A More Socialist Soviet Union

Reminds me of modern Libya. Perhaps, Russia would've become like that in such a system. Everything is run by committees, everything is voted on, and not even the supreme leader can get much done - but he does live well otherwise.
 

Teleology

Banned
Couldn't you just have a tiered representative system where the people elect the Soviets (councils), the Soviets elect the Central Committee, and the Central Committee elects the Premier?

Or even a direct representational system where the people (or the Soviets) elect the Premier?

You could have the same representational scheme as the United States and it still be a communist country if the elected government centrally planned the economy.

Central planning has it's own failures, but I don't see how being more democratic would exacerbate them necessarily for the Soviets.
 
It's true that in certain respects the Bolshevik party was antidemocratic from the onset, as demonstrated by Lenin's argument for a elite party organization in "What is to be Done?" However, what really killed the kind of socialism of the type this POD, was really the Russian Civil War. Despite Lenin's desire for an unified elite party, the Bolshevik's weren't a entirely without internal dissension at the beginning. And Lenin at the onset, as I recall was very much in favor of the socialism this concept is concerned with. I could be misremembering Lenin though.

The Russian Civil War did two things for the Bolshevik government. The first is that it put a much greater emphasis on production than otherwise would have been there. The whole idea of "the militarization of labor" was largely a product of this. That's really what killed work place democracy. The second is that the Civil War made the Bolshevik's even more wary of opposition, and even internal dissent then they had been in 1917. It's no coincidence that the Law against factions and the putting down of the Kronstadt rebellion occurred in 1921 and not 1917 I'm not saying that the Bolshevik's and Lenin were ever shining beacons of socialism, but the RCW made them worse.

Problem is, you probably can't avoid the RCW no matter what you do, because the Russian Revolution (or Revolutions if you prefer) at least began as a St. Petersburg affair, and it's likely whatever the outcome that you'd see a national conflict over any attempt for a new government in that city to govern on a national level.

I realize that I might sound like a Bolshevik apologist here, and that's unintentional.
 

TheCrow__

Banned
well, to put it kindly, you have a more than slightly defective comprehension of capitalism.

(robbing the worker of the surplus value? Really, how exactly do folks imagine capitalists do that - walk around holding guns to people's heads demanding overtime?

That sort of thing only happened in, well, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union).

Put it this way - if it 'costs' Joe $3 of his time to make a pair of shoes, and he sells them for $4, then over time Joe will accumulate excess money beyond what is needed to satisfy his desire for immediate consumption. Presuming that he doesn't just sleep on the excess funds, he will use them iin some fashion. Since he isn't going to consume, the only other option is to invest in some fashion. Now Joe is using money to make more money. At some point in this process, more of Joe's income will be derived from using his money, as opposed to his labor. At this point, Joe is becoming a capitalist.
No capitalists use 'wage slavery' my friend the exploitation of the worker. They tell you we will pay you with a piece of paper which is completely worthless for you to create me or us this surplus of your goods which I will sale for 10x the value.

A more socialist Russia would have tried to eliminate the need for money. Joe goes to work at his shoe factory where he works for a few hours. The shoes he needs for him and his family he keeps. The rest will go into a collective for the rest of the society for those who don't work in a shoe factory. So Joe then goes to his local market where he simply strolls in and grabs what he needs and walks out with a teller simply marking down what's been took out of the supply. So in socialism if you work you get a hand in what the society as a whole has produced instead of having to get paid to try and buy these things so someone else can prosper.
 
Top