What could have been changed?

[forward]

If the Soviet Union did not epitomize communism, what aspects of the Russian Revolution could have changed to make Russia a true communist country? Overall, what mistakes were apperant in the establishment of the Soviet Union and how could have they been changed?

[OI OI OI]

Well the Soviet Union can be described as a degenerated workers state.
It was a workers state that degenerated.
How did it degenerate?
A bureaucracy seized the power, by killing prominent Bolsheviks and using a lot of bureaucratic means within the party and transformed a workers democracy into a dictatorship over the proletariat by some bureaucrats.
I will not go further on this but you can go on this (http://trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html) link for more.
The means of production though remained nationalized and the economy nationalized and planned which is a step forward. So we should criticaly support the Soviet Union.
Support its nationalized economy while advocating for a political revolution which will bring workers democracy .
Now I will not get into the whole thing of explaining why a nationalized economy is better than a market economy. Open a new thread for that

[Niccolò Rossi]

If the Soviet Union did not epitomize communism, what aspects of the Russian Revolution could have changed to make Russia a true communist country? Overall, what mistakes were apperant in the establishment of the Soviet Union and how could have they been changed?

1. Your use of the word "epitomise" is incorrect. Proper English please.
2. You can't hope to create communism in a backward, under-developed and semi-feudal hell-hole that was the Russian Empire.
3. One "mistake" of the Bolsheviks was the use of socialist phraseology for what was clearly the development of capitalist production under state command where the free market could not offer hope for Russian development
4. An interesting alternative vision to what would have become of the Russian Empire if the October Revolution and the subsequent state capitalist development is offered by Aufheben in their article "What was the USSR? - Part IV (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben4)":


The Bolshevik Party, which had been the political form through which the Russian proletariat had triumphed, then became the form through which it suffered its defeat. The Leninists could only save the revolution by defeating it. The emergency measures employed to defend the gains of the revolution - the crushing of political opposition, the re-employment Tzarist officials, the reimposition of capitalist production methods and incentives etc., only served to break the real power of the Russian working class and open up the gap between the 'workers' Government' and the Workers. This process was to become further consolidated with the decimation of the Revolutionary Russian proletariat during the three years of civil war.

Yet, on the other hand, while the Russian Revolution can be seen as a failed proletarian revolution it can also be seen as a partially successful 'national bourgeois' revolution. A national bourgeois revolution, neither in the sense that it was led by a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, nor in the sense that it served to forge a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, but in the sense that by sweeping away the Tzarist absolutist state it opened the way for the full development of a Russian capitalism.

In the absence of the Russian Revolution, the Russian Empire would have probably gone the way of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The Russian Empire would have been broken up in the face of international competition. The more advanced parts may have then been reintegrated within the orbit of European capitalism, while the rest would have been dumped in the economically undeveloped world. However, the Russian Revolution had forged a strong state that, unlike the previous Tzarist regime, was able to fully develop the forces of production.

In the backward conditions that prevailed in Russia, capitalist economic development could only have been carried out by through the forced development of the productive forces directed by the concentrated and centralised direction and power of the state. It was only through state-led capitalist development that both the internal and external constraints that blocked the development of Russian capitalism could be overcome.


Now I know your a troll and will most likely ignore my response, but I typed it up briefly for the benefit of others. Don't reply and this may turn out to be an interesting thread, in the mean time go read a book.

[Holden Caulfield]

Proper English please.


point it out, but dont talk down to people, nobody likes a smart arse

[Niccolò Rossi]

point it out, but dont talk down to people, nobody likes a smart arse

You are correct. But whilst no one likes a smart arse, neither do they like a troll.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yet, on the other hand, while the Russian Revolution can be seen as a failed proletarian revolution it can also be seen as a partially successful 'national bourgeois' revolution. A national bourgeois revolution, neither in the sense that it was led by a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, nor in the sense that it served to forge a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, but in the sense that by sweeping away the Tzarist absolutist state it opened the way for the full development of a Russian capitalism.

In the absence of the Russian Revolution, the Russian Empire would have probably gone the way of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The Russian Empire would have been broken up in the face of international competition. The more advanced parts may have then been reintegrated within the orbit of European capitalism, while the rest would have been dumped in the economically undeveloped world. However, the Russian Revolution had forged a strong state that, unlike the previous Tzarist regime, was able to fully develop the forces of production.

Zeitgeist, I wouldn't rush to call October a "bourgeois" revolution of any sorts. If anything else, it discredited the viability of bourgeois-democratic revolution (the Menshevik line, thankfully ignored by Mao at least in regards to China, but propagated by the "Khrushchevites" and "Suslovites" in the form of the "national-democratic revolution (http://www.wpb.be/doc/doc/breznjev.htm)," thereby leading to the current shit-hole state of Africa) by separating the bourgeois aspect from the democratic aspect.

Could October have been, just as Kautsky hoped before and shortly after the failure of the 1905 revolution (http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=168,757,0,0,1,0), a social-democratic revolution ("social" not referring to "socialist," but rather the exclusion of the inept Russian bourgeoisie from the democratic tasks that were carried out by the proles and peasantry)... that degenerated, then?

Regarding your second paragraph, this is the reason why, while not receptive to Soviet Communism, Russians more and more regard Lenin AND Stalin as "Peter the Great" figures. :) After all, today's neo-cons in the US, even Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard), still fantasize about breaking Russia up into smaller pieces!

http://www.thebirchonline.org/plotz.html (pro-cappie article)


Most Petersburgers today are not particularly fans of Lenin or of communism, but would nonetheless bristle at this comparison. For the older generation, which endured starvation, disease, and bitter cold during a nine-hundred day siege by the Nazis, this city will always be Leningrad. It may be difficult for Americans, who are prone to conflating communism and Nazism into a single evil called totalitarianism, to understand the mentality of a people who sacrificed 25 million lives under the communist banner in order to defeat the Nazis. But regardless, one doesn’t have to be a local or a communist to understand that there is a wide gulf separating the crimes of Lenin and the early Bolsheviks from the crimes of Hitler or, for that matter, Stalin.

The real question is whether a similarly wide gulf separates the crimes of Lenin from those of Peter the Great, or any of the other major czars honored in St. Petersburg. This is where the issue of historical memory becomes supplanted by ideology. Many Russians, and many Americans who have devoted their semester to studying Russia, seem to share a highly romantic view of the czars. “Of course Peter the Great should be memorialized,” argued one student, “He founded this city and built Russia into a great power.” Well, yes, though this overlooks the tens of thousands of lives lost in building a city with slave labor in the middle of a frozen swamp, the highly centralized and oppressive feudal system Peter introduced that outlasted him by a century and a half, and the three centuries of heated controversy in Russian intellectual circles over whether or not Peter’s reforms were justified. Imperial czarist was not exactly a benevolent institution; how else to explain the revolution that brought Lenin to power? For my part, I seriously doubt that that my family would even live in America if not for the reign of Tsar Alexander III and the massive pogroms he encouraged, which continued until the Bolsheviks.

Russia is hardly the only country in the world whose national heroes include violent and morally dubious men. Certainly America is not immune from this problem. But removing statuary can be an even more blatantly political statement than erecting it. A statue, after all, is a testimony to the history of a place. To tear a statue down is to attempt to blot out the memory of whatever it represents, much as Stalin himself used to erase purged party members from photographs. In today’s St. Petersburg, one can walk alongside statues of Peter and of Lenin, cheerfully ignoring either or both if one wishes. To suddenly remove all the communists while leaving the czars standing would be to pass a sudden judgment on Russia’s history, not only demonizing the communist period and the many residents who still have mixed feelings about it, but just as importantly elevating czarism into something more noble and heroic. And Russia’s history is far too complex for such a simplistic ideological display.

There is an anecdote that Lenin did not actually want to be commemorated with statues, claiming that “they only gather bird shit.” Maybe so, but they also gather memories, and the memory of communism is now as important a part of St. Petersburg’s history as the more distant memory of the czars. Russians will not achieve inner peace by editing their own history; they can only hope to learn from it, and ultimately to try to build a better system on the ruins of two older systems that failed. Otherwise, a century from now American students will be traveling eight time zones away from home to argue about whether or not Russians should tear down the statues of Putin.

[Lost In Translation]

If the Soviet Union did not epitomize communism, what aspects of the Russian Revolution could have changed to make Russia a true communist country? Overall, what mistakes were apperant in the establishment of the Soviet Union and how could have they been changed?
Good question, forward. This is the best yet.

First of, you cannot go back and look at the Russian Revolution and say "that was it, this failed, therefore the Soviet Union was not communist". The country the Russian Empire had created was backwards, weak, and overall, a horrible place to be in. The Soviet Union had to take this country in a whole new direction. For them, it meant massive industrialization and an almost capitalist-like production. Given the circumstances, it seemed there was no other way to do it.

It might not have been what happened in the revolution that made the Soviet Union less than communist, but the way they sustained the Soviet Union that made it eventually turn capitalist.

[Dean]

If the Soviet Union did not epitomize communism, what aspects of the Russian Revolution could have changed to make Russia a true communist country? Overall, what mistakes were apperant in the establishment of the Soviet Union and how could have they been changed?

Stop making all these threads. Stick to one or two at a time, or you will be banned for spamming.

[forward]

I come here and expect legit answers, because I am here to learn. I'm sorry if this was offensive. Zeitgeist, I do not need you patronizing me. If I use a word incorrectly, please can you fix it nicely for me instead of being arrogant? But you know what I meant. Interesting alternate history, I think the conditions in Russia at the time were the breeding gound for revolution. I wonder if maybe another revolution would have happened instead. I think that after gaining power and nationalising industry and increasing social programs, they should have stepped down to be true communist country? What do you think? Would that have been possible?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Zeitgeist, I do not need you patronizing me. If I use a word incorrectly, please can you fix it nicely for me instead of being arrogant?

I apologise if your questions are sincere, but it seems to me that you are (or were) a troll, hell bend on hampering discussion and thus deserve none of my respect.


I wonder if maybe another revolution would have happened instead.

Maybe, maybe not. The material conditions of Russian society however demanded revolution, one that could only be bourgeois in nature. However, unlike the democratic-bourgeois revolutions that happened before them, Russia was not in a place for such. The democratic bourgeoisie was weak and relied on Tsarist Aristocracy. The only way forward for the development of the productive forces of society was Capitalism, however this capitalism could not have been born like that in England and France, it had to conform to the particular conditions of Russian society - that is - underdevelopment and a weak national bourgeoisie.


I think that after gaining power and nationalising industry and increasing social programs, they should have stepped down to be true communist country?

Why does the bourgeoisie in western capitalist nations not "step down" for Communism? Simple, it is not in the class interest of the bourgeoisie. This applies not only in the Western Capitalist nations, but also in so-called "socialist states"

[Niccolò Rossi]

Zeitgeist, I wouldn't rush to call October a "bourgeois" revolution of any sorts.

It is important to note that a bourgeois revolution need not be carried out by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat played an active part in the the October revolution (along with the February Revolution and the Revolution of 1905), but the subsequent social formation which it established was certainly not proletarian in nature, rather it was thoroughly bourgeois. This is why we can call the October Revolution a National Bourgeois Revolution, because it lead to the development of Capitalism in what was semi-feudal Russia


If anything else, it discredited the viability of bourgeois-democratic revolution

Indeed, the October Revolution discredited the traditional notion of the bourgeois revolution. Russian circumstances necessitated revolution and the subsequent development of the productive forces, however this could not be achieved by the national bourgeoisie themselves, nor with traditional laissez-faire economic policies.


Could October have been, just as Kautsky hoped before and shortly after the failure of the 1905 revolution (http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=168,757,0,0,1,0), a social-democratic revolution ("social" not referring to "socialist," but rather the exclusion of the inept Russian bourgeoisie from the democratic tasks that were carried out by the proles and peasantry)... that degenerated, then?

It was, however degenerated is maybe not the right word. What was needed was needed was Capitalist development and what they got was just this. Despite being a "social-democratic" revolution, it was also Bourgeois insofar as it resulted in the development of Russian capitalism

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think that was the intention of the social-democratic revolution, however. The "national bourgeoisie" were excluded, reintegrated briefly and only out of necessity (NEP), and then decimated systematically (real and perceived kulaks). I doubt the applicability of the word "bourgeois" to "functioning capitalists" not operating under private ownership and control.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Here's how the Russians would have been better off:

1. Line Lenin/Ever other Bolshevik against a wall
2. Blow their brains out
3. Establish a Democracy

[Chapter 24]

Here's how the Russians would have been better off:

1. Line Lenin/Ever other Bolshevik against a wall
2. Blow their brains out


How would that have helped anybody?

[Dr Mindbender]

If the Soviet Union did not epitomize communism, what aspects of the Russian Revolution could have changed to make Russia a true communist country? Overall, what mistakes were apperant in the establishment of the Soviet Union and how could have they been changed?

you forget another crucial factor, and that was the role played by hostile states trying to undermine the USSR. Since the revolution aggressor states tried to thwart its survival in the civil war and arguably the role it played in WW1 not only provoked the revolution but created the material scarcity that undermined its sustainability.

[RGacky3]

How would that have helped anybody?

Well, it would have prevented them from lineing a bunch of people up and blowing their brains out.

Although I don't think that would have helped, I think if hte people did'nt trust the bolsheviks from the begining, controled their out soviets autonomously without giving anyone power over them, or allowing it to be taken, violently, as it was done, thinkgs may have been different. Also don't trsut the Mensheviks, or anyone saying they want to be your leader, or they know better than you wahts good for you.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How would that have helped anybody?

Because no matter who would have taken control, it's not like it could have gotten any worse for the Russian population (and not to mention Ukranian) than what happened with the Bolsheviks in charge.

No matter what any neo-Leninist (or crackhead, as they are generally called in most society) says, the mere fact that the USSR had exactly 3 leaders between the revolution and the mid 1960's shows what a dictatorship it became under Bolshevik rule.