18

I found that the Third International sponsored a worldwide transformation of former “socialist” parties (that was concretely related to the rejection of so-called “reformism”, to be somewhat upgraded to a more revolutionary stance, aiming to the “proletariat dictatorship”), who were thus prompted to become “communist” even in their names.

Why did not the same idea apply to the USSR, that always kept its “socialist” definition?

5
  • 23
    Communism (classless society, worker's paradise etc) was the distant goal and socialism a stage on the way to that goal. Officially, the Soviet Union and its satellites all were still in the socialism stage of the Marxist(-Leninist?) development model.
    – Jan
    Feb 16 at 12:35
  • That could be a good point, but is it sufficient to justify that only the (foreign?) parties should be christianized as “communist”? Couldn’t they retain a “provisional” socialist qualification as well?
    – Filippof
    Feb 16 at 12:45
  • 2
    The Communist Party of the USSR was not "foreign". One of the reasons to use the "communist" adjective in party names was to differentiate from "non-communist" Social-Democratic parties which frequently were called "socialist" (e.g. in France, Italy, Spain). There were some exceptions such as the ruling party in DDR, Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. But, under (effectively) one-party rule, there was no need for differentiation. Feb 16 at 14:50
  • 2
    "communist" and capital-C "Communist" are different words. Their meanings are almost entirely unrelated. Did you mean to ask about lower-case-c or did you mean "Communist"?
    – grovkin
    Feb 16 at 22:26
  • @Jan This reminds me of the joke Reagan used to tell, "Two Russians are walking down the street, and one says, ''Comrade, have we reached the highest state of Communism?'' ''Oh, no,'' the other replies. ''I think things are going to get a lot worse." Feb 18 at 22:40
40

The reason is that there are two different concepts that are named "communism". One is the final stage in the Marxist(-Leninist?) development model (after archaic/primitive classless societies, slave-holder societies, feudal societies, capitalistic societies and socialist societies) It is marked by (again!) a classless society, a total worker's paradise etc. As far as I am aware the Soviet Union and its satellites never claimed to have reached that stage of development. They were still in the transition between Capitalism and Communism, i.e. in the Socialist phase of development.

The other concept is the political movement that works towards the establishment of "Communism, the development stage".

It is always fine to name a party after a political movement. And in fact many of the ruling parties in the Soviet bloc called themselves "communist". E.g. the CPSU.

But naming a country after some distant of what it wants to be would invite misunderstandings and derision ("Why can I not have what I want? Marx said 'everyone according to his needs'!)

12
  • 24
    As I understand it, in orthodox Marxism, a genuinely communist society would also be stateless, so a "Union of Communist Republics" would be a contradiction in terms.
    – Tom Hosker
    Feb 16 at 13:08
  • 1
    @Tom Hosker That sounds quite familiar. But I do not know where exactly it is from and I did not want to add it without at least looking it up.
    – Jan
    Feb 16 at 13:54
  • 9
    @Tom Hosker Probably a consequence of Engels' claim the the state would wither and die ("Der Staat ... stirbt ab", mlwerke.de/me/me19/me19_210.htm). Another point where communist ideas were quite far away from socialist practice.
    – Jan
    Feb 16 at 14:05
  • 1
    Yes, I too had come to my conclusion about the statelessness of a genuinely communist society based on references to 'the withering away of the state'. I'm sure it's a tenet that crops up in all sorts of Marxist literature, but the only source I can name off the top of my head is The Gulag Archipelago, in which Solzhenitsyn pokes fun at Stalin's claim that the quickest way to achieve the withering away of the state is for the state to assume absolute power. Solzhenitsyn's hardly an unbiased source, however.
    – Tom Hosker
    Feb 16 at 14:21
  • 2
    @Jan - Czechoslovakia victoriously finished building the socialist system in 1960 and was accordingly renamed the Czechoslovak Socialistic Republic, equipped with a new, socialistic constitution. Moishe's remark does not seem to me spot on. Feb 16 at 23:26
23

It is good to know that by Lenin's stance USSR was not in fact a socialist state. Their aim was socialism and eventually communism (in modern parlance people think of socialism and communism, usually communism is just though of a subcategory of socialist views. In fact Marx himself used communism and socialism interchangeably as an economic mode), but at Lenin's time they were not even an industrial country. In fact Russia was in the verge of collapse after the WW1, civil war, economic collapse and the Allied invasion of the formed Soviet Union. Lenin thus had to be quite practical, and first order priorities were holding the country together and stabilizing the political situation to prevent further invasions by the hostile western countries and secondly to industrialize the economy in order to have resources to transform the mode of production. He openly admitted that capitalism would be preferrable to the current state of Russia. Lenin actually openly and often denied that Russia was socialist, but rather that it was their goal:

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order

In fact USSR was first announced to have "reached socialism" under Stalin, who had - yes - greatly industrialized the Soviet Union, but not fundamentally changed the mode of production to a socialist one. Since Stalin was, before replacing Lenin a serious scholar who had analyzed much of Lenin's and Marx's writings well aware of socialist theory, it can be quite confidently be said that this announcement was made in order to advance Stalin's personal cult inside the Bolshevik party and as a propaganda message to promote Stalin's Russia. So now, officially, USSR was in fact a socialist state whose goal by the ML-definitions of the words, was communism.

5
  • 2
    A very fine answer. H/T.
    – Filippof
    Feb 17 at 7:28
  • 1
    In fact, very much changed: Stalin dismantled NEP, and, effectively capitalist forms of production. Khruschev did it even further than Stalin.
    – Anixx
    Feb 17 at 13:19
  • @Anixx Good point. To say that nothing changed was definetely too reductionist from my part, but still, the country was not socialist even by Stalin's own standards.
    – TETRACTYS
    Feb 17 at 13:27
  • @Filippof Thank you very much!
    – TETRACTYS
    Feb 17 at 13:29
  • 5
    hence the joke when they were having trouble staffing the buses "having reached socialism, we have no ticket collectors. Soon we will reach communism, and then we will have no drivers!" Feb 17 at 22:51
10

I am from a former soviet country, and it is important that these ideas were somewhat new and there are some inconsistencies in the terminologies until later when they were defined more properly. Many took the word social and commune and tried to make a government definition run by social/communes. - Even Karl Marks used the words interchangeably.

So the trend from Capitalism to the paradise of Communism is supposed to happen in stages.

  • seize the means of production (land, labour, capital , and resources)

  • Establish a union state controlled by the workers.

  • redistribute resources each according to his need/ contribution depending on stage.

  • Once capitalism has been abolished and wealth has been redistributed , then dissolve into a stateless, classless, money-less, society.

The last part being important. The USSR , nor any other socialist state has ever dissolved into anything except for capitalism.

They called themselves socialist because they were in that stage of development . There is a communist party which was supposed to keep the progress moving forward to achieve the communist dream. However, Communism wasn't achieved and therefore the USSR isn't communist , but Socialist.

4
  • 1
    This could be reduced to the continuance of the wage labour relation (per Marx) in Soviet Society. Feb 17 at 8:35
  • 1
    No country except the failed state does the last step Feb 19 at 9:57
  • @user2617804 except failed states are never classless (unless 95% poor is a proxy for classless) nor moneyless (they just use someone else's currency).
    – RonJohn
    May 1 at 2:49
  • The problem with "stateless" is that humans -- like their Pan cousins -- are a clannish species. The problem with "classless" is that -- like many species, including their Pan cousins -- humans are hierarchical, and all their traits (intelligence/cleverness, strength, aggression, etc) all fall on a normal distribution; this means that human success will follow a Pareto distribution. The problem with "moneyless" is that money is so damned useful. Therefore, Communism is impossible among humans.
    – RonJohn
    May 1 at 2:57
5

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) nominally advocated for an eventual classless society. Much like the reformist Fabian socialists did.

Attempts by Soviet proletarians to advance their own interests at Kronstadt or the Ural-Siberian method were not effective. The SDLP(b) or CPSU(b) foiled and fouled such efforts.

Efforts towards generalised proletarian self governance in 56 (Poland and Hungary) or 68 (Czechia of Czechoslovakia) were militarily defeated by Polish or Soviet parties.

The analysis is either: communism is bullshit. Or, that making ideological claims about what you wish is utter bullshit when you shoot proletarians to defend an ideology not built out of factory praxis. That is to say that you can put lipstick on a pig, but when you put a sausage in its mouth it will be bitten off.

4
  • I would argue, by the 1970s it was classless society in the USSR. In the sense, all belonged to the same class. This does not mean, all were equal in other respects, of course.
    – Anixx
    Feb 17 at 14:05
  • 1
    @Anixx Soviet nomenklatura was definitely a separate class. The Soviet intelligentsia also was quite distinct from workers.
    – AlexD
    Feb 19 at 8:59
  • @Anixx The capitalist societies they were supposedly improving upon had fewer class distinctions, and more importantly, barriers. Neither was quite the same as actual class systems (like Indian castes), but then again, the ideas of class struggle were essentially invented by Marx (though certainly not original inventions). USSR was only classless if you have a sense of rigid classes like, say, landowners - sure, de jure, those were mostly banned. But plenty of new classes arose, and plenty stuck - like ethnicity, family history, and even just political convenience.
    – Luaan
    Feb 19 at 10:01
  • @Anixx I disagree; but, the clique or class ruining the Soviet Union was much less expensive than prior ruling classes, had a standard of living much cheaper, and internal differentiation in the Soviet Union was primarily geographic. However, nomenklatura who failed to maximise the value-form (when not incompatible with maintaining Soviet rule, until 1987) were killed imprisoned or demoted. Administering capitalism, acting as the bourgeoisie, is the sin qua non of the bourgeoisie because the substantive social relation trumps the formal ideological orating. Feb 19 at 22:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.