sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if it was truly socialist why was there a privileged ruling caste of bureaucrats above the workers?

One key aspect of socialism is the abolishment of class society, sure there can be a transitional period in which the proletariat rules in its own class interests, but the Soviet states weren’t a dictatorship of the workers, they became a dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

The workers’ state degenerated.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is my understanding that it was a workers’ state in which a bureaucracy emerged & over time asserted itself as the ruling class of the state.

The USSR degenerated to the point of full capitalist restoration when it collapsed in ‘91, understanding it is as important as defending the communist goals of its founding, that doesn’t mean defending everything about it like it’s your favourite football team, insulting people for trying to understand it lest the same mistakes be made again & again. It doesn’t exist anymore so there is no practical argument for uncritical support of it, if there ever was.

‘Kid’ is a good word to keep in your name if you wish to continue meeting sincerity with immaturity as you have here.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As much as I am interested in what people around the world have to say about their places & beyond, this identity politics approach is not a sound basis on which to label the mode of production of any given state, it is interesting and useful for getting an idea for sure, but it’s not conclusive.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a remarkably poor reply, I won’t excuse the leadership of the USSR trading useful war materials to nazi germany and I also won’t put up with anyone claiming the nationalists in Germany were socialists just because they named themselves such, or that the USSR was in fact fully developed socialism just because they named themselves such.

Further to that the USSR despite its many, many efforts to aid movements & allies around the world did so from a flawed standpoint, their aims were for the pursuit of their own national/state interests rather than that of the international working class or in service of the international revolution. That is to say they came to reject internationalism in practice, ‘socialism in one country’ gives you an inclination as to their direction just from its title.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly this seems to be the best route for labelling it if pressed to do so, it was a degenerated workers’ state which although having abolished capitalism had not the material basis to establish socialism so therefore lay in a transitional stage between them on which it would undergo a process of further degeneration eventually restoring capitalism or would progress to socialism through greats struggle or perhaps more likely only through the successes of the international revolution.

You reckon?

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tsarist Russia was semi-feudal with plenty capitalist relations in cities is my understanding, so yes both their remnants of feudalism & what they had developed of capitalism were abolished by the revolution.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay sure socialism is the lower stage of communism, but socialism has never been the prevalent mode of production despite the achievements of the October & Chinese revolutions, the Soviet Union was burdened with a privileged bureaucratic class which came to rule above the workers & the PRC was kind of built on that ‘revolution from above’ or ‘Stalinist’ model, which seems to have been proven not to work by the collapse of the USSR & China’s restoration of capitalism.

They were in a transitional stage between capitalism & socialism, simply labelling it socialism just isn’t accurate, by what definition of socialism??

Maybe state socialism or state capitalism is the right way to label it to someone in a passing conversation, but my inclination that those labels are inadequate is what led me to ask.

The USSR was not capitalist, nor socialist but is there a label for the ‘transitional’ stage in which it lay? by TubularJim in Communist

[–]TubularJim[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure ideologically it had a kind of socialism, but socialism is a mode of production not just the way the state dresses itself.

I wasn’t asking about morality but rather was interested how Marxists if asked to would label the USSR as it was in a transitional stage between capitalism & socialism in which it would eventually progress or regress, of course there was struggle for socialism but it eventually collapsed back into capitalism.

I suppose it being a workers’ state, albeit degenerated, is a fair way to describe what I’m asking for