56.3% of Russians Lament the Fall of the USSR
15 Comments Published by LeftyHenry on Sunday at 10:00 PM.
56% of Russians lament the fall of the Soviet Union. Just thought this was an interesting article. It brings up an interesting topic. The Neo-Left movement in both China and Russia who long for the garunteed employment, free healthcare, education, and social benefits of "Sovietism", is growing, and is especially popular among the youth who want to see an end to imperialist capitalism that is present day Russia, and elevate it back to the industrial superpower it was before the fall. Now as the Republics who made up the USSR increasingly turn to ultra-nationalism, and in Russia, Corporatism and pseudo-fascism, this study shows exactly the state that Russia and the East in general are in.
MOSCOW, December 7.—The disintegration of the Soviet Union 15 years ago has revived controversial political debate with wounds still open in sectors that supported the maintenance of the conglomerate of nations.
The Bieloviezhski agreement, signed on December 8, 1991 by the then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin; of Ukraine, Leonid Kravbchuk; and Belorus, Stanislav Shushkevich, erased the Soviet Union from the world map, where it had figured since 1922.
The birth of the Community of Independent States (CIS) was announced for December 21, 1991, but to date evaluations of that period are contradictory.
The current debate, with nuances, is taking place between those who consider the crumbling of the Union inevitable and, on the other side, those who interpret those acts as doing irreparable damage and leading to the destruction of a powerful multinational state, according to Prensa Latina.
With a majority of the population who laments the debacle of the early 90s, Russian society remains polarized in terms of the role played by Mikhail Gorbachev, ex-president of the Soviet Union, and Yeltsin in that convulsive process, qualified by the left as a conspiracy.
Interviewed on the subject of commemorating that date, Viacheslav Kebich, head of the Belarus government at that time, said that the Russian delegation held the baton as the initiator of the disintegrative treaty.
Fifteen years later, 56.3% of Russians lament the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to a survey by the Bashkirov and Partners consultancy.
Among citizens of Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus that sentiment brings together 69 out of every 100 persons interviewed by the Euroasian Monitor agency.
Translated by Granma International
The two aspects that hurt the Russian revolution the most were:
1) Lenin died too early and left Stalin to his madness
2) The nation wasn't industrialized and capitalism hadn't taken a firm rooting. In a sense, the revolution was forced.
Truth be told, a modern day revolution in Russia would be just as good a place as any.
Good points Dave,
Stalin's "madness" needs to be understood from all viewpoints. Both you and I are familiar with the Western Cold War view, but not many are familiar with the Russian view point which is both "Stalin as a tyrant" and "Stalin as a great leader." Why is that? Because Stalin industrialized Russia and turned it into a world superpower in a decade. We also should understand the exagerations and lies of the USA cold war view of Stalin. I think that Russians shouldn't concentrate on Stalin. They should understand the good things he did and the terrible, and figure out how to fix the bad if they want to pull themselves out of the hellhole Russia is in now.
The hatred of the order in Russia today, takes reactionary forms as anti-Semitism. That is because Stalin's opposition; Trotskyists, Zinoviev and Bukharin followers were all killed. Reform could only come from above.
See http://www.left.ru/inter/ . Very interesting.
If the USSR was such a resounding success, then why did Lenin change the system from pure Communism to "sort-of" Communism after only a couple of years?
The NEP wasn't sort of socialist. It was socialist and it was meant to jumpstart the economy, and proved ineffective and counterproductive because it created a class of Kulaks, or very, very rich peasants. Also, Lenin meant it too be temporary.
It WAS Socialist?
"We are not civilized enough for Socialism."
-Vladimir Lenin
That was his explanation for the NEP.
That quote is taken out of context. Lenin meant that industrialization was necessary before true socialism could exsist. Most modern day economists consider the NEP to be socialist with a few capitalist characteristics.
The Trotskyites amuse me on the blogosphere. I have written a post about the exact Dogmatism and basic mystical understanding of Marxism that Dave, Renegade Eye, and Mr. Anonymous expouse.
First, the revolution was "not forced" in any sense. It occurred in Russia because it was quite possible for revolution. NO Revolution is forced in history, when they occur, they occur not because of "Productive Forces" meeting some unknown requirement to have a revolution. This orthodox Marxism, essentially the mechanism of Trotskyism and even Stalinism is a lame duck with no application to the real needs and standards of people.
Historical Materialism should not be based on some deformed Hegelian understanding of the world, but rather the engagement of Human contingency in it. We are not passive creatures in the ride of history, we create it. And essentially that is what Communist Parties have done, and perhaps why Trotskyites and other dogmatists have hated it so throughly.
Make history, don't wait for it. That is your lesson from Lenin if anything.
Further anti-semitism is not some sort of strange phenomena bound to Russia, it is first of all bound to the entire Eastern European history! Blaming Stalin solely for anti-semitism is just absurd, though I do agree the application of quota like systems was ridiculous; however in modern day liberal systems this is done as well.
NEP was indeed a form of 'State-Capitalism'; however it is important to point out there is really never been a clear cut line where what is "State-Capitalism" and what is Socialism made by any Communist. Analyzing a system solely based on its economic function is once again just the bad dogmatism of the past. Analyzing other aspects of Soviet society is important, and it is better not to be a Dogmatist who sees Soviet Union as a clear cut example of X or an Apologist who doesn't want to acknowledge Y. The world is too complex for any of that.
Hi LeftyHenry,
This is g.ram of revleft. Good article but in my opinion the way Russian people feel is just Nostalgia for those good old days.Than is the problem with NeoLeft both in China and Russia they are just expressions of the frustration of the masses in the failure of capitalism unfortunately there is no effective workers movements in both countries which hurts the working class inherently. :(
The way of feeling IMO is not only felt by Russians but almost all splinter states from USSR. They stupidly belived that "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" will bring great prosperity to their worthless lives.In fact USSR have been heavily subsiding for those stupid people at a great cost for the Russians.NOW they realised that the FUCKING "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" had not done and will not do a shit to their worthless lives.They have realised that those Capitalist western "DEMOCRACIES" too not concerned with many of them(exceptions may been mineral rich Ukraine and Oil rich Kazakhstan) cos there is nothing worth of profiting with them.
Their situations reminds me of a proverb in Tamil
"Nizhalin Arumai Veyilil Therium"
which means you will learn to praise the shade (of a tree) only when you are under (heavy heat of the )Sun.
But the ruling class of those nations had really much to benefit from it so they do every thing to both cut back the Nostalgia and preventing a genuine workers movement to begin with like building monuments to many SS staffs and rehabilitating many Nazi Collaborators in their nations
One example is Estonia. There they have equated Hammer and Sickle with
Nazi symbols so now it is criminal offense to brandish those symbols.I really don't know will it work or not. Its is like banning an Idea outright than Confronting it.There is a discussion going on in RevLeft about This.
Regards
Ganapathyram
To ShinethePath: You have a real misunderstanding about what real Trotskyism is. Real Trotskyists do not wait for the “maturing of the productive forces,” a Menshevik position, they say make the revolution. You are right in ascribing agency to Lenin. However, this was not preserved in the least within the Stalinist CP’s the world over. Trotsky attempted to preserve this vanguardist Leninist position. Time and again, the Stalinists have employed wait and see tactics, or tail behind some bourgeois left party. Second, I think you might be mislabeling these friends’ dogmatists. Dogmatist is a label throw around often by people who simply disagree with a more orthodox viewpoint and are attempting a revision. Many self-described Trotskyists are not even orthodox Marxists but are tails of other parties or movements. On some of your other points, I agree.
Another point about the destruction of the Soviet Union. Contrary to the belief of most on the Left, the destruction of the Soviet Union or capitalist counter-revolution, was a devastating blow to the world workers movement. Consciousness has been blown backward, not forwards. US imperialism is supreme, free to threaten and invade anybody. Second, many are filled with “death of communism” ideology, forcing many to accept some form of capitalism as inevitable, this is a mistake. Third, the people of Russia have been great losers in this. Male life expectance is down from around 72 to 50! Female life expectancy also is down. Inequality is way up. Now we see racist attacks and racist wars against the Chechens, etc. This is capitalist Russia.
Thanks Lefthenry for visiting me
Nicholaus, the many splits within the Trotskyite movement have produced many a name ideology that is in the "spirit of Trotsky" and so on. However it is important to note that Trotskyism IS indeed a determinist ideology of Marxism and corresponds to a very strict understanding of Historical Materialism, Trotsky's Historical Materialism and his Dialectics are no different from N. Buhkarin's postivist understanding. They both pose as a "science" when they are not.
I am as well, harsh toward the Soviet dominated CPs' for their similar attitude toward the possibility of revolution and their blindness toward the rigor of "Histomat" and "Diamat." Why, as a Maoist, I can fully understand this as Dimitrov and Stalin refused to give the necessary help to the Chinese CP, instead calling for the "national develoment" for the KMT. However Trotskyites, being worse, declares that such revolutions shall always fail because the need for revolution in the Capitalist world as well.
Essentially when it comes down to it, Trotskyism doesn't believe in real agency, it believes in the determinist path of World Spirit. What is remarkable after a century and half of NO Western European revolutions (atleast in developed Capitalist nations), that we still hold on to this very limited understanding of how Human consciousness can fundamentally change history.
The Chinese Peasant could change history, he didn't need to make steel to understand that he is oppressed. Western chauvinism and Paternalism can only describe the attitude of Trotskyism toward the underdeveloped world, even in Russia.
Sorry but Nepal need not wait for what Germany.
" Dogmatist is a label throw around often by people who simply disagree with a more orthodox viewpoint and are attempting a revision."
But revisioning (not merely revisionism) of what it means to be a Revolutionary and how to create Socialism is important. The strictest interpetation of a model set forward by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc. etc. is not applicable on a Universal scale. Not to say, throw them out; however the world has developed, we developed, we see our history, we can do better.
I am surprised that ONLY 56.3% of Russians lament the fall of USSR. Normaly, when a company goes bankrupt, and everybody looses his job, almost 100% of the employees are unhappy, because they have to go on welfare and look for another job. The fact that 43.7% of Russians are still happy that they lost THAT job is quite remarkable...
Thank you G.Ram, Nicholas, and Shine the Path for your well thought out comments.
Sonia,
I think that's a false analogy.
false analogy
And I think it's a PERFECT analogy. The old Soviet Union was like a giant corporation, ruled by a Board of Directors called the Politburo. Almost every Soviet citizen worked for this corporation. The pay was shit, but there was no unemployment. But once the company went bankrupt, every Russian had to look for a job. It wasn't easy, especially in the beginning...
No it was a countryrun by the workers and owned by them. Workers in socialist countries live far better off then in their capitalist counterparts because they had benefits like healthcare, free heating, housing, food etc...
Anyhow, its been what? 15 years? The idea that its going to get better is bankrupt. Russia and the eastern bloc in general have been increasingly turning to Nationalism and Russia in particular to fascism and a merger of private corporations and the state.