Fall of the USSR. Failure of Communism?

[MKULTRABOY]

Was the failure of the Soviet Union in the late eighties and early nineties indicative of a failure of:

A) Communism?
B) A Russian revolution with a global ideology?
C) The Russian state?
D) Other (explain).

 

[spud_meister]

Just to be pedantic, I'd say it was a failure of socialism, rather than communism.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

A failure of an instance of socialism or socialism in general?

 

[cpgrad08]

It's was a failure of Communism.

 

[spud_meister]

A failure of an instance of socialism or socialism in general?

Kinda both, it was a failure of an instance, but which demonstrated unequivocally that socialism couldn't work on a large scale. So it was a failure of an actual government, and the philosophy behind it.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Kinda both, it was a failure of an instance, but which demonstrated unequivocally that socialism couldn't work on a large scale.

I'm more of the line of thought that it was a top to bottom Russian economy more-so than a communist one.

 

[Hoplite]

I feel like it was a failure of the Russian state.

During WWII, the Russians churned out more war material than most of the other combatants combined. They had the capacity to produce what they needed to survive...but they didnt. Instead they engaged in a spending war with an extremely rich country to win an ideological victory that in the end gained both sides nothing.

If Russia had flipped the US the bird and gone to do it's own thing, the USSR would probably still be around. If they had instead said "You go for the moon, we're going to focus on feeding our own people, something you dont seem to be able to do" then I think the ideological victory they wanted would have been much easier to attain WITHOUT bankrupting the country.

 

[somebodyelse]

Communism hasn't failed yet. There are still communist countries in this world. It was a failure of state.

 

[Hoplite]

Communism hasn't failed yet.

I would disagree, and this is coming from a Socialist.

I think places like China show how Communism can fail because the people implementing it did so incorrectly or with the wrong intentions.

I am a great admirer of Ernesto Guevara, but I feel like he failed in Bolivia because he didnt think tactically about how he would go about trying to spread Communism. He either missed or ignored the fact that Bolivians were, by and large, more satisfied with their government than the Cubans were and there were efforts underway to help the people that Guevara was fighting for. He is an example, to me, of someone who tried to introduce Communism incorrectly and failed as a result.

 

[rathi]

The collapse of the USSR showed the failure of the command economy to satisfy the need of consumers. The central planning committee was unable to accurately gauge exactly what sort of goods to produce for day to day living. Do you produce more microwaves or more toasters? That said, central planning proved to extremely adept at rapid industrialization and munitions production for total war. The system failed because it was optimized to fight WW3 in an era of peace.

 

[Demon of Light]

It was a failure of the Russian state period. The problem is people tie it up with the Cold War myth and thus declare it a failure of "communism" even suggesting it was some sort of victory. *sigh* People sure are damned gullible. Truth is we would all be better off if the USSR had not collapsed.

 

[Renae]

Communism hasn't failed yet. There are still communist countries in this world. It was a failure of state.

Yeah NK and Cuba are just rockin it. And China? Man can you imagine being a Chinese citizen? Just think of all the things you don't have to worry about, like thinking for yourself.

Communism, the path of least intelligence!



On topic, the USSR Collapsed because communism at it's heart is corrupt, socialism is an unsustainable economic system. Reagan beat them with the greatest tool available, the engine of Capitalism driving industry. Something the USSR was unable to do.

 

[somebodyelse]

It was a failure of the Russian state period. The problem is people tie it up with the Cold War myth and thus declare it a failure of "communism" even suggesting it was some sort of victory. *sigh* People sure are damned gullible. Truth is we would all be better off if the USSR had not collapsed.

This man is realist. I like it.

I completely agree.

 

[somebodyelse]

Yeah NK and Cuba are just rockin it. And China? Man can you imagine being a Chinese citizen? Just think of all the things you don't have to worry about, like thinking for yourself.

Communism, the path of least intelligence!



On topic, the USSR Collapsed because communism at it's heart is corrupt, socialism is an unsustainable economic system. Reagan beat them with the greatest tool available, the engine of Capitalism driving industry. Something the USSR was unable to do.

What a lot of you conservatives say about communism is false.
1. Communism is not the same as socialism. By far.
2. Communism is an economic system. Not a form of government.
3. DPRK, the PRC, Cuba are all totalitarian countries, it doesn't matter if it's a capitalist, tribal, or communist society, totalitarianism always sucks.
4. Equality is not corruption.
5. Everyone who has tried at communism has failed. That doesn't mean it doesn't still have potential.

 

[Hoplite]

What a lot of you conservatives say about communism is false.
1. Communism is not the same as socialism. By far.
2. Communism is an economic system. Not a form of government.
3. DPRK, the PRC, Cuba are all totalitarian countries, it doesn't matter if it's a capitalist, tribal, or communist society, totalitarianism always sucks.
4. Equality is not corruption.
5. Everyone who has tried at communism has failed. That doesn't mean it doesn't still have potential.

Just...dont bother. In the words of the Captain, some men you just cant reach.

 

[Demon of Light]

Yeah NK and Cuba are just rockin it. And China? Man can you imagine being a Chinese citizen? Just think of all the things you don't have to worry about, like thinking for yourself.

I do not consider myself sufficiently well-versed regarding Cuba to comment on that country, but your comments regarding North Korea and China are off base. While North Korea is undoubtedly totalitarian the nature of that political system has diverged so much from communism that continuing to associate it with communism is absurd. It actually bears a much closer resemblance to Fascism.

As far as China to call them totalitarian just demonstrates ignorance of how things are in China today. The Chinese people have many freedoms, there is plenty of thinking for one's self, and speaking out against the government. What you get from Western media is a very incomplete picture that often doesn't even try to explore the reasons for certain problems.

On topic, the USSR Collapsed because communism at it's heart is corrupt, socialism is an unsustainable economic system. Reagan beat them with the greatest tool available, the engine of Capitalism driving industry. Something the USSR was unable to do.

Except it wasn't that the Soviets spent themselves into oblivion. There was a very clear process resulting from Gorbachev's perestroika reforms. What happened is that the Soviets relaxed restrictions at such a fast pace that it brought old tensions to the forefront and upset hardliners who sought to remove Gorbachev. Once that occurred it was only a matter of time before the country disintegrated.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Reagan beat them with the greatest tool available, the engine of Capitalism driving industry. Something the USSR was unable to do.

I like that... how reagan donned his cape and flew over to Russia and facepunched all the communists and they capitulated into collapse.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I would say it was none of those. Trotsky predicted the breakup of the USSR back in the 30's, I believe in The Revolution Betrayed.

Oh and Reagan had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the dissolution of the USSR.

While North Korea is undoubtedly totalitarian the nature of that political system has diverged so much from communism that continuing to associate it with communism is absurd. It actually bears a much closer resemblance to Fascism.

Actually the DPRK is a planned economy with the vast majority of private property being state owned (aside from the Special Economic Zones). The DPRK has much more in common with China, I would say, as it was a country that did not go through a proletarian revolution as the USSR had and therefore was bureaucratized and degenerated from the start. Us Trotskyists (well, the smart ones at least) call those "deformed workers' states" although I'm not too fond of the term because most people don't understand it. Basically the term uses the words "workers' state" because of the economic base (i.e. state ownership) of North Korean society and not actual political rule of the working class and its allies.

I also wouldn't consider the DPRK or any other country "totalitarian".

 

[Hoplite]

I also wouldn't consider the DPRK or any other country "totalitarian".

Might I inquire as to why?

If any country fits the criteria of a totalitarian state, North Korea would be one, I would think.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Might I inquire as to why?

If any country fits the criteria of a totalitarian state, North Korea would be one, I would think.

Because the entire concept of totalitarianism is absurd on its face. No state is or ever has been technologically advanced or monolithic enough to be totalitarian in the actual sense.

It is simply used as a name-calling and propaganda device. Back when this theory was first developed proponents of totalitarianism theory generally were incredibly rabid anti-Communists (think Richard Pipes) who used the term to contrast with the "freedom" of America and its allies. It was also a very convenient way of equating the USSR with NAZI Germany, a powerful propaganda tool in itself.

More importantly, it is used as a tactic of historical revisionism, attempting to paint life under "totalitarian" regimes as something where every single second of every single day one has to be watching over their shoulders in order to not say a single wrong word or be taken off to the gulags/executed. In short, it attempts to take the historical reality of life under "totalitarian" regimes and equate it with 1984.

Anyone that has actually studied the USSR or Nazi Germany (or any supposedly "totalitarian" state) knows that the state is not a monolithic entity, and that there are factional disputes and zones of influence within the state itself. The state is also not something that is watching every single move that every single citizen makes every single second of the day. It just isn't possible.

A serious Marxist historian would also note that the state is a body who serves the interests of the ruling class or, in the case of a degenerated workers' state like the USSR, a bureaucratic layer. In the case of the former, the state does not play a direct role but rather an intermediary between classes; in the latter, the state is fractured due to the volatile nature of the political twists and turns of the bureaucracy. In either case, in no instance in history has there ever or will there ever be an instance where lines are clearly drawn between "the state" and "the subjects".

 

[Hoplite]

Because the entire concept of totalitarianism is absurd on its face. No state is or ever has been technologically advanced or monolithic enough to be totalitarian in the actual sense.

I disagree. Totalitarianism is defined as "of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." I dont see any conflict with that definition and North Korea. No, not every second of one's day is controlled and the state doesnt control your thoughts, but for all practical purposes virtually everything around you is controlled by the state and last I remember, North Korea doesn't have elections. The state owns or controls all media, including television and news media. Internet is tightly regulated and what is available is either routed through China or "government approved" versions of more mainstream sites. Last count I heard was upwards of six large prison camps with near 300,000 prisoners and dozens of "re-education" camps scattered around the country.

I agree that this may not be totalitarian in the 1984 sense, but I think it fits the dictionary definition quite nicely.

It is simply used as a name-calling and propaganda device. Back when this theory was first developed proponents of totalitarianism theory generally were incredibly rabid anti-Communists (think Richard Pipes) who used the term to contrast with the "freedom" of America and its allies. It was also a very convenient way of equating the USSR with NAZI Germany, a powerful propaganda tool in itself.

I agree that it's often mis-used to demonize political enemies, but I dont think that means the word is not usable.

More importantly, it is used as a tactic of historical revisionism, attempting to paint life under "totalitarian" regimes as something where every single second of every single day one has to be watching over their shoulders in order to not say a single wrong word or be taken off to the gulags/executed. In short, it attempts to take the historical reality of life under "totalitarian" regimes and equate it with 1984.

Anyone that has actually studied the USSR or Nazi Germany (or any supposedly "totalitarian" state) knows that the state is not a monolithic entity, and that there are factional disputes and zones of influence within the state itself. The state is also not something that is watching every single move that every single citizen makes every single second of the day. It just isn't possible.

Again, I agree that it's difficult to watch everyone all the time but I dont think it means we can no longer use the word simply because certain people mis-use it.

What would you call North Korea?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I disagree. Totalitarianism is defined as "of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life."

Where did you get that definition? Because it's certainly not one used by most theorists, critics or adherents. This definition fits more in line with authoritarianism than totalitarianism, which are completely different. There is a reason it is called as such, and that is because of the "total" aspect of the state.

I suggest you look into the origins of the term in Italian fascism and how it developed throughout the Cold War, as your conception of totalitarianism is not in line with political theory.

I agree that this may not be totalitarian in the 1984 sense, but I think it fits the dictionary definition quite nicely.

Dictionary definitions are never sufficient. Please research the topic and don't rely on a dictionary which is often deceiving or blatantly incorrect in its definition of something as complex as political theory. Even Wikipedia would have steered you on a more correct path, and would show you that totalitarianism theory has propaganda purposes at its root and is not simply a "misuse" of the term.

If you are genuinely interested in why totalitarianism is an outdated, hollow propaganda tool, I would suggest reading Beyond Totalitarianism by Sheila Fitzpatrick. Here's the full book on scribd.

I dont see any conflict with that definition and North Korea. No, not every second of one's day is controlled and the state doesnt control your thoughts, but for all practical purposes virtually everything around you is controlled by the state and last I remember, North Korea doesn't have elections. The state owns or controls all media, including television and news media. Internet is tightly regulated and what is available is either routed through China or "government approved" versions of more mainstream sites. Last count I heard was upwards of six large prison camps with near 300,000 prisoners and dozens of "re-education" camps scattered around the country.

One could say the same thing about the US, just that these policies take different forms. All states are authoritarian.

"the custom of observing the rules of social life can lose all need of compulsion if there is nothing which provokes indignation, protest and revolt, and thus creates the necessity for repression.”

What would you call North Korea?

North Korea is a state where the vast majority of the economy is nationalized, yet political power rests firmly in the hands of an entrenched bureaucratic stratum.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I disagree. Totalitarianism is defined as "of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." I dont see any conflict with that definition and North Korea. No, not every second of one's day is controlled and the state doesnt control your thoughts, but for all practical purposes virtually everything around you is controlled by the state and last I remember, North Korea doesn't have elections. The state owns or controls all media, including television and news media. Internet is tightly regulated and what is available is either routed through China or "government approved" versions of more mainstream sites. Last count I heard was upwards of six large prison camps with near 300,000 prisoners and dozens of "re-education" camps scattered around the country.

Oh yeah, a few more things.

First, you are taking an abstract term and attempting to apply that abstraction to reality. "The state" in reality is a collection of human beings organized in a certain manner. In reality, when one says that "the state" controls something, what this means is that there is juridical control of "the state" over this or that thing. What this means in practice, though, is that as a collection of humans with similar or conflicting interests, there are going to be different layers, different sections and different groupings within the state that are going to try to influence state control to this or that aim. "The state" therefore is something that is subject to the control of the bureaucrats, and therefore to their conflicts and desires. Therefore, your explanation falls flat on its face right at the start as it incorrectly posits an abstraction as a material fact.

Second, you mention elections. Elections are not representative of the level of political power for the average citizen in a given country. Elections are, as a matter of fact, tools used to promote an appearance of legitimacy, or freedom, or power of the average citizen. In reality this is not the case at all. The more important the election, the more it is controlled by various mechanisms that have been put in place, be they social, political or economic. This is just as true in the US as it is in North Korea. Therefore, asserting that because the DPRK doesn't have elections (which isn't true BTW, they're just probably rigged) that it is somehow "less free" or that North Korean citizens have "less power" in their government is simply incorrect.

Third, I don't know if you knew this but all TV news media in the United States and the vast majority of mainstream news sources in general are controlled by now 6 (after the Comcast-NBC merger) media conglomerates who effectively act as the state media for the US.

Fourth, the US as of 2006 had 3.2% of its population incarcerated, on probation or on parole, compared to the 300,000 figure you gave (without source) which is 1.2% of the North Korean population.

Yeah yeah I'll get bashed as an America hater for this by the conservative loonies but my point is that these things happen in "free" societies just as they do in "totalitarian" ones, they just exist in different forms.

 

[Demon of Light]

Actually the DPRK is a planned economy with the vast majority of private property being state owned (aside from the Special Economic Zones). The DPRK has much more in common with China, I would say, as it was a country that did not go through a proletarian revolution as the USSR had and therefore was bureaucratized and degenerated from the start. Us Trotskyists (well, the smart ones at least) call those "deformed workers' states" although I'm not too fond of the term because most people don't understand it.

Ahh, a Trotskyist. That explains it. I do not think the DPRK has much in common with China at all. Juche, which was always the unofficial ideology of North Korea before it officially replaced Marxism-Leninism, really bears a greater resemblance to Fascism as espoused by Benito Mussolini. It has always emphasized militarism, idealized nationalism, and the idea of the State as the arbiter of all rights and interests of the people.

Also, any notion that simply not being a revolution carried out by the working-class means it automatically is authoritarian is just ridiculous and ideologically rigid.

I also wouldn't consider the DPRK or any other country "totalitarian".

I think you should understand that totalitarian is not meant to define what the State is actually capable of doing, but what the State strives to do. A totalitarian state is one that sakes to control every aspect of a person's life.

 

[gunner]

Oh and Reagan had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the dissolution of the USSR.

Can you elaborate further?

Paul