Maurice Brinton argues the Soviets went wrong very early on.
What happened in 1991 was the result of the command economy collapsing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/poli...gn/reagrus.htm
Results 1 to 20 of 74
The fall of the USSR
What exactly caused the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? It's a topic I've been researching lately, and something that I can't grasp.
I know about the revolutions of 1989, the failed August coup, and that Gorbachev was pushing for reform... but what I'm asking is, what is the root of it? Where did the Soviets go wrong?
Maurice Brinton argues the Soviets went wrong very early on.
What happened in 1991 was the result of the command economy collapsing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/poli...gn/reagrus.htm
Gorbachev was the root of that. He was chosen to make reforms. And reforms dissolved the Soviet Union.
And why he was chosen? Because economy was in stagnation. Ands why was in stagnation? Due to directing the economy from ministries because the power to rule the enterprises wasn't given to workers.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
So what you're saying is, that it wasn't a workers state? Workers weren't in control.
So what exactly led to the Communist Party dissolving as well? Couldn't they have remained active? Or did members go on to create their own parties?
They have created other parties and the rest created the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But I doubt is it communist party at all.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
Hah! The Communist Party was the most responsible for the collapse in the first place. A huge number of modern Russian oligarchs are former Soviet apparatchiks or their children. They became wealthy by ripping off former state assets, speculating in commodities, foreign exchange and property. Gorbachev's moves to introduce democracy facilitated this process, as did the extreme free market ideology that Soviet economists had introduced with the encouragement of the IMF and similar organizations.
Furthermore, since the CP was the only legal political party, many opportunists joined it despite not believing in any of its ideas.
I can't find it now, but there was a famous interview with a high-ranking member of the Communist Party in the late 80's, which went something like:
-Are you a member of the CP?
-Yes.
-Are you a communist?
-Of course not!
You're right in doubting them. The CPRF is deeply infested with Russian nationalism and homophobia. In my opinion they are simply nationalist populist opportunists. This isn't different from other Eastern European "communist" parties: about half are old-school social democrats, while the other half are right-wingers who wrap themselves with a red flag to attract disgruntled workers and old nostalgics.
The Communist Party in USSR/Russia has been like this throughout its history since Stalin took absolute power over the party in mid-30's. Despite the De-stalinization process and other makeup policies the Party never lost its chauvinistic character.
"WE COMMUNISTS ARE ALL DEAD MEN ON LEAVE"
Eugen Leviné
comrade one10! In reply to your question - why did the USSR dissolve - I can say that the bureaucracy was responsible for this. These were no communists, but people interested in privatization of state property. They became interested in privatization as they were in control of the economy, with no workers controlling them. Ultimately, I believe, it was the division of labor, inherent in the Industrial revolution, that was responsible for this. Some people became managers - bureaucrats, and most became workers.
This question has been debated since 1989 without any resolution. It is still my opinion that Marx and Engels predicted the fall of the Soviet Union 150 yrs ago. In very simple terms the Soviet Union was the first successful workers' state. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. It may have degenerated into a bureaucratic worker's state, but it remained, essentially, a workers' dictatorship led by a dictator, Stalin.
The Soviet Union, under Stalin, brutally suppressed and ultimately eliminated the capitalist class (as well as millions of non-capitalists, such as Trotsky and the small peasant class; Stalin saw enemies everwhere.) This left the Soviet state with no class to suppress. The state continued for 25-30 yrs to function as a workers' bureaucracy, its only function was the "administration of things." An outstanding exception was the Afghanistan war, but even that failed.
A state exists for one purpose and one purpose only: the suppression of a specific class. Under socialism, the dictatorship of the working class suppressed the capitalist class; after the destruction of that class the state had no further reason to exist. It withered away and died.
However, the SU, when it collapsed, was surrounded by international capitalism, which rushed into the vacuum and began injecting capital which led to the reformation of a pseudo-criminal/capitalist class.
This last aspect of the collapse proves that socialism is impossible in one country for the simple reason that once a socialist state does collapse the remaining world capitalist class, if strong enough, will simply re-appear. Thus, the communist revolution must be international and must be able to suppress and destroy capitalism internationally.
If the state managers wanted to privatize state property for their own benefit, why would they allow the state to collapse? There are many states in which public property is privatized without the state collapsing, in Greece, for instance. Also, in the U.S. and Britain. In fact, it is essential in these states that state power be increased to enforce the privatization.comrade one10! In reply to your question - why did the USSR dissolve - I can say that the bureaucracy was responsible for this. These were no communists, but people interested in privatization of state property. They became interested in privatization as they were in control of the economy, with no workers controlling them. Ultimately, I believe, it was the division of labor, inherent in the Industrial revolution, that was responsible for this. Some people became managers - bureaucrats, and most became workers.
I don't really believe that, because there WAS a capitalist class, just outside the borders of the USSR. As you said, it was surrounded by international capitalism, so the state did have a reason to exist: to protect socialism (or whatever you want to call it) from those foreign capitalists.
I think its collapse was more like sabotage by the international bourgeoisie, as well as some bureaucrats realizing that they could become capitalists themselves, rather than the state naturally withering away.
Is it safe to say the Russian revolution was doomed for failure since it's inception, due to Russia being far from a developed industrial nation at the time? (contrary to the Marxian idea that communist revolution will occur in developed countries first).
Well, outside the borders of the USSR is, by definition, outside the USSR state. The Russian state did not have the power (except maybe in satellite states) to suppress the international capitalist class, only that class inside the Soviet state. It very effectively suppressed and destroyed the capitalist class inside the Soviet Union. My point is that once that suppression was completed the state collapsed, and Russian society was left open to capital invasion.
No, the Revolution definately was successfull in many ways. The fact alone that the USSR was able not only to resist but to push the hitlerite aggression back to Berlin, demonstrated that a strong, functioning socialist state emerged under the banner of marxism-leninism. Furthermore, during the years of Great Depression the capitalist world trembled at the sight of the USSR's socio-economic achievements. Consequently, the USSR's had still a lot of potential, even a few decades after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Its chances went downhill after khrushchevite revisionism took its course.
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. - V.I. Lenin
I know many people might disagree with me, but here goes...
I think the failed invasion and occupation of Afghanistan against the U.S. funded "freedom fighters" was probably a big reason why (although definitely not the only reason). Also the soviet economy tanked in the late 80's (partly do to the Afghan issue) and people just got "fed up" so to speak.
So then what led to Khruschevite revisionism?
I recommend reading Enver Hoxha's The Khrushchevites, a rather biased but nontheless very useful analysis of the post-Stalin USSR:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ites/index.htm
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. - V.I. Lenin
One of the links in my signature (specifically this: http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/RP/RP7/RU-RP7.pdf ) does discuss in some detail the political basis for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
It's important to recognize that the Soviet Union after the 60's was a capitalist country with an imperialist foreign policy. The national liberation struggle against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan was quite costly for the USSR, but its economic problems derived in large part from the dislocation of economic planning after the 50's and the reign of the market through the façade of "planning."
The CPSU likewise degenerated into a revisionist party meant to legitimize capitalist restoration.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
Its hard to pinpoint an extract exact popular opinion at the time. But one thing is for certain, or at least I think that, the USSR was in time for change in the face of revision. But they could have gone in a socialist and economically democratic direction, instead, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, the country collapsed into destructive capitalism and eventually to a mafia state as we have with Putin. So I think poor leadership had a strong role in the fall of the USSR. I`ve heard about groups in Russia demanding a trial for Mikhail Gorbachev for treason.
