Could the USSR have properly restructured itself?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I was contemplating whether or not the Soviet Union could have properly restructured itself at any point beyond initial industrialization (20-40s) to better allocate worker power and political liberties - without destroying the entire system?

For example, would it have been possible for the Khrushchev Thaw to continue?

Could there have been more oversight of the Politburo's actions?

Could economic decision-making be decentralized?

Was there a point when the Soviet Union should have stopped spending 25% of its GDP on military expenditures?

[Psy]

Sure the USSR could have, it is not like the planning in the USSR had to be so broken.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, on the darker side of things there was Lavrenti Beria: Deng Xiaoping before Deng.

[Red_or_Dead]

Was there a point when the Soviet Union should have stopped spending 25% of its GDP on military expenditures?


If we are talking about the pre-WW2 era, then certainly there was a point, even tho Stalin might have not been aware of it at that time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not sure. This was the same line of thinking Trotsky had. He underestimated the resiliency of the "Leninist-Stalinist" bureaucracy. Of course, his followers - sectarian and otherwise - tried and try to paint things differently, but he was just dead wrong.

[gilhyle]

The question seems to me ambiguous. On the one hand it could be interpreted as could a programme have been implemented which would have improved workers power and better controlled bureaucracy - seems to me the answer to that is clearly 'yes'. The other interpretation is could the social forces have been mobilised to force the bureaucracy to accept such change ? This is far more problematic. As time passed, 'reform' increasingly became coterminal with restoration.....there was always an element of truth in the spartacist (not Luxembourg - pro-stalin trots) view for that reason. Trotsky tried to capture the problem with the idea of political revolution, but that never had any purchase after the 1930s IN THE USSR (had more relevance in the socalled peoples democracies). Social forces can usually only be mobilised where there is a space to organise. The 'spaces' to organise in the Stalinist system can be seen by looking at the 1989 protests in China, the Czech 68, the Hungarian uprising and Polish Solidarity. The 'spaces' are the dissident stalinist party and factory. The factory is easily diverted to a false programme while the dissident party remains a bureacuratised party.......Notably, none of even these happened in the USSR.

[Saorsa]

For example, would it have been possible for the Khrushchev Thaw to continue?

The Krushchevite counter-revolution continued right up until the day that Yeltsin stood on top of a tank waving his pudgy fist in the air. Surely that was long enough?


Could economic decision-making be decentralized?

Why should it have been?


Was there a point when the Soviet Union should have stopped spending 25% of its GDP on military expenditures?

Perhaps when the US stopped pointing fucking nukes at it? You know, that magical point around the corner when all the USSR's enemies disappeared? Nasty, bad Stalin for spending money on the Red Army which just so happened to save the world's collective butt in World War 2.

[Hyacinth]

I won’t speculate as to whether the Soviet Union could have been reformed politically; in principle I suppose anything is possible, though it seems unlikely. That being said, on the issue of economic reform, one of the major roadblocks toward improvements of the planned economy were the lack of sufficiency data processing and data gathering capabilities; in short, they lacked modern computing power.

[3A CCCP]

The Krushchevite counter-revolution continued right up until the day that Yeltsin stood on top of a tank waving his pudgy fist in the air. Surely that was long enough?



Why should it have been?


Perhaps when the US stopped pointing fucking nukes at it? You know, that magical point around the corner when all the USSR's enemies disappeared? Nasty, bad Stalin for spending money on the Red Army which just so happened to save the world's collective butt in World War 2.


Great post! Short, sweet, and you hit the nail on the head!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

I won’t speculate as to whether the Soviet Union could have been reformed politically; in principle I suppose anything is possible, though it seems unlikely. That being said, on the issue of economic reform, one of the major roadblocks toward improvements of the planned economy were the lack of sufficiency data processing and data gathering capabilities; in short, they lacked modern computing power.


That wasn't the major problem. Being forced to spend huge sums of money for defense to counter the U.S. arms buildup and imperialist aggressions resulted in the lack of funds to produce sufficient consumer goods to satisfy the populations needs on a timely basis.

While the people lived well and their basic needs (food, housing, medical care, education) were taken care of, the state could have provided an overabundance of consumer goods and "luxuries." But, what was the choice when you have Reagan's nukes and star wars programs aimed at you?

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

[quote=Comrade Alastair;1145693]The Krushchevite counter-revolution continued right up until the day that Yeltsin stood on top of a tank waving his pudgy fist in the air. Surely that was long enough?


Where inside the USSR was the grass roots proletarian resistance to the "Krushchevite counter revolution"?

[RNK]

The USSR needed a Cultural Revolution, which most likely should have occured immediately following the Patriotic War, in which the people rose up against the beauraucracy of the government and declared, by themselves, their freedom.

Unfortunately, there was no Mao-like figure in Soviet politics; had there been, the Soviet Union may have been a very different place.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Look, let's put the sectarian finger-pointing aside here. The fact is, the Soviet Union collapsed. The immediate reason for the collapse were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. A more fundamental reason for collapse may be found in the policies of either Stalin or Khruschev, depending on which side you take. But that's not the point. The point is whether the Gorbachev catastrophe could have been avoided, not decades in advance (when no one could have predicted it), but shortly before it happened.

Let's take 1980 as a point of reference. Around that time, was it possible to save the Soviet Union from collapse? And if so, how?

[BobKKKindle$]

Unfortunately, there was no Mao-like figure in Soviet politics; had there been, the Soviet Union may have been a very different place.

Calling for a "Mao-type figure" suggests that individuals are able to change the course of historical events - and yet Marxists analyze history by examining the role of economic forces, not the actions of individuals, as all individuals are ultimately limited and influenced by the historical conditions in which they are located.

The collapse of the USSR could have been averted through a political revolution to restore power to the working class, which would have allowed for the development of a plan for the production of goods through consultation with the consumers. The restoration of capitalism allowed the bureaucracy, which had operated as a ruling stratum, to convert itself into a class, by selling off and later purchasing assets which had been owned by the state.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

True, a political revolution could have been a solution, but is it at all realistic to have expected such a revolution in the USSR? I mean, there was certainly no organization capable of channeling working class discontent into a revolutionary situation, either in the 1980s or at any other point since the end of the Civil War.

As for the proposed Cultural Revolution, I'd like to point out that the one in China failed and capitalism was restored.

[Psy]

Look, let's put the sectarian finger-pointing aside here. The fact is, the Soviet Union collapsed. The immediate reason for the collapse were the policies of Mikhail Gorbachev. A more fundamental reason for collapse may be found in the policies of either Stalin or Khruschev, depending on which side you take.

Or Brezhnev as Khruschev was at least trying to get get the USSR to compete with the USSR on a production level instead of just reacting to US military build up. Khruschev wanted the USSR to "bury" the US economically through modernization of the USSR's means production. It was Kruschev that organized Zelenograd into a heart of USSR electronic research and devlopment.



But that's not the point. The point is whether the Gorbachev catastrophe could have been avoided, not decades in advance (when no one could have predicted it), but shortly before it happened.

Let's take 1980 as a point of reference. Around that time, was it possible to save the Soviet Union from collapse? And if so, how?
Well through modernization of the means of production, to turn the USSR into a effective state-capitalist economy instead of just bumping along with no real direction.

[gla22]

avoiding involvement if Afghanistan would've helped.

[Holden Caulfield]

Calling for a "Mao-type figure" suggests that individuals are able to change the course of historical events - and yet Marxists analyze history by examining the role of economic forces, not the actions of individuals, as all individuals are ultimately limited and influenced by the historical conditions in which they are located.


if the conditions had been slightly different in any way at all, a 'Mao-like figure' could have easily arisen, I do not think that the comrade was suggesting that Mao was some greatman of history able to change it as he was himself,

but rather the conditions may have allowed a greater political figure to emerge if they had been different, a figure, as our comrade suggests who has the positive features of Mao for example,

i dont really think we should nit pick terminology when the meaning that was intended is relatively clear, i think RNK understands marxist historical theory tbh