Julian658 wrote:According to the commies that was not real communism. That is the perennial excuse. The new followers say it will be betetr this time around. ie venezuela
I think there is enough theory prior to the USSR the help explain how the USSR didn’t achieve socialism and assertions if such were only propaganda.
The conditions if its failure were even predicted by Trotsky with the necessity of socialist revolutions in the rest of Europe to support them.
Although one would more likely find those that saw it as a authentic effort at achieving as much and sorely failed. Leading to an even greater alienation through state bureaucracy than of capitalist markets.
In fact I see in one of my favourite philosophers only assertion in regards to how the state hadn’t withered away was to reintroduce markets.
Crudely, it did as Marx predicted about barracks communism in simply generalizing private property through the state. Ilyenkov speaks of how it dealt with private property in politico-legal terms but hadn’t actually negated it.
There is an ambivalence in that it was the first workers revolution in the world but that it failed.
There isn’t a motivation to simply dismiss it nor accept it wholly as is the means of dismissal of equating the results of the USSR as the inevitability without means of showing such necessity.https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm
The domination of the bureaucracy over the country, as well as Stalin’s domination over the bureaucracy, have well-nigh attained their absolute consummation. But what conclusions would follow from this? There are some who say that since the actual state that has emerged from the proletarian revolution does not correspond to ideal a priori norms, therefore they turn their backs on it. This is political snobbery, common to pacifist-democratic, libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist and, generally, ultraleft circles of petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. There are others who say that since this state has emerged from the proletarian revolution, therefore every criticism of it is sacrilege and counterrevolution. That is the voice of hypocrisy behind which lurk most often the immediate material interests of certain groups among this very same petty-bourgeois intelligentsia or among the workers’ bureaucracy. These two types – the political snob and the political hypocrite – are readily interchangeable, depending upon personal circumstances. Let us pass them both by.
A Marxist would say that the present-day USSR obviously does not approximate the a priori norms of a Soviet state; let us discover, however, what we failed to foresee when working out the programmatic norms; let us, furthermore, analyze what social factors have distorted the workers’ state; let us check once again if these distortions have extended to the economic foundations of the state, that is to say, if the basic social conquests of the proletarian revolution have been preserved; if these have been preserved, then let us find in what direction they are changing; and let us discover if there obtain in the USSR and on the world arena such factors as may facilitate and hasten the preponderance of progressive trends of development over those of reaction. Such an approach is complex. It brings with it no ready-made key for lazy minds, which the latter love so much.
Dismissal are easy, a substantive critique is harder, one that shows it on the terms as not just an external subject but one able to position themselves within the project and criticize them on their own terms, immanent critique.
The USSR has a lot to learn from in its successes and its ultimate failure.
-For Ethical Politics