Understanding Anarchist Perspectives on the USSR's Socialist Experiment
The concept of state capitalism is often examined through the lens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Anarchists, particularly, have a unique perspective on the USSR's approach to socialism. This article delves into why anarchists view the USSR as an example of state capitalism rather than genuine communism.
The Structure of the USSR's Workplace vs. Anarchist Ideals
The Soviet Union (USSR) did not fundamentally change the structure of the workplace. Instead, they altered who ran it from corporate boards and shareholders to state bureaucrats. Anarchists are more focused on ending the wage system, which can be implemented through various means such as worker ownership, worker self-management, or decentralized federations deciding what gets produced. Some anarchists advocate for a decentralized system where currencies are not necessary, while others support a model where production and distribution are based on local community needs.
The Role of State Bureaucrats vs. Worker Ownership
The USSR maintained a centralized and top-down approach to economic organization, with state bureaucrats acting as the principal managers. Unlike anarchists who advocate for worker ownership and self-management, the USSR retained a wage system where everyone had the same boss. Although the 1917 model involved neighborhood assemblies (soviets), the Bolsheviks rapidly dismantled this structure and centralized power under the party.
Anarchists view the post-1917 Soviet model unfavorably, as it bears little resemblance to their ideals. Some anarchists even label the Bolsheviks as counterrevolutionaries for their seizure of power and top-down control, effectively reverting back to a form of feudalism or serfdom in a modern context.
True Communism and the Kremlin Palace
True communists, according to anarchist thought, would have used the Kremlin palace to serve the people rather than maintenance of czarist luxury. This perspective highlights the discrepancy between the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks and their actions, which often prioritized maintaining their own luxury and accumulating wealth.
Following the decline under Gorbachev and the disaster at Chernobyl, the fa?ade of communism or socialism was further eroded. Under Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church was restored, and efforts to recreate the empire took place. The two-tier economic serfdom of the empire that Putin continued to maintain was a stark reality, further deviating from Marxist ideals and the anarchist vision of a classless society.
The Failure of Russian Socialism and the Success of American Capitalism
The Russian Bolsheviks' idea of socialism was a central and heavy-handed form of state capitalism, which merely replaced individual capitalists with a state apparatus controlled by a small elite political party. Claimed to be communists, the Russian "Communists" actually reconstituted themselves as a new ruling class, gathering the lion's share of wealth, privileges, and benefits created by Stalin's harsh industrialization and modernization campaigns.
On the other side of the world, the United States developed the most advanced and successful capitalist socioeconomic and political system in world history. Late-stage multinational corporate capitalism in the U.S. served as a secular religion and highly effective economic system. From the late 19th century onwards, the American capitalist oligarchy aimed to suppress any idea of a viable socioeconomic alternative to capitalism, namely socialism, which worked to benefit the average working people.
Conclusion
The adoption of state capitalism by the USSR, as seen through the eyes of anarchists, represents a significant deviation from the ideals of true communism. The failed attempt at creating a more equitable society and the subsequent focus on self-preservation and wealth accumulation by the ruling elites highlight the futility of traditional Marxist approaches when implemented under centralized state control. This contrasts sharply with the decentralized and participatory models advocated by anarchists, which emphasize the empowerment of workers and communities rather than top-down control.