soviet union v communism

[kingbee]

i used to be all pro soviet, but now i realise that that was because they were anti american.i know think that soem of the things that the soviets did was bad- was this how marx saw communism? militarised, authoratarian?

[vox]

No, this isn't how Marx saw things. Indeed, Marx spoke of the withering away of the state. It's my opinion that Lenin's concept of democratic centralism is what caused the corruption of Marxist ideology in the Soviet Union, and then Stalin's reign of terror, who twisted even Lenin's ideas.

I agree with Harrington about the Soviet Union. He disagreed with those who called it state capitalist, instead labelling Authoritarian Collectivist. Whatever it was, it wasn't Marxist, for Marx insisted on the self-emancipation of the working class. Marx probably would not have thought that Russia would be a good place for a communist revolution in the first place, for it wasn't industrialized nearly enough.

vox

[RedCeltic]

I also think Marx envisioned Communism as being implemented in a fully developed industrialized nation... Russia wasn't.

[CPK]

yeah redceltic
marx wanted a revolution in the us or england i believe
more industrialized than russia

[Guest]

Marx and the Soviet Union?

Many of the comments touch on important issues in supporting or not sopporting the Soviet Union, when it existed. And attitudes toward it are often determined by heavy propaganda on both sides of the argument. The idea that socialism could not be built at that time in Russia was understood by the Bolsheviks, Lenin knew this and it is why the 3rd international was created in 1919. The issue was to create the world revolution, the revolution was happening in Russia without the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks took control and tried to create a stable situation upon which state controled capitalism could set the foundations for socialism until the major powers (industrialised nations) were overthrown by the working class. This period, the NEP, gives rise and conclusion to Tony Cliffs State Capitalism theory.
I'm no economist so I dont profess to understanding that side of it too well. But one thing he mentions that is interesting is the relationship between USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countrys. He calls it imperialist, and whether it is or isnt in the technicalities of Marxist code doesnt bother me, but its situation as a parasite on those economies is criminal. The nature of authoritarian rule of the CPSU both during and after Lenins leadership is determined by the relationship of the USSR to the rest of the world but also to the peculiar situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in after taking control. The small industrial working class, those upon the success of the soviets depended, were falling in numbers as they went to defend the revolution on the frontines in the Red Army. For all of Stalins crimes against humanity, one is often omited is his determination to crush the revolutions in Europe.

With regard to Democration Centralism. I believe that this was a creation of Marx not Lenin. Either way up, we are surely talking about its role as either a useful idea or not. Although I understand the problems associated with it, I believe that if you are going to comit yourself to revolution, then it is the only viable option. The capitalist State is highly organised for its own defence. We have seen how it can be attacked ramdomly with terrorism, and how it reacts not merely technically but most importantly, politically shoring up its own powerbase through internal propaganda but through increasing its sphere of control over the rest of the world. The idea of Democratic Centralism is that it will allow a proccess for ideas to be assimilated with an overview through forums. Those in the Central Committee hold their possition on merit and should be subject to instant recall.

Steve (I cant get logged in)

[gunnarSUmedlem]

The bolshevik party did one big mistake: They were an elitist party, were membership only could be reached if you were an intellectual. We must choose a new route, our struggle should include all the people. Then the socialist community will be more long-living, ecspecially if we use democracy all the way instead of dictatorship of the masses.

[AgustoSandino]

Isn't that the main problem with all of marxism, Karl Marx, itinerant philospher and economist believing that he, a man who lived of the generosity of his patrons knew what was best for workers. That is a major reason why marxist revolutions fail, because intellectuals believe they know what is best for workers. Intellectuals think in terms of epochs and eras, workers in terms of this week and the next.

[Ernestito]

The URSS, soviet union, kinda grew away from the marxist ideology.
Bc of the Era of Terror provided by that miserable killer Joseph Stalin.
The only one that was worth it there was Trotsky whom was killed by Stalin.

[Moskitto]

Marx saw communism as probably rising in Britain or Germany, The USA wasn't really seen as a world power at that time.

[CommieBastard]

Something interesting I saw mentioned was the leadership of the intellectual in the revolution. I don't know if anyone has read any Grasmci, but i quoted him elsewhere in this forum, and i think i will quote him again for the purposes of this particular discussion.

(in reference to the definition of intellectual activity)
"The most widespread error of method seems to me that of having looked for this criterion of distinction in the intrinsic nature of intellectual activities, rather than in the ensemble of the system of relations in which these activities (and therefore the intellectual groups who personify them) have their place within the general complex of social relations"

"Each man, finally, outside his proffesional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a 'philosopher', an artist, a man of tatse, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought"

(each social class) "creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in economic but also in the social and political fields"

'The proletariat needed to convert to its cause bourgois intellectuals, but this was not enough':
"One of the most important characteristics of any group is developing towards dominance is its struggle to assimilation and conquest is made quicker and more effacious the more the group in question succeeds in simultaneously elaborating its own organic intellectuals.

He also touched upon the essential nature of the political party in helping form lower class intellecutals.

I suggest people read some Gramsci, he had some interesting ideas. His major work was his Prison Notebooks, which are sadly notoriously difficult to interpret, due to the conditions in which they were written.

[Che Jexster]

I think that communism has been twisted so much because Marx saw it as a popular rebellion. Every communist revolution hasnt started out as communist but only become one after a minority took power and made it one. When people were forced to do something they rebelled, having been fed propaganda by their government for so long, and not being able to separate themselves from selfishness. The communists who placed themselves in power in Russia knew if people slaughtered their own cattle, and rebelled their power base was threatened. Then instead of trying to educate the populace to work for the greater good they brought in guns, and propaganda full of lies so that you couldnt trust them whatsoever.

[Proteus]

Personaly prffer any Communistic Goverment than a capiltalistic.
The crimes of Capitalism are so many that can not b4e compared with some Communistic Atrocities.
Of course, Stalin used some barbaric methods buy, do not forget that he was the man which lead the Soviet People to the victory against the Nazi hordes.
In the other hand the Soviet people was not be forced to participate to the Russian Revolution as you say,he was not tricked.
The Russian People take the Arms against its enemies with the leadership of The Bolseviks.
If people did not wanted the Soviet Government he would not fight for its.
The faults of the Soviet Government after revolution must become a lesson for all Communists for not to do them again.
The results of the 1989-1991 period we can see them every day. More War, hunger and brutality.
So, it is up to our hands to make a selection.

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2001, 11:41 PM
Marx and the Soviet Union?

Many of the comments touch on important issues in supporting or not sopporting the Soviet Union, when it existed. And attitudes toward it are often determined by heavy propaganda on both sides of the argument. The idea that socialism could not be built at that time in Russia was understood by the Bolsheviks, Lenin knew this and it is why the 3rd international was created in 1919. The issue was to create the world revolution, the revolution was happening in Russia without the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks took control and tried to create a stable situation upon which state controled capitalism could set the foundations for socialism until the major powers (industrialised nations) were overthrown by the working class. This period, the NEP, gives rise and conclusion to Tony Cliffs State Capitalism theory.
I'm no economist so I dont profess to understanding that side of it too well. But one thing he mentions that is interesting is the relationship between USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countrys. He calls it imperialist, and whether it is or isnt in the technicalities of Marxist code doesnt bother me, but its situation as a parasite on those economies is criminal. The nature of authoritarian rule of the CPSU both during and after Lenins leadership is determined by the relationship of the USSR to the rest of the world but also to the peculiar situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in after taking control. The small industrial working class, those upon the success of the soviets depended, were falling in numbers as they went to defend the revolution on the frontines in the Red Army. For all of Stalins crimes against humanity, one is often omited is his determination to crush the revolutions in Europe.

With regard to Democration Centralism. I believe that this was a creation of Marx not Lenin. Either way up, we are surely talking about its role as either a useful idea or not. Although I understand the problems associated with it, I believe that if you are going to comit yourself to revolution, then it is the only viable option. The capitalist State is highly organised for its own defence. We have seen how it can be attacked ramdomly with terrorism, and how it reacts not merely technically but most importantly, politically shoring up its own powerbase through internal propaganda but through increasing its sphere of control over the rest of the world. The idea of Democratic Centralism is that it will allow a proccess for ideas to be assimilated with an overview through forums. Those in the Central Committee hold their possition on merit and should be subject to instant recall.

Steve (I cant get logged in)
The NEP was indeed created to allow some regulated state capitalism but reactionaries claim it was a step backward, however if you look at history dialiectically Russia was not fully capitalist, some people claimed that "we should have capitalism now and socialism later"

However Trotsky pointed out that the capitalists in Russia were weak, and would not complete a bourgeois revolution such as in England, They would probably resort to dictatorship and not english style democracy. Trotsky proposed the theory of permanent revolution which required some seemingly capitalist measures like the NEP. Dont forgot most of Russias population were peasants, not workers who knew how to work in factories. Lenin prescribed democratic centralism and important aspects of this are that the leaders can be instantly, democratically recalled if they do something people disagree with.

The problem with the NEP was that emerging capitalists ( the revolution happened as russia was beginning to become fully capitalist) took advantage of the NEP and made profits from it.

Comrade steve also correctly points out that the russian revolution was reliant on sucessful revolutions elsewhere. THis didnt happen, and so it became isolated. Now imagine being attacked by 14 imperialist armies!

but thats another story.

[kingbee]

Blimey. You really dug up an old one there.... 4 years old!

[Iroquois Xavier]

Nothing should be left unfinished! :)

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by voice of the voiceless+Jan 25 2006, 01:18 PM--> (voice of the voiceless @ Jan 25 2006, 01:18 PM)
[email protected] 18 2001, 11:41 PM
Marx and the Soviet Union?

Many of the comments touch on important issues in supporting or not sopporting the Soviet Union, when it existed. And attitudes toward it are often determined by heavy propaganda on both sides of the argument. The idea that socialism could not be built at that time in Russia was understood by the Bolsheviks, Lenin knew this and it is why the 3rd international was created in 1919. The issue was to create the world revolution, the revolution was happening in Russia without the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks took control and tried to create a stable situation upon which state controled capitalism could set the foundations for socialism until the major powers (industrialised nations) were overthrown by the working class. This period, the NEP, gives rise and conclusion to Tony Cliffs State Capitalism theory.
I'm no economist so I dont profess to understanding that side of it too well. But one thing he mentions that is interesting is the relationship between USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countrys. He calls it imperialist, and whether it is or isnt in the technicalities of Marxist code doesnt bother me, but its situation as a parasite on those economies is criminal. The nature of authoritarian rule of the CPSU both during and after Lenins leadership is determined by the relationship of the USSR to the rest of the world but also to the peculiar situation the Bolsheviks found themselves in after taking control. The small industrial working class, those upon the success of the soviets depended, were falling in numbers as they went to defend the revolution on the frontines in the Red Army. For all of Stalins crimes against humanity, one is often omited is his determination to crush the revolutions in Europe.

With regard to Democration Centralism. I believe that this was a creation of Marx not Lenin. Either way up, we are surely talking about its role as either a useful idea or not. Although I understand the problems associated with it, I believe that if you are going to comit yourself to revolution, then it is the only viable option. The capitalist State is highly organised for its own defence. We have seen how it can be attacked ramdomly with terrorism, and how it reacts not merely technically but most importantly, politically shoring up its own powerbase through internal propaganda but through increasing its sphere of control over the rest of the world. The idea of Democratic Centralism is that it will allow a proccess for ideas to be assimilated with an overview through forums. Those in the Central Committee hold their possition on merit and should be subject to instant recall.

Steve (I cant get logged in)
The NEP was indeed created to allow some regulated state capitalism but reactionaries claim it was a step backward, however if you look at history dialiectically Russia was not fully capitalist, some people claimed that "we should have capitalism now and socialism later"

However Trotsky pointed out that the capitalists in Russia were weak, and would not complete a bourgeois revolution such as in England, They would probably resort to dictatorship and not english style democracy. Trotsky proposed the theory of permanent revolution which required some seemingly capitalist measures like the NEP. Dont forgot most of Russias population were peasants, not workers who knew how to work in factories. Lenin prescribed democratic centralism and important aspects of this are that the leaders can be instantly, democratically recalled if they do something people disagree with.

The problem with the NEP was that emerging capitalists ( the revolution happened as russia was beginning to become fully capitalist) took advantage of the NEP and made profits from it.

Comrade steve also correctly points out that the russian revolution was reliant on sucessful revolutions elsewhere. THis didnt happen, and so it became isolated. Now imagine being attacked by 14 imperialist armies!

but thats another story. [/b]
Imagine being attacked by 14 Imperialist Armies and winning!

The success of the Soviet Union becoming a superpower is a testament to the potential socialism has for success.

Don't dare take example from Stalin though.