Communism and Socialism megathread

[Draakonite]

Saying that the Soviet union was capitalist because it was state capitalist, might be no better than saying that it was socialist because it had socialist in its name...

lolwut?

About the whole private ownership thing.

[United Marxist Nations]

Not adding in China (though, more of a derivitive and not actually Marxism-Leninism), Vietnam, or the Eastern Bloc?

China wasn't M-L, and unless you can find 337 million people living in the Eastern Bloc I won't consider it necessary to add them.

China disagreed (though I hold that China rejected M-L, it still considered itself such), and the non-USSR European Eastern Bloc had a population of 98,376,192 (circa 1950, anyway, it got bigger). This is not a negligible number and should be added to the USSR's population to get M-L numbers., as should the populations of the other Soviet aligned states. As for in around the time you are talking about (the end of the Cold War) the population would have been 112,167,496; added to the USSR's total, 405,167,496. Again, not a negligible number, especially when you consider the other pro-Soviet states and states that considered themselves M-L.

[Old Tyrannia]

Capitalism requires the private ownership of the means of production. This was not the case in the USSR, where the means of production were communally owned and operated by the State. Therefore, the USSR is an example of a socialist state, even if most modern socialists criticise the actual form of socialism the USSR possessed.

Are you not aware of state capitalism?

I am aware of state capitalism. The USSR was not state capitalist; its economic system was quite distinct from that of the contemporary People's Republic of China.

[Arkolon]

China wasn't M-L, and unless you can find 337 million people living in the Eastern Bloc I won't consider it necessary to add them.

China disagreed (though I hold that China rejected M-L, it still considered itself such), and the non-USSR European Eastern Bloc had a population of 98,376,192 (circa 1950, anyway, it got bigger). This is not a negligible number and should be added to the USSR's population to get M-L numbers., as should the populations of the other Soviet aligned states. As for in around the time you are talking about (the end of the Cold War) the population would have been 112,167,496; added to the USSR's total, 405,167,496. Again, not a negligible number, especially when you consider the other pro-Soviet states and states that considered themselves M-L.

OK, 630 vs 405, my bad. Not that that, you know, changes much.

[Conscentia]

Are you not aware of state capitalism?

I am aware of state capitalism. The USSR was not state capitalist; its economic system was quite distinct from that of the contemporary People's Republic of China.

The contemporary PRC is a mixed economy, combining state capitalism with market capitalism.

[United Marxist Nations]

I am aware of state capitalism. The USSR was not state capitalist; its economic system was quite distinct from that of the contemporary People's Republic of China.

The contemporary PRC is a mixed economy, combining state capitalism with market capitalism.

That still would not explain how the USSR would be state capitalist. Jinwoy's assessment of the Degenerated Workers' State is more accurate. The USSR did not have private ownership, and the means of production were not used for capital accumulation.

[Conscentia]

The contemporary PRC is a mixed economy, combining state capitalism with market capitalism.

That still would not explain how the USSR would be state capitalist. Jinwoy's assessment of the Degenerated Workers' State is more accurate. The USSR did not have private ownership, and the means of production were not used for capital accumulation.

The Soviet ruling class sure did accumulate a lot for people not accumulating.
And central management is central management.

[Mongolian Liberty States]

Debout le damne da la terre, debout le forçats da la faim.

[United Marxist Nations]

That still would not explain how the USSR would be state capitalist. Jinwoy's assessment of the Degenerated Workers' State is more accurate. The USSR did not have private ownership, and the means of production were not used for capital accumulation.

The Soviet ruling class sure did accumulate a lot for people not accumulating.
And central management is central management.

What did they accumulate? They couldn't have accumulated many more roubles, as roubles had limited use; as Wiki points out:

The economy of the Soviet Union was a government-controlled planned economy, where the government controlled prices and the exchange of currency. Thus, its role was unlike that of a currency in a market economy, because distribution of goods was controlled by other mechanisms than currency, such as centrally planned quotas, queuing or blat. Only a limited set of products could be freely bought, thus the ruble had a role similar to trading stamps or food stamps. The currency was not internationally exchangeable and its export was illegal. The sudden transformation from a Soviet "non-currency" into a market currency contributed to the economic hardship following the collapse of the Soviet planned economy.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble#Economic_role

So, what were they accumulating? They had complete and total control over distribution of resources, so they wouldn't have to accumulate anything. They could live very lavish lifestyles without much accumulation at all.

[Kubra]

That still would not explain how the USSR would be state capitalist. Jinwoy's assessment of the Degenerated Workers' State is more accurate. The USSR did not have private ownership, and the means of production were not used for capital accumulation.

The Soviet ruling class sure did accumulate a lot for people not accumulating.
And central management is central management.

having more shiny things than the underclass =/= access to capital and capital ownership
If party members str8 up owned capital they'd probably have had a lot more shiny things

The contemporary PRC is a mixed economy, combining state capitalism with market capitalism.

That still would not explain how the USSR would be state capitalist. Jinwoy's assessment of the Degenerated Workers' State is more accurate. The USSR did not have private ownership, and the means of production were not used for capital accumulation.

the cliffite idea of state capitalism (where the term in relation to the soviet economy under stalin and his successors originates) refers to the retention of capitalist value laws and the wage-labour as a commodity, and with capital accumulation being the monopoly of the state, rather than of individuals, extracted surplus value finding its realization through exchange on the world market.
not a fan of the state capitalist thesis tho

[The New Sea Territory]

Capitalism requires the private ownership of the means of production. This was not the case in the USSR, where the means of production were communally owned and operated by the State. Therefore, the USSR is an example of a socialist state, even if most modern socialists criticise the actual form of socialism the USSR possessed.

"Communal" =/= "Social"

[The New Sea Territory]

Are you not aware of state capitalism?

I am aware of state capitalism. The USSR was not state capitalist; its economic system was quite distinct from that of the contemporary People's Republic of China.

Contemporary PRC isn't state capitalist.

The USSR was, from roughly 1917-1928, a state capitalist nation. Stalin abolished the NEP and proceeded into what Trotsky would call the "Degenerated Workers' State".

[New Terricon]

China wasn't M-L, and unless you can find 337 million people living in the Eastern Bloc I won't consider it necessary to add them.

China disagreed (though I hold that China rejected M-L, it still considered itself such), and the non-USSR European Eastern Bloc had a population of 98,376,192 (circa 1950, anyway, it got bigger). This is not a negligible number and should be added to the USSR's population to get M-L numbers., as should the populations of the other Soviet aligned states. As for in around the time you are talking about (the end of the Cold War) the population would have been 112,167,496; added to the USSR's total, 405,167,496. Again, not a negligible number, especially when you consider the other pro-Soviet states and states that considered themselves M-L.

Also tacking on India who maintained a very pro-Soviet government despite being officially a republic for the Cold War. In which case you could tack on the number of Indians that supported the Soviet Union or those who were Marxist-Leninists themselves. All the African countries that had Marxist-Leninist governments (Some of which were in the Warsaw Pact). And in general, the millions of other Marxist-Leninists that lead the Communist movement across Latin America.
This puts us at... I don't even know anymore vs. 630 million.

[Wallenburg]

We are Wall Street. You will be exploited. Resistance is futile.

[Shigiel]

Calling the USSR a "degenerated workers' state" ignores the fact that it, erm, wasn't a workers' state. Sure, the means of production were nationalised, but the state was not controlled by the workers. It was controlled by a new class of bureaucrats that arose from a party that was once the political organisation of the Russian proletariat, but then grew detached from them. There was also generalised commodity production and the NEP, which I don't even need to elaborate on, and by the time the NEP ended, the world revolution had failed, the Comintern was full of puppets and the Russian revolution was therefore doomed. So it was pretty capitalist.

[United Marxist Nations]

Calling the USSR a "degenerated workers' state" ignores the fact that it, erm, wasn't a workers' state. Sure, the means of production were nationalised, but the state was not controlled by the workers. It was controlled by a new class of bureaucrats that arose from a party that was once the political organisation of the Russian proletariat, but then grew detached from them. There was also generalised commodity production and the NEP, which I don't even need to elaborate on, and by the time the NEP ended, the world revolution had failed, the Comintern was full of puppets and the Russian revolution was therefore doomed. So it was pretty capitalist.

It can't be capitalist because of the aforementioned lack of private ownership and no capital accumulation, which are the hallmarks of capitalism.

I agree it wasn't a workers' state; there have been other names for it; I use "proto-Socialist", I've seen 4Years call it a "proletariat-Bonapartism", and Trotsky called i the Degenerated Workers' State. The reasons for most using the last of these is that everyone knows what it is talking about.

[Geilinor]

I am aware of state capitalism. The USSR was not state capitalist; its economic system was quite distinct from that of the contemporary People's Republic of China.

Contemporary PRC isn't state capitalist.

The USSR was, from roughly 1917-1928, a state capitalist nation. Stalin abolished the NEP and proceeded into what Trotsky would call the "Degenerated Workers' State".

The "Degenerated Workers' State" being a form of socialism.

[Berkhamsted]

Contemporary PRC isn't state capitalist.

The USSR was, from roughly 1917-1928, a state capitalist nation. Stalin abolished the NEP and proceeded into what Trotsky would call the "Degenerated Workers' State".

The "Degenerated Workers' State" being a form of socialism.

Trotsky said that a degenerated workers state was between capitalism and socialism (but closer to capitalism) and that it would eventually give way to either one or the other. So no, the degenerated workers state is not a form of socialism.

[Berkhamsted]

Calling the USSR a "degenerated workers' state" ignores the fact that it, erm, wasn't a workers' state. Sure, the means of production were nationalised, but the state was not controlled by the workers. It was controlled by a new class of bureaucrats that arose from a party that was once the political organisation of the Russian proletariat, but then grew detached from them.

The situation which you describe here is pretty much what a degenerated workers states is.

[Constantinopolis]

The "Degenerated Workers' State" being a form of socialism.

Trotsky said that a degenerated workers state was between capitalism and socialism (but closer to capitalism) and that it would eventually give way to either one or the other. So no, the degenerated workers state is not a form of socialism.

Neither of you are really correct. We must distinguish between the political system (i.e. the state) and the economic system (or the "mode of production", in Marxist terminology).

For example, capitalism (an economic system) can be combined with a wide variety of political systems: parliamentary democracies, military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, constitutional monarchies, absolute monarchies and so on. Some of these are more suitable for capitalism than others. Trying to combine capitalism with absolute monarchy, for example, almost never works well. It typically results in an intense power struggle between the monarch and the rising capitalists - a struggle which sometimes breaks out into open revolution - and which can only be ended by either getting rid of capitalism or getting rid of the absolutist political system.

Trotsky argued that the USSR was basically the socialist version of that. A society whose economic system was indeed socialist, but which had an oppressive political system that was not suitable for socialism. The term "degenerated workers' state" refers to the political system in question. That's why the words "workers' state" are in there - to remind us that we're talking about the Soviet form of government in particular, not the economic system or society in general.

Thus, in Trotsky's view, the Soviet Union was a socialist society ruled by a degenerated workers' state instead of by a real proletarian democracy.

And he argued that this situation was inherently unstable. Sooner or later, either the economic system would have to change (i.e. by ending socialism in the USSR), or the political system would have to change. Or both.

[Berkhamsted]

The "Degenerated Workers' State" being a form of socialism.

Trotsky said that a degenerated workers state was between capitalism and socialism (but closer to capitalism) and that it would eventually give way to either one or the other. So no, the degenerated workers state is not a form of socialism.

Neither of you are really correct. We must distinguish between the political system (i.e. the state) and the economic system (or the "mode of production", in Marxist terminology).

For example, capitalism (an economic system) can be combined with a wide variety of political systems: parliamentary democracies, military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, constitutional monarchies, absolute monarchies and so on. Some of these are more suitable for capitalism than others. Trying to combine capitalism with absolute monarchy, for example, almost never works well. It typically results in an intense power struggle between the monarch and the rising capitalists - a struggle which sometimes breaks out into open revolution - and which can only be ended by either getting rid of capitalism or getting rid of the absolutist political system.

Trotsky argued that the USSR was basically the socialist version of that. A society whose economic system was indeed socialist, but which had an oppressive political system that was not suitable for socialism. The term "degenerated workers' state" refers to the political system in question. That's why the words "workers' state" are in there - to remind us that we're talking about the Soviet form of government in particular, not the economic system or society in general.

Thus, in Trotsky's view, the Soviet Union was a socialist society ruled by a degenerated workers' state instead of by a real proletarian democracy.

And he argued that this situation was inherently unstable. Sooner or later, either the economic system would have to change (i.e. by ending socialism in the USSR), or the political system would have to change. Or both.

Trotsky never argued Stalin's Soviet Union was legitimately socialist. The so called 'bureaucratic elite' who made up the state also controlled production.

[Constantinopolis]

Trotsky never argued Stalin's Soviet Union was legitimately socialist. The so called 'bureaucratic elite' who made up the state also controlled production.

Trotsky wasn't entirely clear on this, but when he accused Stalin's Soviet Union of not being fully socialist, his accusation was based on the USSR's economic under-development, not on the existence of a bureaucratic elite or any other government-related issues.

For example, this is what Trotsky wrote in 1936 in "The Revolution Betrayed" (link):

Marx named this first stage of the new society “the lowest stage of communism”, in distinction from the highest, where together with the last phantoms of want material inequality will disappear. In this sense socialism and communism are frequently contrasted as the lower and higher stages of the new society. “We have not yet, of course, complete communism,” reads the present official Soviet doctrine, “but we have already achieved socialism – that is, the lowest stage of communism.” In proof of this, they adduce the dominance of the state trusts in industry, the collective farms in agriculture, the state and co-operative enterprises in commerce. At first glance this gives a complete correspondence with the a priori – and therefore hypothetical – scheme of Marx. But it is exactly for the Marxist that this question is not exhausted by a consideration of forms of property regardless of the achieved productivity of labor. By the lowest stage of communism Marx meant, at any rate, a society which from the very beginning stands higher in its economic development than the most advanced capitalism. Theoretically such a conception is flawless, for taken on a world scale communism, even in its first incipient stage, means a higher level of development that that of bourgeois society. Moreover, Marx expected that the Frenchman would begin the social revolution, the German continue it, the Englishman finish it; and as to the Russian, Marx left him far in the rear. But this conceptual order was upset by the facts. Whoever tries now mechanically to apply the universal historic conception of Marx to the particular case of the Soviet Union at the given stage of its development, will be entangled at once in hopeless contradictions.

Russia was not the strongest, but the weakest link in the chain of capitalism. The present Soviet Union does not stand above the world level of economy, but is only trying to catch up to the capitalist countries. If Marx called that society which was to be formed upon the basis of a socialization of the productive forces of the most advanced capitalism of its epoch, the lowest stage of communism, then this designation obviously does not apply to the Soviet Union, which is still today considerably poorer in technique, culture and the good things of life than the capitalist countries. It would be truer, therefore, to name the present Soviet regime in all its contradictoriness, not a socialist regime, but a preparatory regime transitional from capitalism to socialism.

In other words, Trotsky argues here that socialism (or "the lower stage of communism" as Marx called it) requires not only a planned economy and public ownership of the means of production and so on, but also a high standard of living. And since Stalin's USSR did not provide a high standard of living, it was not (yet) socialist, but merely transitioning from capitalism to socialism.

Notice that the issue of dictatorship, or the existence of the Stalinist bureaucratic elite, has nothing to do with the definition of socialism provided by Trotsky here. In Trotsky's view, if the USSR was not socialist, then it was not socialist because Soviet workers and peasants were poor, not because the state was ruled by a bureaucratic elite.

For the record, my opinion is that Trotsky is being ridiculous here (and I say this even though I greatly admire him and agree with most of his views). You can't make a high standard of living part of the definition of the economic system you're trying to achieve. That's just silly. It's as if a right-winger said that capitalism has to be fun, and if it's not fun then it's not real capitalism.

[Threlizdun]

Calling the USSR a "degenerated workers' state" ignores the fact that it, erm, wasn't a workers' state. Sure, the means of production were nationalised, but the state was not controlled by the workers. It was controlled by a new class of bureaucrats that arose from a party that was once the political organisation of the Russian proletariat, but then grew detached from them. There was also generalised commodity production and the NEP, which I don't even need to elaborate on, and by the time the NEP ended, the world revolution had failed, the Comintern was full of puppets and the Russian revolution was therefore doomed. So it was pretty capitalist.

It can't be capitalist because of the aforementioned lack of private ownership and no capital accumulation, which are the hallmarks of capitalism.

I agree it wasn't a workers' state; there have been other names for it; I use "proto-Socialist", I've seen 4Years call it a "proletariat-Bonapartism", and Trotsky called i the Degenerated Workers' State. The reasons for most using the last of these is that everyone knows what it is talking about.

It was capitalist, merely state capitalist. The means of production were owned be the elite class of party officials and the proletariat labored for them. Proto-socialist implies that it had any socialist elements whatsoever, which it didn't. What it represented was perhaps the greatest height of capitalism. It was capitalism that made use of socialist rhetoric to mask the oppression of the workers. Marx talked in great detail about the use of ideology by the ruling class to justify the oppression of the working class, and the Soviet Union used a perversion of Marx's work as an ideological justification for their continued oppression of the proletariat. Leninism, like fascism, served as a doctrine to try to placate the workers to ensure that capitalism never fell.

[Berkhamsted]

It would be truer, therefore, to name the present Soviet regime in all its contradictoriness, not a socialist regime, but a preparatory regime transitional from capitalism to socialism.

Trotsky said that a degenerated workers state was between capitalism and socialism (but closer to capitalism) and that it would eventually give way to either one or the other. So no, the degenerated workers state is not a form of socialism.

I don't think I have misrepresented Trotsky's position on the issue at all.

[Constantinopolis]

It would be truer, therefore, to name the present Soviet regime in all its contradictoriness, not a socialist regime, but a preparatory regime transitional from capitalism to socialism.

Trotsky said that a degenerated workers state was between capitalism and socialism (but closer to capitalism) and that it would eventually give way to either one or the other. So no, the degenerated workers state is not a form of socialism.

I don't think I have misrepresented Trotsky's position on the issue at all.

You have misrepresented his position by using the term "degenerated workers' state" to refer to the Soviet economy and society, whereas Trotsky used it to refer strictly to the Soviet government.

But other than that, fair enough, I concede that "the USSR was between capitalism and socialism" is indeed an accurate description of Trotsky's position.

I happen to disagree with that position, but this is a different issue.