Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamimen...agner_Archives


First and foremost, lack of secret ballots does not necessitate lack of democracy, although I agree that open elections are inferior to secret ballots. I'm not entirely sure about the method of candidacy pre-1936, as I haven't a handy source lying around for that. I'll probably get back to you on this one. Although the candidates were all must likely approved by the CP, this method was obviously put in place for security reasons during the Civil War, and probably made sense at that time; but again, I'll dig up some stuff and form a better argument later.



OK, then remain skeptical, I could care less.

I don't have to admit that the USSR only was a workers state after 1936, becuse that would be false. The USSR became a worker's state when the factories and farms were expropriated from the capitalist class, and taken over by worker's soviets, which formed the basis for the new proletarian state.

You obviously had never been there. :(

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't tell me who Sam Darcy was, where he lived, worked, how long he lived in the Soviet Union, when he did so, or anything else that would be relevant in me determining the author's particular qualifications to speak on this subject.

A worker's state is only a worker's state if the workers have control over the state apparatus. If it was only Communist Party members that could be nominated (and it was, before 1935, because the constitution only provided for trade unions and other workers organizations to nominate candidates in that year) then it was the communist party state. Sometimes the communist party had the best interests of the workers at heart, but sometimes they did not because they had become a privileged class and as such had some interests which were diametrically opposed to working class interests.

The most important thing in any socialist society is worker autonomy, and direct democratic control is sometimes necessary for that. There were some things that the Soviet Union did well, such as rapid industrialization, and the Russian Revolution was in many ways a great success. However, due to the power structures involved, and the lack of direct democratic control by workers of some of the most important areas in which workers need control (like their places of work) it also had a great many failings insofar as creating an ideal socialist state. The soviet union showed some great promise, but there were a number of mistakes made which we should be aware of, and work hard to correct against, in any future socialist experiment. A socialist state NEEDS to be a worker's state, and to do so the workers need to exert their autonomous control over the state apparatus, not have it exerted by a relatively small party on their behalf, because inevitably that party will develop interests and a class of its own, which will lead to the exploitation of the worker for the benefit of the few, in the name of the masses.

Try google, its not that hard.

http://dlib.nyu.edu/eadapp/transform....xsl&part=body



...and they did.

A communist party state? I thought we 'classified' a nature of a given state by what class it represents, and what a state constitutes in it's formation and actions. The Bolshevik party was the vanguard of the 1917 revolution, without the Bolshevik's it's likely that the abolition of the provisional government, and the securing of state power by the worker's and peasants would never have happened. Before the 1936 constitution, the Bolshevik party were not the only organization that formed the government: http://marxists.org/history/ussr/gov...1918/index.htm.
Really? Go on, explain and prove this, don't waste time if your just going say things with nothing behind them.

Instead of wasting even more time typing all this, and repeating the same thing you've already claimed, but yet not substantiated in any real way; why don't you concretely explain how the Soviet state was "diametrically opposed" to the workers and peasants? Or that the Soviet state was in no way influenced by worker's control? Since it wasn't a worker's state right?

I did try google and hadn't found anything, thanks though. Your source seems a bit biased.

It's not that the workers had no control, they just did not have substantially more control than workers do in a bourgeois state. Candidates are selected from a pool of pre-approved possibilities from the party and then are voted on in a wondrous sham of an election. If you can't understand that the class which a state claims to represent (the working class) is not necessarily the class whose interests a state actually works for (in the case of the soviet union, party members who had taken on the responsibilities of the capitalists by extracting surplus value from the working class and re-investing it to accumulate more capital) then I don't really know what else I can say, but we've been in this argument before, and I'm sure we'll be in it again sometime in the future so we'll get another chance to hash this one out.

I'm sorry it seems too biased to you, but get used to it, because every source is biased, and subjective. If you want to try and find the objective truth and completely neutral and un-biased sources then good luck. Like it or not, historical sources are all based on one's observations and pre-conditioned interperatation of any given event; and if you don't like someone else's, and therefore want to discredit it, because it's not your own, then I can easily do the same to your perception's or views.





Wow, a worker's revolution which abolished private ownership of capital and production; a worker's state governed by a federal organization of worker's soviets, which by it's nature, defends worker's ownership of production and attains the value of their labor, as well as the social and economic security and benefit of the working population ingrained as a priory......how much more significant do you want? For the first steps of the first worker's society, the CCCP was pretty damn significant; and to claim that there was no significant change from the relations of production that we see in bourgeois society, is simply ridiculous.

You have not proved, in any way, how any election in the Soviet Union was a sham. Whether it's true or not, its irrelevant, because your just parroting the same thing over and over again.

No party member or Soviet deputy 'extracted' surplus value from anyone, because they didn't have the means to do so. You again, claim a bunch of things without any substantial historical accuracy or simple evidence.

No, probably not; because for some reason vigourous left or libertarian communists are so quick to jump and critique every last aspect of the Soviet Union, mostly based on their own words and thoughts, rather than history. Not all 'communists' who proclaim their opposition to the USSR are like this, however it's a common occurrence for people to state their criticism without actually critiquing it, or to simply spew common slander (like a good portion of the posts in this thread) and it never gets resolved, even when evidence is given to suggest a different view.

I'm not looking for a completely unbiased source, but to take the unsubstantiated observations of a biased source, and the only source I have ever seen of its kind which suggests that elections in the USSR were democratic (even the most glowing accounts of soviet "democracy" I have read that were not party propaganda were critical) would be a folly to say the least.

Elections which are not secret, which have only one candidate, and in which there is an implicit threat of force if you do not comply (which even your source suggested was the case before the introduction of the secret ballot in 1935-36) is a sham. If you disagree with that, then once again, I really don't have anything to say to you.

But retained the capitalist mode of production.


In which the representatives of the workers were hand-picked by a central party authority, and in which the workers had no right to recall representatives who they felt did not represent them, and which did not convene often, which when out of session did not actually control the state as the power was shifted whenever the organization of soviets was not in session to a single person.

Says you. I don't see how a federation of soviets, with representatives elected in a similar fashion as in bourgeois elections where the candidates are hand-selected by the ruling party and which has limited control over the running of the state, rarely convenes, and whose power is turned over to a single party member when out of session "by its nature defends workers ownership of production and attains the value of their labor"

Then I guess I"m ridiculous.

See above. If you think that an election in which a ruling party hand-selects candidates, presents them for "election", gives no alternative candidate, and in which there is an implicit threat of retaliatory action if you do not vote "yes" for the candidate presented (as your source pointed out was the case before the introduction of the secret ballot) is NOT a sham, then we have a very different conception of what makes a democratic election and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

You again, claim a bunch of things without any substantial historical accuracy or simple evidence.

And vigorous leninists often get so caught up in combating liberalism and left-communist critique that they forget to take a critical approach themselves and recognize that the Soviet Union had failures as it did successes, and that despite that it was likely a step forward for workers, was not a shining example of socialism, but had more in common with capitalism due to the unique historical circumstances in which it developed and the fact that it never removed the capitalist mode of production or transferred control over it to the workers, because the workers were not always well represented in government, for the variety of reasons I've outlined below.

I am not anti-stalin or anti-ussr (except to which degree is required to be critical of places where it failed), which you'd know if you read other threads in which I've posted, I just think it's important not to pretend that it was under worker control when it VERY CLEARLY was not. To pretend that it had aspects which it did not is to do socialism a disservice, because when we are uncritical of our own failings we cannot use those experiences to grow. We should learn from the lack of democracy in the USSR and use it to organize better in the future.

does forced labor count as worker exploitation?

So your telling my this collective property was autonomous and did'nt have to answer to the state?

I'm not saying it was wholely undemocratic, the soviets were democratic (some what), however what I am sayin gis that the real power law in the party elites hands. You can say the state is their state all you want, but without actual accountability and direct control of the people, its just hot air.

Norway is a bourgeois state yes, However-
1. You can form an independant union
2. Workers have a lot more say over the funtioning of the workplace
3. Democracy IS more funtioning in Norway considering you have much more freedom of speach.
4. The wealth in the USSR belonged to the state, which was influenced by the peoples will however fun by the communist party elite.
5. Unions in Norway actually have a strong influence on the government, probably more than independant business.

How? Were the 5 year plans, the NEP, the nuclear buildup, the perges, the gulags the workers ideas?

International influence is one example that benefits them as leaders but not nessesarily the workers.

I supopse the soviets ALWAYS agreed with the communist party leaders.

K just 1 more question:

- What mechanisms exactly will there be to prevent a state from re-emerging? I mean, what will actually be done, by whom and with what?

Most marxists understand that "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not mean any sort of dictatorship, but rule of the proletariat (as a class) over the bourgeoisie, which will no longer be a dictatorship of anything once the classes are finally abolished entirely.

Most intelligent anarchists, when pressed, realize that some form of social organization is necessary, and they just refuse to call this social organization a "state", even if it resembles one, because that makes them feel queasy and less cool and rebellious.

Of course I kid...there's no such thing as an intelligent anarchist :rolleyes:

Not much to say on that.
Only in places there are a strong union presence, basically some of the industries and the public sector. The degree shouldn't be overestimated. The whole service sector got terrible worker conditions. The point is that the say has all to do with unionizing and very little with hich country it is in.
The democracy here is a sham, as it is everywhere else. Sure we can have a "socialistic government" and they can make grandiose statements like the soria moria (abolish all poverty before 2012, if i remember correctly), but everytime they attempt to do something concrete that goes against big capitalist interests.

For example the ship industry just trumped through a (through courts) an 11 billion tax excempt for taxes they should have payed through the last 10 years. Or countless other examples that shows that big capital interests still reign supreme when it is a conflict between it and the state. In other which doesn't consern large interests regular folks doesn't really have that much say either.

We should be able to do much better these days
I don't see how it is better when it is owned by private parties, as in Norway. Norway also has a gigantic oil fund, but it has a track record of human rights breaches as long as Sognefjorden. Noone of these options are satisfactorily.
Unions here have a big influence, but "independant" business have countered that be creating business unions, which has more influence than the unions, no matter which political parties are in power. It would be naive to believe that "independant" business wouldn't gang together. Check out NHO, for example, which is one of the largest business unions.


It should also be noted that big business always always win when going up against the state while, the unions tend to loose. When the government has to do budget decreases, they can't take it from big business, so they are forced to take it from union gains.

Recently the unions lost a fight with the state about a restructuring of the pension system, and generally everyone got worse pension conditions, while all the cases involving big capital I've read about lately big capital won.

You didn't answer my question. I'm rather curious of the mechanisms in a society advancing towards communism that will prevent a state from re-emerging (perhaps you could post a definition of state as well), by telling me what will be done, who will do it and with what.

I didn't really intend to answer your question, because it wasn't directed at me, and I know I won't convince you anyway. I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the post you were criticizing made a suggestion (no Dictatorship of the Proletariat) which is not widely held by Marxists.

Somebody more knowledgeable than me, if they so desire, can explain the mechanisms which would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in which there is a state) has passed.

I disagree. If you read Isaac Deustcher's Stalin, Or E.H. Carr's History of the Soviet Union you will experience a totally different account of the formation of the Soviet state and its political composition.

Without presuming to be more knowledgeable than you, I'd like to take a stab, as it were, to the last question, to wit, by what "mechanism[s]...[we] would prevent the re-emergence of a state in a communist society"?

I would argue that the organization that takes control of the state in behalf of the working class must be the one to destroy it. Destroy it and immediately disband (mission accomplished). At the same time, the workers must establish at their workplaces a democratic network that links up all the industries of the land for the purposes of managing the economy. That will keep the political state from coming back into existence.

Socialist Industrial Unionism

why didn't the organization that took control of the state in behalf of the working class destroy the state in the soviet union?

The soviet union was a dictatorship of the communist party, not a dictatorship of the proletariat. The bolsheviks did not hand over the reigns of the state to the workers but kept them for themselves and nominally transferred "ownership" to the workers, whatever that means, and kept control and the profits of labor to themselves.

A proper revolution would be a movement of the working class, by the working class, and not a movement of professional revolutionaries on the behalf of the working class.

All true. And also the fact that there is simply was no widespread support for or understanding of socialism (communism). Even Lenin conceded this. You cannot have socialism without convinced socialists. The Russian proletariat by and large (and despite that some Boslshies certainly understood what communist meant) were drawn to the Bolshies by their REFORMIST programme. The Bolshies were in short a capitalist political outfit with socialist sounding pretensions

As a previous poster (LSD) stated a while ago: The Soviet Union is what Communism is when it is tried in the real world. It looks one way on paper, it looks like the Soviet Union in real life. There's no escape from it.

I don't know if I totally agree with that point but every time that Communism (Socialism) has been tried it always has that similar look.