[Tam]

Was Russia ever socialist?

Well... looking at both the forms of Socialism listed in the forum heading, both the traditional Marxist term, and the more modern form of democratic socialism, I should say Russia never met the criteria for the either.

As skullers rightly said, "Private property is abolished under Socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat is established."

Ok. For sure private property was abolished but I do not remember learning about a dictatorship of the proletariat . Dictatorships for sure, a whole string off them, but did the Working class as a whole at any stage genuinely dictate where their nation was going. Did they actually own the means of production or distribution, or was it throughout its entire history a clique at the the top, perhaps one man or a small group who dictated the course of USSR. If it was first one of these then we have met one criteria for socialism at the very least, if it doesnt even meet this, then we have missed out on one of THE most important tenets of traditional Marxist socialism.

[Tam]

"According to Marxism-Leninism, socialism is the the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. During that period, under the dictatorship of the proletariat capitalist relations of production are gradually abolished. ."

Sure, absolutely, couldnt agree more. Likewise with...

"It's a matter of science and it must be handled scientifically, not emotionally."

But point me out the 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'? That is vital to socialism.

"According to Marxism-Leninism, socialism is the the transitional stage between capitalism and communism"

Ok, so say we have a capitalist government,and then it is over thrown, there is NO central government, people do as they please, no law, people begin to organise themselves into far smaller communities for defense. And then a figure or group bring these communities together into a form of communism (very simplistic, I know, but its not the detail that matters)

Was the transitional stage between on the one hand capitalism and the other communism, socialism? Or was it Anarchy.

Leaving socialism as any transitional stage between capitalism and communism is far too vague. We must take the rest of your first paragraph to be a further explanation as to the nature of socialism. And since there was no dictatorship of the proletariat, there was no such socialism.

[Wilhelm]

I agree in saying that the USSR never followed completely the Marxist guidelinesof Socialism. I think what we have to learn is that ideologies are defined by actions, not theories

[Tam]

"As you said, there are two criterions that a country must fullfill before it can be called a socialist country:

a) There must be a dictatorship of the proletariat (this alone doesn't make a country socialist, as there might still be some obstacles before the socialist re-organising of economy can be begun etc.)

b) The country must be advancing towards communism, ie. capitalist relations must be in progress of abolition, not the opposite (like in China).

Neither of these can be left out. Otherwise, we'll end up with nothing but confusion & MESS."

Starting with this. Right I agree, but still want to look much further at (a)

"I have no reason to deny that the dictatorship of the proletariat was (due to conditions) exercised in somewhat centralised form in USSR. But whether the dictatorship of the proletariat is more centralised or less, it doesn't change the main thing; its class-essence."

Centralised!! Thats understating the point a little don't you think? As for Class essence I seem to recall Lenin being of the middle class? Tell me in all honesty, was the USSRs path ever dictatated by the masses, the proletariat? Did Stalin rule the USSR in line with what the proletariat wanted, or did he rule with what HE, personally, wanted.

I dont believe for one instant that the innards of the USSRs politics were based around anything more than personal power struggles, not between class groups, but between individuals with their own agendas.

Did the soviets take on board what their local workers wanted and then ask of the central government to act, or did the central government (i.e the dictator at the time) demand of the soviets what they wanted of the workers?

"I gave you a link that proves capitalist relations were indeed being replaced by socialism during a certain period of time. No other class, except the proletariat, had an interest in doing so. Socialism could be build under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party, because the party was a party of the proletariat. The course of the developement changed only after the nature of this party (which played the key role in the society) changed."

But right from the outset, party policy was determined by a very few individuals, not by what the working class wanted. I would hazard a guess, that the working classes wanted little more than a better standard of living and an end to rule of the Tsar. It was again only a very few among them, who were the 'intellectuals' that wanted to try and implement some form of Marxism.

For me all it comes down to is at any one point in the history of Russia, was there ever a 'genuine' dictatorship of the proletariat, understanding that the proletariat made up the large majority in Russia, so we effectively had dictatorship by the majority, which is not dissimilar from democracy.

[Tam]

"First of all, I'm sorry for the length of my reply. My English isn't perfect, so I understand this added to the length can cause some difficulties. I don't know how to explain all this in a short message. Guess this is the longest reply I've written to this forum (hope it's not the longest reply _of_ this forum). Here it goes:"

Hehe, well you seem to speak English like a native.

"The level of centralisation (which is always needed) was high. That is not an underestimation, it's a fact. If that doesn't please you, so be it."

I am agreeing with you and then going above. Not only was it high, it was incredibly High, it was absolute.

"It seems our main disagreement is about how much of centralism is enough."

Yes you are correct, our main argument concerns centralisation and how it worked in the USSR. I believe that it was FAR too centralised, i.e a lone dictator to be remotely like the proletariat were in control.

For me I see it as follows.

For it to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, Those in power must at the very LEAST, be representative of the proletariats wishes. Whether the proletariat run the nation via numerous referendums (very hard) whether they directly CHOOSE their leader, or whether they choose their soviet who in turn chooses a leader from among it. THEN we have a dictatorship of the Proletariat.

But the USSR was run thus. A self-imposed dictator, who selected his central government personally and had no qualms in removing adversaries. The central government in turn dictated policy to the soviets who implemented the policy and forced it on the Proletariat.

So we have the state of affairs where it is not a dictatorship BY the proletariat, but dictated TO the proletariat, which is the opposite.

Incidentally on the issue of the proletariat, I do believe the proletariat WAS the majority, because I include peasants under the proletariat. They were working class, they earned a wage, they possessed no capital, they were in the lower echelons of society. I do not think them pulling a plow in a field, compared with pulling a lever in a factory, makes such a significant difference as to exclude them from the proletariat.

The Remainder of your post, whilst very interesting, (and I thank you for your insight) does not appear to be directly concerned with this issue, so perhaps if we could stick with this lone point for the time being.

[Gral. Stamelin]

Of Course it was.
In fact the term of "Communist" is really only an idea, that has not been actually found in any regime since the beggining of private property, (because non of them earn EXACTLY the same) but the regimes auto-defined as "Communists" were leadered by people with communists ideas, but they could never totally achieved communism as a real lifestyle for their people.

[Illuminat]

What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists.

"So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist................. "

http://www.worldsocialism.org/russia.htm

Ofcource it wasnt. It was statecapitalism, not more, not less. What was socialistic in Sovjet? You cant really claim that the workers was in controll of the production, the economy, and the whole damn state, can you?

Marx never even talked about any "socialistic fase", no he didnt. Why socialism? Why not communism? I understand the need of the dictatorship of the proletariat (= democracy...for the majority - the proletariat, in oppossition to the current democracy for the minority - the bourgeoisie)
but not for a socialistic period. Capitalism has already granted us whats needed for communism, there is no need for socialism.

[jaakko]

Ofcource it wasnt. It was statecapitalism, not more, not less.

Can you prove that with actual information? Which time period are you referring to? Do you have any idea what capitalism is?

If you don't like USSR, it doesn't make it capitalist. If you think for example that the measures used there were too harsh, that doesn't mean USSR wasn't socialist. If the USSR of Lenin and Stalin doesn't fit your idea of a good society, it's still irrelevant as to whether it was socialist or capitalist. The question was 'Was Russia Ever Socialist', which has nothing to do with ideals.

In Lenin's and Stalin's USSR there were state capitalism, ie. the NEP, which was capitalism practised under the supervision of the socialist state. But USSR was not capitalist during the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. Means of production weren't under private ownership (with some exceptions). Political power (as exercised through state machinery) wasn't in the hands of the capitalist class. Production wasn't regulated by the profit motive, but was under centralised economic planning. The exploitation of man by man was abolished.

Capitalism however was restored later, as explained in this book:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

You cant really claim that the workers was in controll of the production, the economy, and the whole damn state, can you?

You mean the individual worker? Of course not. The aim was socialism and communism, not some co-operative capitalism. Economic plans were made to benefit the whole of society, to serve the progress of the whole society, not to serve some sections or individuals. The question of democracy/centralism is not irrelevant, but the level of democracy/centralism doesn't determine the basic social system.

Marx never even talked about any "socialistic fase", no he didnt. Why socialism? Why not communism?

Marx used the the concept 'first stage of communism' which nowadays, for the sake of clarity, is referred to as 'socialism' (the transitional stage between capitalism and communism).

Capitalism has already granted us whats needed for communism, there is no need for socialism.

Now have are you going to jump over the stage of socialism, ie. establishing a communist society directly after the revolution?