Countering the lie that USSR wasn’t Socialist

[EL KAISER]

Hello Comrades!, i noticed that in MANY places around the internet exists the ridiculous idea that there was a Bourgeois Class in Soviet-Type economies. Of course, people who think this don’t have idea what they are talking about.

To counter this ignorance, i wanted to clarify certain things (which are proven facts) to debunk this “theory” that USSR wasn’t Socialist, or that it had capitalists inside it:

1: The Bourgeois Class can ONLY exist if its composed of persons who ACTUALLY own the Means of Production. Not just administer them, but POSSES them. That is, after their death, their offspring inherit those Means of Production. And also, these persons CANNOT be fired, because they don’t even work as a proffessional. NONE of these people existed in the USSR. NONE. So where is the “Bourgeois Class”?

2: The “State Capitalism” system is one in which the State directs the economy and nationalizes its commanding heights, but one in which PRIVATE PROPERTY OF CAPITAL AND MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS PERMITTED AND GUARANTEED. That is, The USSR along with Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. AREN’T “State Capitalist”. Nazi Germany WAS State Capitalist, like Fascist Spain and Fascist Italy and all WWI and WWII “war economies” (with the exception of the USSR).

3: The MANAGERS and SUPERVISORS in Soviet Russia (and in every country in the WORLD) were highly paid EMPLOYEES doing White-collar work who did not have Means of Production and lived thanks to a SALARY. You can argue that they weren’t part of the Working Class because they exploited other workers, alright. But they CLEARLY weren’t part of the Bourgeois Class. Come on, seriously.

4: The State Bureaucrats in USSR (like in any country in the WORLD) are ALSO employees WITHOUT means of production, hired by the State to perform a White-collar job in exchange of which they will receive a SALARY/Wage or whatever to live off. In resume, they ALSO aren’t Bourgeois.

5: Please don’t use the “The-State-is-the-new-Capitalist” argument because it simply doesn’t work. The State a capitalist? Really? Who in the State owned a mean of production? Huh? Who? I ask because the State is composed by PERSONS. And none of these persons possesed a Mean of Production. Like i said, they were just employees without private property of Capital. So how can they be a “capitalist” class?

So, you basically CAN’T have a capitalist country WITHOUT Capitalists. You can’t be in a Capitalist country WITHOUT Bourgeois. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken, confused, or simply lying.

Of course, in USSR there was Economic and Social inquality, along with people filled with priviliges and with a life-style equivalent to that of the Bourgeois. But one thing is saying that and other saying that USSR wasn't Socialist or had a Bourgeois Class. Please, you have to be kidding me XD...

[General Winter]

I have already marked on the impossibility of capitalist relations in the USSR without any objections of opponents:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...18#post2876418
http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...50#post2876450
http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...99#post2876499

It's easy to stick up lables but difficult to reason position,anti-commies always have problems with it.

[(A)]

This is so sad. The result of generations of pro-government propaganda.

1: So if a group of people own capital that they are allowed to exclude others from and possess every right of ownership granted by standard property rights including the right to destroy that capital... That's private property right?

Well that is exactly what state ownership of the MOP is.

The exclusive ownership of capital by the state.

This simply mirrors corperate structure where the citizen of the state become "share holder" with the elected officials being CEO and CFO and head of security ad so on.

2: No state capitalism referes to the private ownership of the means of production by the state.

3: The problem with managers is not that they are managing it's that they exist within a frame work of state ownership. There is nothing wrong with managers that are elected by the workers to handle jobs of management. State appointed managers are not managers but slave drivers.

4: So the president of the USA is just an employee and has no power to rule over the citizens of the state and is bound to the same standards that the citizens are. I.e. He will be arrested if he orders the murder of a foreign national.

5. Your thinking is so limited it hurts. The state is a stand in for a person jus as a corporation is. Does the state have the right to own land? What if I start my own state and set up in your states land. Do you own the land? That's the problem with ALL states. They claim the ownership of land and all mop on their land.

If the private ownership of land as capital by a group of people is wrong why site private ownership of territory and it's MOP right?

All states are capitalist because all states control territory exclusively and operate their economy for profit.

There is no reasonable difference between a democratic state system of ownership and a publicly traded corporations; except that the state owns everything and if you disobey they can legally kill you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the big thing we need to grapple with here is the difference, or rather lack thereof, between du jure private ownership, and de facto control over production. Just because the upper echelons of the bureaucracy didn't, on paper, own capital doesn't mean they didn't direct it and enjoy the material benefits of surplus value extracted from the working class. Which is really the point: the motive force within capitalism isn't the bourgeoisie - it's the proletariat. The condition that defines life in capitalist society - and which persisted in the misleadingly named Soviet Union - is alienated wage labour.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think the big thing we need to grapple with here is the difference, or rather lack thereof, between du jure private ownership, and de facto control over production. Just because the upper echelons of the bureaucracy didn't, on paper, own capital doesn't mean they didn't direct it and enjoy the material benefits of surplus value extracted from the working class. Which is really the point: the motive force within capitalism isn't the bourgeoisie - it's the proletariat. Three condition that defines life in capitalist society - and which persisted in the misleadingly named Soviet Union - is alienated wage labour.

Yeah really, it seems like the OP is willingly ignoring the substance of the critique made against the USSR of state capitalism. What else can we call millionaire managers of Chinese state capital than a capitalist? And when the Soviet workers are working to produce material benefits for the nomenklatura, the same critique holds (of course, the USSR was less generous to its bureaucrats than the modern Chinese state, but perhaps that is why so many leaders in the USSR were willing to see the system move from de facto capitalism to de jure capitalism in 1991)

[(A)]

Can someone offer a argument against the statement

"State ownership of Property (capital/land/territory/MOP) is not significantly different then private ownership of the same."

For me the state and the private are no different. They both>

• Are a collection of individuals
• Have exclusive control over property
• May be Democratic and public
• May be despotic and private
• require the exploited labor of the working class

How is the exclusive control of lets say Russia by a collection of Russians any different then the exclusive control of Russia a collection of Russians who call themselves a state.They are still excluding Ukrainians and the Polish and the Mexicans and every other person on earth who has right to use that land; for the profit of their collective. Is that not the definition of capitalism.

The collective ownership over the land by a country is basically the same as the collective ownership over the land by a corporation.

• Both claim right to exist by Popular support
• Both are recognized as entity's (believed to have rights)

The only major differences I see

• The state supposedly represents what is considered a national collective (Russians and not Americans)
• The state has the right to kill/imprison me for disobedience
• The state is assumed to have ownership over all land

Where as

• The Corporations ownership is granted by the state
• The Corporation must abide by the laws created by the state
• The Corporation must pay the state as we do

When put side to side it is clear to me that the state is the real enemy of the working class and that Capitalism is simply a racket. The systematic extortion of the working peoples money;
not the sum of all evil as it is made out to be. Capitalism can not survive without the state to grant it protection. The state does not need the public's approval to own property or use violence; tho it claims to.

On a side note

What gives the special rights to a state that the individual members of it do not themselves have?
As a citizen I can not kill yet my government (which is supposed to represent my will) has that right.
I can not steal yet the state and the corporation both extort the labor of its members; one threw taxation and the other threw commodification.
In a socialist state I would not have the right to own capital yet the state does.

[General Winter]

- - - Updated - - -

I think the big thing we need to grapple with here is the difference, or rather lack thereof, between <em>du jure</em> private ownership, and <em>de facto</em> control over production. Just because the upper echelons of the bureaucracy didn't, on paper, own capital doesn't mean they didn't direct it and enjoy the material benefits of surplus value extracted from the working class. Three condition that defines life in capitalist society - and which persisted in the misleadingly named Soviet Union - is alienated wage labour.

I'll tell you three secrets:

1. I think the big thing you need to grapple with here is the difference between <em>owning</em> and <em>administrating.</em>

2 Not only the upper echelons of the bureaucracy enjoyed the material benefits of surplus product produced by workers but also doctors,teachers,cientist,cultur workers and many others of this kind. PARASITES!

3. There was no alienated labour because any labor in the Soviet Union was directly social labor, as any manufactured product was the property of the whole society - product could not be alienated, as it did not change the owner.

[(A)]

There was no alienated labour because any labor in the Soviet Union was directly social labor

2014-04-20-682629690200858002.jpg

Does slave labor count?
Because they had that.

PARASITES!

This statement directly contradicts the next. If their was no alienated labor then their would not be surplus value. Shit.
The state owned the capital. The bureaucracy governed it. The workers operated it.
That simply will not do. This is not a society worth fighting for nor a means to reach it.

The goal is a stateless, classless society that is free from property. Full communism. It must come by the control of the means of production by society as a whole. It is wholly reactionary to think that the state is needed to police the workers in their democratic control over it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

2 Not only the upper echelons of the bureaucracy enjoyed the material benefits of surplus product produced by workers but also doctors,teachers,cientist,cultur workers and many others of this kind. PARASITES!

... no different than "free market capitalism". Doctors in the USA are some of the best paid individuals. The best scientists are given comfortable tenured university jobs. Celebrity actors become millionaires.

[EL KAISER]

To all those comrades that refered to the State like a “Capitalit Class” or such things:

The State is not a class, and the State doesn’t own ANYTHING AT ALL. It does not own the MOPs. It just ADMINSTERS them. And there is a BIG difference between possesing something and just administering it (Like Comrade General Winter said in an earlier post). And when i say BIG DIFFERENCE, i mean exatcly that, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Also, STOP speaking about the State as it is some kind of “private property” separate from the people. The State is a PUBLIC INSTITUTION. All the State “has”, pertains to the WHOLE Nation, and to the WHOLE people, even if its citizens do not directly administer those things.

The State is composed by its members, and no member of the State had MOPs, so how can the State have MOPs? It doesn’t! The State is just a big HUGE OVERALL administrator, but the MOPs aren’t its “private property”!

[(A)]

How is it a "BIG DIFFERENCE"?

How is a state a "PUBLIC INSTITUTION" when it only includes people who are members (citizens)?

That's a private organization that owns (controls exclusively using violence to protect) territory claims the right to charge its members for the use of its land.

All the State “has”, pertains to the WHOLE Nation

So you hit the nail on the head. A state is not a "PUBLIC INSTITUTION" but a private nationalist one.

but the MOPs aren’t its “private property”

But the entire territory it claims as its own and claims legal rights to (ownership) the Subjects of labor on its property/territory.
I.E. you cant hunt without paying (Animals being the subject of labor) or farm (Land being the subject of labor) Log (trees being the subject of labor).
This claim of ownership over a territory is the ownership of capital (Subject of labor) and land property.

[General Winter]

no different than "free market capitalism". Doctors in the USA are some of the best paid individuals. The best scientists are given comfortable tenured university jobs. Celebrity actors become millionaires.

So they declare iintelligentsia a parasitic group wich to be destroyed too.

Eat your heart out,Pol Pot!

[John Nada]

I'm curious EI KAISER and General Winter, in your opinions when was capitalism restored? Obviously a new bourgeoisie did arise at some point, and didn't just pop out of the aether.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

[QUOTE=General Winter;2876684]- - - Updated - - -

1. I think the big thing you need to grapple with here is the difference between <em>owning</em> and <em>administrating.</em>[quote]

For sure - this is the difference between cheif executives of corporations and, say, majority share holders. We find that CEOs and other top managers - as capitalism has developed - are virtually indistinguishable from capitalists.
I think you've aptly illustrated my point. Though if you'd like to elaborate as to the difference between owning and administering that I might be missing, go ahead.

2 Not only the upper echelons of the bureaucracy enjoyed the material benefits of surplus product produced by workers but also doctors,teachers,cientist,cultur workers and many others of this kind. PARASITES!

Sinister Cultural Marxist also pointed out that this phenomena is the norm in all capitalist societies, so rather than belabouring the point, I'd like to take a different t tack. Marx emphasized that communism would undermine specialization and the most advanced workers struggles have often prefigured Marx's vision. For more on this, I highly recommend Facing Reality (available free here).

3. There was no alienated labour because any labor in the Soviet Union was directly social labor, as any manufactured product was the property of the whole society - product could not be alienated, as it did not change the owner.

Uh . . . pretty sure people worked set hours for wages creating products which they then purchased using the money they'd been paid in wages. Pretty sure that "directly social" implies "not mediated by wages or the commodity form". But, y'know, what do I know?

[ComradeAllende]

Personally, I ascribe to the old Trotskyist notion that the USSR was a "degenerated worker's state" with the nomenklatura serving as the ruling class, but I don't see any reason as to how the USSR could be considered socialist in any meaningful sense of the term. As other commentators have pointed out, the social and economic system of the USSR was predicated on wage labor (particularly the hated piece-rate system) and incorporated a hierarchical system of managing production. Yes, there was planning and yes, private property was "abolished", but that in no way implies that the USSR was socialistic (unless socialism is negatively defined as the opposite of capitalism).

[EL KAISER]

DE-AR-LORD

So now Comrade "Democracy" is saying the State is a “private” institution XD XD XD.
Okay, who owns it? And please remember: To OWN something, you MUST be capable of inherit it from the previous owner and be capable of pass it on to your offspring, (after all, is a PRIVATE PROPERTY, right?). But it is curious how you FAIL TO SEE that none position within the State is inheritable. If i’m a high State Functionary, then my son is NOT GOING TO BE a high State Functionary. If i'm the General Secretary of the Party or the Prime Minister of the USSR, then my son is NOT GOING to be the General Secretary of the Party or the Prime Minister of the USSR. So HOW is the State a “private” institution?

And about the MOPs not being private property of the State, that’s SO obvious that i shouldn’t have to explain it. But here it goes, AGAIN:

NONE member of the State was a private owner of a MOP. The persons composing the State COLLECTIVELLY ADMINISTERED the MOPs. That’s all. It’s not very complicated. If none member of the state owns something, then the State DOES NOT own something, it just administers in a COLLECTIVE manner on behalf of the population all that pertains to the popullation (because you OBVIOUSLY can’t have the WHOLE popullation administering everything).

And then “The Garbage Disposal Unit” says that Top Managers are “virtually indistinguishable” from capitalists. I strongly disagree. I could make you a LIST of differences. But to be honest, i’m pretty sure i won’t be able to change your mind and form of reasoning, so i will let this pass.

And to Comrade "ComradeAllende": Actually, the KEY objectives for a country to become Socialist is precisely that of abolish the private property of MOPs, Eliminate the Bourgeois or Capitalist Class, and begin to planify the economy. So yes, USSR WAS Socialist. And i don't freakin care if there was wage labor. There wasn't a Capitalist Class, so it wasn't Capitalist.

[(A)]

The state does not die therefore it does not ever need to leave its property/territory to its descendants. The land colonized by the Americans is still controlled exclusively (ownership) by the American state.
The people and governments change but the state still owns the land. Just as the owners of company's change but the company still owns all of its capital.

The state acts as a corporate entity. Standing in as an individual that owns property.

State/corporation owns the land, Officials elected by citizens/shareholders manage the property, Workers labor and are exploited by it.
No difference.

Basically what you are saying is that a collection of individuals has the right to own private property as long as they form a government over their private property and call themselves a state.

14708271_310100179377056_8153267980842524477_n.jpg

[John Nada]

NONE member of the State was a private owner of a MOP. The persons composing the State COLLECTIVELLY ADMINISTERED the MOPs. That’s all. It’s not very complicated. If none member of the state owns something, then the State DOES NOT own something, it just administers in a COLLECTIVE manner on behalf of the population all that pertains to the popullation (because you OBVIOUSLY can’t have the WHOLE popullation administering everything).

And then “The Garbage Disposal Unit” says that Top Managers are “virtually indistinguishable” from capitalists. I strongly disagree. I could make you a LIST of differences. But to be honest, i’m pretty sure i won’t be able to change your mind and form of reasoning, so i will let this pass.

And to Comrade "ComradeAllende": Actually, the KEY objectives for a country to become Socialist is precisely that of abolish the private property of MOPs, Eliminate the Bourgeois or Capitalist Class, and begin to planify the economy. So yes, USSR WAS Socialist. And i don't freakin care if there was wage labor. There wasn't a Capitalist Class, so it wasn't Capitalist.

In one socialist country, blue-collar workers got paid as much or more than the engineers, scientists, professors, political officials, military officers, bureaucrats, and sometimes even lower/middle management of the socialist enterprises. The workers had much more control over production than workers in a modern capitalist-imperialist nation, let alone an oppressed neocolony. True, the managers of socialist enterprises lived good and received higher salaries, but it was very modest compared to CEOs in the US today or post-counterrevolution Russia. Moreover, they did not inherit the enterprise nor could they pass it on to their children. Clearly the socialist principle "To each according to her work" was achieved and they were on the socialist path. Can you guess which which socialist country this was?

The United States of America in the Post-War Era!

The de jure ownership can be in the hands of the state(which is very common in capitalist countries), but the relations of production(base) can still be capitalist or have retained capitalistic features. CEO, manager, bureaucrats, administrators and politicians in capitalist countries don't necessarily "own" the means of production nor do they necessarily "inherit" their positions, but de facto they do. They are bourgeois.

And if capitalistic relations inherited from the old order, coupled with lingering elements of capitalism throughout the superstructure, aren't combated in a future revolution, it will lead to capitalist restoration like it did in the past dictatorships of the proletariat and people's democracies. You will get more Dengs and Gorbachevs. These managers, bureaucrats and political leaders, who may be subordinated to the workers at first, can provide fertile grounds for a new bourgeoisie.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

DE-AR-LORD

So now Comrade "Democracy" is saying the State is a “private” institution XD XD XD.
Okay, who owns it? And please remember: To OWN something, you MUST be capable of inherit it from the previous owner and be capable of pass it on to your offspring, (after all, is a PRIVATE PROPERTY, right?). But it is curious how you FAIL TO SEE that none position within the State is inheritable. If i’m a high State Functionary, then my son is NOT GOING TO BE a high State Functionary. If i'm the General Secretary of the Party or the Prime Minister of the USSR, then my son is NOT GOING to be the General Secretary of the Party or the Prime Minister of the USSR. So HOW is the State a “private” institution?

And about the MOPs not being private property of the State, that’s SO obvious that i shouldn’t have to explain it. But here it goes, AGAIN:

NONE member of the State was a private owner of a MOP. The persons composing the State COLLECTIVELLY ADMINISTERED the MOPs. That’s all. It’s not very complicated. If none member of the state owns something, then the State DOES NOT own something, it just administers in a COLLECTIVE manner on behalf of the population all that pertains to the popullation (because you OBVIOUSLY can’t have the WHOLE popullation administering everything).

And then “The Garbage Disposal Unit” says that Top Managers are “virtually indistinguishable” from capitalists. I strongly disagree. I could make you a LIST of differences. But to be honest, i’m pretty sure i won’t be able to change your mind and form of reasoning, so i will let this pass.

And to Comrade "ComradeAllende": Actually, the KEY objectives for a country to become Socialist is precisely that of abolish the private property of MOPs, Eliminate the Bourgeois or Capitalist Class, and begin to planify the economy. So yes, USSR WAS Socialist. And i don't freakin care if there was wage labor. There wasn't a Capitalist Class, so it wasn't Capitalist.

(1) Are you aware of the difference between the term "De facto" and "De jure"? TGDU used those terms and you seem completely oblivious to how he used them.

(2) It does not mater if it was "collectively administered". All sorts of forms of capital can be "collectively administered", including many corporations (which are collectively owned, too). The issue is when the "administrators" are largely unaccountable to the workers and the benefits and alienation which stems from that. A classless society is "collectively administered" by everyone who wants to participate in planning. In the USSR it was administered by a bunch of elite bureaucrats and powerful party figures. Many of the same people, incidentally, who became outrageously rich out of the fall of the USSR like Heydar Aliyev.

[EL KAISER]

You people must stop differentiating between State and people. Comrade “Democracy” says “The people and governments change but the state still owns the land.”
My God. The PEOPLE ARE the State. You can’t have a State without people. I don’t freakin care if the State “owns” today what it “owned” 150 years ago, because the members of the State have CHANGED, so this state ISN’T the same as it was 150 years ago. And furthermore, it NEVER owned anything, there were just different administrators who didn’t owned anything.
But again, this is just an excuse to not see the obvious. The State is not some kind of “conscious entity”. The State is something completely abstract. its an intangible body composed by people which do not own shit.

And now Comrade "John Nada" is saying the U.S. was a Socialist country XD XD. Well, this pretty much explains by itself. Complete and utter ignorance.
“These managers, bureaucrats and political leaders, who may be subordinated to the workers at first, can provide fertile grounds for a new bourgeoisie.”
I agree. But it is not some kind of INEVITABLE DESTINY. It’s not like these managers are DESTINED to become sooner or later capitalists. That’s just your interpretation of things.

And to Comrade "Sinister Cultural Marxist": “A classless society is "collectively administered" by everyone who wants to participate in planning.”
I agree. I never said the USSR was a classless society XD. That will only happen when Communism is reached. What i’m saying is that in the USSR there were just 2 social classes, the WORKING class (in which i’m including everyone who wasn’t the owner of some MOP, and sold its labor-power in exchange for a salary. This includes Blue-collar and White-collar workers, of course) and the Petty Burgeois, like the peasants who owned their private plots. But Bourgeois or Capitalist Class? Seriously? Impossible, it was non-existent.

In USSR:
Were there Social and Economical differences? Yes, obviously.
Was there an elite ruling group? Yes, ALSO obviously.
Did this ruling group owned anything? No, OBVIOUSLY not. No matter their hierarchy or rank, they were just salaried employees that could be removed or transferred at will.
Was there a Class that owned the economy? No, obviously not. Private property of MOPS was forbidden. Not even the ruling group owned MOPs.
Did the State owned the Economy? No, obviously not. Because NO ONE in the State owned anything.
Was there SOMEONE who owned some MOPs? Yes. Peasants owning their private plots. They were Petty Burgeois.
Was there someone who lived directly from the MOPs? No. EVERYONE received a Salary/Wage, including the ruling group.
Then where in HELL is the “Capitalist" relation? There WASN'T.

Like i said, its UNDENIABLE that for a Bourgeois Class to exist, it HAS to have members that OWN stuff, not just people administrating stuff. The people in the State didn’t owned anything, so they CAN’T be Bourgeois. And along with them, the State CAN'T be Capitalist.

Its incredible how you people deny the GREAT ACHIEVEMENT the USSR was. You are like National Socialists who deny that the III Reich had been National Socialist XD. USSR WAS Socialist, so why don't you just accept and enjoy that fact?