Modern scientific source that challenge the idea that the Soviet Union was socialist

i don't think this is a scientific issue really. theres quite a lot been written about what the ussr was for example https://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

but for proving it wasn't socialist you need a definition of socialism, which could be difficult because a lot of anti communists are prone to defining socialism as whatever they don't like

What is a 'scientific' source in this case?

Yeah, I don't think you know what science means or how it applies to history/social studies. It's not like there is a dataset that one can just fork over, put into excel and spit out the conclusion "Not Socialism" which even itself would be a far cry from a certain statement.

I don't mean that as an insult, but I do mean to say that radicalgraffiti is correct; we'd have to define socialism somehow. If socialism is workers in power, workers ownership and control of the means of production, it's clear that didn't last much past the civil war. What the USSR *was* however becomes a far more complicated question. Some argue that it was an 'ectopic social formation', a blind alley. Some argue it was 'state capitalism'. (This sounds bunk to me). What characterizes a society, as argued by Marx, is the way in which what is necessary for the reproduction of the society is produced and distributed. In capitalism, it is produced an distributed through the dictates of 'value', in socialism - the dictates of the DotP, in communism, human need, in the USSR - bureaucrats.

As for it 'having to do' with socialism, of *course* it had to do with socialism. It was a gigantic failure of the socialist movement. It has to be reconciled with, dealt with, explained. Maybe not so much for strategic reasons, as agitational. But in my experience of talking to strangers about socialism (contrary to autonomist delusions about the 'inner spirit of proletarian reflexive simplicity') the USSR, China, etc. come up pretty quick.

You could check out Alec Nove's "Economic History of the USSR' which I believe is pretty easy to find online, as well as many other histories (Rabinowitch's series on the Bolsheviks, Rex Wades single text, John Eric Marot's book looks at the rise of stalin/ism specifically from a political-economy standpoint).

The best you can do on wiki, though, is to have if there isn't already a section that refers to this debate over the socialist nature of the USSR.

For example the first sentence says it was a "socialist state", and I don't know the procedures of wiki but you can probably make that claim at the very least more flexible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Russia

This page makes no reference to the capitalism of the USSR

If you define socialism as being stateless, then USSR does not fit into socialism.

You can build up an argument that goes like this:
Socialism is for the working class
The state and the working class are each other enemies
Thus socialism becomes stateless

Ah ye you can say one more thing. To go from capitalism to socialism there needs to be the dictatorship of the proletariat over the capitalists. But thats not what you had in USSR. What you had in USSR was a dictatorship over the proletariat.

Pennoid

Yeah, I don't think you know what science means or how it applies to history/social studies. It's not like there is a dataset that one can just fork over, put into excel and spit out the conclusion "Not Socialism" which even itself would be a far cry from a certain statement.

If you were serious you'd need to start by finding out what real science is and what it means

I'd second the Aufheben article. It's a good survey of the various (critical) theories.

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

JonnyMaddox

When I say scientific I mean published by some respectable dude in a peer-reviewed journal. In science you have to translate meaningless words into empirical observational data to make it meaningful (that's why philosophy is 99% bullshit, just saying)..

That reminded me of this:

"Lack of experience diminishes our power of taking a comprehensive view of the admitted facts. Hence those who dwell in intimate association with nature and its phenomena are more able to lay down principles such as to admit of a wide and coherent development; while those whom devotion to abstract discussions has rendered unobservant of facts are too ready to dogmatize on the basis of a few observations."

Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption There's no point in you repressing the obvious, that you're feeling the only too philosophical (and futile) constructionist-realist tension, which is itself a hangover of medieval philosophy. Your description relies upon metaphysically charged words whose meanings have in the past completely changed and will change again: 'objective' used to refer to the objects of internal contemplation, 'realism' was the idea that abstract universal mental entities were more real than sensory experiences, 'fact' had the sense of 'manufacture' , etc.. What you've missed is that invention and discovery in science are synonyms not antonyms. Scientific objects are both real and historical.

So the contrast between what is and what is made has not always taken the form of the metaphysical axiom that is animating your enquiry. The first obstacle in the path towards a scientific way of thinking is primary experience, common experience that 's taken to be prior to and above the kind of criticism that's an integral part of the scientific way of apprehending. The objects of science are elusive, not thrown easily into our path, their discovery is difficult to invent and they often vanish without a trace after a while. You're chasing phantoms, reality is a matter of degree.

When I say scientific I mean published by some respectable dude in a peer-reviewed journal. In science you have to translate meaningless words into empirical observational data to make it meaningful (that's why philosophy is 99% bullshit, just saying). I know this is hard with political science and definitions of words because it's not exact science, but there has to be an accurate meaning of the word socialism.

Oh so you don't mean science when you say science your just looking for an appeal to authority?
There is an accurate meaning of the word socialism by the way,

"A society were the means of production is run by those who work them." It's the definition the Soviet Union used when it was founded

For example the Bolsheviks used anarchist rhetoric to get the support of the people. Alright, now why did they get the support of the people when they talked about anarchist or socialist ideas? Because socialism had a different meaning to them (to the population). Now what was that meaning and how is it compatible with the regime that the Bolsheviks established?

It wasn't compatible at all, we know this because the latter turned on the former and expelled all those party members who argued that it could be compatible.

A side note: What's really funny is that today if you organize your business in a socialist fashion like Semco or the Mondragon Corporation then it is considered "new and innovative" and has nothing to do with socialism when in reality it is very close to the ideas of socialism.

Hmm I'm beginning to see why your having such a hard time with this s word.

JonnyMaddox

For example the Bolsheviks used anarchist rhetoric to get the support of the people.

Thats not true. The only reason the Bolshevist got support by the people in the end was because the provisional government wanted to continue the war. So in order to stop the war people turned to the bolses not because they liked them but because they hated war

You know what is scary?
This

Reddebrek

Oh so you don't mean science when you say science your just looking for an appeal to authority?
There is an accurate meaning of the word socialism by the way,

"A society were the means of production is run by those who work them." It's the definition the Soviet Union used when it was founded

Well they conveniently forgot to add that a socialistic system should be run by those who participate in the socialistic system. So instead of socialism USSR turned into a system where few privileged individuals was dictating over the masses for their own benefit and who paid the price? The workers

What's really funny is that today if you organize your business in a socialist fashion like Semco or the Mondragon Corporation then it is considered "new and innovative" and has nothing to do with socialism when in reality it is very close to the ideas of socialism.

oooohhh... I'd start here, at least.

Anyway, surely Chomsky must have spoken about this the true nature of the USSR.

In fact, here: https://chomsky.info/1986____/

Not super current, but I'm sure he's said similar things more recently.

There is Stephen Kotkin who are writting about Stalin in 3 huge books. Though it doesnt go into "what is socialism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1OKA613wGA

I know factvalue #12, has already covered some of this, words take on meaning from the context in which they are used (this can be the historical context).

If in doubt ask someone to define what they mean by a political ‘label’ like socialism. Then a discussion may develop about the different ideas contained within the ‘envelop’ called ‘socialism’. In my opinion, ‘science’ when applied to politics usually leads to mass murder (replacing god).

"The Bolsheviks wanted a system that controls every aspect of the economy"

1) What do you call the NEP
2) Capitalism (value) now controls every aspect of the economy, why is that any better?

I rest my case.

JonnyMaddox

You can't apply anarchist principles to science, it's impossible.

Paul Feyerabend:

Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

(source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm)

You have a very naïve view of science I'm afraid. Show me a single history text that is not subjective or for that matter any social science. Even when you use so-called objective data, prior to their collection there is a subjective decision about what sorts of data will be collected. Then there's the interpretation and so on.

And not to mention what factvalue already pointed out...

If you spent some time reading the Aufheben article linked, it says:

"For both Lenin and Trotsky there was no immediate prospect of socialism let alone communism in Russia, and in his polemics with the left at this time Lenin argued that, given the backward conditions throughout much of Russia, state capitalism would be a welcome advance. As he states:

Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. (Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27, p. 293)"

Pennoid

"The Bolsheviks wanted a system that controls every aspect of the economy"

1) What do you call the NEP
2) Capitalism (value) now controls every aspect of the economy, why is that any better?

NEP stands for Novaja ekonomitsjeskaja politika, and means new economic politic. NEP was not what the bolses wanted. It was a compromise, because, as the bolses correctly had observed, people didnt want communism, they just wanted to get rid of the war and thats why they turned to the bolses for salvation.
Well it helped but it also resulted in that the bolses couldnt get communism which was what they wanted now that they had control of the state. These contradictions was never solved and the contradictions just escalated out of control. Then when the bubble burst a lot of people had to die because of it.

NEP lasted until 1928 when the first 5 year plan took over

A poster in Moscow informing people about the five year plan

I have previously recommended this as a worthwhile read:
http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-class-struggle-ussr-neil-c-fernandez

I think to start with we could put forward some premises which perhaps might require interrogation, but;

Capitalism involves making a profit and a market etc.?

State capitalism and socialism are incompatible and state capitalism is a form of capitalism?

Lenin and Trotsky knew what capitalism and state capitalism was in the early 1920’s?

Lenin and Trotsky were well informed enough as to the situation in say 1922 to make an accurate analysis of the economic system and didn’t lie about it then?

If you accept the all above, which don’t have to, then it must follow that Soviet Russia was capitalist given the following.

Lenin

Decision Of The C.C., R.C.P.(B.), January 12, 1922

…on the other hand, the socialised state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i. e., they are being reorganised on commercial lines, which, in view of the general cultural backwardness and exhaustion of the country, will, to a greater or lesser degree, inevitably give rise to the impression among the masses that there is an antagonism of interest between the management of the different enterprises and the workers employed in them.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm

. But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm

we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism),…

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm

.......this is explicable in part by an incomprehension of an expression frequently used by us, that we now have state capitalism. I shall not enter into an evaluation of this term; for in any case we need only to qualify what we understand by it. By state capitalism we all understood property belonging to the state which itself was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which exploited the working class. Our state undertakings operate along commercial lines based on the market.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm

There is another perhaps inferred ‘Stalinist’ argument, perhaps, that state capitalism morphed into ‘socialism’ after 1925?

Then I suppose you have to drag in another document from Stalin in 1906 where he says amongst other things that there can be no state power in socialism and socialism is the same economic system as gotha programme higher phase of communism.

page 339
"In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour..

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3

That Kautsky quote is quite interesting, it is often cited without the source , so here it is I think, for context?;

The economic activity of the modern state is the natural starting point of the development that leads to the Co-operative Commonwealth. It does not, however, follow that every nationalization of an economic function or of an industry is a step towards the Co-operative Commonwealth, and that the latter could be the result of a general nationalization of all industries without any change in the character of the state.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04.htm

Anyway there are problems in defining capitalism I think.

Actually Karl, for what it matters, didn’t really get round to ‘defining’ capitalism until late into volume three, and even there, he talked around it having two distinctive features.

Whilst private ownership is an integral part of capitalism it is not unique to it.

Thus you can have private ownership in simple commodity production where the 'self employed' can produce commodities for sale as with handloom weavers without that fitting very well into a definition of capitalism.

Ie there is no wage labour or people aren’t selling their capacity to work or their time to someone else?

You could argue that their was private property in feudalism, serfdom and under slave production [ modern or old] without that being capitalism in a formal sense or otherwise.

Then there is the problem of ‘co-operatives’.

I think in free access socialism etc industrial units will have considerable degree of autonomy in how the make stuff etc.

But there can be the view that ‘co-operatives’ will be trading enterprises that will one way or another sell their products on the market and that will not be capitalism but some-kind of socialism.

In which case the ‘co-operatives’ would be ‘private’ syndicates of owner workers?

It wouldn’t be that much different to working shareholders of an ‘enterprise’.

Eg from Karl again!

The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour.

They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories.

Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

On the credit thing Karl was musing about the possibility of a trend where workers could borrow money to set up co-operatives.

It was happening then more than now.

In times of economic crisis a business would fold and would be offered up for a song and low enough for the workers to scrabble together enough of their own money and some from banks to run it for themselves. Often the workers themselves had a better understanding of the potential future economic viability of a factory than the bankers that had foreclosed on a capitalist down on his luck.

In his wages of supervision argument; he use examples were the workers would proceed to employ the expertise of the former owner to help them run it.

I think 150 years ago we need to give a hat tip to the then capitalist class in the sense that they were often engineers and chemists as well who knew how to make stuff.

I think it was Chomsky who noted recently that 50 years ago in the US people who ‘ran’ companies, or CEO’s, were still technologically familiar with what was being produced ie they were engineers.

And now they all have business degrees from Harvard or whatever.

I think the guild system was basically were artisans and craftsmen etc would co-operate together to maintain a relatively local monopoly of production of a commodity regulating supply and demand of the commodity and labour power to keep prices high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

Kropotkin I think celebrated the socialist guild system as an example of co-operative organisation of labour even though everybody else outside it could go to hell in a hand-basket.

I am no Leninist at all but he did have a point I think in calling aspects of ‘syndicalistm’ petty bourgeois.

The petty bourgeois will say I am making stuff myself and selling it and I will sink or swim, without exploiting wage labour, on that basis.

Wage labour is for suckers.

Co-operative syndicates will say ‘we’ are making stuff ourselves and selling it and will sink or swim, without exploiting wage labour.

If they so happen to become successful at that, which can happen eg with Mondragon and Israel kibbutz’s they might be tempted to compromise their original principals by investing accumulated capital to employ Polish workers in Poland or get Palestinian workers to harvest their tomato crop or whatever.

"….Participation is not only more desirable, it is also economically more viable than traditional authoritarian management. Econometric measurements indicate that efficiency increases with participation…………”

I work in a factory in the UK that was taken over by Mitsubishi corporation about 10 years ago.

Initially they let it run on the English managerial model but got pissed off with that, being sensible capitalists.

On a technological basis they are all up for letting the workers figure out the best way of doing stuff and getting them to believe in an ‘object orientated’ philosophy of doing stuff or making it efficiently as possible.

Look after that and the profits will look after themselves.

I will stop there I think.

There might be something for you here

This view of Marx then goes on to discuss his socialist paradise as one of millions of people who submit to an all-powerful state bureaucracy, people who have surrendered their freedom, even though they might have achieved equality; these materially satisfied "individuals" have lost their individuality and have been successfully transformed into millions of uniform robots and automatons, led by a small elite of better-fed leaders.

Suffice it to say at the outset that this popular picture of Marx's "materialism" -- his anti-spiritual tendency, his wish for uniformity and subordination -- is utterly false. Marx's aim was that of the spiritual emancipation of man, of his liberation from the chains of economic determination, of restituting him in his human wholeness, of enabling him to find unity and harmony with his fellow man and with nature. Marx's philosophy was, in secular, nontheistic language, a new and radical step forward in the tradition of prophetic Messianism; it was aimed at the full realization of individualism, the very aim which has guided Western thinking from the Renaissance and the Reformation far into the nineteenth century.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/

Erich Fromm 1961
Marx's Concept of Man