Here's an article that examines the collapse from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint:
http://freespace.virgin.net/pep.talk/COLLAPSE..htm
Results 1 to 20 of 27
Why did the Soviet Union collapse?
Can someone provide me with some Marxist analyses of the Soviet Union's collapse as I'm getting tired of this 'great man' perspective academic literature usually presents (Gorbachev's reforms, Yeltsin's popularity etc). I'd like to hear some more nuanced opinions, relating to structural problems (state capitalism for example) and that goes beyond the usual explanations which deal solely with 1987 onwards.
Any thoughts?
[FONT=Arial]"Can a brother get a little peace?
There's war in the streets
and a war in the middle east.
Instead of a war on poverty,
they got a war on drugs
so the police can bother me"[/FONT]
Here's an article that examines the collapse from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint:
http://freespace.virgin.net/pep.talk/COLLAPSE..htm
Here:
http://www.socialistappeal.org/faq/c...stalinism.html
I wouldn't trust the ML perspective "It collapsed because Glorious leader died!"
It started going downhill both politically and economically when Khrushchev came into power, it took some serious economic damage during Brezhnev's era, the war in Afghanistan was very politically damaging and Gorbachev's reforms sealed the fate of the USSR.
I think you have it all wrong. It started going downhill since Lenin's death in 1924. Slowly but surely the bureaucracy took power, til by the time Stalin took over the USSR was officially an inefficient mess.
Kruschev's and Brezhnev's policies only exasperated the situation that the USSR found itself in come Lenin's death. The IMF surely didn't help things either. By the late 1980's the Soviet Union was beyond saving.
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Bill%...n%20stalin.htm
Bill bland posits that Stalin and the Marxist-Leninist movement was already a minority within the party by the time Stalin died, giving way to the revisionists and the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.
This is indeed an excellent article that cuts to the core of the problem without resorting to Stalinist dogma of the Great Man.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this with your Marxist-Leninist views?
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rc...opAG875A9ZBB6A
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rc..._EWw7UILjsVw-g
2reviews of books which may shed light 'Rethinking the Soviet Collapse':, Looks at the events of the 90's Russia from a very different angle. According to established academic theory it was Soviet people who disliked socialism so much, got rid of it at the first opportunity, therefore Soviet Union collapsed as a result of a "popular revolution". The authors convincingly argue with this comforting theory and maintain that it was Soviet government officials along with active black market "fifth column" who prepared and carried out this political coup, after which the country was quickly dismantled, de-industrialised, the population was robbed of their savings, social benefits and those who carried out the coup became rich beyond belief.
The book describes in detail what Soviet citizens saw around them while events were quickly unfolding and what they really thought about these events, as 75% of them voted for preserving the Soviet Union. Look at the events through the eyes of ordinary people, who didn't benefit from the "great victory of capitalism". An eye opener.
While the conspiracy of the bureaucrats was the ultimate reason for the SU collapse - this does not explain why that conspiracy evolved in the first place.
The structural problems that kicked off this chain reaction were evident at least from the late 20s.
IT WUZ IMPERIALISMS FAULT JUST LIKE MY SOUR MILK THIS MORNING
But seriously, the USSR's centrally-administered economy suffered all the contradictions of capital, and operated akin to a war-economy in peacetime. The system was never able to move out of a mode of primitive extensive expansion as an engine of growth, hit a raw material and labor reserve barrier in the late 60s, and structurally could not demobilize. The USSR ruling class lost confidence in its old model, and sought to introduce labor discipline and the unimpeded action of the world market by any means necessary, and partially succeeded.
Because revolutions did not materialize in the heart of imperialism. The soviet union was struggling for time. Ultimately, careerism within the party led to economic liberalization and ultimately counterrevolution.
You could almost liken it to the two-line struggle in China in the CPC. Except with the CPC, there is still a left wing, though its dominated by the capitalists within the party today. In the soviet union, when the capitalists won out, they destroyed the whole thing. In china, the state has taken on the role of a bourgeois state at the expense of the chinese working class.
In the soviet union, when the right wing won out, socialism was destroyed and full fledged capitalism came into being again. In china, when the right wing won out, they successfully transferred to market socialism with all of its contradictions to boot.
FKA Vacant
"snook up behind him and took his koran, he said sumthin about burnin the koran. i was like DUDE YOU HAVE NO KORAN and ran off." - Jacob Isom, Amarillo Resident.
Did you even read the article?
Uh...First and foremost because Leninism has nothing to do with bureaucracy---Lenin actually wrote heavily about the horrors of bureaucracy just before the end of his life once the party bureaucracy was still in it's infancy. Stalin simply accelerated it to new heights.
The Bolsheviks(Earlier known as Social-Democrats before the split) never planned, as far as I know, to autocratically take power in Russia in a coup from day one. A variety of circumstances forced them to take power in an autocratic manner. Debate this all you want, yet I must say again that Leninism has NOTHING to do with Stalinism-two different things I'm afraid.
It's not an ML perspective. It's the perspective of ignorant High Stalinism lovers.
Exactly. Despite the fact that by the early 1990's the USSR had devolved into an inefficient, bureaucratic former shell of it's 1922 self, people STILL wanted it to remain intact, if only for the numerous Socialist benefits it gave to the people.
Imagine if the USSR was a true democratic state with it's Soviets, or Councils, intact-then imagine if it had even more Socialist benefits...
But they did take power and banned all other political groups and never gave it up. You had left SRs and Menshiviks in organs of the state but the Bolsheviks were firmly in control.
True. But inherently, Leninism as a theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOCRACY.
EDIT: Double post. Oops.
It´s fun to hear the popular argument that supports the idea of the conquest of the "burocracy" of the direction of the URSS.
¿How can we say that? Even in case of being true, ¿How does it happends? ¿When?
Imagine one big and capitalist company. One day the accountings takes the boss, throw him from a window and get the power and the direction. So, without further. It´s absurd.
Read the post slightly wrong
Read Alex Nove's Economic History of the USSR, then move on to Hillel Ticktin's work, Bordiga's commentary, British group Aufheben's synthesis of Bordiga and Ticktin, and finish with Walter Daum's The Life and Death of Stalinism and Paresh Chattopadhyay's The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience. That will give you a good handle on the content of the USSR empirically and theoretically, in its terminal decline. To understand it more broadly you have to really engage the history of the Revolution and Civil War, and then the NEP, struggle for power, and High Stalinism, which had extreme changes in each case for society under the regime. A bit harder to get are good looks into the USSR maturing and in transition, and its relation to the multiplication of model Stalinisms worldwide in the former colonial zones.
