What caused the soviet union to abandon communism?

[RedViper]

One might claim that the USSR was capitalist to the mode of production but leninist to the ideology, how paradoxal this might seem to the casual eye.

Marxism where studied indeed, but this marxism was rather an ideologization of Marx & Engels thoughts, and M&E would not approve of this. There are a lot of marxism:s, some having very little to do with the actuall thoughs of Marx.

Still, even if the goverment claimed to be marxists and anti-capitalists, the mode of production was in fact capitalist.

 

[the_cheat]

Well, Lenin's NEP was capitalism, abeit somewhat restricted. The problem is, I think, that people are trying to come up with one label for the USSR, when it changed hats a number of times, and when many of them haven't actually read the much of theorists they're trying to reference. Marxism-Leninism, as outlined by Lenin, was an attempt to jump-start and accellerate the Marxist progression. At the time of the revolution, the USSR didn't have the correct social conditions, industry, or economic conditions to develop a Marxist communist state. If you read primary sources from various points in the USSR's development, you'll see that leaders, theorists and propagandists (and often, one person fit into all three of these categories), talked a lot about constructing socialism, and not much about having achieved socialism. The planners used a number of tools, of varying efficacy, to try to create the necessary conditions for an actual socialist economy. Lenin allowed for a strong capitalist element, using more carrot than whip in trying to industrialize the country and increase agricultural output, allowing people's personal ambition to power the workplace. Stalin's five-year plans were all whip and no carrot, with state ownership and state-set quotas and production plans, which isn't capitalist, but it isn't Marxist, either - it's quite the opposite of Marxism, actually, considering that much of the point of the Marxist theoretical revolution was for the workers to seize the ownership of the industry in which they work, and the workers had no input in the Stalinist system. Economic policies after Stalin kind of collapse into an ideological muddle, until you get to Gorbachev, who decided that the thing to do was to try to bring back the NEP. Which didn't work out so hot, as the wheels were coming off the Union anyway, and the increased personal economic freedom of NEP became one more factor in fueling the public sense of liberation that contributed to the USSR's collapse.

That's as short and simple an explaination as I can come up with.

 

[the_cheat]

One might claim that the USSR was capitalist to the mode of production but leninist to the ideology, how paradoxal this might seem to the casual eye.

A pithy way of putting it. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I think you're oversimplifying (as I did myself in my previous posts in this thread), but you're essentially correct.

I don't think it's a paradox, though. Leninism was about creating the conditions necessary for communism - he seems to have assumed that once all the conditions were well and totally in place, communism would magically have occurred. Which is a very Marxist way of looking at it. But Lenin considered capitalism to be a tool useful in creating the conditions necessary for communism. So Leninism and capitalism aren't really in conflict, they're just uneasy bedfellows.

 

[the_cheat]

People that were agreeing with you were stating that it was capitalist. Since you were responding to me, I was interested to see how you would respond to them too.

Well, they're less wrong, I guess is the simplest way of putting it. The USSR did have a strong capitalist element to its economy, whereas Marxism was non-existant, except in ideological speechifying - the proletariat never did own the means of production.

Nevertheless, the makings of the Soviet state were inspired by Marxist ideology. Lenin was well within the Marxist idological political camp.
As far as I know, Marxisxm was studied in their schools there, it was advocated as the offiicial position, it was the language of the comrades;
the capitalism of the west was railed against, opposition and resulting persecution of religion as the opiate of the asses was believed in, churches filled with grain tp make them useful, the elites disposed of at the hands of the proletariat, etc., etc, etc,...

No, in a very real sense the Soviet Union was Marxist. To say otherwise, without qualification anyway, smacks of historical revisionism.

In US schools, we study historical democracies; I, at least, was subjected to any number of historical treatises on the subject; the language of our political rhetoric is that of democracy - but the US is not actually a democracy. It has democratic ideals, but the system in place is not. The same can be said of the USSR - it had Marxist ideals and used Marxist rhetoric, but the system was not actually Marxist.

But really, I would be more interested in you responding to those that are saying that the Soviet Union was capitalist.

See above. They really aren't wrong, although they are not giving a very complete picture.

 

[SolomonVII]

From Wkiepedia:

Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see Capitalism in Wikiquote). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined by market forces (a "free market"), rather than by any other methods (such as centralized state control in a command economy, for example). Those in control of the means of production in capitalist societies have generally run them for monetary profit. Capitalism contrasts with socialism and communism, where the means of production, and the resulting products, are owned and used by the state, or by the community collectively. Capitalism is also contrasted with feudalism, where land may be privately operated, but is owned by the state and held in fee.

So defined, there is no such thing as a purely capitalist state in the world today, although in the nineteenth century of Marx, there may have been a few countries approaching this.

The problem with Marx is that his predictions failed to materialize. His revolutions ions failied to materialize where he though that they would, and the countries which he thought were the most ripe for proletariate takeover, adapted to the different conditions.

 

[RedViper]

Yes, I am aware of the common american definition of capitalism, however I do not agree with it.

The problem with Marx is that his predictions failed to materialize.

Marx never really made any predictions of that kind.

His revolutions ions failied to materialize where he though that they would, and the countries which he thought were the most ripe for proletariate takeover, adapted to the different conditions.

Marx never stated that the revolution was imminent. I am still convinced that the proletarian revolution is more likely to happen in a developed capitalism (as in the west) rather than in the third world (maoist would disagree with me).

I think that we can all agree that capitalism someday will go under (All that is solid melts into air), and I myself concider communism to be the most likely outcome. I don't really see any other potential aufhebung's of todays social totality.

 

[SolomonVII]

Well, Lenin's NEP was capitalism, abeit somewhat restricted. The problem is, I think, that people are trying to come up with one label for the USSR, when it changed hats a number of times, and when many of them haven't actually read the much of theorists they're trying to reference. Marxism-Leninism, as outlined by Lenin, was an attempt to jump-start and accellerate the Marxist progression. At the time of the revolution, the USSR didn't have the correct social conditions, industry, or economic conditions to develop a Marxist communist state. If you read primary sources from various points in the USSR's development, you'll see that leaders, theorists and propagandists (and often, one person fit into all three of these categories), talked a lot about constructing socialism, and not much about having achieved socialism. The planners used a number of tools, of varying efficacy, to try to create the necessary conditions for an actual socialist economy. Lenin allowed for a strong capitalist element, using more carrot than whip in trying to industrialize the country and increase agricultural output, allowing people's personal ambition to power the workplace. Stalin's five-year plans were all whip and no carrot, with state ownership and state-set quotas and production plans, which isn't capitalist, but it isn't Marxist, either - it's quite the opposite of Marxism, actually, considering that much of the point of the Marxist theoretical revolution was for the workers to seize the ownership of the industry in which they work, and the workers had no input in the Stalinist system. Economic policies after Stalin kind of collapse into an ideological muddle, until you get to Gorbachev, who decided that the thing to do was to try to bring back the NEP. Which didn't work out so hot, as the wheels were coming off the Union anyway, and the increased personal economic freedom of NEP became one more factor in fueling the public sense of liberation that contributed to the USSR's collapse.

That's as short and simple an explaination as I can come up with.

I think this is a pretty good way of answering the OP.

The idealisms and hopes that Marx inspired in his followers had to become repeatedly compromised to meet the demands of Soviet reality. Proletarian power was always an illusion, and later was spoken of only to mask the brute reality of an ineffieicent and increasingly totalitarian state. It could be tapped at the beginning, to cause the old regime to fall, but there was no practical means for the proletariat to both produce, and rule.
Eventually the whole system crumbled, morally, politically, financially, and ideologically bankrupt.

 

[the_cheat]

From Wkiepedia:

Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see Capitalism in Wikiquote). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined by market forces (a "free market"), rather than by any other methods (such as centralized state control in a command economy, for example). Those in control of the means of production in capitalist societies have generally run them for monetary profit. Capitalism contrasts with socialism and communism, where the means of production, and the resulting products, are owned and used by the state, or by the community collectively. Capitalism is also contrasted with feudalism, where land may be privately operated, but is owned by the state and held in fee.

So defined, there is no such thing as a purely capitalist state in the world today, although in the nineteenth century of Marx, there may have been a few countries approaching this.

Wikipedia is a good general reference, but it lacks depth and subtlety. If it is your primary source of information on this topic, I think that explains the confusion in terminology.

Pure communism, socialism and capitalism simply don't exist, and I daresay they never have, and I suspect cannot exist. They're generally tempered by the ideology and needs of the state in which they're practiced. The USSR was no exception.

The problem with Marx is that his predictions failed to materialize. His revolutions ions failied to materialize where he though that they would, and the countries which he thought were the most ripe for proletariate takeover, adapted to the different conditions.

A hardcore Marxist would probably argue that his predictions have failed to materialise becase the world really hasn't yet met those conditions, or has circumvented those conditions in some way - for example, in the case of the US, much of the burden generally placed upon the proletarian class has been shifted to nations that are less developed and easier to exploit, decreasing the tension at home, displacing it to a place where it is easier to control, or, if it does get out of hand, won't create as large a backlash on the US power structure. A lot of modern readers of Marx have come to believe that, with the rise of a global economy, the entire global economy would need to catch up to the point of ripeness for revolution before the revolution can successfully occur.

But all this is beside the point; you can certainly believe that Marx was wrong, although I would recommend fully reading him before drawing any conclusions about his theories. But no matter how wrong Marx was, that doesn't make the USSR Marxist.

 

[RedViper]

A pithy way of putting it. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I think you're oversimplifying (as I did myself in my previous posts in this thread), but you're essentially correct.

I don't think it's a paradox, though. Leninism was about creating the conditions necessary for communism - he seems to have assumed that once all the conditions were well and totally in place, communism would magically have occurred. Which is a very Marxist way of looking at it. But Lenin considered capitalism to be a tool useful in creating the conditions necessary for communism. So Leninism and capitalism aren't really in conflict, they're just uneasy bedfellows.

Yes, I believe that you might be right. I actually think that Lenin once said that socialism is "capitalism in the service of all the people" or something like that. I think that Lenin was aware of the fact that the bolsjeviks where prefering the half-feudal and agrarian Russia for capitalism. He might have believed that capitalism under the control of communists would be quick and relatively painfree...but capitalism did become the master rather than the slave.

It is also important to realize that the proletarian revolution differs qualitively from the bourgeoise revolutions. At the time of the bourgeoise revolutions in France and America (for example), capitalism had already grown in to- and pushed away the old feudalism, and the only big task left for the bourgeoisie was to seize the state. The proletarians can however not seize the bourgeoisie state, they must destroy it. The communist revolution is not a political revolution, it is a social revolution...and it must mean a remodelation of the entire social totality. Re-organisation of production and work places, abolisation of all capital relations; the commodity production & commodity form, wage labour etc.

 

[the_cheat]

I think this is a pretty good way of answering the OP.

Actually, they're lousy ways of anwering the OP; the only way of answering the OP was contained in my first post in this thread - the USSR never was communist to start with. It never achieved the necessary conditions for communism.

What it was was a way of answering other posters' confusion.

The idealisms and hopes that Marx inspired in his followers had to become repeatedly compromised to meet the demands of Soviet reality.

I'd actually say that the last vestige of Marxist idealism died out about the same time Stalin killed off the last of the original Bolsheviks. After that, ideology becomes a propaganda tool to defend state policies as opposed to the driving force behind state policies.

Proletarian power was always an illusion, and later was spoken of only to mask the brute reality of an ineffieicent and increasingly totalitarian state. It could be tapped at the beginning, to cause the old regime to fall, but there was no practical means for the proletariat to both produce, and rule. Eventually the whole system crumbled, morally, politically, financially, and ideologically bankrupt.

These are some very dramatic and sweeping statements, but I think you'll find if you actually closely study modern day Russia and the Russian Republics, that the whole system hasn't crumbled, it's just put on a different outward skin. The government apparatus is basically unchanged.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, I am aware of the common american definition of capitalism, however I do not agree with it.

Without shared definitions, discussion fast becomes banal.

The problem with Marx is that his predictions failed to materialize.

Marx never really made any predictions of that kind.

His revolutions ions failied to materialize where he though that they would, and the countries which he thought were the most ripe for proletariate takeover, adapted to the different conditions.

Marx never stated that the revolution was imminent. I am still convinced that the proletarian revolution is more likely to happen in a developed capitalism (as in the west) rather than in the third world (maoist would disagree with me).

Following Hegel dialectic, he though that revolution was inevitable, until conflict was resolved

I think that we can all agree that capitalism someday will go under (All that is solid melts into air), and I myself concider communism to be the most likely outcome. I don't really see any other potential aufhebung's of todays social totality.

Few revolutions, the American being the notable exception, have resulted in systems much better than the ones that they displaced.
Like Nazism, with the examples of the Soviet Union, China, the killing filled of Sout east Asia, and Cuba behind them, the name of communism is deservedly sullied.

 

[the_cheat]

Yes, I believe that you might be right. I actually think that Lenin once said that socialism is "capitalism in the service of all the people" or something like that. I think that Lenin was aware of the fact that the bolsjeviks where prefering the half-feudal and agrarian Russia for capitalism. He might have believed that capitalism under the control of communists would be quick and relatively painfree...but capitalism did become the master rather than the slave.

It is also important to realize that the proletarian revolution differs qualitively from the bourgeoise revolutions. At the time of the bourgeoise revolutions in France and America (for example), capitalism had already grown in to- and pushed away the old feudalism, and the only big task left for the bourgeoisie was to seize the state. The proletarians can however not seize the bourgeoisie state, they must destroy it. The communist revolution is not a political revolution, it is a social revolution...and it must mean a remodelation of the entire social totality. Re-organisation of production and work places, abolisation of all capital relations; the commodity production & commodity form, wage labour etc.

That's a really excellent explaination

 

[the_cheat]

Without shared definitions, discussion fast becomes banal.

The way the term "capitalism" is generally used in US dialogue isn't the shared definition, though. American capitalism isn't particularly capitalistic, as it carries a strong distrust of the free market, and the free market is god in capitalist theory.

Few revolutions, the American being the notable exception, have resulted in systems much better than the ones that they displaced.
Like Nazism, with the examples of the Soviet Union, China, the killing filled of Sout east Asia, and Cuba behind them, the name of communism is deservedly sullied.

The Nazi government wasn't a revolution. The Nazis, like it or not, basicially legitimately gained control of the existing goverment in Germany. I think it's arguable whether the US system is better than the British. In the case of the Russian revolution, IMO the February Revolution did replace the idiotic tsarist system with something more practical, but the October Revolution, when the Bolsheviks seized power from the provisional government, ended our chances for seeing what the end result of the new government would have been. I don't know enough about China to say one way or the other, but I will say the "killing fields" of S.E. Asia are as much a result of the clash between Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism as of economic systems. As for Cuba, I honestly can't see Castro as being worse than Batista.

 

[SolomonVII]

The way the term "capitalism" is generally used in US dialogue isn't the shared definition, though. American capitalism isn't particularly capitalistic, as it carries a strong distrust of the free market, and the free market is god in capitalist theory.

We are really going onto that tangent of banality now, aren't we.

The Nazi government wasn't a revolution.

The Nazis, like it or not, basicially legitimately gained control of the existing goverment in Germany.

The apt comparison I was making between Nazism and Communism, for those that are advocating communism only, is that both systems are totalitarian, murderous, regimes, totally sullied in name, lest anyone start advocating communism.
Apparently, you must have missed that point.

I think it's arguable whether the US system is better than the British

.
My vote is for people-rule over colonialism any day of the week.

The American Revolution changed the world. It inspired the people of Europe to think that an alternative to the Ancien Regime was possible. It emboldened people to believe in the rational values of the Enlightenment philosophers.

In the case of the Russian revolution, IMO the February Revolution did replace the idiotic tsarist system with something more practical,

the mensheviks played like putty in the hands of the bolsheviks didn't they

but the October Revolution, when the Bolsheviks seized power from the provisional government, ended our chances for seeing what the end result of the new government would have been.

Well, there you go. Exit liberal socialism, enter the nihilistic terrorists that they allied themselves with.

I don't know enough about China to say one way or the other,

Moa goes down as the biggest mass murder of all time

but I will say the "killing fields" of S.E. Asia are as much a result of the clash between Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism as of economic systems.

The communist-inspired army of the gentle kingdom of Cambodiea wantonly destroy the doctors, lawyers, civil servants, and basically anyone that could read in that country in their bid to wipe out the bourgoise values that such people possessed. This is Marx's practical legacy of having his name permanently sullied- by all but those of the ivory towers of intelllegensia, of course, as I have already pointed out.

As for Cuba, I honestly can't see Castro as being worse than Batista.

In one way Bastista is better. He's dead.

 

[SolomonVII]

Wikipedia is a good general reference, but it lacks depth and subtlety. If it is your primary source of information on this topic, I think that explains the confusion in terminology.

Wikepedia is not my primary source of information on the subject.

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually, they're lousy ways of anwering the OP;

Sorry for trying to be nice.
If you say so, it was lousy.

the only way of answering the OP was contained in my first post in this thread - the USSR never was communist to start with.

Your first statment was quite simplistic, confusing and unworthy of comment, imho.

It never achieved the necessary conditions for communism.

It never, because nothing could.

What it was was a way of answering other posters' confusion.

It is your arrogance that sees every one else as as confused.

I'd actually say that the last vestige of Marxist idealism died out about the same time Stalin killed off the last of the original Bolsheviks.

Oh, no. Marxist idealism abounds amongst the smartest and the brightest even to this day.

After that, ideology becomes a propaganda tool to defend state policies as opposed to the driving force behind state policies.

It is a problem inherent in the Hegelian philosophy that Marx followed. The dangers of the totalitarian state went unforeseen.
Although not by Frederich Nietzche, it should be added.

These are some very dramatic and sweeping statements, but I think you'll find if you actually closely study modern day Russia and the Russian Republics, that the whole system hasn't crumbled, it's just put on a different outward skin. The government apparatus is basically unchanged.

Unfortunately, that is probably quite true. It has been the lot of the Russian people to always be under the yoke of repressive regimes even before communism, and all that has changed is that the thugs in charge have revealed themselves as thugs.
...that and the end of the last vestiges of a welfare state that the USSR could not longer affford.

There were signs before the revolution however, of a new face for Russia emerging. The revolution pretty much blotted that out.

Maybe the only thing that really crumbled was their believe that Marxism could cure what ails them.

 

[SolomonVII]

Anways there is no point in carrying on a conversation with those that will argue that capitalism is communism, or that black is white for that matter.

When I call myself Catholic, it is because I accept all that Catholicism has been over the centuries, warts and all.
And I will gladly wear the warts of Catholicism than the festering wounds, blisters and sores that a mere century of Communism has presented the world with.
Blecch!

The_Cheat, you remind me a lot of a poster that used to post here, maybe stil does, by the name of Milla. Maybe you and her should hook up with her sometime. You share common interests and outlooks.

 

[Relevance]

Communism (direct democracy) is possible. The Zapatista communities in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas operate along these lines. The villages effectively govern themselves through Good Government Juntas (JBGs) and autonomous councils. There are constant rotations of the authorities so that no one group ever holds on to power, and all authorities are elected by the people of the villages from the people of the villages. In this way, the entire populations of the Zapatista communities know what is being decided, how it is being decided, and actively participate in the decision making process. That is how decision making will be done in Communist society. Communism is not a dictatorship!!! There is no state in Communism!!!

 

[girlieman]

In my opinion there are more pertinent reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union other than Reagan singlehandedly destroying it or the arms race although competition with the capitalist system certainly was an important factor.

After Stalin's death many bourgeois and pseudo-marxists emerged within the party and reforms of the socialist system took place, beginning the return to capitalism. Evidence of this is the growth of milionaires in the Soviet Union during the Kruschev era and of course the final blow was Gorbachev with his glasnost and Perestroika policies, however the Soviet Union was already heavily 'pro-capitalist' at this stage...

Reagan got Gorby to let a little freedom out of the bottle until the entire genie escaped. Russia has gone backward some since the collapse, but Russia will never go back to Soviet communism. The Ruskie mafia wouldn't allow it

 

[kurabrhm]

One reason, seldom mentioned, is the 'Lost Generation' of the Second World War. Like Iran today, young people made up a larger than normal percentage of the population and they provided some of the impetus for reform. This is a minor cause, true, but it is one that deserves to be stated.

Yes I agree. I see the point you are trying to raise about the younger Russian generation during the Cold War who preferred Levi's to missiles.