They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Section 7 states that “the right to issue orders relating to the management, running and functioning of enterprises remains in the hands of the owner. The control commissions must not participate in the management of enterprises and have no responsibilities in relation to their functioning. This responsibility also remains vested in the hands of the owner”.
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s
The thing with the USSR (and every socialist country) is that they are real places, with real positives and real negatives. As such, there exists individual evidence of corruption, such as some people selling goods on the black market. What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives. The USSR was not a perfect country, and that has never been my argument, but it was incredibly progressive and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically. These people supported the system.
Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,” but what’s important is the context. There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels. From The Trade Union Movement in Soviet Russia:
The factory committees became more and more powerful, grouping behind them as they did a huge number of workers who, at that time, were probably unaware of the true character of the trade union movement. The formation of the committees corresponded to a simple conception in the conflict with the employers. The workers were ever ready to follow the counsels of the committee, the members of whom they knew personally. But as yet, they followed their leaders blindly and with none of the labour discipline and class consciousness which are the real bases of the trade union movement. Most of the committees only considered the individual interests of their own undertaking, and their main object was to keep their undertaking working irrespective of how the others were faring. They even went the length, in conjunction with the employers, of raising the price of the articles they manufactured. And they ended by disorganising the whole of the national economy as, in order to obtain raw materials and fuel for their personal requirements, they sent agents into the provinces, who often bought at ridiculously high prices.
The trade unions, on the contrary, being less concerned with petty local and private interests, realised far more vividly than did the factory committees the necessity of improving economic conditions.
The union system replaced the factory committee system. This solved the problems of the latter, strengthening the socialist system and improving development, which was the fastest route to improving the lives of the working classes.
As for your bit on 1917, this is before the establishment of the USSR, and right towards the beginnings of the Russian Civil War. There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords. This period was followed by the New Economic Policy, which was described as “state capitalist,” before transitioning to the early soviet planned economy.
The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.
If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people. The most important administrators largely lived in fancier apartments with faster access to luxury goods, they didn’t live like the former Tsar nor like modern billionaires.
All in all, I’ve done my fair share of reading critiques of the USSR. After all, I used to agree with them! I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling. I think you owe it to yourself to do the same for the sake of your own growth, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent place to start. Here’s an audiobook link if you prefer, or even Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, you did mention liking podcasts. For podcasts, I’ve heard good things about The Sickle and the Hammer and Actually Existing Socialism, and I personally also like Blowback (though the latter is more about US imperialism against Iraq, Cuba, the DPRK, etc).
What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives.
Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.
incredibly progressive
Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.
and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically.
So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.
Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,”
He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.
There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels.
The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.
You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.
Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.
There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords.
That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.
The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.
Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o
I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.
If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people.
That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.
I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling.
I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?
Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.
“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds,excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).
They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
Here’s my source: The Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, S10E86 - The Communist Soviets
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s
The thing with the USSR (and every socialist country) is that they are real places, with real positives and real negatives. As such, there exists individual evidence of corruption, such as some people selling goods on the black market. What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives. The USSR was not a perfect country, and that has never been my argument, but it was incredibly progressive and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically. These people supported the system.
Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,” but what’s important is the context. There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels. From The Trade Union Movement in Soviet Russia:
The union system replaced the factory committee system. This solved the problems of the latter, strengthening the socialist system and improving development, which was the fastest route to improving the lives of the working classes.
As for your bit on 1917, this is before the establishment of the USSR, and right towards the beginnings of the Russian Civil War. There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords. This period was followed by the New Economic Policy, which was described as “state capitalist,” before transitioning to the early soviet planned economy.
The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.
If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people. The most important administrators largely lived in fancier apartments with faster access to luxury goods, they didn’t live like the former Tsar nor like modern billionaires.
All in all, I’ve done my fair share of reading critiques of the USSR. After all, I used to agree with them! I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling. I think you owe it to yourself to do the same for the sake of your own growth, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent place to start. Here’s an audiobook link if you prefer, or even Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, you did mention liking podcasts. For podcasts, I’ve heard good things about The Sickle and the Hammer and Actually Existing Socialism, and I personally also like Blowback (though the latter is more about US imperialism against Iraq, Cuba, the DPRK, etc).
Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.
Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.
So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.
He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.
The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.
You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.
Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.
That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.
Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o
I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.
That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.
I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?
Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.
“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds, excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.
Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.
The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.
My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.
As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.
As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.
As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.
This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.
Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.
I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).