If it weren't nailed to the perch, it'd be pushing up daisies. CB: >> Overall, the media in the USSR was dominated by the ruling >> working class represented [sic] through its [sic] party, the CP. It was a >> republic not direct democracy.
me: > Of course: it didn't have a king, so it was a republic as usually > defined. CB, now: > Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was founded in > overthrowing Czarist absolutism. One principle of historical materialism (articulated by Marx and Engels) is we shouldn't take anyone's self-description as automatically true. After all, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, roman, or an empire. BTW, "absolutist" is a pretty good description of the old CPSU's rule of the USSR, as long as we don't restrict the use of the word to countries run by individuals. The Wikipedia, which CB likes to quote, says that "absolutism" is >>>Absolutism ... is a historiographical term used to describe a form of >>>monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as >>>churches, legislatures, or social elites. ... Absolutism is characterized by >>>the ending of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, >>>rise of state power, unification of the state laws, and a decrease in the >>>influence of the Church and the nobility. Absolute monarchs are also >>>associated with the rise of professional standing armies, professional >>>bureaucracies, the codification of state laws, and the rise of ideologies >>>that justify the absolutist monarchy [such as the degraded version of >>>Marxism that was so popular with the Soviet elite]. <<< In this perspective, after workers, peasants, sailors, and soldiers overthrew the Czar, which happened before the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917, eventually (sometime in the 1920s or late 1910s) the CPSU set up a substitute non-royalist kind of absolutism, imbued with the need to promote national economic development. me: > It [the old USSR] of course wasn't a direct democracy, since there have > never been any major industrial societies with that kind of democracy. > Why don't you mention merely representative democracy here, Charles? > is that because the old and defunct USSR didn't have that either? If > so, we agree. CB; > You didn't notice that I used the word "represented" ? The CPSU _claimed_ to represent the working class -- even though the working class had no control over it and no ability to punish the CP for misbehavior by tossing them out. I prefer looking at what actually happens in practice instead of public relations spin. The USSR didn't have representative democracy, not even by the degraded standards of the US. me: > If we don't define "republic" in terms of not allowing a _single > individual_ (king or queen, emperor or empress) to pass political > power to hand-picked successors, our answers change. We might say that > capitalism doesn't really involve a republic, since the current > capitalist class passes political power down to their scions (and to > rising greed-heads who excel at living down to capitalist standards). > Similarly, the CPSU of the 1930s passed political power down to the CP > of the 1940s, which passed it on to the CP of the 1950s, etc., until > the system ground to a halt in Gorby's time. ... CB: > The passing down scenario you paint has glitches in the shift to > Khruschev and then to Breznev. There were debates differences, > criticism-self-criticism. I can't think of any examples of bourgeois > democratic republics demonstrating the level of self-criticism that > the CPSU did in Khruschev's criticism of Stalin. ... This self-criticism was solely a matter of debates _within_ the CPSU. It did not involve the official rulers, i.e., the working class, who were simply informed of the results of the debates after the fact by the real rulers. > Yeah, all actually existing republics have fallen short of the ideal > of republicanism. > The US fell far short of democracy and republicanism for decades after > the American Revolution. It had slavery, no votes for women, genocide > against the indigenous peoples....yet, I'm not going to say the > American Revolution was not an advance. Similarly the French Rev. And > similarly, the Russian Rev and USSR. It's a totally bogus argument to defend "socialism" by saying "capitalism does it too." I thought socialism was supposed to be better than capitalism. me: > I've always wondered about that. If the working class was "represented > through" the CP, how was it that the working class made sure that the > CP didn't _misrepresent_ the working class? How did the workers punish > the CP leaders who went against working class interests? CB: > Those are good questions. However, from a logical standpoint, that > the working class had no mechanism for making sure the weren't > misrepresented doesn't mean that they were misrepresented in fact. > The leadership could have just properly represented working class > interests in the main without threat of punishment for failure to do > so. They could have just been honorable. yeah, right. I have a hard time believing that folks who rose to the top afraid of being "tried" and then purged by Stalin's boys would have had any concern besides preservation of their own skins and status -- and perpetuation of the Party's rule. BTW, this argument that an "honorable" ruling class does not need any kind of control by the people goes back to Plato. He argued that the Guardians would rule well because they were trained well, took vows of poverty, etc. It's a lot like what the LAPD or the Marine Corps goes through. But how does this avoid the fact that power corrupts? it doesn't. CB: > Furthermore, although Western leftists almost unanimously consider the > infamous punishments of leaders that did take place as not > representing the dominant , independent opinion in the Soviet working > class, it is not entirely impossible that the masses of Soviet > workers, on their own, thinking for themselves , agreed with those > punishments. It is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (smile) to > the contrary. I'm _not_ saying that it is proven that the masses did , > based on independent thinking, thinking for themselves , agreed with > it. I'm saying I can't say based on evidence that it was either way.... What kind of information did the "masses" have about the various folks who were purged and killed? None except that which the dominant factions of the CPSU wanted them to hear. What input did the "masses" have into the process? none. By the way, why was okay for Stalin and his boys to kill Bukharin but not for various would-be assassions who were part of the CPSU to try to kill Stalin? might makes right? the victors write the history? > ... you do often hear that there are still > lots of Stalin fans in Russia even today and certainly for decades > after Stalin's death. this proves once again that you can't trust nostalgia. me: > That is, when > the CP suppressed independent labor unions, invaded other countries > (such as Czechoslovakia), spent outlandish percentages of the net > material product on useless weapons, etc., how did the working class > fire the folks who claimed to "represent" them in these ways? CB: > Or did the working class in fact, based on independent thinking, > support these actions ? And communicate this to the leadership > through the mechanisms that their republic had developed ? Of course the Soviet working class did independent thinking (they were human, after all), which is one reason why independent labor unions kept on popping up. But they didn't have good information about what the ruling elite was doing. The CPSU monopolized the means of information dissemination. > Maybe the > vast majority of the working class considered that since the > enterprises were being run in their main interests and didn't have > profit motives that socalled independent trade unions were no longer > necessary. then why did workers try to have independent unions? and why was it so hard to motivate them to work for the state? > Or that since imperialism had invaded the USSR ... and visited enormous > economic destruction on the > country that it was too soon to allow Czechoslavokia to open up to > imperialist influence again. And the working class may even have been > wrong in thinking this... if it did ! Czechoslovakia's CP had never authorized invasions of the USSR, What kind of imperialism were they involved in? CB's attitude seems to be that "the CP can't do anything wrong." Why does this apply to the CPSU but not to the CP of Czechoslovakia? Might makes right? the victors write the history books? > The only way I can see the USSR's working class "controlling" the CP > the way that workers "control" the capitalist class in the "West," > i.e., by rising through the ranks and absorbing the dominant > mentality. But that's not collective, democratic, control. Just > because there's a former worker here or there who's now a capitalist > doesn't say that the workers control the capitalist class. Similarly, > just because some individual peasants or workers became Soviet > apparatchiks doesn't mean that the workers or peasants controlled the > CP. CB: > I don't think the working class controlled the CP, but it may > have had more influence on it than the impression one gets from where > we sit, and the working class and the CP were not utterly different > "entities". _of course_ the Soviet working class had influence over the CPSU. Even _slaves_ have influence over their masters. The fear of rebellions, etc. drives even the most autocratic ruling class to heed some words from the "masses." Khrushchev, for example, knew that the "masses" wanted more consumer goods -- and better ones and tried to respond (within the system, of course). All ruling classes have to maintain their legitimacy, since the use of nothing but brute force is extremely costly and eventually means that a country's economy grinds to a halt. (FWIW, the USSR's economy did not grind to a halt for that reason.) > Overall, I think the Party paternalistically led. However, in many > ways "Big Daddy" was objectively correct, and thereby represented the > best interests of the working class as a whole. So, the process was > not maturally democratic. But substantively democratic in the sense of > representing best interests. Most US workers would say that their bosses are also paternalistic. Their bosses also tell us (and them) that their paternalism represents the best interests of their employees as a whole. Workers should have the power to make these decisions. There must be _real_ democracy, not sham democracy where the leaders claim to know what's best for their servants. "substantively democratic in the sense of representing best interests"? This is the standard crap that dictators use to justify their rule. CB, it sure sounds like you've swallowed the paternalism of the CPSU hook, Line, and sinker. Can I make decisions for _you_ if they represent your best interest? me: > My impression is that the working class of the old USSR did not > control the CP at all. Since the CP controlled not only the means of > production but the means of coercion (i.e., the state apparatus), then > it would be more accurate (but not totally accurate) to say that the > CP controlled the working class. CB: > Except that on most or many issues through the history of the SU > there was no disagreement between the vast majority of the working > class and the CP. So , the CP was not coercing the working class. > There was no need to "control" it. It was leading and organizing what > was mutually agreed upon. the working class wasn't _allowed_ to diagree with the CP because the latter controlled the means of coercion (the state) and the means of information dissemination, in addition to the means of production. Of course, it's not like the Red Army and the Secret Police were constantly coercing the working class. Divide and rule works well. And once a friend is dragged off to Siberia or a mental institution, that shows that it's a good idea not to dissent from the official Party Line. CB: > The CP wasn't a ruling class. It was the leader of the working > class as ruling class. as if assertion makes it true. -- Jim Devine "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
