How would Karl Marx explain the collapse of the Soviet Union?

How much of what Marx taught would he have to rethink?

 

I would say the failure of USSR can be attributed to poor leadership and lack of dynamic theoretical refinement of communist theory with empirical practice.

Russian communism under Lenin enabled the liberation of the serfs from feudal servitude and brought about their political, economic and cultural development.

However Lenin had to focus mostly on the civil war and poor economy which he successfully tackled.

If he had a longer time at the helm, he could have brought about necessary checks and balances to ensure proper functioning of the communist system, further refining it and ensuring it becomes fool-proof. Trotsky was also capable of the same.

Though Lenin favored the intellectual Trotsky as his successor and had disparaged the uneducated and crass Stalin heavily for his authoritarian nature, Stalin was able to win over the soviet factions with skilful politics after Lenin's death and exile Trotsky.

Lenin's failure in ensuring a good pipeline of leaders after his death sounded the death knell of russian communism.

Stalin's excesses as a dictator, which was amplified by Nazi spies who created suspicion in the paranoid stalin over Soviet generals and leaders, led to the deaths of millions, regression of soviet capabilities which was manifest in the catastrophic nazi invasion, and eventual demoralisation of the soviets over such major errors in judgement. Later soviet leader Khrushchev condemned Stalin's excesses, but it was too late by then.

This resulted in heavy resentment in the russian public which spelled the doom of the soviet union.

Other factors were its warmongering nature to spread communism which weakened its economy, and also the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster which pointed out its technological and managerial deficiencies.

Chinese communism became a success story due to leaders like Zhou Enlai, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping who drifted away from Maoist dogma and enabled the economic development of China to its present status. They were able to distill lessons from the failure of communism in the soviet union, and kept away from warmongering and focussed on economic development embracing capitalist elements into the system.

In India, communists had come to power in some states through democratic elections, and formulated policies that empowered the masses with land for poor farmers ( taken from large feudal landowners), better wages and ending or diluting feudal practices detrimental to the lower classes.

They ironically brought about a capitalist agricultural system over the obsolete and lopsided feudal system, and sponsored agricultural cooperatives with the goal of promoting solidarity rather than competition.

Since there was paranoia the world all over due to spread of socialist and communist ideas, the prevailing feudal and capitalist systems became less exploitative, more humane and accomodating and focussed better on the state of the workers and satisfaction of his needs.

So socialism and communism had enabled the development of the world proletariat and middle/lower classes, which compose 98 % of humanity, and have provided systems and means for the same.

However like anything, it is the quality, character and judgement of the leaders or lack of the same which will make or break a system respectively.

 

Marx would have to realize that Communism is incompatible with the human race. We are not ants or bees working selflessly toward the benefit of the colony. We work toward our own benefit before we work toward the benefit of society.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." But such a system discourages abilities and encourages needs. Human beings are too self-centered to make Communism work. It's not wrong, it's just the way we are.

 

Yes, that's how someone like Trump can turn a thriving democracy into a dictatorship overnight!

Good analysis of communism's failings and successes. The failings were not due to the philosophy of communism but to its fucked up implementation, outside factors, poor leaders, and of course human greed.

 

I would be curious to know if Marx could explain the problems with Communist policies. Like why did Communist countries like Poland have problems with shortages of various products and have to engage in rationing of those products?

"The central planning system, while intended to ensure equitable distribution, was riddled with inefficiencies and mismanagement. Spiraling foreign debt, obsolete industrial infrastructure, and rampant resource misallocation culminated in a dire scarcity of essential goods that reverberated throughout every facet of society. In response to the burgeoning shortages, the Polish government instituted a rationing mechanism to regulate the distribution of vital commodities."

Rations in Communist Poland: This Was the Monthly Food Ration for Each Citizen During the Early 1980s - Rare Historical Photos

 

Yeah, Marxism in its focus on the empowerment of the poor and underprivileged through the state policies and machinery had ignored self-interest as a motive factor as well for social and economic development.

If everyone, especially the lower classes get rich ( through education and work ethics) and are protected well by law from predators, there will be no poor and underprivileged for socialism and communism to protect and nurture to well-being.

Self-interest becomes a vice or greed harmful to society only if it becomes unethical and unregulated.

This obviously should be curbed with proper legislation and implementation mechanism to ensure that monetary crimes, as well as predatory elements of a plutocratic or stratocratic nature are contained, checked or regulated.

 

If I remember correctly, Marx thought of communism as being a war between the working class and the ruling class. It was based on the idea of no middle class existing, and saw the needs of the working class as being paramount. In such a case, he postulated that the working class should be in charge of what was produced, not the ruling class. He wanted to see a, "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That's all very well as long as there's no middle class to clutter up the thinking, but Marx wrote his book while living in London, where the middle class was already the mainstay of the burgeoning population. So his thinking was flawed, and my rejection of Marxist philosophy is based on the facts that;

a) it fails to recognise human nature (self interest)
b) it fails to recognise the middle class (non-manual workers)
c) it fails to recognise the particular circumstances of different geographical groups (farmers, miners, weavers, etc) and their specific needs
d) it fails to recognise that over time, technology will change (sail to steam to oil for ships) and that progress will alter the political landscape
e) it fails to recognise that any change from purely entrenched capitalist rule (feudal landlords) will lead to massive pushback by the current winners in the status quo
f) it fails to recognise the ability of people to think for themselves so that they can improve their own education and/or family circumstances

Lastly, the idea of communism, that we should all cooperate for the good of all rather than looking out for oneself, was never implemented in any communist regime. As such, the whole hierarchy of government was subverted to the idea that those who conform best should be the leaders. As has been the case with every communist regime since Russia, the leaders themselves are not those who followed the party line, but those who interpreted it to suit themselves. Their self-interest led the way in which all the communist regimes have developed. The leaders would dress up their ideas with phrases that sounded like communist rhetoric, but which in reality hid their own ambitions. Mao was a case in point. While he ruled China, he wrote his little red book, and the cultural revolution that was based on it was a total disaster for the country. Many millions died of starvation due to his ill-thought out ideas about how to run the country, and eventually a group of people with better brains than his stepped in and quietly took over.

China is now seen as the poster child for communism, and in many regards it has indeed lifted many millions of people out of starvation, but in doing so it has imposed its hive mentality on the way in which people live their lives. The current rush to introduce digital ID for every individual in the most technically advanced nations is a copy of what China did a decade or more ago. So now, Chinese people cannot step out of line and have ideas that go against the ruling regime, because doing so will lead to them being digitally exiled from society. Their credit stops, their access to food, healthcare, and every other human necessity is cut off by the pressing of a button. The same will happen in the West, if we let it, and I think it will be a total disaster for the whole world if it ever comes to fruition.

Orwell was not wrong when he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 !

 

Marxism purports to be "scientific socialism" based on dialectical materialism..It is so nineteenth century in its confidence in a grandiose metaphysical system it confuses with "science". It claims to have discovered the material laws governing human history, and can predict with scientific accuracy how it's all going to turn out. Marx thought the revolution would begin in the industrial countries of the West, where an oppressed industrial working class would take over the government and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to take control of the means of production and liquidate the last vestiges of capitalism. After that, there will be communism in which everyone will work for the common good -- from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. Not long after it was formulated, Marxists had 'splainin to do. Why wasn't the revolution happening in those industrial countries. Lenin explained that it was cuz those clever capitalists had bought off their own working classes by exporting the exploitation to developing countries. He also said the revolution wouldn't happen spontaneously, but would have to be guided by an elite of dedicated communists like himself, who understood the dialectic. These could be (and often were) the "toiling intelligentsia" who were proletarian enough and had the proletariat's interests at heart. (Lenin was a lawyer). And the revolution could happen in predominantly peasant societies like Russia and China. Orwell did an outstanding job of capturing the ideological contradictions. In that sense, the "hard-boiled" ideology resembles nothing so much as a secular religion. The death toll has been staggering everywhere the system was tried, and it seemed to be favoring and entrenched bureaucracy of party apparachiki.

Those of you who cite China as a "success story" should ask "successful at what". It's been successful at changing a peasant society into an industrial one. It even has "Communist" billionaires--a fact that probably has Marx and Mao turning in their graves. What it is is State Capitalism! It's been amazingly successful at being able to mobilize large numbers of people behind various programs., but that very ability has led to ecological and economic disasters. The backyard factories of Mao's Great Leap Forward brought agricultural failures. The campaign against cop eating birds brought a plague of insects. And the "One Child" program has led to a demographic shortage of young people and a surplus of older ones--leading to a new campaign to step up new births. An industrial power to be reckoned with, but far cry from that happy Utopia Marx dreamed of in which we'd be liberated from economic constraints and be able to pursue the full development of our human potential. It's a scam!

 

I don't know much about communism, but am I correct in saying that the Soviet Union wasn't strictly adhering to Marxism? Based on what little I know, I'm sort of guessing that Marx's vision for communism didn't include terrible tyrant leaders who torture their own people.

 

No but it somehow didn't account for such people taking power. It was the näivete of the populace which was not very educated. Propaganda, media control, repression of dissent, mass arrests and endless murders kept the voice of the people silent and as a result ignorant.

None of this was part of Marxist philosophy, but it's implementation.

Trump will resort to such tactics, or certainly his henchmen who are attempting to provoke the public to riot, so they can start using real bullets.

When the body count from that day is done, dissent in America will be dead. Add a few suspicious murders of high profile people and everyone with a voice will get the message, if they haven't already.

 

He would say that Biden did it.

 

Communism as a political philosophy came up with the intention of enabling the empowerment of the poor and underprivileged as in the middle/lower classes, which makes up 98% of the world population or humanity itself.

If it is a failure, it is obviously then necessary to bring up a more benevolent system to ensure the empowerment of the poor and underprivileged.

Capitalism has been proven to be a failure in this regard. The US is the world's richest nation and yet it is teeming with hundreds of thousands of homeless people, with over 1000-1500 people dying of hypothermia each year.

Why Has the US Homeless Population Been Rising? | Econofact

More Californians Are Freezing to Death. Experts Point to More Older Homeless People. - KFF Health News

Homelesness is a major issue in the UK as well with over 354000 homeless people in 2024.

Thousands of deaths due to hypothermia are recorded in the UK due to homelesness or inability to maintain warm homes due to high fuel prices caused by inflation, as well as government callousness and apathy in providing for its vulnerable and elderly citizens.

Hypothermia cases soar by 82% in UK cold snap as thousands can't afford heating

Thousands of people in the UK are dying from the cold, and fuel poverty is to blame | Owen Jones

On the other hand,China's communist government, for all its perceived faults, provides housing for low-income and poor citizens through subsidized commercial housing and low-rent (social) housing programs.

Obviously, a synthesis of capitalism and socialism is needed to ensure such sort of heavy casualties due to lack of easily affordable basic infrastructure for the lower classes, do not take place in a civilized society.

 

Karl Marx failed in two ways.

First he failed in his belief that the market was a product of capitalism. The market, and its commodification, is a necessary dynamic of every industrialized economy. The alienation still took place in the soviet market place, but instead of the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist, becoming the ower of the means of production, and therefore the antagonist, it was the State. The workers became slaves of the state.

Second was his objectivist rejection of idealism, which led him to believe that man could be objectively manipulated through a rational system as if he was nothing more than a tool. But man is irrational, and whether you call the source of this irrationality, the subconscious mind or a soul, the result is the same---man cannot be forced to follow scientific manipulations of a dehumanizing system.

 

*sigh*

Mzzls

 

Also, what would Karl Marx think of how most Communist countries became dictatorships?

It seems to me that in order for Communism to "work" it has to be the only game in town. So, you can't let voters vote against Communist policies. Too many voters would likely vote out the Communists. So, this could explain all of the dictatorships that came with Communism.

 

Good point. I suspect Marx would have said Communism would work if everyone wanted it to work. I think he was raher an idealist who imagined that, given the chance, the vast majority would prefer communism. Remember he was writing in an age when democracy was rare. Most countries had never experienced it.

By contrast, Lenin was a pragmatist who grasped the main point you make. But any political rule depends on neutralising the opposition. Even in Britain where we have (officially!) a democracy, the government between 1979 and 1990 tried hard to eliminate dissent and various freedoms.