NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a thought here, but do any socialists here feel that a big reason in the failure of the Soviet bloc experiment was the transition from capitalism (so the perspective of the people) and how quick it was? Marx talked a little about how communism wouldn't work straight from a capitalist state, and many have wrote about this. My argument is that a populace coming straight from a capitalist culture and society, so quickly via a revolution, didn't have time to adapt to this new culture and method of social organization.

I think this also goes to that the theory of productive forces has been misinterpreted, Mao and others thought it was essentially a quick-fix for industrialization, and the failures of statist rigid organization of local economies had it's disastrous impact of the Great Leap Forward, and Stalin's 5-year industrialization of Russia (although successful and motivated by a need to keep up with Germany) certainly had it's unacceptable cost. People can say 'each according to their needs' but do they really understand it? I think not, not in practical terms anyway, it's incredibly hard to break the culture of capital, that is accumulation of resources rather than distribution based on need. This is evident also in the USSR retaining a monetary system, which was justified in that in place of a massive bookkeeping system was the only method for cataloging labor value.

Marx himself denounced this earlier, and I think that abolition of money markets into autonomous local economies is generally the answer for this. I think renewable power is one answer is this, because giving autonomous power for households and individuals without dependence on the centralized urban powergrid regime is important. I think other modern technologies also hold the key to true socialism and a gradual shift from the dependence to independence culture. Of course at the same time as economic autonomy, political autonomy must also parallel this development. I think it also an important step if we are to beat Global Warming and survive as a society not based on exploitation (both of environmental and human resources), but instead on on true democracy.

Pfft, your title should be sued for false advertising. You're just reheating the same tired old arguments.

In my signature you'll find a link. It's the most plausible description of life under "to each according to his need" I have seen.

Ah, might I point out that Imperial Russia was certainly not a capitalist society, rather an incredibly corrupt feudal one where the aristocrats held power, not private interests.

Just a thought here, but do any socialists here feel that a big reason in the failure of the Soviet bloc experiment was the transition from capitalism (so the perspective of the people) and how quick it was? Marx talked a little about how communism wouldn't work straight from a capitalist state, and many have wrote about this. My argument is that a populace coming straight from a capitalist culture and society, so quickly via a revolution, didn't have time to adapt to this new culture and method of social organization.


I actually half agree. But I wouldn't say it was from capitalism, but from a feudalist autocracy with very a vague capitalist style economy. Trouble is the people did not want private ownership at all, and there's not much you can do about that. Although this is only a small reason why the Soviet Union was a massive failure.

Well, I think there were plenty of reasons the USSR didn't work, although I don't think that the transition from capitalism to communism was one of them. Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia were relatively advanced capitalist states (albeit ones ravaged by war - but any revolution will likely do that anyway) and they went the way of the USSR too.

Untimately, I think the USSR collapsed because 1) it commanded little/no love from its people, both because it was a corrupt dictatorship, and because it was Russian dominated over SSRs that, by the end of USSR's lifetyle, wanted self-determination; and 2) its economy was incapable of giving its people a quality of life that could rival the west.

Had the USSR been governed as it was supposed to at the start of the Russian Revolution, it might have had a fighting chance of surviving by evolving into some form of parliamentary democracy-ish system, but of course, the ruling party was not prepared to let go of power.

Well, I think there were plenty of reasons the USSR didn't work, although I don't think that the transition from capitalism to communism was one of them. Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia were relatively advanced capitalist states (albeit ones ravaged by war - but any revolution will likely do that anyway) and they went the way of the USSR too.

Untimately, I think the USSR collapsed because 1) it commanded little/no love from its people, both because it was a corrupt dictatorship, and because it was Russian dominated over SSRs that, by the end of USSR's lifetyle, wanted self-determination; and 2) its economy was incapable of giving its people a quality of life that could rival the west.

Had the USSR been governed as it was supposed to at the start of the Russian Revolution, it might have had a fighting chance of surviving by evolving into some form of parliamentary democracy-ish system, but of course, the ruling party was not prepared to let go of power.

Hell, they declared themselves the winner without even leading the vote count, IIRC.

The problem lies in bloody Marxists more than anything else.

"Quick, let's try to fulfil this bullshit pseudo-religion before erm bourgeois reactionaries or something stop us turning this paradise for those at the top to a different paradise for a different group at the top!"

Hell, they declared themselves the winner without even leading the vote count, IIRC.
Your kinda ignoring the fact that communism is pure democracy, where economic and political power is distributed proportionately based on it's egalitarian notion. The idea that a democracy which is about popular majoritarianism, should allow parties which are about minority rule is contradictory. For the most part the Soviet system Lenin developed was quite democratic, it's wasn't like he was alive to see it's institutions destroyed and made into an oligarchy by Stalin, although he did warn about it.

Your kinda ignoring the fact that communism is pure democracy, where economic and political power is distributed proportionately based on it's egalitarian notion. The idea that a democracy which is about popular majoritarianism, should allow parties which are about minority rule is contradictory. For the most part the Soviet system Lenin developed was quite democratic, it's wasn't like he was alive to see it's institutions destroyed and made into an oligarchy by Stalin, although he did warn about it.
The early Soviet Union was many things, but it wasn't any kind of pure democracy. The local soviets and congress of soviets were, by the time of the second congress, effectively run by and as an organ of the Bolsheviks (who, when push came to shove in a popular election, only got a quarter of the popular vote), not the people. The very system was designed to ensure that only Bolsheviks and their supporters could take part in it, by a mixture of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and malapportionment against rural areas, which remained closer towards a different socialist/social democratic political party.

Of course, this situation could well have been a result of two revolutions, a war and then a civil war as much as anything else, but Lenin was well prepared to use force to dissolve the Constituent Assembly when the resulkts didn't agree with him. It was hardly democratic on any front, even if it commanded more popular support than the undemocratic regimes that precedded it.

Corruption can bring down any government.

The USSR rose entirely out of the circumstance of fuedal Russia, a pre-capitalst, socially backwards state. Marx, himself, stated [of communism in Russia] that is would only be possible if the tide of revolution throught Europe were to result in post-capitalist communist states. In response to the lack of revolutionary fervor in the capitalist world Lenin instituted the NEP to simultaneously emulate capitalism without a historic bloc and instute social democracy. The problem is, when Lenin died Russia was just escaping the famine that resulted from the revolution and WWI. This historical consequence was the fault of the rise of the Stalinist beurocracy.

Your kinda ignoring the fact that communism is pure democracy, where economic and political power is distributed proportionately based on it's egalitarian notion.
Not in practise, it isn't.
The idea that a democracy which is about popular majoritarianism, should allow parties which are about minority rule is contradictory.
Ironically, this is why Lenin shut down the National Assembly and replaced it with the Politburo, which is possibly the best example of minority rule.
For the most part the Soviet system Lenin developed was quite democratic
No it wasn't.
it's wasn't like he was alive to see it's institutions destroyed and made into an oligarchy by Stalin, although he did warn about it.
Shame he didn't just set the CHEKA on Stalin sharpish, instead of asking the Politburo, at the time shitting themselves about Trotsky, to do it.

Just a thought here, but do any socialists here feel that a big reason in the failure of the Soviet bloc experiment was the transition from capitalism (so the perspective of the people) and how quick it was?

My despair with people who considered the deaths of tens of millions of people to be an 'experiment' was one of the factors which caused me to stop identifying myself as a Socialist in the Marxist sense of the word.

I must disagree.

The shift to a socialist economy was NOT overly swift. The system in place at the time of the October Revolution was only a fledgling form of capitalism, already shattered by the events of WWI; this destruction of the previous system was continued by the events of the Intervention and Civil War. By the time Lenin and his team were able to start building, you had a more or less blank slate.

Lenin himself realised that his initial policies were not working; this prompted the change from War Communism to the New Economic Policy. The NEP, uniquely among Soviet economic policies, worked as advertised. It encouraged thrift and productivity while maintaining the socialist ideal of providing for the common good and aiding those who needed it.

The true bane of socialism in the Soviet Union has a name: Josef Stalin. By imposing his will upon the state, he made himself far more of an autocrat than any Tsar could have hoped to be; and while in Lenin's time the constitution of the Soviet Union had at least been given lip service (if no real authority), in Stalin's time and after it was simply ignored entirely. By the fifth year of Stalin's reign, the Soviet Union was no more socialist than the United States was - it was simply a dictatorship with delusions of grandeur.

The people of Eastern Europe didn't turn against socialism in 1990. They'd never experienced that. They turned against a series of vicious and violent dictatorships that had assumed control over their lives and said "enough". Then they made it stick.

Socialism is a good thing. It has moderated the excesses of unrestrained capitalism, and given a greater voice to the populace. In the process, it has shown that restrained, controlled capitalism is far more productive and positive in nature than the Laissez-Faire variety - and that, conversely, a certain amount of free will and free action is necessary for an economy to survive. It's silly to look for why it failed - more important, in what ways did it succeed? THOSE are the lessons we need to learn.

Lenin himself realised that his initial policies were not working; this prompted the change from War Communism

War Communism majorly fucked up Russia anyway, and it never fully recovered.


The NEP, uniquely among Soviet economic policies, worked as advertised. It encouraged thrift and productivity while maintaining the socialist ideal of providing for the common good and aiding those who needed it.


Hardly. It was basically capitalism but with high profit tax's, it was ok for Russian standards but still pretty bad compared the west. There was very little about the NEP that could be called socialist, but such measures only impeded the economy and were only there to stop the Bolsheviks from looking like complete hypocrites.

Hardly. It was basically capitalism but with high profit tax's, it was ok for Russian standards but still pretty bad compared the west. There was very little about the NEP that could be called socialist, but such measures only impeded the economy and were only there to stop the Bolsheviks from looking like complete hypocrites.

Yet - it worked. People saw a profit from their labor. The Ruble started to have value again. Infrastructure was repaired and modernised, without the staggering waste and human cost of the Five-Year Plans.

I'm no big fan of Lenin, Trotsky and company, but give the devils their due - this one was actually working.

I must disagree.



Socialism is a good thing. It has moderated the excesses of unrestrained capitalism, and given a greater voice to the populace. In the process, it has shown that restrained, controlled capitalism is far more productive and positive in nature than the Laissez-Faire variety - and that, conversely, a certain amount of free will and free action is necessary for an economy to survive. It's silly to look for why it failed - more important, in what ways did it succeed? THOSE are the lessons we need to learn.

I wouldn't go so far as to criticize Laissez-Faire. I would instead criticize those who have poorly interpretted Adam Smith's ideals. This perversion of his ideas are eerily similar to the perversion of Marx's.

Your kinda ignoring the fact that communism is pure democracy, where economic and political power is distributed proportionately based on it's egalitarian notion.You're kinda ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't communist.

Russia didn't change from capitalist to communist. it was more feudalist than anything else.

Yet - it worked. People saw a profit from their labor. The Ruble started to have value again. Infrastructure was repaired and modernised, without the staggering waste and human cost of the Five-Year Plans.

I'm no big fan of Lenin, Trotsky and company, but give the devils their due - this one was actually working.

Yeah it worked. This may sound immature but I believe it only worked because of the capitalist element, if it completely got rid of profit tax's etc.. it would have worked even better.

Just a thought here, but do any socialists here feel that a big reason in the failure of the Soviet bloc experiment was the transition from capitalism (so the perspective of the people) and how quick it was? Marx talked a little about how communism wouldn't work straight from a capitalist state, and many have wrote about this. My argument is that a populace coming straight from a capitalist culture and society, so quickly via a revolution, didn't have time to adapt to this new culture and method of social organization.

You know, this completely misses the issue. Capitalism hardly had begun in the autocratic feudal order of Russia. To talk about attitudes and acculturization being the problem will ignore some very important flaws in both Orthodox Marxism and Leninism, but I'll address that later.

I think this also goes to that the theory of productive forces has been misinterpreted, Mao and others thought it was essentially a quick-fix for industrialization, and the failures of statist rigid organization of local economies had it's disastrous impact of the Great Leap Forward, and Stalin's 5-year industrialization of Russia (although successful and motivated by a need to keep up with Germany) certainly had it's unacceptable cost. People can say 'each according to their needs' but do they really understand it? I think not, not in practical terms anyway, it's incredibly hard to break the culture of capital, that is accumulation of resources rather than distribution based on need. This is evident also in the USSR retaining a monetary system, which was justified in that in place of a massive bookkeeping system was the only method for cataloging labor value.

The problem is something much more fundamental, and it lies deep in the core of Marxist theory. The historical materialist explanation of transition from capitalism to socialism was reasoned by analogy to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This same dialectic that explained how one class society transformed into another class society is now being used to describe how a class society can transform into a classless society.

This is where Marxism hits a brick wall. The bourgeoisie, who brought about the transition to capitalism, were completely independent from both the serfs and the seigniors of feudalism. Furthermore, they reached economic and social ascendancy long before they conquered political power. Such will not work for the proletariat.

Under capitalism, the divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as defined by the property contract, sets them up in a dualist dichotomy. One class cannot exist without the existence of the other. Without workers, the bourgeoisie would cease to be the bourgeoisie, as the proletariat would cease to be the proletariat without the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, the factory system that Marx lauded for "disciplining the proletariat" will not bring about class conciousness. The factory system certainly does discipline the proletariat; it does so in a thoroughly bourgeois fashion.

Not only is the proletariat culturally so closely aligned to the bourgeoisie as to become a crude caricature of bourgeois value, it's political ascendancy as a class cannot dissolve class divisions without not only addressing the economic and social domination, but also the cultural values that it has become heir to.

To add to this mess, Marx would have the worker's organize political parties, and stand in election for parliament, not realizing that transplanting the already colonized workers into the thoroughly bourgeois environment of parliament would inevitably bring the worker-representatives into being the heirs of capitalism, as the history of European social democracy so painfully demonstrates.

On top of this, even if the worker's do manage to capture parliament's majority without being transformed into bourgeois degenerates, what then can it do? Marx would have the newly triumphant social democrats centralize the control of all capital, credit and industry in the hands of the state. The state is then to organize "labor and agricultural armies" to facilitate an increase in society's productive capacity.

Not only is this horribly authoritarian, it has also been made largely irrelevant for modern times. Marx, writing in a time of material scarcity, percieved centralism as a motivator to end material scarcity. The development of social democratic state capitalism throughout Europe and the US has largely made this point irrelevant. The technology already exists to make a truly post-scarcity society. Any massively centralized state, controlling the economy through central planning will inevitably serve the interests of the ruling bureaucracy. It will not be in their interests to dispel scarcity and then to whither away as Marx intended.

This massive red bureaucracy, claiming pretenses to socialism, will in the end repeat the history of the Soviet Union. This crude state capitalist monopoly on the very means of life will have the proletariat by the balls, and will squeeze them for all they are worth. The massive state bureaucracy, with its military and claims to "scientific socialism", will vitiate and subvert everything socialism has ever stood for.

Leninism would add to this horror. The vanguard party will even more surely create this horrible state dictatorship. If there is anything socialists should have learned, it is that the State cannot be trusted to represent anything but its own interests. The bureaucracy will not whither away, especially if granted a monopoly on the control of the economy, issuing marching orders to the workers as if they were nothing more than little servos and cogs in some massive machine.

Your kinda ignoring the fact that communism is pure democracy

Pure Democracy? HAHAHAHAHA!! Boy are you a brainwashed twit.

Pure Democracy? HAHAHAHAHA!! Boy are you a brainwashed twit.

Well, actually, according to both Marxists and anarchists, true communism necessarily involves pure democracy. If you would read my post above, you'll see how Marxists fuck up the implementation of that goal.

Well, actually, according to both Marxists and anarchists, true communism necessarily involves pure democracy. If you would read my post above, you'll see how Marxists fuck up the implementation of that goal.

I was laughing that he called the USSR a pure democracy.

I was laughing that he called the USSR a pure democracy.

Yeah, the boy's a bit deluded.

Yeah, the boy's a bit deluded.

Known that for quite sometime.

I was laughing that he called the USSR a pure democracy.
Note also that he reckons that the USSR was a socialist paradise, and people want it back. Note also that he's never been to Russia and asked anyone.

*sighs*