The case of the USSR

Quote:

The Soviet Union, for better or for worse, was the most liberal state in the world at the time it was created. As an example, it was the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

The Soviet Union was in no way a 'failure,' nor did it practice 'phony socialism,' so in effect it really was socialist, in my opinion.

But if the bourgeoisie manages to become much more liberal than that (and it does, in Western Europe), then how can you take the USSR's social liberalness as an argument for the quality of its socialism?

Quote:

...then how can you take the USSR's social liberalness as an argument for the quality of its socialism?

History, comrade. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created, most foreign nations were deeply conservative. Germany and Austria-Hungary come to mind as two ideological opposites to the USSR that were far from liberal during their existence.

The USSR not only legalized abortion(which by itself was revolutionary for its time!), but it also served as a "red beacon" to which all oppressed peoples could look towards as a revolutionary guiding light in what was generally a time of darkness and reaction.

Although western Europe would eventually, following the end of WWII, inch towards liberalism, The early USSR period(1922-1924), up until Lenin's death, was new and fresh. It was the first state in the world to declare in its constitution that the workers and peasants were the new masters of society. Legally, the bourgeoisie had no power.

It was very liberal, and possessed a high quality form of socialism that wouldn't be seen until the creation of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

I think that the Weimar Republic was much more "liberal" than the contemporary USSR.

Quote:

History, comrade. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created, most foreign nations were deeply conservative. Germany and Austria-Hungary come to mind as two ideological opposites to the USSR that were far from liberal during their existence.

But Germany still exists. And it's much more liberal than the USSR could ever dream of being. But even this liberalism is still firmly within the bourgeois scale. So, again, how can Soviet liberalism be a argument for socialism when the bourgeoisie has managed to be more progressive?

Quote:

It was the first state in the world to declare in its constitution that the workers and peasants were the new masters of society. Legally, the bourgeoisie had no power.

There was no bourgeoisie. So that wasn't too hard, was it? But that doesn't mean that the workers and peasants were in charge of society, because they weren't.

Mabool wrote:

But Germany still exists. And it's much more liberal than the USSR could ever dream of being. But even this liberalism is still firmly within the bourgeois scale. So, again, how can Soviet liberalism be a argument for socialism when the bourgeoisie has managed to be more progressive?

Well, if the USSR was that "liberal" in 1930, imagine how liberal soviet germany would be in 2013

Yeah, but it would be completely and entirely different from the Soviet Union. Actually, the Soviet Union would be much more similar to a capitalist state than to any post-revolutionary society that might arise in Europe or North America. So why give a shit about it?

Mabool wrote:

Yeah, but it would be completely and entirely different from the Soviet Union. Actually, the Soviet Union would be much more similar to a capitalist state than to any post-revolutionary society that might arise in Europe or North America. So why give a shit about it?

Because it, for better or worse, forms the best source of practical experience? Whether as things to emulate or things to avoid.
There's a lot of steps between "capitalism" and "huzzah!" that we need to cover, and any help we can find along the way are essential.

See also "Why anarchists have never achieved anything" and "sure, 300 million people can feed themselves tomorrow" for supplemental information

Quote:

...But that doesn't mean that the workers and peasants were in charge of society, because they weren't.

Yes, but my point is that the very idea that there existed a national constitution that excluded the bourgeoisie from power and influence over the government and society was not only startling to foreign bourgeoisie, but groundbreaking ideologically.

Furthermore, possessing expansive knowledge on the USSR could really help future revolutionaries. We, as communists, need to know what made the USSR tick, and to know when and where it stopped ticking, if a successful socialist society is to be created in the immediate future.

Quote:

So why give a shit about it?

Because it was just the first revolutionary state existing for more then a few months...

And then there's the invaluable experience gleaned from the Bolsheviks' experience in ruling a revolutionary state.

And it shows us what not to do when "trying again."

One of the things that annoys me is when people dismiss the USSR as "capitalist," and therefore they think they have free reign to dismiss all of its lessons in history as "useless."

Building a revolutionary society may be easy to do at our computer screens, but actually building a new, revolutionary society from the bottom up is what the Bolsheviks did, and arguably where they succeeded depending on how one looks at it.

Its more complex then "it failed" because the workers and peasants had no real power. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history can tell you that a variety of factors shaped that outcome from day one, post-revolution.

I used to be very detached from my studies, but once I sat down and read a book I soon realized things I never would've thought of before. I now know the USSR and the Communist movement backwards and forwards.

Yes, Sowjetunion, that is why I am proposing joining forces and collectively acquiring as many books and sources on the politics, international/foreign policy, economic policy/reform/results, educational policy, health policy etc. of the Socialist Bloc. There are absolutely loads of sources right now, and many for quite cheap, which largely show the successes and the shortcomings and limitations of national and international Socialist economic integration.
Mabool, the form may appear similar vis-a-vis the accumulation of capital between a capitalist nation and the USSR, but the content radically alters with a restructuring of society. It seems to me that you're implying a "Communism now or death!" style argument to try to discredit the numerous achievements, and naturally criticise the failings, of the USSR. Whatever you think, there is a vast dearth of literature and sources that relatively few people have read deeply enough into to come to a sound conclusion based off countless sources.
The problem arises when we try to apply historical knowledge and analyses (note: I do not mean the so called "analysis" of many current left-leaning political groups and parties, whose rhetoric follows predictable patterns and are as meaningless as they are repetitive!) into forming policy for the modern age, for today, as it really appears to be ballbreaking to come up with a reasonable plan of action and raft of actual policies (not slogans) that would make us seem serious, rather than red flag wavers who idolise dead Russians and hate the present day. As Gilbert wrote for The Mikado:

Gilbert wrote:

Then there's the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone / Every century but this and every country but his own.

Sowjetunion wrote:

Yes, but my point is that the very idea that there existed a national constitution that excluded the bourgeoisie from power and influence over the government and society was not only startling to foreign bourgeoisie, but groundbreaking ideologically.

That's like saying that Germany is awesome because its constitution emphasizes the dignity of man so much, or that France is awesome because of liberty, equality and fraternity, or that the UN is awesome because of human rights.

Empty words much? They don't seem to annoy you as long as they sound nice, i.e. Marxist... I for one am annoyed much more by Marxist hypocrisy than by bourgeois hypocrisy.

Quote:

Furthermore, possessing expansive knowledge on the USSR could really help future revolutionaries. We, as communists, need to know what made the USSR tick, and to know when and where it stopped ticking, if a successful socialist society is to be created in the immediate future.

Why do you think that?

Quote:

Because it was just the first revolutionary state existing for more then a few months...

No, that was the French First Republic. Actually, you might be able to make a case for it having been the Republic of San Marino.

Quote:

And then there's the invaluable experience gleaned from the Bolsheviks' experience in ruling a revolutionary state.

Why is the Bolsheviks' experience more valuable than the Jacobins' experience? Because they were mistaken communists? Do you seriously believe that there will be socialist states again, after history has disproven the concept over and over, and over, again?

Quote:

And it shows us what not to do when "trying again."

Yeah, it shows us not to act like a douchebag avantgarde.

Quote:

One of the things that annoys me is when people dismiss the USSR as "capitalist," and therefore they think they have free reign to dismiss all of its lessons in history as "useless."

That annoys me too.

Quote:

Building a revolutionary society may be easy to do at our computer screens, but actually building a new, revolutionary society from the bottom up is what the Bolsheviks did, and arguably where they succeeded depending on how one looks at it.

The USSR was certainly revolutionary, but the Weimar Republic was, too. The only thing at which the USSR was better are empty phrases or bourgeois liberties (until 1924). "Communist" and "revolutionary", or even "proletarian" and "revolutionary" are two different things. Bourgeois revolutions still happen all the time (North Africa) and the USSR was one of them.

Quote:

Its more complex then "it failed" because the workers and peasants had no real power. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history can tell you that a variety of factors shaped that outcome from day one, post-revolution.

It didn't fail. It was the nicest bourgeois revolution the world has ever seen, creating what was probably the nicest bourgeois state ever. It just never had anything to do with communism.

Quote:

I used to be very detached from my studies, but once I sat down and read a book I soon realized things I never would've thought of before. I now know the USSR and the Communist movement backwards and forwards.

So do I. I used to be an ML, you know, and then I grew up.

Quote:

Mabool, the form may appear similar vis-a-vis the accumulation of capital between a capitalist nation and the USSR, but the content radically alters with a restructuring of society.

Accumulation of capital/wage labor/alienation/a crappy life for the vast majority is the content. Private property and state property are the different forms.

Quote:

It seems to me that you're implying a "Communism now or death!" style argument to try to discredit the numerous achievements, and naturally criticise the failings, of the USSR.

Depends on what you mean by "discredit". The "achievements" of the USSR are bourgeois achievements. All of them. The bourgeoisie could provide us with all of this, if it wanted. And sometimes it does (social democracy). Soviet industrialization is just primitive accumulation of capital with 20th century technology. Bolshevik state power plus electrification equals bourgeois society.

Quote:

Whatever you think, there is a vast dearth of literature and sources that relatively few people have read deeply enough into to come to a sound conclusion based off countless sources.

I've read SO much GDR/Soviet literature. The fun thing about it is that, the more concrete it becomes, the less Marxist it is. Marxist phrases are taken as the basis or form for books on "how to run an enterprise", but the actual content could be copypasted from Western books on managerial economics. Nein, nein, das ist nicht der Kommunismus.

Maintaining full employment and provision of free social care is a step forward from what we have now, that is not to be forgotten. The 1990s took Eastern Europe back by 30 years.

Quote:

Maintaining full employment and provision of free social care is a step forward from what we have now, that is not to be forgotten.

Agreed. Despite it's flaws, the Soviet Union made many achievements in social welfare.

However, I don't agree with Mabool's comment about the Soviet Union being "bourgeois," as history clearly shows us that the 1917 revolution in Russia was proletarian by nature. Furthermore, the proletariat rallied around the Bolshevik Party to a large extent, a party that espoused socialism and ultimately communism as its end game.

Quote:

Empty words much? They don't seem to annoy you as long as they sound nice, i.e. Marxist...

I was just pointing out how it was the world's first "empty" constitution that emphasized proletarian power over bourgeois power, whether or not that power actually existed in Russia.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

Maintaining full employment and provision of free social care is a step forward from what we have now, that is not to be forgotten. The 1990s took Eastern Europe back by 30 years.

Quote:

Agreed. Despite it's flaws, the Soviet Union made many achievements in social welfare.

Not really. Massive unemployment and the breakdown of bourgeois social care is a good thing, when it makes people fight. Seriously what you just said is a textbook example for reformism and utopianism. Capitalism with a human face, yaaay~

A society sucks when its inmates have to get up every morning to do jobs they hate for a purpose that is not their own. Regardless of the number of red flags involved.

I already said this:

Quote:

It didn't fail. It was the nicest bourgeois revolution the world has ever seen, creating what was probably the nicest bourgeois state ever. It just never had anything to do with communism.

Quote:

However, I don't agree with Mabool's comment about the Soviet Union being "bourgeois," as history clearly shows us that the 1917 revolution in Russia was proletarian by nature.

No. How does history show us that? Kronstadt? lawl.

Quote:

Furthermore, the proletariat rallied around the Bolshevik Party to a large extent, a party that espoused socialism and ultimately communism as its end game.

Until 1991, the Social Democratic Party of Austria was called "Socialist Party of Austria" and espoused classless society as its "end game" in its platform. In fact I believe they still do that. You could also argue that the "proletariat was rallied around them." So does this mean I should respect them? Does it mean Austria is not bourgeois?

Quote:

I was just pointing out how it was the world's first "empty" constitution that emphasized proletarian power over bourgeois power, whether or not that power actually existed in Russia.

The Paris Commune is a better example to look at.

How could the USSR be anything but bourgeois? It being backward and isolated necessitated a period of intense capital accumulation, and the changes in the party and actions of the state don't really evidence anything else. Unless we start assuming the existing state can just transform into a 'socialist state', which is rather anti-marxist.

Lenin even shyed away from calling october a socialist revolution, since revolutionary workers were marching with greater numbers of peasants against europe's most reactionary ruling class that had long subdued any national bourgeoisie. Losses in the civil war made conditions even worse.

Because there was capital and its accumulation, and with it there was wage labor. The state merely defended this system.

No marxist ever claimed state ownership = socialism. Even lenin demonstrated he knew the difference when he stated it wasn't the bolsheviks' task to immediately 'introduce' socialism, but place industry under the control of the soviets of workers' deputies. Russia really couldn't develop anything else but modern state capitalism without outside collaboration.

No. Why would I want that? Why can't I have communism now? Who says it has got to be this way?

I think it was Engels who said the modern state can be nothing but a capitalist machine. Regardless state property does not translate into socialized property, just nationalized property. The means of production must be held in common, not just subject to the power of the bureaucratic state.

Bismarck used the state in a similar way, and pioneered welfare programs. Ironically it was done to counter the 'socialists' of his day.

It's certain that the USSR was capitalist. There was no workers control, wagelessness, or enough means of production to support socialism from the start. Russia was too backwards to build socialism in alone, to claim anything else is actually quite revisionist.