Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

[laminustacitus]

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.

That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

[laminustacitus]

The demise of the USSR was the fault of Gorbachev he was a indecisive and ineffective leader.

By that do you mean that Gorbachev loosened the totalitarian control enough that nations were actually able to finally throw off the chains of tyranny?

[mykittyhasaboner]

That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

I cannot believe I'm actually agreeing with you!


On "state-capitalism" in the Soviet Union, I think this is a shady concept that really misses the main point when trying to ascertain the specific character of a given society, ownership of the MOP: if there is no private ownership of the means of production, and instead the means of production are owned by society as a whole, then you simply can't have capitalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Short answer: Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society of abundance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...the USSR has neither property rights...

Actually, it did. Private individuals owned many household objects, as well as things like cars.

And state ownership of the means of production is no different from ownership by a private corporation that does not want to sell any of its property to you.

If a single corporation, in which every citizen was an equal shareholder, somehow managed to buy all the means of production and then refused to re-sell them to anyone else, I would call that socialism. The key feature of socialism is that a single entity, representing all the people in equal measure, must own all the means of production. Whether or not this entity also happens to be the state, is irrelevant.

[trivas7]

Lenin initiated and Stalin implemented a re-definition of socialism. In the initial flush of revolutionary fervor, buoyed up by Lenin's State and Revolution, all was supposed to be transparent. Government was to be accessible to the masses and exercised by them. Socialism was then interpreted as a condition which all were (or potentially were) participants in their own self-administration. Here how the government and administration were to be conducted were of the essence of the socialist government. Socialism here was understood to be a radical restructing of relationships of domination and subordination within society -- an end to bosses.

That was exactly what the Kronstadters were claiming as their revolutionary birthright in 1921. By this time, however, Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin were reformulating the foundation mythology of the regime, and, in the process, dramatically redefining socialism. By the late spring and summer of 1918, Lenin was orchestrating a respecification of the nature of soviet socialism. He (and Trotsky and Bukharin) became increasingly convinced that the people's lack of culture, their impoverishment due to internal industrial breakdown and international isolation, and their brutalisation during the civil war, made the dream of self-administration an impossible one to realize. Socialism was redefined as maximal efficiency and productivity. The elemental goals of re-establishing industry, transport and exchange bt town and country were placed at the top of the agenda for the party and the state. All that promoted these objectives was now hailed as progressive and revolutionary; even if it meant the subjugation of the unions and the soviets to the dictates of the communist commissar; even if it meant that coercion had to be applied to the working class itself. One-man management, discipline, and a patterned hierarchy of control and power were now acknowledged to be necessary to meet the newly redefined goals of socialism. Here was the entry point for what was to develop into Stalinism.

Lenin himself, in response to Karl Kautsky, said: "The form of government has absolutely nothing to do w/ it (i.e., socialism). He insisted upon a purely productivist definition of socialism:

In the last analysis, productivity of labor is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system [...] Communism is the higher productivity of labor -- compared w/ that existing under capitalism.

[laminustacitus]

Actually, it did. Private individuals owned many household objects, as well as things like cars.

Property rights would mean that the government cannot just arbitrarily confiscate property, which the USSR had no problem with doing. There is more to the concept of property rights than owning trivial items, it is the idea that the individual can utilize his property as he sees fit, without aggressing against others.

And state ownership of the means of production is no different from ownership by a private corporation that does not want to sell any of its property to you.

False, a private corporation that does not want to sell any property to me cannot hold a gun to my head, a state can do that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Note it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rather than The Union of Soviet Communist Republics. That pretty much says everything. Ok, not really, but seriously it did still have a state. It got as far as the transition to Communism before degrading into a bureaucracy.

[Trystan]

The USSR was Communist insofar as it had as its (official!) "goal" the creation of a stateless, classless society in which the means of production were commonly owned - i.e. a communist society. Note that the "state ownership" of the USSR does not necessarily mean "common ownership", because in the Soviet Union there were two classes: Party and non-Party. (Interestingly, by the way, this seems to have been due to power, rather than property relations.) The fact that a communist society did not develop, is, in my opinion, because of the major flaw in Marxist (or Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist) ideology - the Marxist gang looked primarily at property relations, and neglected power relations, thinking that producing this or that amount of stuff will make the state "wither away" (a theory refuted by history). The "bureaucracy" the Trots always bang on about is a consequence of the orthodox Marxist ideology, not some "bad eggs" like Stalin. Rotten system = rotten people.

[Trystan]

That is the strangest use I have ever seen somebody use for "capitalism" in my entire life seeing that the USSR has neither property rights, nor a market economy.

"Market economy" and capitalism perfectly facilitated the slave trade. People don't have to be "free" in order for there to be capitalism (i.e. a system of private ownership and profit-making). I think that you are confusing "capitalism" with modern "libertarianism" - as "libertarians" always do.

[RGacky3]

if there is no private ownership of the means of production, and instead the means of production are owned by society as a whole, then you simply can't have capitalism.

I agree, however society as a whole =/= the government, especially if the government is non democratic.

I still maintain that simply becaues it has a more functioning democracy, and more general and workplace freedoms, norway is more socialist than the USSR.

Note it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rather than The Union of Soviet Communist Republics. That pretty much says everything. Ok, not really, but seriously it did still have a state. It got as far as the transition to Communism before degrading into a bureaucracy.

Excactly. on the USSR part, the USSRs claim to Socialism is really as good as Americas claim to democracy, and that is'nt argued.

As far as degrading into bureaucracy what exactly do you mean by that, other than bureaucracy being a buzzword which avoids the real issue, which was centralized un accountable power.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. i know name doesnt mean everything. but, well, i think this is a bit obvious.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The USSR was a totalitarian State no better than it's Nazi counterpart. The Tsar was shit but we must be honest and admit that once the Bolsheviks took over, things didnt improve. All the USSR did was give Russian leaders more toys to play with and more people to kill.

[Havet]

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.

i just remmembered somethings:

Why didn't the communist revolution in Russia prevent that?

What mechanisms will there be to prevent that the dictatorship of the proletariat gets stuck in a dictatorship, so it can move towards a stateless society?

Why didnt those mechanisms act in the USSR?

[RGacky3]

Why didn't the communist revolution in Russia prevent that?

Because the russian people (enough of them) trusted the Bolsheviks with (supposed to be temporary) power in the face of the fear of counter revolution.

What mechanisms will there be to prevent that the dictatorship of the proletariat gets stuck in a dictatorship, so it can move towards a stateless society?

Don't have a dictatorship of the proletariat in the firstplace, which is really just a vague term to justify actual dictatorships. I dont' believe any government would just willingly give up power like some leninists believe.

Why didnt those mechanisms act in the USSR?

Because they wern't there, the people just had to go on trust.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree, however society as a whole =/= the government, especially if the government is non democratic.

This is another fallacy, and it excludes the fact that state owned property was not the only type of property, there was 'collective' property as well, which was most likely agricultural property that was owned by those who worked at the collective. The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy. You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.

I still maintain that simply becaues it has a more functioning democracy, and more general and workplace freedoms, norway is more socialist than the USSR.

Norway is a bourgeois state. There is not control or ownership of the means of production by the workers, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, isn't worker's democracy my friend. The USSR had a much more functioning version of democracy, because the fruits and wealth of society already belonged to the people. If you think that Soviet democracy, is much less "functioning" than your average parliament, then I'm glad your restricted, because that's rubbish.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...t/1936toc.html
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

The USSR was a totalitarian State no better than it's Nazi counterpart. The Tsar was shit but we must be honest and admit that once the Bolsheviks took over, things didnt improve. All the USSR did was give Russian leaders more toys to play with and more people to kill.

You are probably the worst troll on this forum, mostly because of your sheer ignorance that you've demonstrated time and time again; and the above is a gem of just that. Piss off.

[mel]

The nationalization of all (or the majority of) of the means of production by the Soviet state, ensured ownership of the worker's and peasants, as this state is their state, created in their revolution; they form local governments all the way up to the national through Soviet democracy.

No they didn't. Only approved members of the party could be nominated for political offices and elections were uncontested. Workers had no constitutional right to recall if they felt their representatives were not representing their interests in any level of government, and while the workers had "ownership" of the means of production through the proxy of the state, they did not have control because they did not have control of that state.

You can't simply say that the USSR's government was wholly undemocratic, because then you overlook what soviets actually are, and how they functioned for the entire existence of the USSR.

Not wholly undemocratic, but the USSR's democracy was about as much of a sham as bourgeois democracy is, which is to say that it was wholly ineffective at protecting the interests of workers in light of overwhelming state power and central party control. This situation was slightly improved with Stalin's 1935 constitution, but the introduction of secret ballots didn't really do much to improve the state of things when there was still only one name on the ballot, and that name was a stamped and approved member of the party, with its own interests that was not always in line with the interests of the workers. Party members were in a position of power and privilege, and only they could nominate and approve candidates for sham elections.

[Bud Struggle]

Norway is a bourgeois state. There is not control or ownership of the means of production by the workers, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, isn't worker's democracy my friend. The USSR had a much more functioning version of democracy, because the fruits and wealth of society already belonged to the people. If you think that Soviet democracy, is much less "functioning" than your average parliament, then I'm glad your restricted, because that's rubbish.

The SU was less "democratic" than Russia is today. For all of the use of the word "soviet" the soviets had little to no actual power--every important decision was made through and by the Communist Party.

But the REAL problem with the SU is that the people lived in constant distrust and fear of their own government. I had been there a number of times--and have some very good friends that my wife and I stayed with when we were there--and you learned very quickly what you could make fun of and what you couldn. who you could trust and who you couldn't--and even then you weren't quite sure.

There was an over all feeling of always having to look over your sholder constantly. I've never been tp Norway--But I have been to Demmark and Sweden and if Norway is similar to those countries then is has a much, much freer climate than the SU. Freedom is a more important to the quality of life than who technically owns what factory.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No they didn't. Only approved members of the party could be nominated for political offices and elections were uncontested. Workers had no constitutional right to recall if they felt their representatives were not representing their interests in any level of government, and while the workers had "ownership" of the means of production through the proxy of the state, they did not have control because they did not have control of that state.

Not wholly undemocratic, but the USSR's democracy was about as much of a sham as bourgeois democracy is, which is to say that it was wholly ineffective at protecting the interests of workers in light of overwhelming state power and central party control. This situation was slightly improved with Stalin's 1935 constitution, but the introduction of secret ballots didn't really do much to improve the state of things when there was still only one name on the ballot, and that name was a stamped and approved member of the party, with its own interests that was not always in line with the interests of the workers. Party members were in a position of power and privilege, and only they could nominate and approve candidates for sham elections.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Watching that election close at hand it struck me as being curious that in all the discussions of Soviet Democracy and its comparison to democratic practices in other countries one rarely got a picture of how the channels of democratic expression of the people operated in their new electoral process.

Looking at it from 3,000 miles away it appeared as if there was one electoral ticket and the people were given the chance to vote ‘yes or no’ on it. This was indeed true of Nazi elections but it is completely a false picture when applied to the Soviet Union.

To start with, in the Soviet Union politics and elections are not the special duties of a political party. If one does not understand that paramount fact everything else is likely to be unclear. Nominations to public office are not made by a political party alone. The Communist Party does indeed put forward many candidates but so do the trade unions nominate independent candidates for political office; so do the cooperatives, the cultural organizations, the scientific academies, the youth organizations, whatever special women’s organizations exist and every other organization or institution that desires to. In short, nominations for office, which in our country stems only from political parties, in the Soviet Union stems from every possible people’s organization.
The second thing that must be understood about Soviet elections which give them their special democratic quality is that the emphasis in the selection of candidates does not lie in the final vote but lies in the choosing of the nominees.


I had the privilege of observing the nominations and elections in the district in which I lived and worked from beginning to end. The particular election which I referred to was the All-Union elections for selecting of delegates to the All-Union Soviet Congress, that being equivalent of our choosing of members of the United States House of Representatives in Washington. Each institution in the congressional district in which I resided and worked held meetings of the people to nominate candidates. Meetings were held in factories. The Moscow university, which was in this district held a meeting. The Great Lenin Library held a meeting of its staff to put forward candidates. So did all of the cooperative stores associations that operated there. So did the trade union organisations, the Communist Party, the youth organisations, etc. etc. A great many candidates were put forward in each meeting. The procedure for each candidate was to stand up and give a brief biography of his life and reasons why he should or should not be nominated. It was considered a lack of civic responsibility for a candidate to decline out of hand. If he thought he should not be elected it was has duty to take the platform, provide a brief biography of his life, and give the reasons why he should not be accepted. Two whole weeks were set aside for this procedure. Some organisations met every night for the entire period and examined thousands of people who were put forward as candidates there. Each candidate had to submit to questions from the floor. At the end of that time one or more nominees were put in nomination for the entire district with the endorsement of the body choosing him or her.


In addition to putting forth nominees each group chose a number of delegates on a proportional representation basis to a congressional district conference. The congressional district conference also met for a period of about two weeks. The nominations were put before that body. The same procedure was gone through there, each nominee was examined, his or her qualifications weighed against other nominees and finally a vote taken by the delegated body for the final choice.


Frequently the body decided to accept not one nominee but two or three or even more. These nominees, after this thorough process of distillation were then submitted to the electorate for final voting. And the electorate thus, by popular majority, judged one of the candidates in that congressional district they desired to have represent them in the All-Union Soviet Congress.


From this it can be seen that far from lacking in democracy this process is a very democratic one in that it gives the common people a very direct hand in who is nominated and we know from our own electoral system that in the last analysis the selection of the nominee is the critical thing in any election.


In the election which I witnessed I saw nominees ‘put through the mill’ in a manner which would be very wholesome if applied to our own country. Their contributions and social service, their own interest in public affairs, their record of unselfish service, their own schooling and education and the degree to which they took advantage of self-improvement and social betterment were all gone into. Men of bad personal and moral conduct who offered themselves as candidates had their neighbors, friends and fellow workers who knew them well, discuss them right on the floor. It was in some respects our New England Town Meeting used on a colossal national scale covering an election in which 170 million peop1e were involved. It is this process which provides the incentive for social service and social striving and interest in the public welfare by people throughout their country. In that election, for example, about half of the previous members of the All-Soviet Congress were not reelected. Many a smug big-wig including numerous Communists were surprised at the end of that election campaign to find themselves unwanted and many a person who was not even a member of the Communist Party who had given no thought to politics but who had served the public weal well out of sheer devotion to the people in their own professions or occupations or in some volunteer organisation found themselves members of the highest governing body, the new Congress of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. It is a new type of democracy and I would say it serves them very well.

The SU was abbout as "democratic" as Russia is today. For all of the use of the word "soviet" the societs had lottle to no actual power--every important decision was made through and by the Communist Party.

False.

But the REAL problem with the SU is that the people lived in constant distrust and fear of their own government. I had been there a number of times--and have some very good friends that my wife and I stayed with when we were there--and you learned very quickly what you could make fun of and what you couldn. who you could trust and who you couldn't--and even then you weren't quite sure.

Great evidence.

There was an over all feeling of always having to look over your sholder constantly. I've never been tp Norway--But I have been to Demmark and Sweden and if Norway is similar to those countries then is has a much, much freer climate than the SU. Freedom is a more important to the quality of life than who technically owns what factory.

Hahahahah.

[mel]

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Even if I trust your source fully (and after skimming it and reading your posted selection I still have no idea who this person is or what qualifications they have to comment on Soviet democracy) this still only speaks of the USSR being wonderfully democratic after Stalin's 1935 constitution, which still leaves the undemocratic period from 1917 until 1936 (the first time the 1935 constitution took effect) suspect. Before 1935 nominees could only come from the communist party (not from trade unions, youth organizations, etc.) and ballots were not secret. Even your source says that

Until then nominations and elections to Communist Party posts had always been openly made. By this practice such members as might dislike some powerful office-holder often felt limited in expressing their opposition for fear of reprisal

So you must admit that the USSR only became a "worker's state" after the workers seized democratic control in 1936. I am still skeptical, though, of the effectiveness of the soviet system, as I have read accounts that are far less optimistic about the system after Stalin's constitution than the one you just posted.