Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

I have seen in some threads that when, ahem, "reactionaries" use the Soviet Union example as how the dictatorship of the proletariat couldn't work, some of the users here claimed the USSR wasn't communist at all.

So i'd like to ask people here what are, in your opinion, the basic characteristics that the Soviet Union lacked or had (that shouldn't have) that make it, in your opinion, not fall under the communist definition.

And in case you think the Soviet Union was Communist, how would you answer those who claim that it wasn't, and how would you explain its demise?

well it by no means was an example of "public ownership of the means of production" and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. i mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm - the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO's.

One, the USSR was a nation-State, and communism can not exist in a nation-state form. Two, the USSR never had anything near a dictatorship of the proletariat, rather a dictatorship of Stalin. Three, communism is a post-class society and form of living. The USSR clearly had a class system. The "communist" elite at the top and the workers at the bottom. Just because the means of production wasn't in the hands of individual capitalist, doesn't mean that it was in the hands of the people. Four, communism is based on rule of the people, or democracy (not bourgeois democracy mind you). The soviet Union was a totalitarian system, the power did not rest with the people (workers). That is the basics, however, if you are really interested, read The Revolution betrayed. Trotsky wrote in it both why the USSR under Stalin was not communist and why it would fall. (he wrote it in the 30's, 50 years before the fall of the USSR)

I think the USSR was not communist because the workers lacked democratic control of the economy and there existed a political state that exploted and oppressed them, to put it as succintly as I can.

and what do you guys think will prevent any revolution with the purpose of implanting communism won't end up creating a communist elite and a dictatorship of a state?

Not allow it to begin with, the same way any revolution would stop that from happening, infact a communist revolution should be the workers taking over the means of production, so as long as they don't give their power over to someone its fine.

You're not going to get good answers to this in a single thread of course, because it's not a simple question. Try sticking around the board for six months or so and reading (not posting) if you're really curious; I suggest concentrating on the history and theory fora. Maybe then you'll be able to formulate a pointed question.

It was not a stateless or classless society. The USA called them communist state while the most of the world called them socialist state. TomK is known to be a victim of the former.

Even calling it Socialist is kind of sketchy, its like Calling the United states a real democracy.

I'm actually of the opinion that Norway is more Socialist than the USSR was, as far as being in line with actual socialist principles.

However you view them, they do call themselves socialist. Talking about how socialism they were is entirely different subject.

Well the USSR strived for the achievement of Communism at first but with each new leader they lost the drive it seems. It seemed like they were on track under Lenin and for awhile under Stalin to Communism. Socialism is defined as the government owning the means of production so I'm sure that the USSR would be defined as Socialist RGacky. The demise of the USSR was the fault of Gorbachev he was a indecisive and ineffective leader.

That bold part negates your whole point.

Technically speaking yeah, but unless the government is directly accountable to the people (which is arguable how accountable the USSR was), the government owning them is more or less meaningless.

Now I'm not gonna sit here and say the USSR was not accountable at all, because the USSR did have democratic institutions (just like the US), however I'd argue how much power those institutions had as opposed to non or less democratic institutions.

Whereas a country like Norway, the government controls less, but at least the government is a lot more accountable to the people, so what the government controls, the people have a lot more say in.

I would say the USSR was on the right track until the death of Stalin. After that it starts to curve back in the direction of capitalism. But obviously it was not 'communist,' perhaps not even 'socialist' at the time of Stalins death. Things do not happen instantly. And as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong, and give examples) no country has claimed to achieve communism.

I have to disagree, the stage was set for what happened under stalin well before Stalin came into power. The murdering of Anarchists and other political dissidance, the centralizing of real power into the hands of the party rather than the soviets, the authoritarian structure of democratic centrism, and so on, all happend under Lenin.

You can't go from an authoritarian structure to another authoritarian structure and hope to get communism out of it.

You mean production and distribution were carried out by profit and consumer demands?

That is just not true. There was a coordination of production from a national level based on the needs of the population. The national planing commitees worked with regional levels and local levels of planing all the way done to the actual production of goods. Ofcourse this is a centralised way of producing things, but it is neccassary to eliminate the anarchy of production seen under capitalism.

I know that Krushchev's reforms gave more autonomy to local levels to decide what they should produce, and this was based on profit. But at least under a Stalin there was some national coordination based on socialist priniciples not capitalist.

So are you saying less autonomy is more socialist?

Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

My first guess is that because of the reduced number of workers in 1917 (many had perished in the German trenches--WWI, remember?) communism was an impossibility
(no to mention their social and industrial backwardness).

My second guess is that the workers there never controlled the means of production beyond their day to day operation and maintenance...

Read After The Revolution, Who Rules? in downloadable pdf format from the SLP's web site: slp.org

Your using autonomy as an abosolute term. Less autonomy can mean more socialism, less autonomy for the bourgieosie is more socialist.

Anyway, by allowing the local levels or factory managers to decide quotas without any direction from a national level removed from the goals of production the need to accomendate people's needs first. They began producing goods based on profit, so working out how many whatevers would be bought, rather then how many whatevers was need. This can only be done at a national level where all major production is taken into consideration.

Autonomy for the bourgieosie is not less socialist. The bourgieosie get their power from ownership, not autonomy, NO ONE has more power from autonomy. Autonomy is simply freedom. If the autonomy for the "bourgieosie" is even a question, guess what, they arn't bourgieosie anymore.

Without property laws and democratic control production for profit would'nt have been a problem. Also with everyone essencially with the same say over production, producing whatever would be bought would be pretty much producing whatever was needed.

The problem is was essencially that it was'nt democratic control.

The Soviet Union was not communist because the Soviet Union was a state, and the Soviet Union had a ruling social class (the state). That is no communism nor socialism. The USSR was state capitalist.