the defunct Soviet Union
From: Jim Devine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it weren't nailed to the perch, it'd be pushing up daisies. ^^^^^ CB: Faking death; playing possum to deescalate nuclear confrontation. ^^^^ 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(sic), so it was a republic as usually > defined. ^^^^^^^^ CB: No need to insert "sic" in what I said. The words "represented" and "its" are accurately used. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Nor automatically false , especially when we grow up in a society that is literally saturated with anti-Soviet propaganda, from which the claim that the SU's name is wholly false. Even ,the US self-claim to being a republic is not wholly false, e ^^^^ 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 ^^^^^^^ CB: Well, that's sort of begging the question on this thread. At dispute is to what extent the USSR was a republic and to what not. You are baldly asserting as true your position on the main issue in dispute. ^^^^^^ >>>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]. <<< ^^^^^ CB: By use of monoarchism, this definition doesn't fit the USSR. Monoarchies are hereditary elites. Non- of the Soviet leaders' children became top leaders based on their hereditary. Further, you haven't demonstrated that your Marxism is of a higher grade than that of the CPSU. Espeically, in world politics, the Soviet Union demonstrated quite high quality Marxism. ^^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^^ CB: This is kind of out of it. "Absolutism" is associated with monarchy. There was no monarchy in the SU. The Czar was overthrown by the workers, peasants, sailors and soldiers, many of whom were following the leadership of the Bolsheviks in the first Russian Revolution. It was the worksers, peasants, sailors and soldiers following exclusively Bolshevik leadership that overthrow the Kerensky government in October ( Russian calendar). In October they didn't just suddently shift over to the Bolsheviks but rather many or most of them were following Bolshevik leadership in February of 1917. ^^^^^^^ me: > ÂIt [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. ^^^^^ CB: When we look at what actually happened in the practice of the history of the SU, we find that the CPSU did substantially objectively represent the working class and its best interests. The form of representation was not that of bourgeois democratic republics like the US. Briefly, the representation is found in no unemployment, free universal health care, free higher ed. , low cost housing, low cost public transit, leisurely pace in workplace relative to capitalism ( this is a contradiction in the competition with capitalism; actual worker workplace power means , self-bossing, leads to less production), miners getting highest pay in society, no capitalists, et al. Another example is Cuba, which is a working class republic but doesn't have US form. ^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: Not necessarily so. The West was not privy to the communications between the Party and the working class masses. Criticism of Stalin may have come from masses outside of the Party and been party of the Party debate. ^^^^^^^ > 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. ÂIt 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: However, in this case I am saying that US capitalism _is_ a republic, so I'm saying that the US capitalism does republicanism too. Despite shortcomings, the US is not a total failure at advance over monarchism To the extent that the SU had beginning stages of socialism, (summarized above) it did do better than capitalism in representing working class interests. There's also the matter that the SU had no tradition of democracy and republicanism in 1917, coming out of absolutist monarchy. The US had over 100 years of experience with some democracy ( limited though it was especially at first). The SU had very limited social material, experience among masses with democracy. This limited just how democratic the process would be. Considering this and the military attacks by imperialism, the SU accomplished much in splendid error. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: Yeah, but the Party may have been leading in a way that best represented the working classes interests in the extraordinarily trying circumstances. So, preserving one's skin may have coincided with best representing the working class' interests ^^^^^^^^^ 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: Plato did not claim to be a Marxist, representing the interests of the working masses. He claimed to be representing exploiting classes of his day, no ? As to power corrupting, I'd rephrase it as power can corrupt. ^^^^^^^ 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. ÂIt 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. ^^^^^ CB: Yes, Khruschev criticizes this. Up until the time of the purges, the proceedings of the Central Committee and leadership were published. But at a certain point there were secret and illegal trials, basically many murders. However, I don't know that none of the charges made were false. Also, these were "trials" , though "illegal" according to Khruschev. By and large, masses are not involved in judicial decisions. ^^^^^^^^ 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? ^^^^^ CB: Well, no it wasn't ok to kill Bukharin from what I know about Bukharin. I just don't know what mass opinion was about the whole purge. Khruschev, who saved his skin in the whole thing, expressed the opinion of those who considered that Stalin , et al, acted illegally and "unforgiveably". I tend to accept Khruschev's assessment given that he was an insider, and in a way was expressing self-criticism or confession. ^^^^^^^^ > ... 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. ^^^^^ CB: It also points to the radical contradictoriness of Stalin who was very bad, evil even, and very good at the same time. MORE LATER _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
