What Is the Most Common Proletarian Explanation for the Collapse of the Soviet Union?

blow me away mls

I think most M-Ls would say the revisionism and social-imperialism which was introduced after Stalin's rule was the primary reason (that in addition to heavy amounts of defense spending which went hand-in-hand with post-Stalin leadership); restoration of capitalist practices and invasions of other countries will go a long way in deteriorating a nation not built for such life.

Is this only a question for MLs?

What makes an explanation proletarian?

*is very interested in this question*

Blow me away too.

I hope not. That would be pretty boring.

Has anyone read Stalinism: Its Origins and Future? If so, is it worth anything? I've been reading bits and pieces. The author is apparently ex-Healyite from Australia.

There was no "collapse" in the usual sense of the word. The most powerful faction of the ruling class decided that this whole Stalinism thing is getting old, and that if they introduce a fully capitalist economy, they will be able to enjoy a far more privileged position in society, not to mention obscene luxury and the ability to pass this luxury and privilege on to their children.

If by "collapse", you mean the fragmentation of the USSR into various countries after the introduction of the market-system, that's pretty obvious. The ruling classes discovered that their position would be much improved if they broke away and ended their subjugation to Moscow. The Russians didn't find it very prudent to be burdened by the other Republics either.

In the West, the usual narrative is: WWII ended and the world was split into "West" and "East", the Democratic world and the Communist Dictatorships. A bunch of proxy-wars were fought and eventually, Reagan came and
freedom and democracy won and Communism collapsed. The West won and the East lost. The end.

That, however, is not how the Soviet ruling class saw it. In their minds, they defeated communism, and the East joined the West in its victory against tyranny and evil. Gorbachev wasn't defeated by Reagan, Gorbachev joined Reagan's side instead. Thus, today it's a "collapse", but back then it was a victory.

Years ago, an article in the New York Review of Books explained that Reagan's spending on "defense" was so great that the ruling bureaucracy in the USSR could not keep up, and thus the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union. If that's true, and I think the chronology suggests that, then the strategy of imperialism is remarkable in its simplicity. Anyway, that's one explanation to consider.

l'Enferme, I agree with everything you said completely EXCEPT for the choice in using the phrase "stalinism", as the policis and praxis of the Party at that time in no way resembled the Stalin era.

But other than that you gave the best explanation iv heard for the end of the USSR in ages

I don't know what is meant by a "proletarian explanation." I suppose a Marxist explanation would be that the programs undertaken by the Soviet state quickly industrialized the economy and allowed society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled, however, a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words,the mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.
These relationships are the product of a trend in the Soviet state run economy that overproduced capital commodities and underproduced consumer commodities. These contradictions move the economy towards a higher degree of decentralization, where managers come to make more and more of the important economic decisions.
The Soviet state tried to maintain its dominant position over the managers with the policy of "Perestroika." Perestroika was nothing more than an attempt by the Soviet bureaucrats to introduce the decentralization which the economy demands while at the same time keeping it under control--to grant the local factory managers freedom of action, but only within narrowly-defined limits, i.e., in such a way that it did not threaten the interests of the ruling class.
The attempt failed and the soviet bureaucracy collapsed under its own weight. Economic conditions now demand that the lower levels of the economic apparatus, the enterprise managers, will assume de facto control of the economy and its social relationships. The Soviet state falls and is replaced by a series of capitalist republics.
The Soviet mode of production had accomplished the changes in social relationships which were demanded by circumstances, i.e., it industrialized the means of production. The "historical role" of the regime had been completed, and it fell to a system which is better suited for carrying out the next "task".

Speaking on more solid ground rather than revisionism I would say the Space race and Arms race hobbled any growth above 2 percent. They took their eyes off the proletarian prize and went to go play with the big fellas. Should have stayed at home and read the econ statements coming in. The west simply had more resources to spare and ran the SU into the ground.

Didn't Marx say that a country would have to be industrialized before it would be ready for a socialist revolution? If that's the case that would seem like the most obvious explanation.

The Soviet Union was all the workings of a modern empire, and like all empires seek constant expansion but end up stretching out too thin, ripping itself apart like a cloth. The USSR had too many puppet and satellite states, to the point where being able to control the Russian population as a whole was simply a miracle, let alone its own republics. In fact the notion of Putin and Lukashenko possibly recreating "the former glory" of the USSR through a "Union State" or "Eurasian Union" is utterly foolish.

Is Marx a prophetic oracle?

I think the point is that capitalist development needs to progress to a certain point, the point where industry has been developed enugh so that production for need is a possibility. Even before the revolution in Russia, groups like the SPGB in Britain (founded 1904) were claiming that capitalism worldwide had reached that point (and the imortant thing here is worldwide, because no-one thought 'the Russian revolution' was ever to be limited to Russia). No individual country is capable of having a 'socialist' revolution, no matter how advanced.

Anyway, Russia was the 5th biggest economy in 1913, with several million workers in some of the biggest most modern factories in the world. So the 'non-industrialisation' of Russia is a bit of a red herring.