You can tell a history of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics in which events are inconsistent with Marx's theory of history.
2.0 Bolshevik RevolutionMarx, like Adam Smith and Walt Rostow, had a stages theory of history. Feudalism was succeeded by capitalism, and capitalism is to be succeeded by socialism. Socialism is to arise first in the most advanced capitalist countries. (The theory of history is not my favorite part of Marxist theory.) Russia, in 1917, was a semi-feudal country with peasants as the largest class. I guess China was the same, before Mao. A Marxist would not expect socialism to start successful in either country.
I have some caveats. Marx's 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich speculates on the possibility of socialism in Russia. I am aware that Lenin had an argument about how socialism can start with the weakest link in the age of imperialism. But he still expected his revolution to be supported by revolutions in advanced capitalist countries. And, for a moment he seemed to be right, what with the Spartacist revolution in Germany, the Bavarian Socialist Republic, and Hungary.
3.0 Socialism In One CountryStalin came up with the idea of socialism in one country. That country was still quite backward, not an advanced capitalist country. Is the championing of the Soviet Union by communists in advanced capitlist countries what Marxists would wnat? The Soviet Union presented an alternative. But shouldn't their priority be building socialism at home? And their cause was weakened when the Soviet Union behaved like other great powers in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
4.0 Khrushchev's Secret SpeechKhrushchev denounced Stalin in his 'secret' speech of 25 February 1956. He came up with the concept of the cult of personality. What is that from a Marxist perspective? History is supposed to be determined, ultimately, by contradictions in material conditions. How can the mistakes of one leader be so important?
5.0 Gorbachev's VoluntarismI do not understand the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
As I understand it, Gorbachev and other members of the Politburo acquiesced in the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Poor performance pointed out the need for reforms. Nevertheless, I find it strange that political leaders can decide that the system they preside over has no legitimacy like that.
Steve Paxton provides an account of how the fall of the Soviet Union was a triumph for Marx's theory of history.
Maybe you find this interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0954349X26000287
Thanks for the link to that article on Pasinetti's structural economic dynamics.
ReplyDelete«Nevertheless, I find it strange that political leaders can decide that the system they preside over has no legitimacy like that.»
ReplyDeleteIn essence a large part of the upper-middle and upper class of the USSR wanted to "privatize" for their own benefit the state resources because they felt that in a "liberal democracy" they would be much better off personally. The smoking gun (machine translated from the russian original):
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8955769.html#cutid1
«Dissident, participant and founder of many political clubs during the Perestroika era Vyacheslav Igrunov recalled the “ideological core” with which the young reformers began building the “new Russia” in the 1990s: https://t.me/Varjag2007/82948
"In 1989, a large group of young reformers went to Chile to learn from Pinochet's experience; there were Naishul, Chubais, Lvin, Vasilyev, Boldyrev and many others. They all came back completely delighted. In the fall of 1989 we had very hard debates on this topic. They thought after the trip as follows: to make the population poor in order to devalue the labor force, and our not very good goods would gain competitiveness due to cheapness. Concentrate resources in the hands of a few, so that these few could compete on the international market.
I told them: these methods would lead to strikes and the collapse of the country. They replied that they understood this, so the main task was to destroy the trade unions first. I objected, that you can negotiate with trade unions, but without them there will be radicals and “wild” protests. Their response to my remark stunned me: “Why, don't we have machine guns?” People from Gaidar's team spoke in general about the destruction of the state: “The more we destroy, the harder it will be to restore the old”.
When I heard this, I realized that we were not on the same path. Their idea of a strong government is not a state, but a dictator who breaks the people over his knee and carries out reforms. The phrase “breaking over the knee” appeared quite early in this environment."»
In particular the top politicians of many of the USSR member states (and of their vassals) became obscenely and even ostentatiously and vulgarly wealthy even if their own states were poor, the upper-middle classes became significantly better off, and their working and lower classes lost big time. Same as in the USA, EU, and other "Washington Consensus" members that also adopted "pinochetization" with Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Blair and their imitators.