Did Communism collapse in the USSR because Marx's economics is wrong?

[Wild_Fire]

I am hoping to get a serious response to the above question.

Also, Is there an intrinsic value in Leninist-Marxist theory that sets up society to turn it into a state dictatorship? Does that mean that Cuba is doomed to follow the path of the Soviet Union?

[ZeroNowhere]

It had nothing to do with Marx's economics. Certaily, the so-called 'Communist' USSR never had anything to do with Marx.
Anyways, as for Leninism, it depends on whom you ask. Some Leninists take his stuff from State and Revolution (it scared me how many times I've seen that crap proposed as a refutation of anarchism), where he was pretty much anarchist (with a few vague references to a party), seeing as he was quoting Marx fairly often. When he wasn't quoting Marx, he was often busy preaching Party dictatorship, but never mind that. Of course, others take after his actions, and they would generally lead to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as happened in the USSR. Well, some take a 'great man theory of history' stance (while calling themselves 'historical materialists'), and say that it's all a matter of getting a good leader (often to the point where they claim that the revolution only failed because Lenin died).

[revolution inaction]

I am hoping to get a serious response to the above question.

Also, Is there an intrinsic value in Leninist-Marxist theory that sets up society to turn it into a state dictatorship? Does that mean that Cuba is doomed to follow the path of the Soviet Union?

Marx wrote a lot about economics, but the economics he wrote about were capitalist.
The ussr was not an attempt to put an economic system developed by marx in to operation, although it was capitalist.

[Hessian Peel]

I am hoping to get a serious response to the above question.

Also, Is there an intrinsic value in Leninist-Marxist theory that sets up society to turn it into a state dictatorship? Does that mean that Cuba is doomed to follow the path of the Soviet Union?

The USSR wasn't communist.

[Hessian Peel]

Marx wrote a lot about economics, but the economics he wrote about were capitalist.
The ussr was not an attempt to put an economic system developed by marx in to operation, although it was capitalist.

Marx analysed capitalism and had a far greater understanding of its workings than capitalism's own ideologues. The economic models he proposed were socialist. The USSR was an attempt to implement his ideas and it was socialist for a time, which is remarkable considering the challenges it faced from the outset. It did eventually steer off the socialist road to communism and became 'state-capitalist' which is still a lot more progressive than capitalism, unless you subscribe to the idea that the collapse of the USSR was a "victory for socialism".

[revolution inaction]

Marx analysed capitalism and had a far greater understanding of its workings than capitalism's own ideologues. The economic models he proposed were socialist. The USSR was an attempt to implement his ideas and it was socialist for a time, which is remarkable considering the challenges it faced from the outset. It did eventually steer off the socialist road to communism and became 'state-capitalist' which is still a lot more progressive than capitalism, unless you subscribe to the idea that the collapse of the USSR was a "victory for socialism".

What I wanted to say was that the marx's economics where his analysis of capitalism, not a plan for communism.
The ussr was never socialist, and definitely not communist. The Russian revolution was socialist, but when the Bolsheviks got into power they destroyed workers power, and therefor socialism in Russia. Although at first they defiantly seemed to want to create a communist society, and apparently believed they where following marxism, but the policies the implemented prevented any possibility of socialism.

I think the collapse of the ussr is good for the socialist movement as the is no longer a state capitalist dictatorship claiming to be socialist, but the way it collapsed was not good for the people of the ussr.

[Hessian Peel]

What I wanted to say was that the marx's economics where his analysis of capitalism, not a plan for communism.
The ussr was never socialist, and definitely not communist. The Russian revolution was socialist, but when the Bolsheviks got into power they destroyed workers power, and therefor socialism in Russia. Although at first they defiantly seemed to want to create a communist society, and apparently believed they where following marxism, but the policies the implemented prevented any possibility of socialism.

I think the collapse of the ussr is good for the socialist movement as the is no longer a state capitalist dictatorship claiming to be socialist, but the way it collapsed was not good for the people of the ussr.

In the absence of a world revolution, or even just revolutions in the rest of Europe, the 'Russian' Revolution couldn't have developed any other way. Socialism did develop for a time in the USSR, in spite of the huge bureaucracy that will always plague isolated countries. The bureaucratic caste, not Stalin and his supporters, held things back and eventually brought about the restoration of capitalism and the "final defeat" i.e. the dismantlement of the USSR and the gross usurpation of people's rights that went with that.

Even if you destroy the state a bureaucracy or some other form of hierarchy will inevitably surface. The answer is therefore to wage constant political and cultural revolution, but that is only possible (in my humble opinion) when the security of the social revolution is secured by a workers' state. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

The USSR was not communist, as communism is a stateless and classless society which can only exist when revolution has spread throughout the entire world and the forces of production have advanced sufficiently so as to allow for the elimination of material scarcity. The USSR did undergo bureaucratic degeneration (converting the first workers' state in history into a state-capitalist regime) as a result of its isolation from the rest of the world, which in turn derived from the failure of the revolution to spread to other more advanced capitalist states such as Germany which would have been able to break the imperialist encirclement of Russia and thereby prevent the disintegration of the revolutionary proletariat.

[Oneironaut]

I am hoping to get a serious response to the above question.

Also, Is there an intrinsic value in Leninist-Marxist theory that sets up society to turn it into a state dictatorship? Does that mean that Cuba is doomed to follow the path of the Soviet Union?

I would say yes there is an intrinsic value in Marxist- Leninism that sets up society along the lines of a state dictatorship. However, this has very little to do with Marxism. That value would be workers are not intelligent or capable enough to lead a revolution themselves and require a vanguard party to "teach" the zombie workers about what needs to be done. Workers must decide for themselves the quickest way to achieve their ends, not some elite vanguard telling them how the revolution is going to play out.

[KC]

Yes, because that's exactly what happened in Russia.:rolleyes:

[Oneironaut]

Well at least we can agree on that! :D

[Charles Xavier]

The Soviet Union had a solid socialist economy until the 1960s. From then on opportunist elements took over the party.

[Oneironaut]

The Soviet Union had a solid socialist economy until the 1960s. From then on opportunist elements took over the party.

Having armed guards of the party in factories is very socialist.

[mikelepore]

As for the USSR, everyone should beware of using the word "collapse." The word comes mainly from a mass media campaign, borrowing from those capitalist economists who claim that any economic system that doesn't have a profit motive and competitively determined prices will have to be unstable and inefficient, so that it must eventually collapse. In that sense, the USSR didn't collapse. Choices were made to abolish it.

[Random Precision]

The Soviet Union had a solid socialist economy until the 1960s. From then on opportunist elements took over the party.

How very materialist. So how did these "opportunist elements" gain control of a party that was leading the way into communism? I would think the working class (who supposedly formed the base of this party) would have a problem with something like that.

[Charles Xavier]

How very materialist. So how did these "opportunist elements" gain control of a party that was leading the way into communism? I would think the working class (who supposedly formed the base of this party) would have a problem with something like that.
It was called World War II

[BobKKKindle$]

It was called World War II

The destructive impact of WW2 on the working-class was minor in comparison to the impact of the civil war shortly after the Bolshevik seizure of power. Russia was invaded by nine imperialist armies all of which were afraid that the revolutionary experiment in Russia would pose a positive example for workers in other countries throughout the world and lead to the overthrow of capitalism on a global scale, and at the same time the Bolsheviks were also faced with multiple internal enemies, including the three reactionary generals, many of whom were intent on restoring the Tsarist monarchy or creating a military dictatorship in order to provide a secure political environment for capitalist accumulation and exploitation. As a result of these events, the population of major urban centers fell by more than half, as workers (i.e. the social base and leading class of the revolution) were either killed during the war or forced to return to their peasant villages due to intense food shortages. If you acknowledge that war had a pivotal role in the degeneration of the revolution, why do you lend responsibility to WW2, and not the civil war?

[S. Zetor]

Brief answer to the comrade's question: No.

I don't think there's any intrinsic in any -ism.. I think "marxism-leninism" is kind of silly if you take it to mean too much, in the sense that you tie the noose around your neck too tight. I don't mind people calling themselves marxist-leninists, because what matters whether they support some scheme or whether they are sensible comrades who understand the value of flexibility and iconoclasm that's needed sometimes.

I would say my views on the USSR go along with those of Ernest Mandel, though I haven't looked into that so much in detail yet as I would have liked.. Anyway that's my working hypothesis, so to say, as opposed to the state capitalist theory which I don't find so credible.

Cuba is much better in terms of people's participation. In the USSR there was a long tradition of top-down management, and so there wasn't too many hordes of workers out there on the streets to defend the gains of the revolution in 1991..? Whereas in Cuba, according to Peter Roman's book 'People's Power. Cuba's experience with representative democracy' paints a much better picture of influence people have on things.

Of course I don't mean to say that the existing Cuba model is my ideal, but I think it's a lot better than the USSR way. In addition there's no way around the economic problems, forces of production etc. that cannot be fixed with even the best workers democracy that the most idealist comrade can come up with.

Here's a summary from Roman's book that I wrote to a friend once who wanted to know something about the political system in Cuba. It's rather long, so sorry about that..

---

There's three levels of representation:

1) the municipal level, where each elected delegate represents a district of around 1500 people, is clearly the arena where people have direct power over almost everything that goes on in their district or municipality. Together the district delegates make up the municipal assembly. "The municipal assembly analyzes, discusses, supervises, monitors, inspects, and controls the social, economic, judicial, and political affairs of the municipality. It selects managers for local enterprises and entities such as public health clinics and schools, and it helps formulate and approves the municipal plan and budget. It also monitors the performance of enterprises [..]"

It is the task of the local delegates to solve people's personal problems, e.g. to get them some help in fixing a leaking roof. When Roman inquired about the issue from Cubans, almost everybody knew their delegate by name, and the practice was that the delegate was at the disposal of his/her electors any time of day (or night), should there be need.

"Unlike the practice in the former Soviet Union, municipal assembly delegate candidates are directly nominated, with no party interference, by the voters from the election district they represent and in which they must reside, and they are elected in secret, competitive elections [with 2-8 candidates standing in each district]. They serve two-and-a-half-year terms and may stand for re-election without limit."

2) the provincial level with the provincial assembly; the delegates are elected by the people of the province in direct, non-competitive elections every five years. "The provincial assembly controls and directs the state economic enterprises and social service entities directly subordinate to the provincial government."

3) the national level with the national assembly; only the national assembly can pass new legislation, and it's elected by the people in direct, non-competitive election every five years.

Concerning levels 2 and 3, "the candidates are nominated by the municipal assemblies from lists compiled by the national, provincial and municipal candidacy commissions. Elections for these positions are direct but not competitive. Candidates must get a majority of the popular votes cast to be elected."

So the elections on levels 2 and 3 are not competitive, which means there is as many candidates as there are seats in the assemblies. The municipal assemblies present the voters in the municipality with a list of around 10 candidates that has been drafted by an elections commission, and the people can either vote for the whole list, or any smaller number of candidates on the list they want [so in effect everyone has several votes at their disposal, not just one]. If a candidate receives less that 50% of the votes cast, he/she won't get elected. In practice every candidate gets more than 90% of the votes cast, which means that almost everybody casts their votes for the whole list. According to Roman, there is no legal or other punishment for not voting for the whole list (but there is social pressure to conform).

Also, the election in Cuba are not "political", i.e. the candidates for any level of government are not allowed to campaign, "i'm so-and-so, i promise to do this-and-that if you elect me". In municipal elections the candidates are often well known in their community, so people have an idea who they are, and their pictures with some biographical information gets posted on walls or telephone poles during election times. But they don't carry political slogans or campaign promises.

It is the same with provincial and national elections, though in this case people don't have very good chances of knowing who the candidates are unless they are rather well-known people. To a great extent they accept the candidates as the recommendation of the candidacy commissions.

"The role of the Cuban Communist Party [..] is essentially that of political leadership. It sets national priorities and long-term goals for the whole society, including the government. It initiates, directs, and encourages the spread of socialist consciousness and behavior; it monitors and assists the organs of people's power in carrying out their
representative and governmental functions; it reviews legislation prior to submission to the National Assembly; and it names and/or approves personnel who fall under the nomenclature system (the right to designate high government officials). According to my research, the party does not usually or officially propose, nominate, or in any other way interfere in the selection of candidates for municipal assembly delegates."

The communist party imposes its vision on society by means of persuasion, not of dictating from above (like in the Soviet Union). People do have a real possibility of rejecting the proposals, but in practice they don't do it. You can say it's because in the end they support the leadership despite grumblings, or you can say they do it because they otherwise feel intimidated or something. I think it's a bit of both, though I of course hope it's more of the former.

A big part of it has to do with the prevailing political culture (and the international position of Cuba), where there is social pressure to conform to the leadership's suggestions.. to do otherwise could easily invite charges of being a counter-revolutionary. On the other hand, I think that's pretty unsurprising in a community under the kind of siege that Cuba is under..

Having non-political campaigns with no false promises, horse-trading and marketing has its good sides, but I can't say it matches my ideal of democratic participation. But then again, I believe one must see that Cuba is not in a situation where it could be soft on the influence of US funded dissidents. Cuban TV broadcasts American series like 'Desperate
housewives' where everybody can see the slick image of what life in America is supposed to be like.. not that it's likely to be like that for immigrants, but that's another story.

Nevertheless, I don't think it's right to dampen the Cuban people's right to discuss politics and different political options in public, but I also have to say that I think in the present situation some controls are better kept in place - otherwise you might end up being as "free" as people in Jamaica or Haiti. I think the communist party leadership by means of persuasion, not of dictate, is a necessary compromise.. I would exchange the Finnish system for the Cuban system any time.

[Charles Xavier]

The destructive impact of WW2 on the working-class was minor in comparison to the impact of the civil war shortly after the Bolshevik seizure of power. Russia was invaded by nine imperialist armies all of which were afraid that the revolutionary experiment in Russia would pose a positive example for workers in other countries throughout the world and lead to the overthrow of capitalism on a global scale, and at the same time the Bolsheviks were also faced with multiple internal enemies, including the three reactionary generals, many of whom were intent on restoring the Tsarist monarchy or creating a military dictatorship in order to provide a secure political environment for capitalist accumulation and exploitation. As a result of these events, the population of major urban centers fell by more than half, as workers (i.e. the social base and leading class of the revolution) were either killed during the war or forced to return to their peasant villages due to intense food shortages. If you acknowledge that war had a pivotal role in the degeneration of the revolution, why do you lend responsibility to WW2, and not the civil war?


Say that to 27 million people who died in the soviet union alongside many millions of communists. Allowing opportunist elements to infiltrate the party when standard procedure was suspended. The military structure of the party continued post-war time which allowed opportunist elements to break into the emptied ranks from death of their former position-holders.

[BobKKKindle$]

The military structure of the party continued post-war time which allowed opportunist elements to break into the emptied ranks from death of their former position-holders.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that after the civil war, the Bolsheviks were also faced with a lack of proletarian activists and so were forced to accept large numbers of bourgeois specialists who were opposed to the new socialist government but were still willing to work for the Bolsheviks as a means of accumulating personal wealth and gaining political influence - this, when combined with the mass urban-rural migration mentioned in my previous post, prevented the Soviets from functioning as effective organs of political power and eventually led to power being transferred to the emergent bureaucracy within the party apparatus, with negative repercussions for the empowerment of the Russian proletariat. How can you possibly expect the working class to remain in power when it has been devastated and almost destroyed through a prolonged civil war?

[Charles Xavier]

You fail to acknowledge the fact that after the civil war, the Bolsheviks were also faced with a lack of proletarian activists and so were forced to accept large numbers of bourgeois specialists who were opposed to the new socialist government but were still willing to work for the Bolsheviks as a means of accumulating personal wealth and gaining political influence - this, when combined with the mass urban-rural migration mentioned in my previous post, prevented the Soviets from functioning as effective organs of political power and eventually led to power being transferred to the emergent bureaucracy within the party apparatus, with negative repercussions for the empowerment of the Russian proletariat. How can you possibly expect the working class to remain in power when it has been devastated and almost destroyed through a prolonged civil war?

The working class did remain in power.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The USSR didn't collapse. Choices were made to abolish it.
This is very true, and very important to remember.

What happened to the Soviet Union? It was a federal state that got disbanded by agreement of the local governments of several of its component parts. Those local governments then became national governments of new countries, and proceeded to abolish the Soviet economic system and replace it with capitalism. There was no "collapse" - the structures of government were simply taken over by people who supported capitalism.

So the right question to ask is, why were the structures of government taken over by people who supported capitalism?

[BobKKKindle$]

You should already know that the people who eventually took control of the most important sectors of the Russian economy after the command economy had been dismantled and became leaders of the newly independent states were exactly the same people who held positions of political power prior to the collapse of the USSR. For example, Vladimir Putin was previously head of the KGB. This shows that the events of 1991 should not be understood as a change in the mode of production and the overthrow of the ruling class (i.e. a social revolution) but merely as a transition to a different form of capitalism - away from state-capitalism and towards a market-orientated capitalism.

[Charles Xavier]

You should already know that the people who eventually took control of the most important sectors of the Russian economy after the command economy had been dismantled and became leaders of the newly independent states were exactly the same people who held positions of political power prior to the collapse of the USSR. For example, Vladimir Putin was previously head of the KGB. This shows that the events of 1991 should not be understood as a change in the mode of production and the overthrow of the ruling class (i.e. a social revolution) but merely as a transition to a different form of capitalism - away from state-capitalism and towards a market-orientated capitalism.
State-Capitalism is the most bankrupt and overused term by the Ultra-Left.

[Commrade b]

Personally I do not feel that the the Communism failed with the collapse of the USSR because the Marxist economics were wrong, but because there was no true Communism in the USSR. Russian Communist leaders promised a eutopian society through true Communism, the down fall of the situation is the power that comes with it. War and overbearing biased idealology through propaganda played a vital role in destroying Communisms credibility forever staining the Marxist theory. Had Russian leaders actually gone through with true untampered Marxist brand Communism (and if Hitler wouldn't have invaded) Russia may very well be a eutopian society by now. The bottom line is however, that the people, not the leaders would have to want Communism for it to work as long as the peoples' intrest were the only intrest the economics would work out perfectly. That's why we have not to this day seen an actual Communist state. Cuba on the other hand is a different story. Long ago the people did want the revolution and it worked, however if Castro had stepped down, the U.S. would probably have destroyed Cuba by now,if they would murdered true hero-humanitarians like Che in cold blood and Castro's ass would be 6ft. under in no time. For some reason Ol' Uncle Sam has always had hard on for Communism. Maybe it's jelousy?

[lombas]

Cuba is not a dictatorship and the USSR was not a communist country.

Voila.

[Patchd]

Cuba is also something which we are not attempting to achieve.

[Charles Xavier]

Cuba is also something which we are not attempting to achieve.


Who's we? You got more than 1 person in your head?


Go to Cuba on a fact finding mission and tell me that