Was Russia ever Communist?

[Captain Communism]

This has been pretty conflicting, seeing that USSR is United Soviet Socialist Republic, and many people say that Russia has always been Communist when in history its actions have been more socialist? Could someone please help me on this one?

[Raúl Duke]

Nope, Russia hasn't been communist because the state hasn't whithered away into communism.

Marx says that communism is a state-less class-less society that is based upon the maxim "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." According to Marx, a Socialist transitional state is needed to fight the class struggle and to whither away into communism after this struggle.

Now, more Russia-maybe other socialist countries specific: Some think, like Trotskyist, Anarchists, Left Communists, etc that Russia was never socialist or was socialist for a small period of time. They consider Russia and all the other so-called "communist" countries to be state capitalist countries. The Trostkyists believe that there was socialism when Lenin was around but than Stalin turned it to state capitalism and that all other revolutions based on this model turned out the same way. All those who considered these countries not to be socialistic thought that they would revert to capitalism over time.

However, others considered Russia and the other countries to be socialist until their "collapse" or opening up to capitalism. Some consider some countries to be socialist while excluding others, etc.

[Rawthentic]

Trotskyists are against state-capitalist theory, for their theory of a "degenerated worker's state."

Whatever people say, socialism is the control of society and economy and state by the proletariat, and this only existed for very few years.

On the Internationalist Left website there is a very true understanding of what state-capitalism is:HERE (http://en.internationalism.org/node/609)

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 04:02 am
The USSR (which contained many more republics than just Russia) was socialist.. that's why it was called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Communism is a system without police, money, borders, classes, etc. Obviously, that has not yet existed. Before it can come into being, imperialism must be defeated.
So just because a country has Socialist in there name that means they are socialist? Russia was socialist for the very brief time after the Russian revolution but then it reverted backwards towards small capitalism then eventually state capitalism. Then once Stalin took power it was all fucked and it was def not socialist. So I guess China is communist because it is run by the "Communist" Party of China. Is it really The "Peoples" Republic of China. Def not.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The "socialist states" still used the very capitalistic wage system, and rather than eliminating property the merely placed it in the hands of the state. Further they created a new class system of bureaucrats and dictators. Also, if we are to take socialism as meaning a society of equality and solidarity, how do we account for this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6c/Palace-of-soviets.jpg/300px-Palace-of-soviets.jpg
This was the "Palace of the Soviets" building proposed originally in 1922 and explored more fully under Stalin. If completed it would have been the tallest building on earth at the time. Originally the statue was supposed to be that of the "free proletariat" but it eventually became one of Lenin.

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

What's so communistic about a monumental statue of Lenin that turns him into a god?

What's so communistic about preserving him as a saint?

[bezdomni]

So...a few architects thought it would be cool to have a monument for Marx, Engels and Lenin (after Lenin died) in the rubble of an old cathedral...

That hardly means the Soviet Union wasn't socialist.

Pay more attention to property relations, and less attention to obscure, half-baked plans that came up in the CPSU and were never even actualized.

EDIT: Just so you know, Lenin requested in his will that no statues be made of him, no cities named after him, and that he be buried next to his mother.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

EDIT: Just so you know, Lenin requested in his will that no statues be made of him, no cities named after him, and that he be buried next to his mother.


Thanks, I didn't know that but to me it proves my point. They'd lost sight of everything in a short time.

[LSD]

This has been pretty conflicting, seeing that USSR is United Soviet Socialist Republic, and many people say that Russia has always been Communist

People say that because they don't know what communism means.

That's not wholly unsurprising given the concerted bourgeois campaign to villify and denigrate leftist politics. Indeed most people probably don't even have a baic understanding of what a communist society would be.

That's probably, incidently, the primary reason why most people oppose communism. 'Cause its precepts are so intuitive and objectively rational that, once understood, they're remarkably difficult to reject.

As long as people think that communism means Stalinism, however, or North Korea, they're, rather understandably, not particularly drawn to it.

Insofar as the USSR, no, it was never Communist nor would any of its leaders or supporters claim that it was. People refer to it as communist because it was lead by a political regime that was ostensibly communist in ideology.

That is, "communist country" has become intrel shorthand for country ruled by a party which calls itself communist. And while that most certainly does describe the Soviet Union, that definition itself is a piece of bourgeois propaganda.

Communism means a democratic stateless classless society, something which no country on earth has yet achieved. Capitalists attempt to obfuscate that meaning because they're afraid of the inherent appeal that classlessness and statelessness would have to a population oppressed by the forces of state and class.

As for what exactly the USSR was, that is a very very complicate question that really depends on how one approaches issues both of political historiography and political theory in general.

A Trotskyist would tell you that it was socialist right up until 1924 when it became "degenerated" (or was it "deformed"?), an "anti-revisionist" would tell you that it was socialist all the way 'till 1957. A Khruschevite (if there are any left), meanwhile, would contend that it was socialist for many more decades than that; and an anarchist would contend that it was in fact never socialsit at all.

And then there are the intermediate positions, people who date the fall of the Soviet Union's socialism in 1932 or 1918 or even 1980.

Ultimately, the only way to get a real answer on this is to look at the relevent facts yourself and come to a conclusion. Of course the answer you come to will be strongly influenced by your prexisting political tendencies.

That's the nature of politically sensitive questions, they're politically sensitive!

[Vargha Poralli]

USSR was called unoin of Soviet Socialist Republics not a communist republics.



The "socialist states" still used the very capitalistic wage system, and rather than eliminating property the merely placed it in the hands of the state. Further they created a new class system of bureaucrats and dictators. Also, if we are to take socialism as meaning a society of equality and solidarity, how do we account for this?

One thing you have to remember it is obnoxiously moronic to create "Socialism in one Country".It cannot be done. But for this reason alone calling USSR capitalist is intellectual dishonesty at its best.




What's so communistic about a monumental statue of Lenin that turns him into a god?

What's so communistic about preserving him as a saint?

You are right on. Marx,Engels and Lenin are turned in to saints simply for this reason. People should not any questions to the bureaucracy. It is the failure of bureaucracy to justify its own action to its own people which is the cause for it.

Again this does not make USSR a capitalist.

************************************************** ********

Even after the ascension of bureaucracy the USSR not not yet turned in to a Capitalist state. At the same times its had not been a perfect state that is capable of withstanding the assault of global capitalism. As LSD says you have to analyse it on your own from the facts not from propagandas.

Anyway good analyses of USSR at different times IMO are
The Worker's State,Thermidor and Bonapartism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-bon.htm)
Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)
Not a Worker's state not a Bourgeoisie state. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-ws.htm)

These provide some class analysis of the USSR.

Third International after Lenin. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1928-3rd/index.htm)

This criticises the actions of 3rd International in different countries at that time.

Some may criticise that Trotsky's works gave no value because he is just pissed of that he did not succeed Lenin. But I would recommend read some from him and come in to your own conclusion.



... or 1991, when the Soviet Union was destroyed by counter revolution.

I do not call that event exactly a counter revolution. It is just a change of policy by bureaucracy.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

One thing you have to remember it is obnoxiously moronic to create "Socialism in one Country".It cannot be done. But for this reason alone calling USSR capitalist is intellectual dishonesty at its best.

Well did the USSR take the surplus value?





I do not call that event exactly a counter revolution. It is just a change of policy by bureaucracy.


Agreed, from not being able to choose their masters to being able to choose their masters doesn't destroy the root of the problem.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:26 pm


One thing you have to remember it is obnoxiously moronic to create "Socialism in one Country".It cannot be done. But for this reason alone calling USSR capitalist is intellectual dishonesty at its best.

Well did the USSR take the surplus value?
Well my point is what did the State do with that surplus value.

Sure the bureaucracy benefited a lot from that surplus value that does not make the bureaucracy a capitalist class.






I do not call that event exactly a counter revolution. It is just a change of policy by bureaucracy.


Agreed, from not being able to choose their masters to being able to choose their masters doesn't destroy the root of the problem.

Yes you all have plenty of freedom to "choose your own master". All your problem have been solved.

Yet your country still chooses capitalists why is that ?

You should take a look at the standard of lives of people not only in Russia,but also in all former republics. This is the reason people think Stalin was a great leader and Brezhnev's era which was marked by stagnation was called Golden age now a days.

[rouchambeau]

Well my point is what did the State do with that surplus value.

You've...never read capital, have you?

What the state does with surplus value (capital) has nothing to do with its mode of production. Remember, capitalism and communism are modes of production and distribution. So, if surplus value is created in the production and distribution of goods and services, then the mode of production is capitalist.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 08, 2007 10:10 pm
This has been pretty conflicting, seeing that USSR is United Soviet Socialist Republic, and many people say that Russia has always been Communist when in history its actions have been more socialist? Could someone please help me on this one?
I think the question of whether the USSR was communist has been effectively answered here. What seems to be still in contention is whether it was "socialist".

In my view, the word "socialism" has been stripped of any concrete meaning. It has become a catch-all phrase, meaning anything from liberal bourgeois policy (Sweden, the "welfare state") to revolutionary proletarian politics (when used as a substitute for "communism"). Because of this reality, I would answer your question about whether the USSR was "socialist" by saying yes ... and no.

More to the point, what existed in the USSR was certainly not the kind of "socialism" talked about by Marxists prior to the 1917 October Revolution -- including Lenin, Trotsky, etc. By the time the USSR was formed in 1922, workers' control of production, considered to be the cornerstone of revolutionary "socialism", no longer existed. In its place was a system of one-person management, "commissars" and spies in workplaces, and a crushing bureaucracy -- almost all of whom were "rehabilitated" "specialists" drawn from the pre-revolution tsarist state. Whatever the excuses were for imposing this reconstituted portion of the old capitalist state they are irrelevant. It is not what was in the heads of the old Bolsheviks that counts; it is their actions.

What ended up being created as a result is a kind of petty-bourgeois socialism -- a corporate-state entity with the petty bourgeoisie as a ruling class overseeing a nationalized economy operating along state-capitalist lines.

That said, having a state-capitalist economy during the revolutionary transition is not necessarily a great betrayal. That is, while it would generate great contradictions that would have to be overcome quickly, it is acceptable for a transitional system to have a state-capitalist economy for a period of time as long as the working class is the ruling class. Without that fundamental class rule, there is no transition to communism -- there is no "socialism" in the Marxian sense of the term.

But, again, there can be a different kind of "socialism" -- ruled by a class other than the proletariat.

Miles

[Rawthentic]

Yes, this is what I have been arguing for a while now.

Thats why we in the League use "working people's republic" because it shows in clear terms the Marxist sense of socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

You've...never read capital, have you?

What the state does with surplus value (capital) has nothing to do with its mode of production. Remember, capitalism and communism are modes of production and distribution. So, if surplus value is created in the production and distribution of goods and services, then the mode of production is capitalist.

While this isn't directed at me, I myself never read capital yet; but I do know about what you are discribing (either because I took a peek at capital or I learn it in this forum.)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:44 am

Well my point is what did the State do with that surplus value.

You've...never read capital, have you?

For one I have never claimed that I have got a Ph.D in Marxism. Yes I have not read all 3 volumes of capital and have understood a little I have read in Volume 1 and Volume 2.


What the state does with surplus value (capital) has nothing to do with its mode of production. Remember, capitalism and communism are modes of production and distribution. So, if surplus value is created in the production and distribution of goods and services, then the mode of production is capitalist.

Clearly you have some problem in eyesight or on reading.

Did I ever claim USSR was Communist ? I well understand what is capitalism and communism thank you.

Do you have anything else to say ?

[rouchambeau]

I was just pointing out how sentiment like this:

Sure the bureaucracy benefited a lot from that surplus value that does not make the bureaucracy a capitalist class.

is wrong.

[Ander]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm
and many people say that Russia has always been Communist when in history its actions have been more socialist? Could someone please help me on this one?
When someone says that the USSR was communist you can pretty much disregard anything they have to say on the topic because they have clearly demonstrated that they have no idea what they're talking about and are lacking serious knowledge on the topic.

Whenever I'm arguing with people and they say things like "communist government," "_____ was communist," or other ignorant and incorrect bullshit, I simply tell them to go read some Marx before they talk about subjects they don't understand.

And just because it was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics doesn't mean anything. Actions speak louder than words. If it were otherwise, there would be socialists in half of Europe and China would be the biggest communist society in the world.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:38 am
I was just pointing out how sentiment like this:

Sure the bureaucracy benefited a lot from that surplus value that does not make the bureaucracy a capitalist class.

is wrong.
Yes what I meant was right and stand by the statement. The bureaucracy of the Soviet Union has been a separate privileged caste among the workers they are not a separate class.

[Captain Communism]

Ok, so to understand what has all been said and take everything into account, I think my question, quite wonederfully detailed and interlectually stimimulatingly has been answered, and that the answer is, no it was never communist, yes it was a capitalist state and that there was really no "socialism" according to Marx?

[Capcomm]

Russia or the ex Soviet Union, never was communist, of course they called themselves communists but from a true Marxist perspective it was anything but...

It was Leninist, see what Lenin did was study Marx and he understood Marx, Lenin understood well that Russia was a peasant state, meaning that anyone who understands Marx knows that communism would not be possible there. But Lenin did his theories and writing about imperialism, and he thought that since Russia was a slave in the "economic imperialism" of the Western European states that doing a revolution in Russia would then start a spark that would make the rest have their own revolutions....but of course, that never happened, at least Lenin tried to get other countries into the idea, but when Stalin came along his policy of "Socialism in 1 country" fucked everything up even more...and thus why the credability of Marxism and communism has such a bad reputation and why i fucking hate it when Lenin and Stalin and every god damn revolution to this day is attributed to Marx's ideals, when Marx never would have accepted them.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Captain [email protected] 11, 2007 07:12 am
Ok, so to understand what has all been said and take everything into account, I think my question, quite wonederfully detailed and interlectually stimimulatingly has been answered, and that the answer is, no it was never communist, yes it was a capitalist state and that there was really no "socialism" according to Marx?
It was not a communist society, but it was a workers state (I dont know what the concept of a 'socialist society' means - means nothing to me unless it means the first stage of a communist society as outlined by Lenin in State and Revolution.).

Why it is important to recognise that the USSR was, for all its imperfections, a worker's state can be seen by looking at the use Marx made of the Paris Commune. He recognised the Commune as part of his tradition and led the way for the First and Second International to learn the lessons of the Commune. He did this although his own followers had been a marginalised minority in the Commune, their policies rejected by the petit bourgeois Jacobin leadership (who werent even socialists !)

In the same way, we need to be able to understand what happens once a workers state is established and the USSR is the great example, given to us by history to learn from - given at the price of the sacrifice of millions.

The alternative, blinkered approach, which denies that this was the kind of state that a workers revolution creates, effectively closes its eyes to the lessons of history and wishfully hopes that a better revolution next time will wash away all the issues the Russian Revolution revealed as existing for new workers states.

If Marx had proceeded that way he would have simply denied the Paris Commune as part of his heritage because of its MANY imperfections.