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.
-Dictatorship of the Proletariat (also will be called State Socialism): A state controlled by the proletariat.
-Proto-Socialism: A stage with some aspects of socialism, but lacking sufficient workers' control of the state.
Now, to begin.
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. So, what can this be called? On paper, the government of the USSR had the potential to be controlled by the proletariat in structure, but this did not happen. Thus, it can be said that the USSR featured some aspects of socialism, workers' councils did exist, and de jure (though not de facto) power to elect representatives. A right to work, a right to healthcare were guaranteed. Housing and higher education were heavily subsidized (and sometimes guaranteed), and workers were largely provided with the value of their labor (though with administrative and maintenance costs taken out, as predicted by Marx).
So, we come to the conclusion that the USSR caught perpetually in the transition to industrial capitalism. What was the cause of this? Why, if (to use Stalin's words) the first "steps toward socialism" were taken, did the USSR stop halfway through and sit upon the bench? While most are in agreement that, in the lead-up to the Second World War, taking the chance to reduce the efficiency with which the country could wage war by instituting socialist elections would have been too risky (on top of the already risky Great Purge). However, once the country had recovered from the economic blow delivered by the War, it appears the USSR would have been able to make the leap into state socialism without much difficulty. So, why did the Vanguard Party not do this?
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.
But the Vanguard Party of the Proletariat is supposed to be just that: of the Proletariat, that is, made up of those proletarians helping to use their knowledge of Marxism-Leninism to spread such throughout the proletariat. So, to examine why it was the Vanguard Party failed, it is not to look at the situation within the USSR, but instead at that of the Russian Empire from which it sprouted. Industry and literacy were lacking, there was a distinct lack of a proletariat to form and join the Vanguard Party of the Proletariat. Industrial capitalism had not yet formed in the Russian Empire, so then, as Marx and Engels said, how can socialism arise out of a stage in which capitalism does not exist?
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.
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.
- J. S. Stew. (UMN)
So, NSG (and particularly communists and socialists of NSG), what of this analysis?
If you quote the OP, spoiler it!
