correct? So why, in that case, is anarchism any more or less desirable than Leninism or any other Marxist trend, when in reality they are both shed in the most unflattering of a light and are consistently revealed as "chaos and disorder", and "brutal dictatorship", respectively? Unless you think the average worker can tell apart Gramsci from Sartre, and Proudhon from Durruti

[Jack]

They don't take it as "no rulers". They take it as anarchy and chaos, that was my point. Yes, anarchism of the last century, such as anarcho-syndicalism and the anarchists in Spain, were supported by the masses. But you're talking about a Leninist revolution's chances being slim in the first world, correct? So why, in that case, is anarchism any more or less desirable than Leninism or any other Marxist trend, when in reality they are both shed in the most unflattering of a light and are consistently revealed as "chaos and disorder", and "brutal dictatorship", respectively? Unless you think the average worker can tell apart Gramsci from Sartre, and Proudhon from Durruti

We're coming back, especially in the third world. I know of a couple groups in Africa and the Middle East, and since the start of the alter-globalization movement we've been gaining "members" (for lack of a better word).

I used to be a Marxist-Leninist, then finally I came to the conclusion that the working class must emancipate itself, and a party cannot do that.

[Chapter 24]

We're coming back, especially in the third world. I know of a couple groups in Africa and the Middle East, and since the start of the alter-globalization movement we've been gaining "members" (for lack of a better word).

I used to be a Marxist-Leninist, then finally I came to the conclusion that the working class must emancipate itself, and a party cannot do that.

And there have been and still are ML groups in the third world, so I don't know what we're debating here. You brought up how first world wokers are distrustful of Leninism, and I refuted it by saying anarchism isn't seen as that much better. Communists are a bunch of authoritarians who take people's money and freedoms away from them, anarchists are a bunch of teenage hooligans who blow shit up.
I myself am a Marxist. I tend to lean towards Leninism, but my grasp on how the vanguard party functions and the methods it takes during revolutionary society is not as strong as I'd currently like it to be. I'm not one for petty sectarianism, and think that anarchists and Marxists alike are both better off working side by side in certain areas than apart.

[Onecom]

The loss of the soviet union is one of the most disasterous and heart breaking incidents of the 20th century.Capitalism has spread like a plague and our comrades can no longer stem the tide.Poverty and war have spread. So yes i do regret the loss of the soviet union flawed as it was.

[Brother No. 1]

Without the CCCP all the former republics became plauged with capitalism. The people though that the Capitalist side was greener. They now know the truth. It was never greener only Darker.

[Pogue]

They don't take it as "no rulers". They take it as anarchy and chaos, that was my point. Yes, anarchism of the last century, such as anarcho-syndicalism and the anarchists in Spain, were supported by the masses. But you're talking about a Leninist revolution's chances being slim in the first world, correct? So why, in that case, is anarchism any more or less desirable than Leninism or any other Marxist trend, when in reality they are both shed in the most unflattering of a light and are consistently revealed as "chaos and disorder", and "brutal dictatorship", respectively? Unless you think the average worker can tell apart Gramsci from Sartre, and Proudhon from Durruti

But thats only if you used the 'ism'. If you mentioned the M-L path to communism, and mentioned the USSR, etc, you get a worse response than if you spoke about a more decmoratic and decentralised means to communism (anarchism).

[Woland]

I think you have the wrong idea when it comes to centralization. Economic decentralization is one of the main points of capitalism, as it implies enterprises would for one have to get their own funding and so on, hence inequality will grow. Centralization on the other hand, implies equality- after the dissolution, there was mass decentralization, which meant that production moved to places like Moscow, resulting in the destruction of local production and mass unemployment/poverty and inequality in the different regions of the country, which is getting worse and worse every day.

[Kassad]

What is the likelyhood of a Leninist revolution happening in the first world? The working class in the US only makes up about 40% of the population (that is excluding white collar workers, as many Marxists do) and is deep in counterrevolutionary ideology, but moreso anti Leninist ideology (tell the average person you think the USSR was good, or you want a system similar too it, they'll call you crazy and naive).

What's to stop a Socialist state from commiting autrocious acts and abandoning the path to Communism, like North Korea or China. Leninism fails in ideology, and also in practice. How is this state supposed to "wither away" or be truly representative of the working people. How will you stop them from pulling a North Korea?

You sound like a capitalist. Tell me then, what's the likelyhood of an Anarchist revolution in the United States? A Marxist revolution? In all honesty, chances are slim until the system fails. Your argument is way off. Frankly, the 'red scare' and anti-communist fervor will be something that will significantly disappear in the coming years, so I'm not going to give up because things look bleak at the present time.

Again, and I'm slightly tired of repeating myself, you are showing incredible ignornace in ignoring the role of Western colonialism in the deformation of socialism in the Soviet Union and China. I'm not much of an advocate for North Korea's revolution, but I stand by them in their struggle against Western imperialism. Regardless, as I stated before, until revolutions are carried out in industrialized parts of the world, the militaristic threat towards socialism will always exist. That goes for Leninist, Trotskyist and Anarchist revolutions. The barrel of a gun does not discriminate.

[Jack]

How does a Leninst state stop someone like Pol Pot from coming to power? Or someone like Gorbachov (sp?) or Kruechev? (sp?) I know damn well North Korea or Cambodia under Pol Pot are the ideal places to live. Didn't thousands of people die just last year of starvation in North Korea?

[Kassad]

How does a Leninst state stop someone like Pol Pot from coming to power? Or someone like Gorbachov (sp?) or Kruechev? (sp?) I know damn well North Korea or Cambodia under Pol Pot are the ideal places to live. Didn't thousands of people die just last year of starvation in North Korea?

Gorbachev and Krushchev? You mean the biggest revisionists of our age? Traitors of the working class? They're responsible for the total deformation of the workers state in the Soviet Union. They managed to advocate counterrevolutionary reforms which allowed the bourgeoisie capitalists to reclaim their seats of power.

It's like you aren't even reading what I'm saying. You're just posting the same rhetoric over and over again. North Korea is not a Leninist state. Neither was Cambodia. The only way that a Marxist-Leninist state can survive is with proper support and power, which all of these impoverished nations who have achived revolution failed to do. Due to the fact that they are impoverished, they are unable to obtain necessary reforms without relying on the capitalist classes of the world. They open themselves up to exploitation and the only way they can sustain what little is left of their revolution is through repression.

As long as the colonial imperialists of the world exist, revolutions will be nearly impossible to sustain. The successful revolutions, such as the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the Chinese Revolution in 1949 were both very promising, but ultimately failed due to their lack of industrialization. The industrial power that Stalin and Mao managed to produce could not stand up to Western militarism and technology and eventually, the revolutions collapse because they cannot sustain socialism, do to pressure all around them.

So who is at fault here? The imperialists. Honestly, you are being incredibly ignorant towards this factor. Until revolutions take place in the nations in the industrialized world, such as the United States, it will be nearly impossible to sustain them. The smaller attempts, such as Vietnam and Cuba, will become almost unsustainable without support from other socialist nations, which is often hard to obtain, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The solution? Vanguard parties in industrialized nations across the world must continue to educate and organize until the time is right. With the recessions that are innate in the capitalist system, we can use the economic turbulence to our advantage. Only when industrialized powers achieve a sense of class consciousness will revolutions succeed. Marxism and Leninism are not at fault. The bourgeoisie are.

[Das war einmal]

Manic, you're still pushing your little retarded story about "socialist relations"? Interesting. How about growing up, eh?

Defend the socialist gains! Hail inflation of meet prices, hail bread lines and shortages!

Capitalism replacing capitalism, Manic. Only now we get a chance to fight it more efficiently, that is, we get to call it by its real name, because people like you can't complain about defending "socialist relations". See Dev, this is what I'm talking about.


You're the retard here, you of all, as Bosniak, should acknowledge that the fall of socialists regimes has been devastating for the world wide working class on every level.

[robbo203]

The loss of the soviet union is one of the most disasterous and heart breaking incidents of the 20th century.Capitalism has spread like a plague and our comrades can no longer stem the tide.Poverty and war have spread. So yes i do regret the loss of the soviet union flawed as it was.


Except of course that capitalism was already there firmly ensconsed in the very heart of the soviet state capitalist system! in that sense it did not spread. All that happened was a change in the form of capitalism and some of the the well placed nomenklatura , true to their nature as (state) capitalist functionaries managed to convert themsleves rather nicely in oligarchs using their connections and networks.

So lets not romantise the old soviet state capitalist system. It was crap. Most of the workers were desparately poor and oppressed in that system too. Sure things have not improved for the majority. But why should our options be confined to accepting what prevails or returning to something that was fundamentally rotten to the core. Such an either-or perepective reveals a throughly conservative way of looking at things when we revolutionaries should be looking forward to something completely new that breaks with the past completely

[Cumannach]

Wrong on all accounts. you keep repeating this same shit over and over without ever giving any evidence or reasoning to support it.

[robbo203]

Wrong on all accounts. you keep repeating this same shit over and over without ever giving any evidence or reasoning to support it.

Would you care to elaborate? What exactly is it that I said was wrong in your opinion? That the USSR was state capitalist? That life for Russian workers under soviet state capitalism was hardly a bed of roses? Or what? Let me know and I will gladly present you with all the evidence you require. Note that I am not saying that things have got better since the good old bad old days of the USSR for Russian workers. I am saying simply that we should stop romanticising about the past and look to the future. But maybe you think that is wrong too

[mykittyhasaboner]

Anyone who does not regret the fall of the SU and the socialist camp should be ashamed of themselves.

[Pogue]

Anyone who does not regret the fall of the SU and the socialist camp should be ashamed of themselves.

Why?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Um, compare eastern Europe and Russia now, to before the SU fell. It's painfully obvious that even with all of the flaws of the former socialist republics, that the lives of workers were much better then than now.

[Pogue]

Um, compare eastern Europe and Russia now, to before the SU fell. It's painfully obvious that even with all of the flaws of the former socialist republics, that the lives of workers were much better then than now.

I don't really tend to favour one bourgeois state over another.

[scarletghoul]

USSR wasnt ideal but it was a hell of a lot better than Russia is now.

[Brother No. 1]

the CCCP wasnt a Perfect Socialist Country, to some of you it wasnt even Socialist it was State Capitalist, but it should be missed. It tried to bring Socialism,even when it was Revisionist, but it falied. But the former Eastern Europe and CCCP are much better then the current countries.

[Jack]

Without the CCCP all the former republics became plauged with capitalism. The people though that the Capitalist side was greener. They now know the truth. It was never greener only Darker.

It's sickening how you refer to dictatorships as "republics".

[Soviet]

It's sickening how you refer to dictatorships as "republics".
It's quite interesting what do you call "dictatorship" and what do you call "democracy"?For example,name a few democratic countries.And if by your opinion the USSR was the dictatorship is modern Russia democratic?

[hugsandmarxism]

I have a professor who used to teach in Soviet Armenia. We talk from time to time (he's rather radical politically, infact, he's part of the reason my politics have become what they are) and he told me a story of a time he was there, in the 70's or 80's, and searched hi and low trying to find homeless people (as a Sociologist, he'd do something like this). Other than the occasional drunk who's been kicked out of his house for the night, he was unable to find actual homeless people. Now, in Armenia, homelessness (and prostitution, drugs, organized crime, etc.) is a major problem. It seems clear that, at least in the case of Armenia, the Soviet Union was better to its republics than capitalism is now.

Now, I'm not saying the CCCP was perfect, but it did better in meeting people's basic needs than capitalism has. It would have been easier to fix "broken socialsm" than it would be to dispatch the current capitalist trends. In addition to that, the CCCP acted as a force which challenged western hegemony over the world, and was important foil for the US which lead to to an expansion of civil rights, workers rights, and women's rights, simply because western capitalists feared that people might question their system compared to the CCCP and decided to yield some ground to progressive movements. And also, who'd have given Hitler's Reich the swift kick to the balls it needed if the CCCP weren't there to take the casualties and bog down the blitzkreig?

I regret the fall of the Soviet Union. The world is a worse off place for it not being here, and any "communist" who thinks not really needs to rethink their position.

[Jack]

It's quite interesting what do you call "dictatorship" and what do you call "democracy"?For example,name a few democratic countries.And if by your opinion the USSR was the dictatorship is modern Russia democratic?

No, but I'm not talking about that.

[Soviet]

but it did better in meeting people's basic needs than capitalism has.
That's the point!That is the only criterion of the democracy.The state power can be the dictatorship in form and the democracy in content,you know.And vice versa,of course.The Soviet power was the top form of democracy in history.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I do not regret the fall of the USSR for a rather complicated reason. I feel that socialism is the key to the door of utopian society, peace, and prosparity but the leaders of the USSR didn't seem to agree. I have done so much research and looking into the inner workings of my favorite empire and found that the leaders truely were substandard. They could have done a spectatular job with what they were given but instead pssed it awway for money and power. While comunism is truely for the people by the people so many times are the leaders just selfish users. I believe the USSR would still be here if Lenin and Trotsky were not killed before the first apearance of leadership. They would have started the USSR off in a much better way and not placed such an assholish stigma on the future leaders. I do not blame Stalin for the fall of the Union but I do think he started it. So, no I am not regretful that the USSr fell but only because it became sick and deranged in its time. I think that it falling was benficial for us as well. We know what not to do. Let's build a bigger better USSR.