The USSR was it a success? Real discussion

Firstly, no the Soviet Union was not a success in 2 ways.

- It did not follow Lenin's model.
- It collapsed.

The Soviet Union was a great place, my whole family admits that but it was a horrid experiment in Socialism. I have attempted to fix its problems in my own "ideology", here are a few of its problems.

- workplaces would undermine labour capacity to get a lower quota.
- THERE WAS NO MARKET ASPECT.
- All economic planning by GOSplan was made by high level Military bureaucrats.

For the USSR to function properly it would have had to change its system from 'Public Enterprise Central Planned Economy' to a ' Labor-Managed Market Economy'. If it did that it would still be a Soyuz today.

USSR achieved a lot! Look how the world looked like before there was USSR:

In 1917
It was filled with filthy monarchies, capitalist dictatorships and there wasnt much socialism nor democracy in sight.

Workers had to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. There was child labour and in quite many countries there were still slaves, and serfs.

Famines were frequent and poverty was high, even in the richest countries.

During Soviet times, USSR supported socialism around the world, aiding many socialist governments, some were democratic, others were single-party states. Even though USA was able to overthrow some of them (Allende, who has been overthrown in Chile, etc.), still the countries which became socialist were more than those which turned back to capitalism. And even capitalist countries shifted to the left. The great depression proved that capitalism was inferior, and that there were only two possibilities, make the country more socialist yourself, or wait for the masses to turn the country socialist in a violent revolution. And that's how capitalism has been abandoned in many countries and replaced by social-democracies.

USSR achieved a lot in the education and health care, increasing the life expectation a lot and improving the living standart.

USSR has been dissolved, but look around. Capitalism which existed 100 years ago is almost completely gone. Although some 3rd world countries are an exception to this, most people live in a more democratic and more socialist country than their ancestors.

Marx was right, socialism will come eventually, although he expected a world revolution, this revolution seems to become less and less violent, more and more is achieved through peaceful reforms.

The aim of USSR was to build socialism at home and abroad.
Therefore USSR was a complete success!

The future is red!

i personally think it went wrong when Stalin toke charge, even Lenin knew that Stalin was not fit to run a country of that size and power, he wrote a letter to his personal, but Stalin and his men ¨Toke care¨ of the letter so he could take power of the USSR

I insist that USSR employed capitalism managed by state thus being unable to make any step towards socialism and even worse they accustomed people to a capitalist modus vivendi.

Kenzu wrote:

USSR achieved a lot! Look how the world looked like before there was USSR:

In 1917
It was filled with filthy monarchies, capitalist dictatorships and there wasnt much socialism nor democracy in sight.

Workers had to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. There was child labour and in quite many countries there were still slaves, and serfs.

Famines were frequent and poverty was high, even in the richest countries.

During Soviet times, USSR supported socialism around the world, aiding many socialist governments, some were democratic, others were single-party states. Even though USA was able to overthrow some of them (Allende, who has been overthrown in Chile, etc.), still the countries which became socialist were more than those which turned back to capitalism. And even capitalist countries shifted to the left. The great depression proved that capitalism was inferior, and that there were only two possibilities, make the country more socialist yourself, or wait for the masses to turn the country socialist in a violent revolution. And that's how capitalism has been abandoned in many countries and replaced by social-democracies.

USSR achieved a lot in the education and health care, increasing the life expectation a lot and improving the living standart.

USSR has been dissolved, but look around. Capitalism which existed 100 years ago is almost completely gone. Although some 3rd world countries are an exception to this, most people live in a more democratic and more socialist country than their ancestors.

Marx was right, socialism will come eventually, although he expected a world revolution, this revolution seems to become less and less violent, more and more is achieved through peaceful reforms.

The aim of USSR was to build socialism at home and abroad.
Therefore USSR was a complete success!

The future is red!

yeah but this was all accros yourope.
my father had to go fishing at 13 sleeping 4 hours and working the ret in tempetures as low as 30-.
laws to better this came to capatalist econamyes.
democracy was in sight!

mattabesta wrote:

yeah but this was all accros yourope.
my father had to go fishing at 13 sleeping 4 hours and working the ret in tempetures as low as 30-.
laws to better this came to capatalist econamyes.
democracy was in sight!

People seem to have complete disregard for scientific and industrial development which regardless of system may have an impact on improving "life standards" in some sectors of population.

And, while capitalism can be democratic, Democracy is not capitalism, don't confuse it. That's a terrible confusion which has become incredibly widespread these days....

The USSR was a success in the fact that it abolished the absolute monarchy and improved life overall, but that only happened after the '60s. Before that, Stalin's system had much to improve on. Also, the USSR couldn't survive due to the fact it didn't have enough support, mainly because the economic system needed to take in account consumer goods.

I'd say it was a success, compare modern Russia to the USSR. The USSR had a much better economy and military, now look at Russia (no offense). But then again the USSR goes against all western ideology so I'd suppose it depends on the person your asking.

carmen510 wrote:

The USSR was a success in the fact that it abolished the absolute monarchy and improved life overall, but that only happened after the '60s. Before that, Stalin's system had much to improve on.

And even so, not everything was Stalin regime's fault. USSR had to go through two consecutive wars after a postwar situation. It was just until 60s that USSR did have some peace.

carmen510 wrote:

Also, the USSR couldn't survive due to the fact it didn't have enough support, mainly because the economic system needed to take in account consumer goods.

During the deténte it did a little bit. This is a demonstration of USSR's capitalism of state. USSR needed to stablish a succesful consumerism, a succesful market to feed its capital. Instead of spending in profitable industries, like consumer goods, it spent more on not only non-profitable issues (part of socialist focus) but also spent a lot on expensive issues like the military which reported no income and besides ate up some budget for manteinance.

Liche wrote:

I'd say it was a success, compare modern Russia to the USSR. The USSR had a much better economy and military, now look at Russia (no offense). But then again the USSR goes against all western ideology so I'd suppose it depends on the person your asking.

To discuss wether the USSR was a success or not, the objective of the USSR should be established first. Since it was conceived to "stablish socialism" and it didn't - there's one failure. Since it was conceived as well to "spread socialism", being unable to stablish it within itself, thus it was unable to spread it and so ther you get another falure. However, it did improve conditions of Russian Empire's populace, it did bring enormous development and served as a counterbalance to traditional capitalisms, else it was the product of the destruction of monarchy so it was mildly a success.

And very nice observation: USSR's superiority in many spheres in comparison to Russia. The main problem of USSR was the contradictory nature of its system which, pursuing socialism in thought, defacto stablished capitalism.

Another very nice observation: The "relativity" of the issue. However, objectively, something is succesful if it accomplishes it goals, regardless of people's personal views and how those goals are linked to people's views

Admittedly Lenin invited in the worse aspects of the Soviet Union when he outright banned political opposition after 1921. In retrospect it's easy to criticize the Bolsheviks over this matter, but all of the main political organizations were engaging in open warfare against the government, and prior to the Bolshevik Revolution the social democrats were illegally preparing for the succession of Russia without informing the source of power in Russia: the workers' council. Trotsky reflects on their mistake in his exile: As far as the prohibition of other Soviet parties is concerned, it did not flow from any “theory” of Bolshevism but was a measure of defence of the dictatorship on a backward and devastated country, surrounded by enemies on all sides. For the Bolsheviks it was clear from the beginning that this measure, later completed by the prohibition of factions inside the governing party itself, signalised a tremendous danger. However, the root of the danger lay not in the doctrine or the tactics but in the material weakness of the dictatorship, ion the difficulties of its internal and international situation. If the revolution had triumphed, even if only in Germany, the need of prohibiting the other Soviet parties would have immediately fallen away. It is absolutely indisputable that the domination of a single party served as the juridical point of departure for the Stalinist totalitarian regime.


Two of the worse policy decisions were made under Brezhnev: devoting 25% of the country's GDP towards defense (compared to America's 10%), and centralizing information. In the '60s and '70s the Soviets should have utilized computing power and decentralized control to the actual workers.

GeneCosta wrote:

prior to the Bolshevik Revolution the social democrats were illegally preparing for the succession of Russia without informing the source of power in Russia: the workers' council.

I hope you aren't implying that the Bolsheviks were any better. The Bolsheviks didn't give a crap about the soviets either. They took away their power almost as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power, creating the council of people's commisars.

All control should immediately go to the workers. Its the dictatorship of the proletariat not the dictatorship of the revolutionary paty, as leninists like to think.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

yeah but this was all accros yourope.
my father had to go fishing at 13 sleeping 4 hours and working the ret in tempetures as low as 30-.
laws to better this came to capatalist econamyes.
democracy was in sight!

People seem to have complete disregard for scientific and industrial development which regardless of system may have an impact on improving "life standards" in some sectors of population.

And, while capitalism can be democratic, Democracy is not capitalism, don't confuse it. That's a terrible confusion which has become incredibly widespread these days....

I was saying that wealth is the foundation for progress.

The soviet union was a great example of the horrors of capitalism. The workers had no control, only the bolsheviks did.

@matt: All wealth comes from labor. Capital creates no value.

Watermelon wrote:

The soviet union was a great example of the horrors of capitalism. The workers had no control, only the bolsheviks did.

@matt: All wealth comes from labor. Capital creates no value.

capital IS value

ofcourse labour creates value but it shoun't own it becuse it dosn't own the material it is working.

FX mining I own a gold mine and I hier someone to work in it now that person comes to ME and demands ownership of MY mine wich I bought for MY money becuse he creates my money?????
my response would be WTF? and I'd fire him and hier someone else to do the job.

capital creates no value though. also the bourgeoisiie get all their value by exploiting workers. how do they buy the factory? by exploiting workers OR by inheriting money from their bourgeois parents.

mattabesta wrote:

capital IS value

... He wasn't contesting that.

Quote :

ofcourse labour creates value but it shoun't own it becuse it dosn't own the material it is working.

So if labor creates all wealth, why is it that it is only "worth" 10% (i believe this is still the current average) of the wealth it creates. Ownership is worth nine times as much as the source of wealth?

Quote :

FX mining I own a gold mine and I hier someone to work in it now that person comes to ME and demands ownership of MY mine wich I bought for MY money becuse he creates my money?????

... So you have just admitted that he effectively gave you the money which allows you to buy your mines, yet he and his fellow workers are not entitled to the ownership of what they create? In an attempt to make a rational argument, you have made an utterly absurd one.

I'd also add, what do you believe are the origins of your money that you used to buy this mine of yours? Did it not also come from labour? What will you say, that it was labour performed with the means of production owned by someone else? And where did the wealth to buy that come from? As you can easily see, this would be a back and forth argument until you came to the realisation that labor precedes wealth, and therefore precedes the means of production. Your arguments of this nature will inevitably lead you into a corner.

Quote :

my response would be WTF? and I'd fire him and hier someone else to do the job.

... Oh how i wish there was no rule against insulting.

If you want to read some good economics read Paul Mattick

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

GeneCosta wrote:

prior to the Bolshevik Revolution the social democrats were illegally preparing for the succession of Russia without informing the source of power in Russia: the workers' council.

I hope you aren't implying that the Bolsheviks were any better. The Bolsheviks didn't give a crap about the soviets either. They took away their power almost as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power, creating the council of people's commisars.

I'm not a Leninist, but I can reason with why the Bolsheviks banned political opposition in 1921. Every major party at the time had declared war against the workers' state. Trotsky later said this move against political opposition was what created the "Stalinism" that followed. The Bolsheviks should have taken a weaker approach, perhaps similar to the case in Venezuela after the anti-democratic coup occurred.

Watermelon wrote:

capital creates no value though. also the bourgeoisiie get all their value by exploiting workers. how do they buy the factory? by exploiting workers OR by inheriting money from their bourgeois parents.

really?
or they could acctulystop envying otherers like some crazy ass communist and do some work then start a buissnes and and make money? now to start a buissnes you need someone to work for you and you pay him for a part of his work becuse without you he wun't acctuly HAVE one os he gets 60% you take the rest that is how buissnes works you work and you get a reward called a paycheck even i HAVE GOTTEN ONE OF THOSE so have I been exloited??

and comparing capitalists to imperialistic lords in the 1800'S is a bad way to prove that it exploits workers.

GeneCosta wrote:

I'm not a Leninist, but I can reason with why the Bolsheviks banned political opposition in 1921. Every major party at the time had declared war against the workers' state.

I would hardly use the term workers' state. The attempt in Kronstadt to form a workers' state was crushed by the party-run government, if i remember correctly...

Quote :

Trotsky later said this move against political opposition was what created the "Stalinism" that followed. The Bolsheviks should have taken a weaker approach, perhaps similar to the case in Venezuela after the anti-democratic coup occurred.

Pardon my ignorance, but what coup are you refering to? I wouldn't want to reply to something i know nothing about.

All i recall in Venezuela was the US trying to rigg elections. I don't remember any coup.

I can, however, agree that the Bolsheviks didn't help their cause any by completely closing the door on any political opposition. As an anarchist, though, i know the problem wasn't the opposition's politics or the bolsheviks' politics specifically, but politics itself.

political oppisition can't relly work in a communist state anyway becuse nobody wants to change anything, right?

Quote :

really?
or they could acctulystop envying otherers like some crazy ass communist and do some work then start a buissnes and and make money? now to start a buissnes you need someone to work for you and you pay him for a part of his work becuse without you he wun't acctuly HAVE one os he gets 60% you take the rest that is how buissnes works you work and you get a reward called a paycheck even i HAVE GOTTEN ONE OF THOSE so have I been exloited??

and comparing capitalists to imperialistic lords in the 1800'S is a bad way to prove that it exploits workers.

Capitalism leads to exploitation regardless of sort. Envy has nothing to do with it capitalism eventually collapses due to the equality crisis.

Competition invariably causes the capitalist to reduce expences and lower wages ect - Moreover underpricing eventually causes what is known as 'the equality crisis' - ie The capitalist cannot make a profit within a domestic market due to the lowering of prices caused by competition and regualtions that ensure he can only drive wages down to a certain extent - domestic markets stagnate and profits plunge. The capitalist is left with a problem in that he cannot increase prices in face of competition and he cannot reduce expences beyond a certain point -

Therefore the capitalist needs to seek out a cheaper source of human labor in order to overcome the equality crisis, so he relocates to a poorer nation - pays survival wages ect. However therein lies the problem - the capitalist can only avail of cheap labor for so long as the nation remains underdeveloped - in addition capitalists will begin to avail of the same sources causing the equality crisis to re - emerge.

Understand this is the problem capitalism faces - 'they cannot fix the problem - only temporarily move it.

lol @ inkus's attempt to have an economic crisis theory

capitalists do not lower their prices too low because then they dont get that much profit even if they sell a lot of shtuff

they dont lower their wages too much because then the workers will not be able to work as hard or as much

marx explained all of this.

the only true crisis theory is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall

it pisses me off when people make up bullshit economical crap

i think im the only one on this forum who understands the tendecy of the rate of profit to fall. how can you be a marxist without understanding it. i know mark doesnt understand it but still he claims to be a marxist. ridiculous.