Why do you think the Soviet Union was not Communist?

[mel]

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.

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolution. Your claim that there is "no escaping it" isn't grounded in reality. Communism wasn't tried in the Soviet Union, a particularly restrictive version of state capitalism was. The failure of the USSR is not an indictment of communism. The state wasn't created along socialist lines, and the workers did not control the means of production, not even on paper.

[Green Dragon]

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.

This always seems to be the conundrum which socialists face, when faced with actually having to deal with socialism on its own terms: having to actually build socialism.

Here you are praising the USSR for its rapid industrialisation, yet condemning its established political structure. Does the latter deserve any credit for the former? It would be tough to say "no."

[mel]

Here you are praising the USSR for its rapid industrialisation, yet condemning its established political structure. Does the latter deserve any credit for the former? It would be tough to say "no."

The former could arguably have been achieved without the latter. The latter having had a structure that was actually socialist, even if it would have taken longer to achieve the former, would have been a far preferable scenario.

It is possible to form a socialist society along different political lines than what the Soviet Union's failed attempt, and that we have not yet done so is reflective of the views and attitude of present society and overall backwardness of the world in general.

[Bud Struggle]

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolution. Your claim that there is "no escaping it" isn't grounded in reality. Communism wasn't tried in the Soviet Union, a particularly restrictive version of state capitalism was. The failure of the USSR is not an indictment of communism. The state wasn't created along socialist lines, and the workers did not control the means of production, not even on paper.

But those are just excuses. What about the Revolutions in China and Vietnam and Cambodia and Eastern Europe? Only a Zealot would think they were any utopia of the Workers. They all were hum drum worker states that supported a Feudal like bureauotracy and sometimes with a real life 11th century-esque despot in charge. North Korea and Cuba don't even pretend that there isn't a blood line of succession.

Where after all these tries has Communism really worked?

[Green Dragon]

[

QUOTE=melbicimni;1477252]The former could arguably have been achieved without the latter. The latter having had a structure that was actually socialist, even if it would have taken longer to achieve the former, would have been a far preferable scenario.

The former DID occur without the latter- indeed without socialism of any stripe. From 1900-1914 Russia was the fastest growing country on earth.

It is possible to form a socialist society along different political lines than what the Soviet Union's failed attempt, and that we have not yet done so is reflective of the views and attitude of present society and overall backwardness of the world in general.

[/QUOTE]

What a bitter comment! The world is not mature enough for socialsm for thrive. Which is yet another conundrum for the socialist to overcome- wait and pray the world advances beyond its backwardness (gradually and slowly), or ram socialism down its throat. Both of which themselves face major hurdles and conundrums.

[ComradeOm]

The soviet union was the result of a military coup in a backwards society that was in no way ready for a true socialist revolution

Really? I suppose that thousands of soldiers and armed citizens could, just possibly, be considered the "military". But I'm having a problem squaring the popular masses that organised and carried out the October Revolution with a coup - a concept that implies, almost by definition, a small minority of the establishment acting to restore/save existing state structures

As always of course its easier to pronounce political judgement on the Russian proletariat (ie, what you think was possible) as opposed to studying actual history (what they thought was possible)

[mel]

Really? I suppose that thousands of soldiers and armed citizens could, just possibly, be considered the "military". But I'm having a problem squaring the popular masses that organised and carried out the October Revolution with a coup - a concept that implies, almost by definition, a small minority of the establishment acting to restore/save existing state structures

Considering that the population of Russia in 1917 was upwards of 160 million, I'd say that several thousand is a "small minority", but that's probably just me. Even if by "thousands" you meant upwards of 100,000 that would still be 0.1% of the population.

As always of course its easier to pronounce political judgement on the Russian proletariat (ie, what you think was possible) as opposed to studying actual history (what they thought was possible)

I think that state capitalism, or whatever it is that you want to call the USSR was probably a major step forward for the Russian proletariat, but you can't ignore that backwardness took its toll on the historical development of the USSR and the result was something absolutely NOT socialist.

[ComradeOm]

Considering that the population of Russia in 1917 was upwards of 160 million, I'd say that several thousand is a "small minority", but that's probably just me. Even if by "thousands" you meant upwards of 100,000 that would still be 0.1% of the population

Well I'm sure there were practical difficulties encountered when trying to assemble several million workers on the streets of Petrograd streets on the night of the 25/26 October. Certainly those numbers on the streets that night comfortably outnumbered the government forces arrayed against them

But, please do explain how the soviets, and the workers/soldiers who stood behind them, were part of the existing state apparatus? See, generally when a popular rising overthrows a government and demolishes the existing state structures it is referred to as a 'revolution'. Yet you have categorised the events in Russia 1917 as a "military coup"; as if a few NCOs marched into the Winter Palace and elected one of their number as Generalissimo

I think that state capitalism, or whatever it is that you want to call the USSR was probably a major step forward for the Russian proletariat, but you can't ignore that backwardness took its toll on the historical development of the USSR and the result was something absolutely NOT socialist.

And why exactly is the nature and composition of a revolution dependent on its result? The failed Revolutions of 1848 produced little but harsh counter-reaction but would you similarly deny their class (in this case bourgeois) character? Again, you are reshaping history to fit your own political expectations - socialism in Russia 1917 was impossible and therefore there could be no attempted socialist revolution. The problem with this is that an actual reading of the history (which is the base of historical materialism) reveals reality to have been very different

Ultimately of course the Russian Revolution failed but to claim that it never occurred in the first place is a statement of the highest arrogance

[mel]

I see your point. There was a socialist revolution in 1917, but socialism was impossible in Russia at that time, and so ultimately it was a failure. I see how my word choices may have been affected by some revisionist history on my part.

[Havet]

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.

And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?

I understand your point of a proper revolution. But in some unsuccessful cases (China, Cuba, USSR), why wasnt the revolution proper? What will prevent some representatives of the working class to become a state? What will prevent the people who actually lead the revolution from becoming a state ?

[mel]

And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselves. In a genuine workers revolution the workers would be in control from the beginning, so there would be no small group to take power in their place.

In addition, the government would be set up to give the workers power from the beginning, instead of setting up a party dictatorship. In a revolution where the workers were class conscious, they would not have allowed the bolsheviks to take power and set themselves up as a new capitalist class.

I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).I understand your point of a proper revolution. But in some unsuccessful cases (China, Cuba, USSR), why wasnt the revolution proper? What will prevent some representatives of the working class to become a state? What will prevent the people who actually lead the revolution from becoming a state ?

I explained above what made the revolutions "improper" they were not movements of the working class as a whole but a small group who took power in their place. I think you misunderstand...the stateless society does not come immediately after the revolution. In the transitional period, there would be a state, the control of which would need to be directly in the hands of the workers (implying a different political structure than what was present in the other revolutions you mentioned) and which would cease to have a functional purpose after there were no longer different classes and production had shifted away from the capitalist mode.

[robbo203]

Again, you are reshaping history to fit your own political expectations - socialism in Russia 1917 was impossible and therefore there could be no attempted socialist revolution. The problem with this is that an actual reading of the history (which is the base of historical materialism) reveals reality to have been very different

Ultimately of course the Russian Revolution failed but to claim that it never occurred in the first place is a statement of the highest arrogance

It was not a socialist revolution because it did not result in socialism. It resulted in state capitalism. The nature of a revolution is defined by its outcome and not its agents (most capitalist revolutions have not been carried out primarily by actual capitalists) . The Russian revolution resulted in the establishment of a system of state capitalism (just as Lenin wanted)

Ergo, the Russian revolution was a capitalist revolution

[Havet]

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselves. In a genuine workers revolution the workers would be in control from the beginning, so there would be no small group to take power in their place.

In addition, the government would be set up to give the workers power from the beginning, instead of setting up a party dictatorship. In a revolution where the workers were class conscious, they would not have allowed the bolsheviks to take power and set themselves up as a new capitalist class.

1. Which workers would be in control from the beginning?
2. How would they not allow the bolsheviks to take power? And why didn't that happen in the USSR? because the people were not "class conscious"?

I explained above what made the revolutions "improper" they were not movements of the working class as a whole but a small group who took power in their place. I think you misunderstand...the stateless society does not come immediately after the revolution. In the transitional period, there would be a state, the control of which would need to be directly in the hands of the workers (implying a different political structure than what was present in the other revolutions you mentioned) and which would cease to have a functional purpose after there were no longer different classes and production had shifted away from the capitalist mode.

What mechanisms (who will do it and with what) will prevent that state from exploiting the population?

[ComradeOm]

The bolshevik revolution was not a mass movement, they only had that power to begin with because it was a revolution by a minority at a time of particular weakness. The workers as a whole were not class conscious, so they could not take power for themselves

You're to be commended for seeking historical answers to historical questions but unfortunately you are incorrect on almost every count

And what mechanisms will exist that will prevent a group of individuals from keeping the reigns of the state to themselves rather than the works? What will be done, who will do it and with what?

You're asking the wrong question. In Marxist class analysis the "group of individuals" that rises to power cannot be divorced for the wider class from which they are drawn and in turn supported by. The Bolsheviks in 1917 were a vibrantly democratic party that unquestionably enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the proletariat. The state constructed in the initial months and years after October 1917 reflected this with real power being delegated to local district soviets and genuine democracy being exercised in the 'halls of power'. The real question is just how this degenerated into a state of 'one-party rule' and ultimately 'no-party rule'

If I were to answer my own question, I'd draw attention to the severe regression suffered by Russia during the Civil War years. There's no question that pre-Revolution Russia was backwards but it was also a highly contradictory (almost schizophrenic) society in which a feudal peasants coexisted with extremely well developed capitalist relations and a large modern proletariat. It was from the latter that both the Bolsheviks and the Soviet structures drew their strength but it was also the proletariat that suffered the most hardship during these years. The figures are startling (I can dig for them if you want) and the number of workers employed, together with production indices and urban populations, simply drop like a stone between 1917 and 1924. It was this collapse of its class support that ultimately finished off the Soviet experiment

[mel]

You're to be commended for seeking historical answers to historical questions but unfortunately you are incorrect on almost every count

I haven't read that article yet, but if it was a mass movement then the question of why the class-conscious working class allowed the communist party to establish a form of government which gave them no power over the means of production is a valid one. Do you have an answer for this? The early constitutions did not actually provide for democratic rule in any true sense, but a sort of deformed representative democracy. I've seen little to indicate that democratic rule had any significant effect on the day-to-day workings of the state or the means of production, it appears that from the beginning there was a top-down hierarchy with "open", uncontested elections for representatives (where they were elected at all) and a state apparatus that functioned against the best interests of the working class.

People who visited the USSR in the first several years of its inception seemed to me to almost universally have both high hopes and lowered expectations because the workers were not really aware of what was going on in the state. It was a period marked by forced labor, food shortages, transportation issues, limited mobility, and guided tours meant to keep visitors from seeing the way things "really were" in other areas of the Soviet Union. A lot of my knowledge of the USSR in its early years comes from a reading of its constitution at that period and a couple of books I've read on the subject, one of them being "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" by Bertrand Russell.

If you have reading recommendations I'd be happy to hear them, though I can't guarantee I'll have the time to read them in the near future. I understand the historical necessity of a lot of the measures that the leaders of the communist party took in the USSR, but I've never seen any indication that the workers had any really significant degree of control over their circumstances.

[ComradeOm]

I haven't read that article yet, but if it was a mass movement then the question of why the class-conscious working class allowed the communist party to establish a form of government which gave them no power over the means of production is a valid one. Do you have an answer for this?

I gave my answer as to the degeneration of the Revolution above. As for the specific charge as to the "means of production", neither the Bolsheviks nor the Russian proletariat were syndicalists and neither advocated (at least in the immediate term) direct worker control over factories or the like. Rather the proletariat was to exercise political control through the system of soviets that would both draw from and manage local districts

It should be noted of course that the soviets were not a Bolshevik (or RSDLP) design but rather an indigenous and spontaneous form of worker political expression that rose out of both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. And yes, the question of whether these soviets, and indeed the Bolsheviks, were a mass movement is a matter of historical record

The early constitutions did not actually provide for democratic rule in any true sense, but a sort of deformed representative democracy. I've seen little to indicate that democratic rule had any significant effect on the day-to-day workings of the state or the means of production, it appears that from the beginning there was a top-down hierarchy with "open", uncontested elections for representatives (where they were elected at all) and a state apparatus that functioned against the best interests of the working class

In which case you are projecting the Stalinist state backwards to 1917. Elections within both the state apparatus and party itself remained relatively 'free and fair' until the mid-twenties

As for "democratic rule in any true sense", I'm not sure just what you mean. The 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR explicitly spells out, in Article 1 no less, that "All the central and local power belongs to [the] soviets". It further goes on to say (Chapter 4) that "The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representatives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies". And so forth and so on, you can read it yourself at your leisure. Its a remarkably progressive document that lays out the goals and structures of the "transition period" and is all the more so for being formulated at a time when the country was plunging into civil war

What it doesn't mention is the degree to which district soviets (of which there might be up to a dozen below the level of city soviets) stepped into the power void during the last months of 1917 and effectively set themselves up as units of local administration following the demise of the municipal dumas. Obviously the constitution pays more attention to 'top level' affairs, as do most commentators since, but to focus exclusively on that ignores the vibrant local democracies that sprung up following October as the workers set about managing their own communities

People who visited the USSR in the first several years of its inception seemed to me to almost universally have both high hopes and lowered expectations because the workers were not really aware of what was going on in the state

People who visited the USSR during its early years were almost uniformly Western intellectuals with their own preconceptions and very definite ideas as to how society should be ordered; of which Russell is a prime example. These did not always correspond to those shared by the Russian proletariat. Such accounts are useful but must be taken with a pinch of salt and should be used to complement (not replace) observations from within the country itself

For example, the idea that the Russian workers were not 'class-conscious' or 'aware' is nonsensical when you study their accomplishments both before and after October 1917 (seriously, read that article). They performed feats and reached a level of class awareness that Western societies, for all their supposed superiority, have only briefly glimpsed in the past two centuries. Just who are the likes of Russell to judge these? Its notable that during the German Revolution it was to their Russian counterparts, and not their own intelligentsia, that the German proletariat initially looked to for a model of worker governance

[mel]

neither the Bolsheviks nor the Russian proletariat were syndicalists and neither advocated (at least in the immediate term) direct worker control over factories or the like.

I guess I disagree with the idea that soviets can adequately represent the interests of the working class then, but I have a problem with and distaste for representative republics generally.

In which case you are projecting the Stalinist state backwards to 1917. Elections within both the state apparatus and party itself remained relatively 'free and fair' until the mid-twenties

Fair enough, I can't really speak to this, or anything you mention afterward. My knowledge of history is limited and most of what I know of the USSR is from the Stalin years when things had obviously already taken a turn for the worse.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]

It was not a socialist revolution because it did not result in socialism. It resulted in state capitalism.

In other words, socialism can never fail.

[Green Dragon]

You're asking the wrong question. In Marxist class analysis the "group of individuals" that rises to power cannot be divorced for the wider class from which they are drawn and in turn supported by. The Bolsheviks in 1917 were a vibrantly democratic party that unquestionably enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the proletariat. The state constructed in the initial months and years after October 1917 reflected this with real power being delegated to local district soviets and genuine democracy being exercised in the 'halls of power'. The real question is just how this degenerated into a state of 'one-party rule' and ultimately 'no-party rule'

If I were to answer my own question, I'd draw attention to the severe regression suffered by Russia during the Civil War years. There's no question that pre-Revolution Russia was backwards but it was also a highly contradictory (almost schizophrenic) society in which a feudal peasants coexisted with extremely well developed capitalist relations and a large modern proletariat. It was from the latter that both the Bolsheviks and the Soviet structures drew their strength but it was also the proletariat that suffered the most hardship during these years. The figures are startling (I can dig for them if you want) and the number of workers employed, together with production indices and urban populations, simply drop like a stone between 1917 and 1924. It was this collapse of its class support that ultimately finished off the Soviet experiment

However, there are problems with that analysis:

1. It requires the workers to continue to support a particular socialist party (Bolsheviks).
2. It requires no real division in the community.
3. It ignores how to respond to the "reactionaries" or other counter-revolutionaries.

[ComradeOm]

I guess I disagree with the idea that soviets can adequately represent the interests of the working class then, but I have a problem with and distaste for representative republics generally

You can disagree but be aware that the Russian proletariat thought otherwise. And in the grand scheme of things they are the only ones who mattered or indeed continue to matter