Proto-Socialism: an Autopsy of the USSR.

[United Marxist Nations]

If that were the case, then all states would have that perpetual problem. A Soviet Republic would pertain to a structure that would make it difficult for any one person to have so much power.

But then it runs into the problems all revolutionary democracies face. The instability and chaos of a revolution make it difficult to have a functioning republic with checks and balances. Either the peace is kept by a dictatorial state or the whole thing collapses.

Is that what happened in the United States? No, it is not. Stability returns, yes there is a need to hold more power in the early days, but this does not need to be as powerful as it is often made out to be.

[United Marxist Nations]

So, basically capitalism.

EDIT: And the "Old Guard" wasn't still in power, they were forced out by Yeltsin.

Uhh, no. The validity of elections in post-Soviet states have been challenged and accusations of fraud brought and in some cases proven how many times now? They are also far less liberal than "already Western" states. Russia has been getting especially more authoritarian recently, as if it wasn't already. As far as capitalism is concerned, "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit." So yes, I guess that you are correct, in this sense, "for profit by high-ranking current and former state employees." The problem is that the industry is actually shit and the "profit" is made through embezzlement.

EDIT: Also, one needs look no further than Putin to see how "fresh" the political scene is in ex-Soviet countries.

I am aware of the dubious elections in former Soviet states; in fact, I should note that Dmitry Medeved (forgive my spelling) tacitly admitted that the Communist Party would have won the 1996 elections in Russia, if not for great fraud in favor of Yeltsin.

[Benuty]

workers of the world unite blah blah

Because getting fucked like a prison bitch is so much better.

[The Sotoan Union]

But then it runs into the problems all revolutionary democracies face. The instability and chaos of a revolution make it difficult to have a functioning republic with checks and balances. Either the peace is kept by a dictatorial state or the whole thing collapses.

Is that what happened in the United States? No, it is not. Stability returns, yes there is a need to hold more power in the early days, but this does not need to be as powerful as it is often made out to be.

Was the American Revolution about socialism? The difference is in a socialist society you are trying to avoid creating this incredibly strong central government controlled by an elite. The Americans were fine with that though. Even then there were problems. The United States was incredibly unstable during its early years. Problems during the early revolution would carry on as late as the civil war.

Besides the Americans just wanted their own government. A colony breaking away. Would it be the same if a state wanted to completely abolish its own government? To create an entirely new system? The Americans weren't exactly trying to do something brand new with their government. The Soviets were.

How could this new revolutionary society manage to create a new government capable of keeping order without the risk that this new government can amass too much power. Is the only way the armed revolutionaries themselves? This only leads to more war and how can that ensure stability? Are we forced to choose between more war and instability or a strong government with less freedoms and the potential for corruption?

[Pandeeria]

(Damn it; I'm so pissed. I was writing a lot of crap, and suddenly my browser crashes. Just great, so I'm only writing a shell of what I was going to write).

I agree, almost entirely with the OP, except that I would consider the USSR as State Socialist. Because by defintion, the State regulated the economy to the greatest degree, it simply was State Socialist.

However, the better question is this: Why do all attempts (save for an extremely select, few exceptions that are kinda sketchy on if you wanna consider them "Socialist") of Socialism turn and get stuck in a failed workers' state? Well, there can be several reasons, which include:

A. The capitalist phase before Socialism, especially in the USSR, China, and Eastern Europe, was practically skipped. People like Lenin simply didn't give the capitalist phase enough time.

B. People are Power Hungry. This is indisputable. All attempts at Socialism (with an extremely tiny exceptions that's are sketchy as to wether or not you wish to consider them "Socialism") have gotten stuck on this phase between the Capitalist one and the pure socialist one, where the State runs the economy (IE State Socialism). If you have the economy at gun point, you have the people, their lives, wellbeing, and the entire country at gun point as well. This makes for execellent conditions for a power hungry high class to rule by instinctually oppressing the people.

C. People lost the "For the Workers!" atitude. Especially with Stalin, people kinda forgot what the purpose of the USSR was to serve: The Workers. Instead, people went into the vein of thinking with examples such as this:

"Stalin is Great!"

"Death to the German Dogs!"

"Independence for [insert any SSR here]!"

"I need to work for my next food ration."

"We must stop the Americans."

Phrases from above are just some examples of the general loss of atitude about promoting the Workers' well being.

[United Marxist Nations]

Is that what happened in the United States? No, it is not. Stability returns, yes there is a need to hold more power in the early days, but this does not need to be as powerful as it is often made out to be.

Was the American Revolution about socialism? The difference is in a socialist society you are trying to avoid creating this incredibly strong central government controlled by an elite. The Americans were fine with that though. Even then there were problems. The United States was incredibly unstable during its early years. Problems during the early revolution would carry on as late as the civil war.

Besides the Americans just wanted their own government. A colony breaking away. Would it be the same if a state wanted to completely abolish its own government? To create an entirely new system? The Americans weren't exactly trying to do something brand new with their government. The Soviets were.

How could this new revolutionary society manage to create a new government capable of keeping order without the risk that this new government can amass too much power. Is the only way the armed revolutionaries themselves? This only leads to more war and how can that ensure stability? Are we forced to choose between more war and instability or a strong government with less freedoms and the potential for corruption?

But they were actually creating their own system: the presidential republic. And the bourgeois revolution succeeded as well.

The armed revolutionaries provide a way to keep a handle on it, the idea isn't to protract war, but to make it so that the problem is avoided altogether. Why amass so much power if you're just going to get ousted the minute you do so? And there would be other means with which to do this as well, such as elections and collective leadership.

[Buse]

Before we begin, I'm going to lay down some definitions being used throughout this, so that arguing over semantics doesn't happen:
-Socialism: being used in the Marxist sense, as in, a economic stage in which the dictatorship of the proletariat controls the means of production.

By your definition it seems socialism is just an uthopia and never existed. I hopefully think you are aware that you are wrong.
Also, dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage bewteen a capitalist and communist society.

[United Marxist Nations]

Before we begin, I'm going to lay down some definitions being used throughout this, so that arguing over semantics doesn't happen:
-Socialism: being used in the Marxist sense, as in, a economic stage in which the dictatorship of the proletariat controls the means of production.

1) By your definition it seems socialism is just an uthopia and never existed. I hopefully think you are aware that you are wrong.
2) Also, dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage bewteen a capitalist and communist society.

1) How?
2) Yeah, I know.

[Buse]

1) How?
2) Yeah, I know.

Maybe because you have a bit to short version of socialism? I would agree that all Dictatorship of proletariats should be Socialist, but not every Socialist country is DOP. There is the case of Sweden which can be classified as Socialist.

[The Sotoan Union]

Was the American Revolution about socialism? The difference is in a socialist society you are trying to avoid creating this incredibly strong central government controlled by an elite. The Americans were fine with that though. Even then there were problems. The United States was incredibly unstable during its early years. Problems during the early revolution would carry on as late as the civil war.

Besides the Americans just wanted their own government. A colony breaking away. Would it be the same if a state wanted to completely abolish its own government? To create an entirely new system? The Americans weren't exactly trying to do something brand new with their government. The Soviets were.

How could this new revolutionary society manage to create a new government capable of keeping order without the risk that this new government can amass too much power. Is the only way the armed revolutionaries themselves? This only leads to more war and how can that ensure stability? Are we forced to choose between more war and instability or a strong government with less freedoms and the potential for corruption?

But they were actually creating their own system: the presidential republic. And the bourgeois revolution succeeded as well.

The armed revolutionaries provide a way to keep a handle on it, the idea isn't to protract war, but to make it so that the problem is avoided altogether. Why amass so much power if you're just going to get ousted the minute you do so? And there would be other means with which to do this as well, such as elections and collective leadership.

The revolution succeeded, but they didn't succeed in creating the government they wanted. It's the whole point of this OP.

What stops these armed revolutionaries from just becoming the new means of oppression? They have leaders, and the leaders can use them to further their own power. If your point is that everyone is armed and would be too educated to have a leader take too much power than how is that remotely going to be possible? Furthermore if all the people do is overthrow attempted governments, when is the actual state going to be created?

[Pandeeria]

1) How?
2) Yeah, I know.

Maybe because you have a bit to short version of socialism? I would agree that all Dictatorship of proletariats should be Socialist, but not every Socialist country is DOP. There is the case of Sweden which can be classified as Socialist.

Sweden is not socialist.

[Dejanic]

Maybe because you have a bit to short version of socialism? I would agree that all Dictatorship of proletariats should be Socialist, but not every Socialist country is DOP. There is the case of Sweden which can be classified as Socialist.

Sweden is not socialist.

Tbh I'm not sure if I'd even call it a Social Democracy at this point.

[Buse]

Maybe because you have a bit to short version of socialism? I would agree that all Dictatorship of proletariats should be Socialist, but not every Socialist country is DOP. There is the case of Sweden which can be classified as Socialist.

Sweden is not socialist.

Really? Why?

[Pandeeria]

Sweden is not socialist.

Really? Why?

Because the Workers don't collectively manage the economy via Work Place Democracy.

Sweden is not socialist.

Tbh I'm not sure if I'd even call it a Social Democracy at this point.

They're currently in a sore lack of regulation in their economy.

[Divergia]

The Soviet Union's Leisure Class took advantage of the Proletariat, having their knowledge, and using it to shape the state to benefit themselves, and revived the Soviet Infrastructure in ways that produced money for them. State Socialism allows those of the Leisure class to own the Means of Production, and the proletariat like you said couldn't fight back because of poor precursory conditions. The question is why hasn't Socialism regrown, with legitimate Revolutions? And can a Revolution happen in a "Post-Industrial Society".

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The Soviet Union's Leisure Class took advantage of the Proletariat, having their knowledge, and using it to shape the state to benefit themselves, and revived the Soviet Infrastructure in ways that produced money for them. State Socialism allows those of the Leisure class to own the Means of Production, and the proletariat like you said couldn't fight back because of poor precursory conditions. The question is why hasn't Socialism regrown, with legitimate Revolutions? And can a Revolution happen in a "Post-Industrial Society".

Because a lot of people are either content with their conditions or only blame the leadership instead of the inherent structure of their nation's economic and governmental systems?

[4years]

-Proto-Socialism: A stage with some aspects of socialism, but lacking sufficient workers' control of the state.

Why invent a new term? Depending on the shade of meaning one wishes to impart, the terms degenerate workers' state and Proletarian Bonapartist state express roughly the same idea and are more scientifically accurate.

In many arguments about the USSR, there is oftentimes to debate on what terms to use in describing it. Some use "state socialism", "state capitalism", or "degenerated workers' state". All of these terms are incorrect: the USSR was not socialist (as the means of production were not controlled by the proletariat), nor was it capitalist (as the means of production were not controlled by a bourgeois), and it had never achieved socialism, so it can therefore not be called a workers' state which has degenerated.

The idea of a degenerated workers state does not imply that they USSR achieved socialism in the first place, it merely indicates that the USSR began as a relatively healthy proletarian state and was moving in the direction of socialism. In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky characterized the USSR as a transitional form partway between capitalism and socialism and capable of moving in either direction either depending on the balance of forces (whether the Soviet proletariat could achieve the political revolution).

The answer lies in the Nomenklatura; while not a bourgeois, but a bureaucracy, the nomenklatura was able to plan out the economy of the USSR, and thus held a privileged position within the state. It was thus in their power and interest to maintain the proto-socialist order. Thus, they introduced the false doctrine of "peaceful co-existence", which stated that class conflict isn't necessarily always in motion. Moreover, the Party's rhetoric changed in this period from an understanding that socialism needed to be built, to one of having already attained such a system.

True enough, but it is important to understand that the domination of the USSR by the bureaucracy was not a post-war phenomena. Rather it has occurred as early as 1924 with the seeds for it being sown well before that. By the time of the Spanish civil war, the bureaucracy was consciously seeking to stifle revolutionary moments abroad in order to pacify the proletariat at home and used the false doctrines of socialism in one country and the Economist-Menshevik two-stage theory to do so- the purges were also a part of this effort to pacify the Soviet working class and solidify the rule of the bureaucracy, with all the main old Bolsheviks being imprisoned/executed/assassinated/marginalized they essentially amounted to a one-sided civil war against the party of Lenin.

Marx and Engels said, how can socialism arise out of a stage in which capitalism does not exist?

It can't on a world scale. Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolshevik leaders understood that which is why the laid such stress in the necessity of a world revolution. They all understand that the Russian empire was not ready for socialism and that the first tasks of the revolution were bourgeois democratic tasks. However as both Marx and Trotsky noted, in the theory of permanent revolution, the Russian bourgeois was not a revolutionary class. The proletariat did in fact take power in Russia in 1917 and was drawn into beginning the task of the socialist reconstruction of society- it will be so drawn whenever it takes power- but could not maintain political power in the conditions of backwardness and isolation foisted upon it.

We are left with one conclusion: the USSR was fatally stunted by the conditions from which it arose; while it is possible that later nomenklatura, in the eras of Stalin (post-1950), Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. could have saved it be implementing a true Soviet Republic, but it was not in the interests of these bureaucracies to do so. Thus, it seems that the failure can not necessarily be pinned upon any one ideological fault, or any individual, or on economic stagnation, socialism, or a Vanguard Party, but upon the lack of capitalism in the society from which socialism arose.

Your analysis is correct but one sided. You correctly point to the conditions of terrible backwardness and feudal nature of Tsarist society as a major factor in understand the failure of the Soviet experiment, but fail to note how widespread poverty, the effects of the civil war and WW1, and most importantly the international betrayal of social democracy conditioned this failure.

However, now most of the world is either in a stage of capitalism, or in fledgling capitalism, the proletariat is large, it is largely literate, etc. The conditions exist now for socialism to arise, be it in the West, or in the East.

The world as a whole was ready of socialism in 1917, the problem was that the revolution remained isolated in backward Russia due to the betrayals of international social democracy in the 2nd International and the ultimately the theoretical helplessness of Stalin and the reactionary role played by the Thermidorian bureaucracy on a world scale.

[Costa Fierro]

UMN, I think that the idea of the bourgeois in a traditional communist sense is a bit outdated. For one thing, in all the communist countries during the Cold War, the people who had influence and the wealth and the power were all high-ranking members of the party. They were the ones that controlled the state industries, wealth and economics. They were the elite and therefore could easily be considered bourgeois because power was not vested in the people but rather the Politburo and other high-ranking officials and political bodies.

Therefore I would personally call it a state capitalist because the only people who benefited from the trade and the wealth generated by the trade were those that controlled it i.e the party. As the party is essentially the "state", it could be considered a state capitalist. The same can be said for most countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, bar places like Cambodia.

[United Marxist Nations]

-Proto-Socialism: A stage with some aspects of socialism, but lacking sufficient workers' control of the state.

Why invent a new term? Depending on the shade of meaning one wishes to impart, the terms degenerate workers' state and Proletarian Bonapartist state express roughly the same idea and are more scientifically accurate.

In many arguments about the USSR, there is oftentimes to debate on what terms to use in describing it. Some use "state socialism", "state capitalism", or "degenerated workers' state". All of these terms are incorrect: the USSR was not socialist (as the means of production were not controlled by the proletariat), nor was it capitalist (as the means of production were not controlled by a bourgeois), and it had never achieved socialism, so it can therefore not be called a workers' state which has degenerated.

The idea of a degenerated workers state does not imply that they USSR achieved socialism in the first place, it merely indicates that the USSR began as a relatively healthy proletarian state and was moving in the direction of socialism. In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky characterized the USSR as a transitional form partway between capitalism and socialism and capable of moving in either direction either depending on the balance of forces (whether the Soviet proletariat could achieve the political revolution).

The answer lies in the Nomenklatura; while not a bourgeois, but a bureaucracy, the nomenklatura was able to plan out the economy of the USSR, and thus held a privileged position within the state. It was thus in their power and interest to maintain the proto-socialist order. Thus, they introduced the false doctrine of "peaceful co-existence", which stated that class conflict isn't necessarily always in motion. Moreover, the Party's rhetoric changed in this period from an understanding that socialism needed to be built, to one of having already attained such a system.

True enough, but it is important to understand that the domination of the USSR by the bureaucracy was not a post-war phenomena. Rather it has occurred as early as 1924 with the seeds for it being sown well before that. By the time of the Spanish civil war, the bureaucracy was consciously seeking to stifle revolutionary moments abroad in order to pacify the proletariat at home and used the false doctrines of socialism in one country and the Economist-Menshevik two-stage theory to do so- the purges were also a part of this effort to pacify the Soviet working class and solidify the rule of the bureaucracy, with all the main old Bolsheviks being imprisoned/executed/assassinated/marginalized they essentially amounted to a one-sided civil war against the party of Lenin.

Marx and Engels said, how can socialism arise out of a stage in which capitalism does not exist?

It can't on a world scale. Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolshevik leaders understood that which is why the laid such stress in the necessity of a world revolution. They all understand that the Russian empire was not ready for socialism and that the first tasks of the revolution were bourgeois democratic tasks. However as both Marx and Trotsky noted, in the theory of permanent revolution, the Russian bourgeois was not a revolutionary class. The proletariat did in fact take power in Russia in 1917 and was drawn into beginning the task of the socialist reconstruction of society- it will be so drawn whenever it takes power- but could not maintain political power in the conditions of backwardness and isolation foisted upon it.

We are left with one conclusion: the USSR was fatally stunted by the conditions from which it arose; while it is possible that later nomenklatura, in the eras of Stalin (post-1950), Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. could have saved it be implementing a true Soviet Republic, but it was not in the interests of these bureaucracies to do so. Thus, it seems that the failure can not necessarily be pinned upon any one ideological fault, or any individual, or on economic stagnation, socialism, or a Vanguard Party, but upon the lack of capitalism in the society from which socialism arose.

Your analysis is correct but one sided. You correctly point to the conditions of terrible backwardness and feudal nature of Tsarist society as a major factor in understand the failure of the Soviet experiment, but fail to note how widespread poverty, the effects of the civil war and WW1, and most importantly the international betrayal of social democracy conditioned this failure.

However, now most of the world is either in a stage of capitalism, or in fledgling capitalism, the proletariat is large, it is largely literate, etc. The conditions exist now for socialism to arise, be it in the West, or in the East.

The world as a whole was ready of socialism in 1917, the problem was that the revolution remained isolated in backward Russia due to the betrayals of international social democracy in the 2nd International and the ultimately the theoretical helplessness of Stalin and the reactionary role played by the Thermidorian bureaucracy on a world scale.

1) I just felt that, in terms of the semantics, the terms were inaccurate, and thus prone to misunderstanding. This is up for debate, as you pointed out; however, it was more just a clarification for the terms I tend to use on the forum to describe the Eastern Bloc.

2) I mostly agree with that analysis (this is in reference to the part containing the criticism of the focus on the Post-War period); however, I think it also has to be remembered that they were already preparing for war with the capitalist powers (Stalin mentioned that "we must make good on this [technology] gap in ten years time, or they will crush us" in 1931), so a focus primarily on internal modernization and containing the fledgling fascist states instead of on spreading the revolution is (at least partially) understandable. However, after this threat had passed, and the USSR had rebuilt from the war (probably in the era of 1949-1951), there can absolutely be no excuse for continuing to follow such a trend.

3) But the USSR had to modernize first to be able to export revolution effectively, so as to be able to stand up to the backlash of the capitalist powers against it; this is evidenced by the failure in Poland.

4) True, I should have mentioned those.

Also, sorry for the late reply, I was on a skype call.

[The balkens]

Very good analysis, UMN. I'm very impressed.

[United Marxist Nations]

Very good analysis, UMN. I'm very impressed.

Thank you.

[Atlanticatia]

A. The capitalist phase before Socialism, especially in the USSR, China, and Eastern Europe, was practically skipped. People like Lenin simply didn't give the capitalist phase enough time.

Can a socialist or communist explain how the ideal capitalist phase before socialism should be? How does it work?

(It's always confused me.)

[Trygg]

workers of the world unite blah blah

Because getting fucked like a prison bitch is so much better.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

workers of the world unite blah blah

Because getting fucked like a prison bitch is so much better.

mm kinky

maybe it is..

[4years]

I mostly agree with that analysis (this is in reference to the part containing the criticism of the focus on the Post-War period); however, I think it also has to be remembered that they were already preparing for war with the capitalist powers (Stalin mentioned that "we must make good on this [technology] gap in ten years time, or they will crush us" in 1931), so a focus primarily on internal modernization and containing the fledgling fascist states instead of on spreading the revolution is (at least partially) understandable. However, after this threat had passed, and the USSR had rebuilt from the war (probably in the era of 1949-1951), there can absolutely be no excuse for continuing to follow such a trend.

Yet it was the bureaucracy and the so-called theories it produced that did the most to allow fascism to become as dangerous as it did. The theory of social fascism, for example, was nothing more than an invitation for Hitler to take power and the bureaucracy's bumbling did much to impede the German CP from successfully taking power when it had the chance in 1923. Similarly the ridiculous purges that the bureaucracy carried out against the Bolshevik party did much to disorganize and demoralize the country making fascism appear a greater threat then it otherwise would have been; Hitler, if memory serves, sited the military purge as one of the reasons he felt he could invade Russia and win ("they have no good generals"). Furthermore the bureaucracy was a cancer on the Soviet economy weakening it and engaging in absurd twists, turns, and adventures that did a lot to harm the economy.

But the USSR had to modernize first to be able to export revolution effectively, so as to be able to stand up to the backlash of the capitalist powers against it; this is evidenced by the failure in Poland.

The revolution exports itself, it does not need to be exported by force of arms. Germany for instance would have become socialist in 1918-1919 if not for the betrayal of the social democratic leaders. China in 1925-1927, if not for the false theory of two-stages that the bureaucracy in the USSR forced on the young CCP. The British general strike was in 1926 and could easily have led to revolution if it had a serious left-wing leadership. The Spanish civil war was began in 1936 and again it was the lunacy of the two-stage theory combined with the bureaucracy's determination to prevent a socialist revolution in Spain that led that into defeat.

Remove the damaging influence of the bureaucratic caste and repulsive features of the Proletarian Bonapartist state and negate the harmful effects of the absurd theories promoted by the bureaucracy using its usurped authority from the revolution and control of the Comintern and you have the world revolution ripe for the taking. Stalin's theoretical helplessness hardly helped matters and did much to make them worse simply because he allowed himself- unknowingly, as he did most things- to become the mouthpiece of and arbitrator for the bureaucracy.