You're viewing part of a thread.
Workers as the owners?
Apparently, not so in the soviet union: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union
But there is a similar (but not identical) concept currently being implemented in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
The Soviet Union was anti-trade union, and pro-Soviet, ie worker councils. The Soviet Union had numerous problems, especially with beaurocracy, but fundamentally it was a Worker state, owned and run by the Soviets, and thus can be considered Socialist (regardless of my personal issues with it).
There are several attempts at replicating some form of Worker Democracy in Capitalist countries, but ultimately short of ownership none of this functionally makes a massive difference. Definitely a step in the right direction, but without worker ownership it is more to appease workers and uphold Capitalism, than actually giving workers control.
Don't misunderstand this comment to say that codetermination is bad, it's good, just not as good as it could be.
I think the germans working under codetermination have it a bit better than any soviet ever did under their workers' unions. the missing ingredient being a democratic representative government in place of an authoritarian single party system.
The Germans working under codetermination also have it far better than Germans under the Kaiser. Comparing a 21st century first world developed nation with a 20th century developing country sure is a win, I guess?
Secondly, although the beurocracy was incredibly corrupt, the Soviet Democracy by which local Soviets reported to higher Soviets that reported to higher Soviets was fundamentally democratic, even if flawed.
I don't really think you've said much of anything. The Soviet form of Democracy was indeed flawed, but it was still Democratic, and I think it's obvious to anyone that living in a modern developed country would be better than living in a developing country from last century.
I'm comparing political systems, not nations. If we're talking about the WW1 era, then I'd say the soviets still had it worse as they went through a war, invasion, then a civil war, and famine and consequent brutal dictatorship. But the germans made it out quite well off, given they basically started the war with their unequal treaties and rapid militarization. Despite this, the treaty of Versailles was relatively lenient compared to what happened Austria-hungry.
It was not democratic. It was a single party system in which the party selected a candidate, (after some research I learned this part is false),
and the populace was forced to vote for said candidate under threat of imprisonment.If the people wanted to oust a candidate they didn't like, they'd have to coordinate with everyone in secret to cooperatively abstain from voting for the candidate so he would lose his job and the party would select a new candidate.
Political systems don't determine quality of life nearly as much as development.
Your second point isn't correct, anyone could be voted on. They couldn't vote on the next level, only their representative could. I'm not sure where you get this new idea from.
If you're talking about the Politburo, yes, and that's part of my problem with it. But, at the local level, you voted on whoever you wanted, then your rep votes on who they want, and so forth. There were lots of shady deals that solidified power higher up, yes, but the process was Democratic in nature, even if highly flawed.
I think political systems affect development, although geography plays a big role in that as well. How a country uses its available resources is predominantly determined by its economic and political system.
They gave you a ballet with only a party member candidate on it which you'd simply drop in the ballet box in front of everyone, and if you wanted to vote for an independent, you had to go behind a curtain and write it in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union
"However, in practice, before 1989, voters could vote against candidates preselected by the Communist Party only by spoiling their ballots, whereas votes for the party candidates could be cast simply by submitting a blank ballot."
I wouldn't call that democratic in nature.
Economic systems absolutely affect development, but again, you're comparing a country that was a backwater nation completely undeveloped come the start of the 20th century with a country that has always been at or near the top of the list of industrialized nations. The starting points aren't even in the slightest.
Secondly, the banning of alternative political parties was indeed antidemocratic, but the party didn't select who you could vote for. Factions were banned by Lenin, supposed to be temporary, but this continued until 1989.
Historical accounts actually disagree with you saying candidates were preselected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy Pat Sloan in particular mentions that anyone could be elected, at the local level. Perhaps what you're referring to is that those above the local Soviets were made up of those elected at local Soviets, and thus people couldn't directly run for higher Soviets? Either way, definitely flawed, but not the same as what you're saying.
Democracy is a sliding scale, I would say the Soviet Democratic model was still democratic, but less than many other countries. The US is technically more democratic, but many absolute positions cannot be voted on, such as the Supreme Court. There isn't a currently existing country with fantastic democracy, unfortunately.
The crux of my issue with the soviet system is that the highest echelons of the government had no oversight and were in no way beholden to the people at the lowest echelons. You're right that democracy is a sliding scale, and I think a good form of government will allow dissenting opinions to take hold if they reflect the will of the people. I think it is very telling that you can have a communist party in the Kaiser's germany, but not have a liberal/democratic party in Lenin's Russia.
Yes, I agree with that crux, never disagreed with it. I still think it was functionally democratic, it's not like the top controlled every aspect of society. Often times the elections with the most impact on your personal lives are the local elections, and that's where Workers did in fact have control.
Again, though, I've never argued for repeating the USSR. I just think that we can learn from what worked and what didn't to create a better system of leftist organization, and the fact that so much went right and so much went wrong is exceptionally useful data. We know what not to replicate democratically, and we know that guaranteeing Healthcare and education, and investing heavily in building residential plots and urbanization at the public level, does tremendous work in reducing poverty and homelessness.
At the end of the day, I'm NOT an ML, nor am I a USSR Stan. I'm a leftist, and more importantly I'm anti-tendency, and think each country will have a different path to worker liberation. As such, we should learn as much as possible from previous Socialist attempts and structures to create a better future.
Do you disagree with that notion?