Russia

[Owen-]

What actually did happen to Russia? Why'd it fail...?

[Dros]

What actually did happen to Russia? Why'd it fail...?

After Stalin's death, a revisionist coup restored capitalism in Russia. The USSR fell apart because of that and because of the policies of Gorbachev.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

After Stalin's death, a revisionist coup restored capitalism in Russia. The USSR fell apart because of that and because of the policies of Gorbachev.

because for maoists classes seemingly don't change modes of production!

wow magical thinking lol

[ComradeRed]

What actually did happen to Russia? Why'd it fail...? The answer is there is no consensus within the left.

Leninists will tell you about some "revisionist coup", "the revolution was betrayed", "internal sabotage", etc. etc. etc.

In other words they'll cry foul play.

Some can do it more eloquently than others, but there is little empirical data to support such hypotheses.

Other explanations is that empirically the USSR wasn't as centralized and far more class based than people think (see e.g. [1] (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=414845), [2] (http://www.jstor.org/view/00071234/ap010073/01a00010/0), [3] (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hFHU5kaXhu8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=soviet+centralization&ots=ijTTRXGcR_&sig=zDC5Cx_ckRcfPuqYWPFNSTiuVHo#PPR10,M1)).

Leninists dismiss this as "wrong" because it's "self-evident" that the USSR was "socialist"...when prompted for proof, they end up saying "Uh, well, the union of soviet socialist republics, it's in the name therefore it must be true." Or more comically asserting that it must be true because it's in their constitution (as we all know, countries never violate their constitutions!).

The real answer is that it depends who you ask. If you want an empirically based response, it's because the USSR wasn't socialist and constrained development. There was material interest in un-constraining development.

So it simply depends on who you ask and to what degree you want the answer to be empirically based. Idealists go with the "internal betrayal" concept. Empirically inclined tend to go with "it wasn't socialist".

[spartan]

After Stalin's death, a revisionist coup restored capitalism in Russia.

How can Capitalism be restored when it never existed in Tsarist Russia?

Anyway it was Stalins Bureaucracy that made Revisionism possible in the first place.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Spartan,

how can there be a working class or proletariat, if capitalism did not exist prior to the revolution?

ComradeRed,

As usual, i mostly agree with you.

But, do you mean 'socialism' as a 'mode of production' and that it is more advanced, progressive than capitalism?

Or the more general meaning of 'socialism' that , slightly bizarrely, is used by both regular 'political scientists' and Stalinist's when describing the USSR?

Owen-,

I would say that, what began as an attempt at workers building a new society, ended very rapidly in the midst of the Russian civil war.

To that extent, what existed afterwards could barely be described as 'socialist', as seen in 1989-91 when the masses of people not only remained dosile in regards to the USSR collapsing, but very much liked and supported
Boris Yeltsin who openly endorsed capitalism!

Very very odd, and i have not seen as thorough explanation as to why this happened by and supporters of the USSR.

[spartan]

Spartan,

how can there be a working class or proletariat, if capitalism did not exist prior to the revolution?

There basically wasnt.

80% of the population of Tsarist Russia were peasants.

Now bearing this in mind, i am willing to bet that less than 10% of the population of Feudal Russia were truely urban Proletariats working in an industrialized setting (And that was probably only because there was a war on, i.e. armament factories).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well, there was a working class.

Russia, because it was a late developer, had some of the largest factories in Europe, some with forty-thousand workers in the factory complex!!

So, if you do accept that 10% of the population was proletariat, surely capitalism must have existed.

[INDK]

How can Capitalism be restored when it never existed in Tsarist Russia?

The form of government doesn't define the economy. The fact there was a 'communist' (eh) revolution carried out by the 'proletariat' (eh) lets us know they had some kind of capitalist system going on.


So it simply depends on who you ask and to what degree you want the answer to be empirically based. Idealists go with the "internal betrayal" concept. Empirically inclined tend to go with "it wasn't socialist".

Right on. The Leninists ignore their ideological flaws and blame their downfall on "revisionists" (they use that like an insult more than Rosa uses dialectician) or material conditions or some fucknut bullshit of that sort.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Escape Artist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=15483)

what do you mean by "Leninists"?

[INDK]

Those who..adhere to the philosophy of Leninism?

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed,

As usual, i mostly agree with you.

But, do you mean 'socialism' as a 'mode of production' and that it is more advanced, progressive than capitalism?

Or the more general meaning of 'socialism' that , slightly bizarrely, is used by both regular 'political scientists' and Stalinist's when describing the USSR? I am referring to the former.

Spartan:



80% of the population of Tsarist Russia were peasants.

Now bearing this in mind, i am willing to bet that less than 10% of the population of Feudal Russia were truely urban Proletariats working in an industrialized setting (And that was probably only because there was a war on, i.e. armament factories). Not true, the figures are around 5% to 8% of the population were industrial workers.

And this was in the Western fringes of Russia, where foreign capitalists built factories. It had nothing to do with "armament factories" or anything of the sort.

It was foreign investment that allowed for the creation of factories (indeed, it was the bulk of industrialization in the entirety of Russia!).

Even with the high figure of 10%, that is not enough to assert that it is a capitalist mode of production.

France prior to 1789 had similar figures for the number of peasants and manufacture workers.

It was far from being capitalism! Hence the bourgeois revolutions...

[BIG BROTHER]

As far as I understand and I know, and I'm not claiming to be right I'm just saying what I think, as I see it the arms race did a lot of damage to the soviet union, since enstead of spending money on other necesities, most of if went to the arms race.

But besides that, would it be too much to ask for a neutral reason of the colapse of the soviet union?

[Marsella]

I am referring to the former.

Spartan:
Not true, the figures are around 5% to 8% of the population were industrial workers.

And this was in the Western fringes of Russia, where foreign capitalists built factories. It had nothing to do with "armament factories" or anything of the sort.

It was foreign investment that allowed for the creation of factories (indeed, it was the bulk of industrialization in the entirety of Russia!).

Even with the high figure of 10%, that is not enough to assert that it is a capitalist mode of production.

France prior to 1789 had similar figures for the number of peasants and manufacture workers.

It was far from being capitalism! Hence the bourgeois revolutions...

If those figures are correct, what of the Trotskyist argument that the civil war destroyed the proletariat or its former class position?

Let's take an extreme number and say that half of the industrial workers were destroyed during the civil war. That means that 2.5% to 4% of the population was destroyed.

Does a proletarian revolution depend on 2.5% to 4% of the population for its success?

:ohmy:

[Bilan]

But besides that, would it be too much to ask for a neutral reason of the colapse of the soviet union?

As if that were possible!

The failures of the USSR, from my understanding, lie in a variety of places, rather than just the leadership, or the Civil War: but instead, in the nature of the economy prior to the revolution (i.e. backward, highly agricultural [large peasantry] etc.), which was a significant factor, that combined with the leadership (the Bolshevik party) and their destruction of the Soviets (Workers councils) prior/or during (I can't remember now) the Civil War, and concentrating a lot of industry in the 'hands of the state' (as such).
Not to mention, the Civil War was a significant drain on Russia's resources, as well as the isolation of Russia by capitalist nation states (blocking rail roads, etc.), essentially trying to starve and isolate Russia.

The state, after the revolution, was something that was bound to lead to the destruction, and betrayal of the revolution.
"We have painted the tsarist State in Red" - Lenin.

I suppose that's a summary of it.

[FireFry]

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics failed because it was a monopoly state. It was less about Communism, but more like say, in American terms, the Post Office taking over everything in society. Watch this video, it's nice, and explains a lot of how popular democratic movements are crushed.

Corporate Cosmology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AI8mC8XucY&feature=related)

The world is a business, Mr. Beale!!

[ComradeRed]

If those figures are correct, what of the Trotskyist argument that the civil war destroyed the proletariat or its former class position?

Let's take an extreme number and say that half of the industrial workers were destroyed during the civil war. That means that 2.5% to 4% of the population was destroyed.

Does a proletarian revolution depend on 2.5% to 4% of the population for its success?

:ohmy: I thought it would be obvious that the Trotskyist argument is wrong!

Who'd have guessed it?! :laugh:

Proper Tea is Proper Theft:

The state, after the revolution, was something that was bound to lead to the destruction, and betrayal of the revolution. I disagree, the revolution did what it was intended to do. It industrialized a preindustrial society, and when the party ended in 1989 it turned out a moderately modernized capitalist society.

No one is saying the USSR wasn't "progressive", it just wasn't socialist.

Of course state capitalism is revolutionary compared to feudalism, but as I think is well established that's not saying very much!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Apparently ComradeRed hasn't read this thread of mine on the state capitalism of Bolshevik Russia:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/index.html

[Let alone stuff on "revolutionary democracy"]

[BIG BROTHER]

and what do you guys think about this exerpt I got from wikipedia:


"After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag; essentially the union did not produce enough grain to feed its growing population, and it was forced to import. Due to the poor quality of its products, the union was largely only able to export raw materials, notably oil. This led to a negative balance of payments and ultimately the union simply ran out of money."

[sanpal]

and what do you guys think about this exerpt I got from wikipedia:


"After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag; essentially the union did not produce enough grain to feed its growing population, and it was forced to import. Due to the poor quality of its products, the union was largely only able to export raw materials, notably oil. This led to a negative balance of payments and ultimately the union simply ran out of money."

It rather resembles the truth.
The cost on oil was not more then 6 dollars for barrel at that time (if i'm not mistaken). But it is not the main reason. Why "some experimentation" have been taken an attempt?

[Forward Union]

What actually did happen to Russia? Why'd it fail...?

It failed in October 1917 when the Bolsheviks succesfully hijacked the workers revolution and began shutting down the workers soviets.

Many workers organised against Lenins bolsheviks and formed "black guards" to try and stop the bolsheviks from breaking up union meetings, but after bloody battles in the streets the workers lost.

Then the civil war started and things got worse. Gradually the decision making powers of the soviets were reduced to nothing and power was placed in the hands of foreign capitalist advisors.

In southern Ukraine the Pesants and workers organised into "the inssurectionary Revolutionary Army of Ukraine" (who were Libertarian-communist) and fought the bolsheviks and the whites in an attempt to maintain workers control until 1921 when the Bolsheviks massacred them and chased the leaders into exile.

I've always admired the first declaration of the Ukranian communists that fought the bolsheviks;


All decrees of the white army are hereby abolished. All those decrees of the Red army which conflict with peasant and worker interests are likewise Abolished. It will be for the toilers themselves to resolve the question which decrees of the Communist government are damaging to the toilders' interests.

[BIG BROTHER]

I got this from wikipedia too:

"Agriculture of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_of_the_Soviet_Union) was organized into a system of collective farms (kolkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz)) and state farms (sovkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz)) but it was relatively unproductive. Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) met widespread resistance from the kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks), resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, and famine, particularly in Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) (see Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)), but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan"

So do you guys think the kulaks played a major role in the colapse of the Soviet union?

[ComradeRed]

I got this from wikipedia too:

"Agriculture of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_of_the_Soviet_Union) was organized into a system of collective farms (kolkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz)) and state farms (sovkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz)) but it was relatively unproductive. Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) met widespread resistance from the kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks), resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, and famine, particularly in Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) (see Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)), but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan"

So do you guys think the kulaks played a major role in the colapse of the Soviet union? Oh wow, well since it's on wikipedia it must be true :lol:

[Digitalism]

A very "popular" arguement among the actual PEOPLE who have lived in the Soviet Union say that its' Gorbachev's "perestroika" and his reforms. I don't know the exact details but I'll ask the person I know who know a lot about this since he has lived there most of his life. He mentioned once that a lot of "kolhoz"es were unproductive and since that accounts for the majority of Russia's economy that's what brought it down, that's why there were such long lines for bread in the late 80's. I'll find out more.

[INDK]

Many workers organised against Lenins bolsheviks and formed "black guards" to try and stop the bolsheviks from breaking up union meetings, but after bloody battles in the streets the workers lost.

Yes, that's an important point - the Leninists suppressed workers themselves, calling their self-management counterrevolutionary. Workers' Councils do not mean the Council controls the worker, as the Soviet concept seems to believe.

[BIG BROTHER]

Oh wow, well since it's on wikipedia it must be true :lol:

I'm not saying its true or false, I'm just asking for an opinion.

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes, that's an important point - the Leninists suppressed workers themselves, calling their self-management counterrevolutionary. Workers' Councils do not mean the Council controls the worker, as the Soviet concept seems to believe.

wow! its sad that the Leninist oppresed workers, when the USSR was suposed to be a workers state.

[BIG BROTHER]

I got this from wikipedia too:

"Agriculture of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_of_the_Soviet_Union) was organized into a system of collective farms (kolkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz)) and state farms (sovkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz)) but it was relatively unproductive. Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) met widespread resistance from the kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulaks), resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, and famine, particularly in Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) (see Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)), but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan"

So do you guys think the kulaks played a major role in the colapse of the Soviet union?

So would anyone mind giving me their opinion of this?