:USSR:
Yesterday @CoralMarks made a great reply on Andropov and how his approach to reforms and party work might have saved the USSR, had he lived long enough. I think analysing the downfall of the USSR is of great importance to us as leftists. The Soviet Union was an immense achievement but ultimately it failed and capitalism was restored. Future socialist projects need to learn from this to avoid making the same mistakes and to effectively debunk bourgeois "socialism always fails" propaganda.
On the top of my head a few points seems to be obvious:
- The people in charge were too old. The system failed to include younger generations which made it lose touch with the people and made it harder to keep developing Soviet society
- The development of the nomenklatura as a new bourgeoisie within the party made the system lose track of revolutionary goals and opened up for corruption
- The Sino-Soviet split is one of the great tragedies of the communist movement as it prevented a strong communist block from forming. I don't know enough about it to say if and how it could have been prevented but it is certainly high on my "Things in history I wish would have turned out differently" list.
- Cultural conservatism did more harm than good to the USSR. I understand the fear that western cultural products could act like a Trojan horse for capitalist ideology but ultimately attempts to prevent western culture from affecting the USSR was experienced as silly in the population and made Soviet culture look weak and outdated in comparison. Maybe a more permissive and confident cultural policy that invited foreign inputs and expanded upon them in a socialist context could have made a difference and put the socialist world on the cultural offensive. It shouldn't be that hard to pick up on a youth culture that rebelled against conservative bourgeois norms and see it through a socialist lens.
- The balance that was found between protecting the revolution and the individual liberties of the people left the people dissatisfied and eroded trust in the system. It is a hard question; naive liberal permissiveness would have exposed the USSR to bourgeois subversion and brought the system down even faster but the people really didn't like the censorship and the secret police stuff. Maybe there are valuable lessons to learn from China about being permissive and even inviting of public criticism of material problems and concrete policies but cracking down on challenges to the socialist system, ie. people should be welcome to tell about how the bus system is run badly and how the guy in charge is corrupt but they shouldn't be allowed to say that done capitalist should own and profit from it.
- The apparent wealth gap between the west and the AES countries was a highly efficient propaganda tool for the bourgeoisie. On one hand more could have been done to credibly tell people about the whole picture of how wealth and poverty coexisted in the capitalist west, for instance by facilitating cultural and personal exchanges with western proletarians. You might not believe it when the state media tells you about poverty in the west, but it is harder to dismiss when a poor American exchange student or guest worker tells you about his life story. On the other hand there was a significant gap and a greater supply of consumer goods, of treats, might have stabilised the system. The USSR was not as developed as the west and had to spend significant resources on defense, on the other hand Soviet industry was not as efficient as it could have been. The before-mentioned corruption and conservatism of an aging leadership proved disastrous to the USSR.
- A series of failed liberal reforms under Gorbachev tried to solve the problems of the socialist USSR by making it look more like the capitalist west, but instead they accelerated the downfall that killed millions and impoverished the nation. Centrism is a dead end that ultimately leads in a reactionary direction. Problems in a socialist society must be dealt with in a socialist manner and policy must always be true to the revolutionary and proletarian roots.
So, it was a near run thing. As late as early 1991 it could probably have been saved (I don't hold much chance of the August coup succeeding.
- The people were old and there were some issues with turning things over, but the next generation of potential leaders were often those who were the worst looters.
Also, they were not that old despite the memes, Biden is older than every Soviet leader when they got into power. He's nearly older than every leader when they died! (Gorby is the exception) Andropov was 69 which is old, but not unheard of even in nations where Leaders are traditionally in their 40s when attaining power (Churchill was 66 I think in 1940 and people thought him too old for power.)
-
I would not go as far as calling the Nomenklatura a new class. They were not and people drastically underestimate the power workplace councils and local Soviets had in the SU due to Great Man theory and CIA propaganda. But yes, the Beauracratisation of the SU was an issue, one that Lenin precipitated, Stalin made worse before realising his mistake, and almost every leader tried and failed to solve. It is one of the reasons the SU could not reform.
-
The S-S split is a tragedy, and if it didn't happen yes, the SU would be here still. It's a serious lesson in Left Unity, and the reason I always support states like the DPRK that I otherwise might strongly critique. We cannot afford bullshit like that ever again.
-
Cultural Conservatism waxed and waned, though it is something to critique. I might note that a lack of it didn't help the GDR
-
This gets close to the major cause, but the USSR was exposed to bourgeois subversion. If everyone had believed in the system, the USSR would have pushed through what was a far less serious crisis than that of it's first 30 years. Many useful reforms could have been made. But after Stalin's democratisation measures were repeatedly voted down and Corn Pop cemented rule of the party nomenklatura, its hard to see how more power could be devolved to local Soviets. China has made great strides in solving this. IMO, Cuba and Vietnam have done even better.
-
The wealth gap was a huge issue in the 80s, mostly because the SU decide it was. But it was primarily an issue in the upper ranks, who basically dissolved the SU for treats.
-
Gorby did kill the SU through about 5-6 consecutive bad decisions and yeah, tactically, he's the precipitator of the fall.
I'd like to add a reason of my own
-
The underdeveloped nature of the Soviet Bloc. Only Czechoslovakia and the GDR could be considered fully developed as economies, and both had been wrecked and looted, first by WW2, then by Nazis fleeing west with half the factories, then by Soviet reparations. The SU was largely Feudal in 1917 and despite mistakes their modernisation of the economy was far, far less bloody than the famines and clearances that accompanied Capitalist development. Despite this, the Soviet Union never quite managed to complete industrialisation in many areas beyond an 1850s-style primary resource economy (with modern bells) At it's peak just before the Sino-Soviet Split, the entire Communist World had a third to a half of the economic power of the USA. China today is more powerful economically than every other socialist state, living or dead, combined.
-
Following on from this is the fact that market socialism is hard to do, you either have an NEP/Dengism and let some billionaires in and hope they don't slip the leash, or you do a full command economy, which in the 70s meant you could only command about 100 products, and that not well. Everything else was just kind of half-assed between quotas from stats agencies and an informal fixer arrangement. The SU, assuming it doesn't continue the NEP into the 1930s, made two horribly poor decisions here. One was to not cybernetise the economy and develop an internet in the 60s. The second was to implement market reforms at the exact fucking moment command economies that controlled most primary and secondary industries became possible. The SU literally marketised its internal industries just as the People's Republic of Walmart was swallowing up its suppliers and vertically integrating its logistics.
-
Seige Socialism: After the failure of the Rhur Uprising and the Soviet defeat at Warsaw, the Soviet Union can be seen as a state under a slow, strangling siege from the west. This never stopped, and since the west out-competed them economically, it was only a matter of time before one crisis or another killed it, or it managed to achieve command economy take-off and out-compete the west. China has taken the road of the NEP, and looks like it could probably start integrating it's primary industries entirely! Xi is making some moves in this direction, though not as many as I'd like.
The people were old
I'll also add that there is an important historical event everyone seems to gloss over, to no fault of their own since it's literally outside the experience of damn near everyone alive right now:
The Great Patriotic War costed the Soviet Union 27 million lives. Among those 27 million are many of the best and brightest future leaders of the Bolshevik Party who sacrificed their lives for the survival of the Soviet peoples. The Komsomol, the youth league of the CPSU was bled dry of both its young members and it's older cadre.
It stands to be understandable to a fault why the Bolcheviks national level was a Gerontocracy: many surviving members below the old leadership were pencil pushing bureaucrats that helped hold the State together but were wholesale unsuited for leadership, therefore a new generation of leaders needed to be educated. Which in turn was a problem unto itself because the many educators that would help cultivate a newer generation through educational theory and practice were also sent to the front lines.
What of the survivors you ask? Couldn't they help educate the newer generation to come? They were faces with a devastated land in ruins, great work had to be done to restore it and that left little time for in-depth education.
I'll paraphrase Molotov, in his book 'Molotov Remembers'; The Founding Bolcheviks all knew Kapital through and through, they could debate all the finer details of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and so forth, writings with the same degree of skill they had for their respective fields of work. The following generation faced the Great War, having so little time to dedicate to reading the theoretical material in-depth had to settle for selected readings to learn the basics of the ideology while fighting for their lives and struggling to rebuild. The generations following them learned from pamphlets and summarized briefs on the writings of theoreticians.
I’ll paraphrase Molotov [...]
I recently re-read Blackshirts and Reds, and Parenti touched on this topic too - He explains how not only was there a lack of understanding Marxist theory, but there was also a lack of understanding of capitalism in general.
In 1990, in Washington, D.C., the Hungarian ambassador held a press conference to announce that his country was discarding its socialist system because it did not work. When I asked why it did not work, he said, "I don't know." Here was someone who confessed that he had no understanding of the deficiencies of his country's socio-economic process, even though he was one of those in charge of that process. [...] The policymakers of these communist states showed a surprisingly un-Marxist understanding of the problems they faced. There were denunciations and admonitions aplenty, but little systemic analysis of why and how things had come to such an impasse. Instead, there was much admiration for what was taken to be Western capitalist know-how and remarkably little understanding of the uglier side of capitalism and how it impacted upon the world.
I’ll paraphrase Molotov
I'd never thought of it like that. That's such a tragedy. Fucking Nazis.
We see the effects of under 1 million dead and more retiring or otherwise leaving the labor force. I can't imagine having 27 times that.
The generations following them learned from pamphlets and summarized briefs on the writings of theoreticians.
:side-eye-1: :side-eye-2:
Tfw you have the same level of education as Gorbachev the pizza hut
Now the question of how to solve such a problem as a "Gerontocracy" of upper leadership?
The answer is as simple as it always been. The Communist Party needs and draws from its youth league for its future leaders. Without a youth league, the party is cut off from the new blood needed to keep the party in touch with the masses.
I think youth league at the same time promotes people dissociated from the workers. Politician from the age of 25 is immediately sus, as they would work only in political sphere, and likely be offspring of politician. As class struggle was generally muted in ussr, it wouldn’t be leaders born from struggles, so their aims of joining party might be counterproductive.
Gorbachev, Chernenko, Andropov, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Malenkov, Dzhugashvili, and Rykov were all born as poor and proletarian as can be with only Molotov and Lenin being nominally concidered being born in the petite bougeoise. They all lead working lives prior to joining the party, from Khrushchev proudly boasting about his days with the boys working in the steel mills to Gorbachev fondly recollecting his childhood driving combine harvesters in his collective farming lot.
Assuming that there a problem with someone's leadership qualities because they're too young or too old is ageism. Opportunism and ideological deviations happen and have happened at every stage of human life - making blanket statements of any group is simply accepting a simple answer instead of critically examining the underlying problems. What fundamentally matters is your ideological prowness, your leadership capabilities, and your experience in organizing, educating, agitating, and administrating.
The youth leagues exist to help the most brightest young men and women learn both theory and practice through both studying a broad range of material ranging from ideological to agricultural, and experiencing collective leadership through Committee work assignments, work liason assignments, district or city management assignments, etc.
We can look at the youth leagues of Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam in the modern period to see living examples for ease of understanding the kind of vital work the youth leagues do in forging the next generation of the peoples cadre.
I’m not saying too young or too old, I’m saying that progression through party doesn’t guarantee marxists views, hidden inner-party struggles of neo-stalinists, kosygin-related socdems, other socdems and straight opportunists existed throughout the 60s till the end. I’m willing to bet yeltsin could have recited some works of lenin in his sleep, yet he shouldn’t have ever been were he was. Why was yeltsin elevated through the ranks or gorbachev? How could the structure be organized in such way that this cannot happen, that’s the question I feel.
How could the structure be organized in such way that this cannot happen, that’s the question I feel.
That's the magic question that everyone's been trying to figure out these past few decades.
Yea, and my thinking is that for bad thing not too happen it shouldn’t be possible for one (or hundred) people to do it, like if decisions influence lives of millions it should be done by millions (obviously, after revolution*). Which is anarchist-adjacent pov, but unfortunately I have not seen theory of such structures developed (although i suspect I should read some cybersyn stuff :theory-gary: )
Molotov Remembers is a fantastic book, though very scattered. If you want a frank, critical account of what one of the last surviving Old Bolsheviks thought, this is it. Cringe takes and all.
Absolutely essential reading.
If everyone had believed in the system, the USSR would have pushed through what was a far less serious crisis than that of it’s first 30 years
Carlos Martinez, in his essays on the fall, interestingly ties the lack of faith in the system to de-stalinization. His point is, many/most Soviet citizens didn't exactly have advanced knowledge of Marxism or Communism (not a criticism). What they did know is that when Stalin was in charge, their material conditions improved on a scale that's almost hard to comprehend. So many folks associated socialism and the Soviet system with Stalin. So by denouncing Stalin, the Corn Man completely undermined the faith people had in the system.
As late as early 1991 it could probably have been saved
I remember reading somewhere that, as late as 1986 or so, the notion of the USSR collapsing would seem highly unlikely - both from the POV of the Soviets and the Americans. All the problems we know about were there and the Soviet leaders understood a lot of them. So something had to be done.
But Gorby's reforms in the mid/late 80s, instead of addressing the problems in a constructive way, only cranked up the contradictions to 11, which toppled the system.
Personally, I wonder if China wasn't maybe in a somewhat similar situation to the USSR when Xi rose to power. Certainly not in as dire of a situation. But Xi is the anti-Gorbachev. He saw the problems going on (like the rising power of the neoliberals and corruption in the system) and has addressed it the right way.
De-Stalinization undertaken by Khruschev was basically the starting point for everything going wrong. Not that mistakes weren't made prior to this, or that the SU wasn't able to accomplish great things after it, but the trend line across Soviet history where Marxism becomes less important as a guiding ideology and the people and the party leaders' desires begin to diverge from each other starts descending there. As Xi Jinpeng puts it:
Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past!
Damn corn man, it's good to correct errors made under previous administrations, but to drop a nuclear bomb and discredit it completely was basically telling the worldwide communist movement that all your hard work, sacrifices, suffering was for naught. A slow process of De Stalinization would not have wrecked havoc on the worldwide Communist movement, no disastrous Sino-Soviet Split.
The worst part is that while De-Stalinization did do some nice things like relax the political situation and abolish the gulags, they completely neglected to fix the problems that Stalin himself had identified in one of his last books, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR! Instead of getting proper postwar economic reforms in the 50s and 60s, the Soviet economy essentially remained unchanged until Gorbachev's reforms, and we all know how that ended up.
This is more a question than an answer, but I wonder how much a lack of consumer goods actually played a role. Like, that's obviously a huge part of the narrative in the west, but were the people actually clamoring for more TVs and blue jeans? I remember seeing a poll once of former GDR residents, and lack of consumer goods didn't score all that high (but travel restrictions and censorship did, iirc). My own pet theory is that lack of consumer goods did matter to a certain segment of society: the young, urban, would-be labor aristocrats whose voices were amplified by the west.
But, to the extent that the lack of consumer goods really was a problem... I do think the Soviets dropped the ball on adopting computers and technology in their central planning. Soviet economy was running at pretty high growth rates all the way until 1975 or so. I think at that point the economy had gotten sufficiently complex that using cutting edge tech to plan things started to become increasingly necessary. And the Soviets just didn't prioritize it w/r/t to planning.
My own pet theory is that lack of consumer goods did matter to a certain segment of society: the young, urban, would-be labor aristocrats whose voices were amplified by the west.
Yeah, it was a major issue for the small minority of the population that demanded the dissolution of the USSR, though the shortages caused by Gorbachev's liberalization policies made the complete lack of basic goods a big issue for everyone and shattered trust in the party.
I do think the Soviets dropped the ball on adopting computers and technology in their central planning.
They did adopt computers and implement them whenever they were materially able to.
I do think the Soviets dropped the ball on adopting computers and technology
"We cannot equal the quality of U.S. arms for a generation or two. Modern military power is based on technology, and technology is based on computers. In the US, small children play with computers... Here, we don't even have computers in every office of the Defense Ministry. And for reasons you know well, we cannot make computers widely available in our society. We will never be able to catch up with you in modern arms until we have an economic revolution. And the question is whether we can have an economic revolution without a political revolution."
-- Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, First Deputy Defense Minister and Chief of the General Staff
:shocked-pikachu:
It would not be entirely wrong to call the Yeltsin regime compradors. They were very dependent on foreign imperial powers both materially and ideologically.
It would not be entirely wrong to call the Yeltsin regime compradors.
I would fight anyone not calling them compradors/gusanos
"A more direct application of U.S.-backed liberalism happened in Russia. After communist rule collapsed in 1991, at the urging and advice of the United States' government and economists, Moscow embarked on a program of "shock therapy" to restructure Russia around the principle of market exchange, adopting accelerated privatization of state industries, deregulation, fiscal discipline, and the shedding of price controls. This experiment was a major effort in the project to enlarge the global liberal order at a rapid clip. It had the support of the leading institutions of global capitalism, the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department.
"Harvard academic Jeffrey Sachs, one of Russian liberalization's architects from 1991 to 1993, set out the program's logic in The Economist, a journal that champions the cause of the liberal world order. "To clean up the shambles left by communist mismanagement, Eastern Europe must take a swift, dramatic leap to private ownership and a market system. West Europeans must help it do so."47
"Swift, dramatic leap," a vast program grounded in classical liberal economics, took on the tempo and zeal of the revolutionary communism it aimed to replace. These rapid reforms replaced an oppressive and failed communist system. They did so at Washington's continual insistence that Russia reform itself on "our conditions." But the results on many measures were disastrous: capital flight and deep recession; slumping industrial production; malnutrition; the rise of criminality — a criminalized economy, in fact — intertwined with a corrupt oligarchy enjoying a concentration of wealth; and the decline of health care and an increased rate of premature deaths.48
"As Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz observed, by eschewing the more gradualist path of Poland or China, the consequences of the program were profoundly illiberal.49 "Liberal order" visionaries are quick to give their ideas credit for the prosperity of nations from Western Europe to the Pacific Rim, finding causation in correlation. They deny such a direct link between their ideas and the problems of post-Soviet Russia.50
"Yet it is hard to accept that measures like sudden privatization and the rise of monopolies in a corrupt country were not related to asset stripping and capital flight or that "eliminating the housing and utilities subsidies that sustained tens of millions of impoverished families" did not play a major part in the social ruin that followed.51 Western technocrats, diplomats, and politicians were deeply implicated in the new order's design."
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/world-imagined-nostalgia-liberal-order
When Cato is accurately dissecting the mistakes, you know it's bad.
they seem to be blaming "corrupt oligarchy" and "failed communist mismanagement" when in reality this is just neo-liberalism at it its finest.
but :yea:
Most of the stuff pointed out (cultural conservatism, bourgeois "rights") are liberal posthoc stories told by the west as cover. The soviet union failed plain and simple because the party itself did not believe it was legitimate. Economic dysfunction is not an automatic death sentence for a regime, otherwise the high inflation and chronic shortage nations like Argentina and Mexico would have their nation states fragmented and replaced every few years.
The USSR, starting with Khrushchev as ssjmarx puts it, was run by a vanguard party that shit all over its past leaders and embraced nothing but personal gain and bureaucratic ladder climbing. By the time you get to 1980s USSR, the CPSU was not a party of the people but a party over the people.
In fact, Gorbachev's glastnost policies were the impetus for the west to seize upon nationalist movements in undermining the USSR. The state security apparatus that had kept the union together for decades suddenly couldn't act on nationalist sentiment. And once people got used to complaining about the CPSU it was pretty much all over. Opportunists inside the party and all over worked overtime to heighten every crisis . Ultimately, you can trace the start of the collapse to Gorby flying to Crimea to renegotiate the Union treaty into something more like federalism, but by then Union hardliners had enough. They couped him and in the resulting chaos opportunists like Yeltsin were able to seize the initiative and dismantle the USSR republic by republic.
Union hardliners had enough. They couped him
Where can I read more about this? Thanks.
Another thing that ties with most other points is that , by little choice of its own and due to cold war shennanigans, the USSR for decades even afterWWII spend a good 20-25%+ of their GDP on the military and intelligence operations. Thats a huge handicap to have for a country with their starting material conditions that went through a devestation such as WWII and limited the wiggle room they had domesticaly for more treats to the citizens and in general more whole scale departure from exploitation and overtaking the west in many cultural and economical ereas
They had to spend that much on military, though. I thought it was more like 40%. Any less would have been to invite a US invasion. And they would have brought winter coats this time.
Letting opportunists like cornboy walk back in the day, fucker should have been jailed. There's that picture of Mao just giving Khrushchev a nasty look cuz he knew what that guy really was inside and it was nothing good. De-Stallinization was the beginning of the end. Grover Furr's works are good here I think.
With conditions in the USSR there was only so much they could have done, it was the first successful revolution in one of the weakest links of imperialism in a feudal land, I hate to say it but in a lot of ways it was a premature birth of another economic-political system. 'Evolution', even social one, isn't a straight line, we've all seen those crazy clades of development and there will be steps toward adaptation to this new way, then there'll be longer-term successes (which hopefully CN model is one, we'll see).
I know there will be another iteration of the USSR in the future, a different name, a different time, same based principles. The first attempt didn't end so well is all, as conditions are met the fight continues.
With conditions in the USSR there was only so much they could have done, it was the first successful revolution in one of the weakest links of imperialism in a feudal land, I hate to say it but in a lot of ways it was a premature birth of another economic-political system.
You couldn't really argue that by the 1950s. The Soviet Economy had surged and the country was heavily industrialized. Russians were outpacing the US in both technology and territory. And Communist Revolutions abroad had the Imperialist world on its back foot.
I might argue that the Soviets were simply victims of their own success. They forced the US to compete both militarily and politically in a way they'd never done before. Everything from NATO and the Marshall Plan to Nixon's opening up with China to the Civil Rights Era of domestic reform was a sharp turn from how Western imperial powers had engaged in the past.
The Soviets changed the terms of debate on a global stage, and Westerners had to match them with sugar coated liberalism.
What could the USSR have done differently? Perhaps Dengism is the answer. Open yourself up to nominal exploitation while accumulating foreign capital. Secure the immediate surrounding territory, but don't extend your reach into the Western sphere (especially not a next-door nation like Cuba) and provoke a nuclear conflict. Build up an economic base at home before attempting to project military abroad.
Of course, its possible that US friendly attitude towards China was only possible because the Soviets presented a compelling threat.
Maybe what the Soviets really needed was an Imperial Fascist power for Americans to butt heads against. I guess modern Russia and the modern US are getting to fill that role for each other.
The Soviets never had a serious lead over the US. The US commanded all of its own industry, all of western Europe, and Japan. The Soviets had to rebuild after WW1, WW2, and had to support new nations all over the world in a way that the US never did. The American empire had the overwhelming preponderance of force for all of the Cold War. Eventually, the Soviets couldn't even count on China after the Sino-Soviet split.
The US commanded all of its own industry, all of western Europe, and Japan.
In the immediate wake of the World Wars, that was mostly just its own industry. The struggle for Middle East oil reserves and African minerals, particularly in the early years of the Cold War, were about securing resources necessary to rebuild the imperial core.
Both the Soviets and the Americans were mostly doing exporting - particularly arms exporting - to secure their relative spheres of influence.
The American empire had the overwhelming preponderance of force for all of the Cold War.
The Americans had to play wack-a-mole against Communist insurgency throughout its own backyard while wrestling with an expansionary Soviet rival internationally. Its major advantages were in domestic population growth and urban development. But it didn't realize those advantages until well into the 60s.
Post-WW2, the imperial world was exhausted and the future was far from certain. It took decades to recover, even in the insulated Western hemisphere.
Red Army should have rolled over all Europe in 1919, not stopping until they got to Portugal. That was the plan.
BUT
fucking Polacks
First line of Capital by Karl Marx : "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities""
Average life of worker under capitalism - Work, make wages, buy stuff with wages, repeat.
Average life of worker under USSR - Work, make wages, buy stuff with wages, repeat.
It is this condition of the working class that communists seek to abolish. The working class in USSR suffered the same impersonal domination of the value-form as working classes everywhere.
The USSR could not be communist because communism is an international movement, not something that can be realized in a single nation. Look at any capitalist country, trade(exports and imports) makes up a giant chunk of the GDP.
The USSR called itself communist because since the Stalinist counterrevolution, they were simply opportunists who seek to enforce their own different version of capitalism while pretending they were communists (ring a bell? China, Cuba, NK all do the same thing)
Communism is the real movement of the working class to abolish their present conditions of existence, and replace it with one where there is no longer any domination of capital over man, nor is there domination of man over capital, but capital literally doesn't exist anymore.
There is no money, exchange, wage labor, commodity production, profit and other such categories in a communist society.
Such a society can only be achieved by an international movement of a revolutionary working class led by a class party that follows the principles of scientific socialism(aka Marxism).
Hope this is clear. If you want to understand more, read the following texts
"Communist Manifesto" by Marx, "German Ideology" by Marx. And these following ICP party texts.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1958/marxism-property.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm. If you spend the time and effort to understand these 5 texts, (it will take 6 hours at most) you will already be a better communist than 99% of self described communists out there, online and IRL, who simply do not understand the basic concepts of what communism is and what actually has to be done.
Given this place is so heavily ML, how do you tolerate sticking around here? I’m just curious because pretty much everything political that’s posted here would contradict your worldview
The USSR called itself communist because since the Stalinist counterrevolution, they were simply opportunists who seek to enforce their own different version of capitalism while pretending they were communists (ring a bell? China, Cuba, NK all do the same thing
Found the ultra lol
Imma interrupt you right there, worker in transitionary communist society would still work with wages, you need unit of account for economy to work.
Communism seeks to abolish exploitation, and value form is not connected to wages
"Communism seeks to abolish exploitation, and value form is not connected to wages"
What job do you do? Are you a worker?
Well, intellectual.
Riddle me this: if I make 20 wrenches with transferred value of 2 labor hours, and my labor time of 1 hour, and i sell them for 3/20 labor hours, was I exploited?
-
Now let’s say labor hour equal 10 bucks, amortization fee is 20 bucks, and sell them for 1.5 bucks each, was I exploited? Did anything change in conditions of exploitation?
-
now let’s say they sell, for 1.5 bucks, but amortization fee by my boss is 22 bucks, and I get 8 bucks, boss receives 2 bucks in pure profit, am I now exploited?
Only one of this fails exploitation test, despite being wage labor in 2
Explain to me, how abolishing theater of transferred value/variable capital hiding that capital makes money due to exploitation - by making all of it explicitly impossible - I would contradict goals of communism, and why this cannot be done with wages? Show me what breaks in 2nd statement, I’ll learn or think about something interesting at least.
And secondly, you can not abolish unit of account (be it money or labor-hours) for economy where people work, it’s simply is not possible, cmon.
No no it’s possible with enough lasagna and time in a comfortable armchair.
No need to be sectarian about this, I think leftcoms get some unfair rep due to bordiga out-there quotes :shrug-outta-hecks: i was asking comrade to learn, not to own with facts and dialectics
Imbecile
I love how ultras always do this the moment you engage with the weird commodity/ value form shit and show it's ridiculous.
I will simply build and stock my nuclear powered aircraft carrier to deter American invasion via gift economy and vibes
-
: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities"
So how does this apply in the USSR even after the "Stalinist counterrevolution" as you say ? At what level and for which individuals did this accumulation of commodities prevailed as wealth ? Where was ownership leading to that short of accumulation observed ? By the party members that even at the most extreme earned 3-4 times what an average factory worker did and lived in somewhat larger appartments than the average worker ? Is the phenomenon was so rampant you should be able to present proof of how that wealth from immense accumulation of commodities existed widely in the capitalist USSR
The USSR could not be communist because communism is an international movement, not something that can be realized in a single nation. Look at any capitalist country, trade(exports and imports) makes up a giant chunk of the GDP.
Sure but
The USSR called itself communist
This never happened. The party called it self a communist party. Maybe at most the society was called one with communist values. The economy and mode of production and organization of the USSR was never descibed as an existing communist one by the party OR leaders , especially under stalin.
Stalinist counterrevolution, they were simply opportunists who seek to enforce their own different version of capitalism while pretending they were communists (ring a bell? China, Cuba, NK all do the same thing)
Just quoting this cause its a distilled and pure leftcom momment to a very funny degree. And even misunderstands leftcoms of that era who despite not considering the USSR socialist or communist they usualy refrained and distanced themselves from the baby brained "its just capitalism" analysis. Just linking to lasagna man with no context isnt enough
In general you seem quite confused about the exploitation of workers and malding over the boogeyman of "state capitalism" . The "capitalist" USSR economy magicaly wasnt run for profit and didnt include accumulation of wealth or control over production by indivisual people . The image of capitalist opportunists enacting their version of capitalism to materialy benifit them selves is Disney level ahistorisism since even western anti-communist historians or even cia reports dont point out towards rgar. There wasnt a class in the economic sense profiting from the labor of the underclass or enacting a "dictatorship of X class" in the marxist sense over the workers. No one got rich in USSR by making his fellow people poor and exploiting them or even more so from exploiting the rest of the world. Even Stalin for all his faults basicaly died with nothing on his name and living an ascetic life. You can very rightfully argue about the shittiness of the bureocracy and the disconnect of the party from the working class and the elitism. You would be correct. But jumping from there to "state capitalist" hysteria is unfounded
Yes there was exploitation in the USSR and sucking labor value from workers .How else would you finance the enormous military budgets or rebuilt the entire country from strcatch multiple times after ww1/civil war and then after ww2. Since USSR wasnt imperialist in the "exploiting third world labour or extracting resources from the rest of the world" sence and since it was economicaly isolated and sieged Surplus value was extracted from the workers in order to be redirected to those stuff. Its simple as that. And idk about how the USSR could avoid having to maintain huge military expensess or having to rebuild a vast country from rubble 2 times using the labour and value created only within their borders. And yes there wasnt a complete ablolition of wages , commodities class struggle . But the USSR never was and never claimed to have reached communism in order to do so
:very-intelligent: "No no capitalism is when you build things"
Strange that a Marxist wouldn't mention Capital as a basis to start from... but mentions a pamphlet that has no real explanation of Marxism, a anthology of papers whos core is still a subject of debate, and Bordiga. You have to be a troll.
EDIT: I havent read Bordiga, and have nothing against him, it just seems strange to place him as the pinnacle of understanding of Marxism considering how obscure he is.
No no my musings are a very coherent basis for a political belief system.
You gotta forgive them because I think they really thought they'd launched an international socialist movement when the Bolsheviks took power and kinda figured they'd be able to assist Germany next. I don't think the Bolsheviks went in with "socialism-in-one-country" as the guiding principle, that was a rationalization and theory after the international revolution didn't come - but especially failure for the German socialists and in particular the SDP.
So lets set the stage: you're in 1919, you're in Russia and the Bolsheviks just won, there's a civil war where all the capitalists have invaded Russia as a counter-revolution, the SDP didn't lead the German working class to revolution and have unleashed the freikorps on the communists and spartacists, the UK working class isn't anywhere to be found, you don't have a big proletariat but a small one and a shitload of peasants and former serfs with a fundamnetally un-socialist and un-capitalist relationship to working and capital. The international working class just destroyed itself in Europe (wasn't supposed to happen, Marx figured they'd learn quickly they have more to gain together than seperate but history worked out differently).
What do you do? I think keep power with the councils would've been better and devolving, but the proletariat just wasn't that big and we have a war to fight! Maybe we do the Bukharin thing and do permanent NEP and become actual capitalists? Or do you do what the USSR did, do you attempt to establish socialism in one nation and industrialize at a time frame heretofore unforeseen. And then, after WW2, Stalin should've either kept marching through to the Atlantic or at least supported the Greek communists and the USSR should've faced what that meant afterwards - I get why they didn't but what they chose to do also didn't work out.
I don't wanna answer the real question yet but I do want to point out that any analysis that's slur just one dude is going to be wrong. Wrong because states fall for systemic reasons, not great man theory and wrong because even when leaders are exceptionally important, their capacity to fuck things up is a function of systemic problems: it should not be possible for, say, Gorbachev to fuck up so much without a positive political reckoning.
This, Gorby was a symbol of how how decrepit the party had become. A socdem moron could only became the head of the Communist party of the Soviet union if the party itself had removedd as much as it had.
They needed to abolish the commodity form and direct all labor into the manufacturing of lasagna and lasagna peripherals.
armchair manufacturing cannot be ignored, its neglection under the ussr are why tankie 'heros' such as stalin and lenin were in reality mere opportunists.
This is very true and why I supported true revolutionaries like Hitler and Mussolini.
USSR and the people of its member republics did what they could with what they had. They paid an immense price to defeat the Nazis. The failure is that they were alone in the world. All other advanced capitalist countries were in the American camp. The failure isn't on the USSR. It's on American socialists and German socialists in the run up to WW1 for capitulating to their national bourgeoise and leaving the Bolsheviks alone on the world stage. The failure is on American socialists, German socialists, French socialists, Japanese socialists, and all other socialists in developed capitalists countries who effectively liquidated themselves by joining petty bourgeois parties instead of working towards a global DOTP that could command the majority of the productive forces. I know people here are very positive about what China's rise means for a future global DOTP and I'll be honest I'm much more pessimistic because there is no left to speak of that could turn the coming US-China war into an opportunity for revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_factions_in_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union was pretty bad
