Was the collapse of the USSR a good thing for the western left?

[Fire_Unionist]

I vaguely recall seeing a discussion about this earlier somewhere but I wanted to focus more of a spotlight on it. Now, on one hand, the existence of the USSR arguably boosted social democracy and democratic socialism in the sense that people advocating those ideologies could both point to a menacing alternative to western capitalism and argue that said alternative could eventually result if their reforms weren’t implemented. On the other hand, the brutality of the Soviet regime arguably limited the extent to which left wing arguments were able to enter the mainstream (moreso in the United States than perhaps elsewhere). The period immediately following the end of the USSR saw a brief period of liberal democratic ascendancy, though that seems to have ended or be ending (not necessarily to the benefit of the left).

 

[Geriander]

Swedens communist party dropped ”communist” from their name in 1990. Since the Stalinist brutality was already well known I presume that it was more important to distance themselves from failure than from brutality.

 

[Xeorm]

I wouldn't think so. Depending on definition at least. The western left did get a boost in politics, but I'm not sure they'd be regarded as really leftists. Those have really struggled since, and it shows as workers have been losing out as a general case.

 

[Galaahd]

The fall of communism in the Soviet Union and its client states was a hard blow for communist and socialist parties, but the crisis of the left in the 2000s has deeper roots than that.

I'd say that it dates back to the seventies, a decade which I call "The Empire Strikes Back". It's when neo-liberals first started to re-organize and restructure capitalism, something that went in full swing in the 80s. The 90s and the 2000s saw the bastardization of the old socialist parties, when they either had to evolve into something which wasn't socialism anymore (and was only egalitarian when it came to civil and minority rights, not related to economy) but was instead more and more liberal.

Those parties which tried to retain a real communist ideology (like Rifondazione Comunista in Italy, which had some decent success in the 90s and in the early 2000s) had to deal with an ever more liberal political environment and had to come to terms with that. Those parties suffered a lot from the fall of the Soviet Union - in terms of credibility and convincing power of the ideology, their slogans and their symbols.

The parties which became social democrats and became center left (and they had started to drift to the center decades before the Soviet Union fell) not so much. They were already on that path, if anything the fall of the Soviet Union just speeded up the process.

Now we're in a different phase. Socialists have finally understood that they can't rely on their historical electoral base anymore, and have entered a new phase, the phase of reconstruction. In the 80s, the 90s and the 2000s the old left parties forsake workplaces and detached themselves from the working class. Now they are once again reconnecting with the working (or unemployed...) man. It'll take time, but it needs to happen. So in a way we're more in a situation akin to the 19th century, with lots of exploited workers who are unaware of socialism and socialist practices. There's actually a lot of space for growing.

 

[LordTempest]

The fall of communism in the Soviet Union and its client states was a hard blow for communist and socialist parties, but the crisis of the left in the 2000s has deeper roots than that.

I'd say that it dates back to the seventies, a decade which I call "The Empire Strikes Back". It's when neo-liberals first started to re-organize and restructure capitalism, something that went in full swing in the 80s. The 90s and the 2000s saw the bastardization of the old socialist parties, when they either had to evolve into something which wasn't socialism anymore (and was only egalitarian when it came to civil and minority rights, not related to economy) but was instead more and more liberal.

Why did they do this though? Why do you think monetarism -- a doctrine centred around the idea that control of the money supply is the best way to achieve growth and lower inflation -- came into such vogue during the 1970's, during a period of high stagflation?

Back in the early 1960's mainstream social democrats like Harold Wilson could unironically point to the Soviet Union as a model for economic success. Planning and dirigisme were in vogue because the Soviets had allegedly made such a success of themselves through planning and dirigisme. The economic crises which befell western states in the 1970's torpedoed this view once and for all: planning and dirigisme fuelled the stagflation which caused the crisis while Brezhnev began the USSR's long economic decline by ramping up military spending and fighting costly foreign wars. The Soviet-inspired model was no longer working and the Soviet Union was no longer a beacon of economic prosperity: by the 1980's the tables had turned completely and Gorby was seeking to emulate the socdems.

The fall of the SU was for all intents and purposes irrelevant. It didn't speed things up, it didn't slow things down -- it was only the decline which did that. Ergo...

The parties which became social democrats and became center left (and they had started to drift to the center decades before the Soviet Union fell) not so much. They were already on that path, if anything the fall of the Soviet Union just speeded up the process.

...I think this is actually much more true for the Eurocoms than for the socdems, given that the latter were hardly affected by the Soviet collapse at all. The logical conclusion of the historic compromise, for example, was an abandonment of proletarian revolution in favour of the gradual introduction of democratic socialism by way of a popular front. This was arguably a much further leap towards the political centre than the Third Way ever was. If we are being honest, therefore, there was little difference in practical terms between the PCI and the socialist left after 1975 or so.

 

[Galaahd]

...I think this is actually much more true for the Eurocoms than for the socdems, given that the latter were hardly affected by the Soviet collapse at all. The logical conclusion of the historic compromise, for example, was an abandonment of proletarian revolution in favour of the gradual introduction of democratic socialism by way of a popular front. This was arguably a much further leap towards the political centre than the Third Way ever was. If we are being honest, therefore, there was little difference in practical terms between the PCI and the socialist left after 1975 or so.

Yes, that's what I meant: the socdems were the PCI, and the fall of the Soviet Union just gave them the excuse to speed up the transformation in a socdem party on paper as well.

 

[Zinegata]

I vaguely recall seeing a discussion about this earlier somewhere but I wanted to focus more of a spotlight on it. Now, on one hand, the existence of the USSR arguably boosted social democracy and democratic socialism in the sense that people advocating those ideologies could both point to a menacing alternative to western capitalism and argue that said alternative could eventually result if their reforms weren’t implemented. On the other hand, the brutality of the Soviet regime arguably limited the extent to which left wing arguments were able to enter the mainstream (moreso in the United States than perhaps elsewhere). The period immediately following the end of the USSR saw a brief period of liberal democratic ascendancy, though that seems to have ended or be ending (not necessarily to the benefit of the left).

It really depended on the leadership and the politics of the country in question.

However, overall it was most damaging to Western "liberalism" in that it injected a great deal of hubris into the American political system. "Winning" the Cold War caused a thread of triumphalism to develop with regards to American political ideology - particularly in terms of militarism (Reagan's Star Wars) and capitalism (as a counterpoint to communism) - which culminated in neo-conservative ideology and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And while the September 11th attacks in 2001 were partly to blame for this, I'm getting rather convinced that any challenge to the notion of total American dominance - be it from China, North Korea, Russia, etc - would have nonetheless triggered the same unilateral and nationalistic policies that were on display in 2003.

That the American left largely went along with these policies is a demonstration of how the militarist+capitalist ideology was also deeply ingrained within the Democratic party; to the point that they've basically conceded any attempt to limit either. That's why the Democrats are currently deeply divided among themselves.

In short, the "competing systems" was a secondary issue. The bigger issue is that the collapse of the Soviet Union left the American state with a sense of invincibility that transformed into hubris, and this hubris is leading to a militarist + capitalist ideology that's not good for liberalism in the world's most powerful state.

Other states that didn't have their national identity so wrapped around being a superpower (more specifically being the sole superpower) by contrast were now more free to pursue their own destinies; albeit whether they turned left or right really depended on the local politics in question.

 

[Lyudmila Pavlichenko]

This thread seems to be relying on the assumption that the Western left wasn't already a complete joke to begin with. Most of them didn't support the USSR because they saw it as "totalitarian" and were happy when the USSR and Eastern Bloc collapsed. In the US, whatever left movement that existed was destroyed by COINTELPRO and McCarthyism. Therefore, the collapse of the USSR didn't really have any sort of effect.

If we're counting Latin American and Caribbean countries as Western, then yes, the collapse was really bad.

 

[Imgran]

Can't speak for Europe but The American left was not dependent on Communism in the first place, in fact they went top great lengths to not be Communist during the Cold War, and often had to shoot themselves in the foot politically by going out of their way to not appeal to the socialist factions of their own wing of the poliutical spectrum, resulting in it taking uniquely powerful leaders in order to advance their vision at all (LBJ, JFK).

The demise of the massive international leftist bloc was a Godsend for the American left IMHO. After a very brief surge of patriotic fervor that saw George HW Bush elected to a mediocre term as President, the nation actually turned inward for most of the 2000s, which is a perfect time for leftists to advance social policies, and we indeed saw many adopted.

The first decade of the 21st century actually saw a lot of environmental reforms go through in particular, because the green left was free to tap the red left for additional help and organization to advance their agendas for the first time without torpedoing their political progress. Initially the results were clumsy, with the old Socialist organs acting way too much like old Socialist organs, but that wore off quickly, and now left wing academia has been a powerful force of the political left for a couple generations and they're getting more savvy in their operations.

This was the era where the liberal entrenchment in academia became semipermanent and a lot of the old guard left began to switch from a kind of institutional or national leftism focused on economics and institutional changes, to a more individually focused version of sociological leftism. Whatever your feelings of the movement as a whole, Social Justice, while present before this era in the liberal platform, started to really take the foreground in this period, so did so-called Third Wave Feminism,

TLR Personal freedoms and individual self-determination became major planks in the Democratic platform around this time and replaced most of the old collectivist planks in the platform with the exception of health care and education, which were too useful to the left to discard as allies. If I had to pick the one grandest change in the left from the pre-Cold War era to this one, that's probably it rtight there.

 

[Herbert West]

This thread seems to be relying on the assumption that the Western left wasn't already a complete joke to begin with. Most of them didn't support the USSR because they saw it as "totalitarian" and were happy when the USSR and Eastern Bloc collapsed. In the US, whatever left movement that existed was destroyed by COINTELPRO and McCarthyism. Therefore, the collapse of the USSR didn't really have any sort of effect.

If we're counting Latin American and Caribbean countries as Western, then yes, the collapse was really bad.

Ah, communists.

Who hate social democracy almost as much as the nazis did.

 

[LordTempest]

This thread seems to be relying on the assumption that the Western left wasn't already a complete joke to begin with. Most of them didn't support the USSR because they saw it as "totalitarian" and were happy when the USSR and Eastern Bloc collapsed. In the US, whatever left movement that existed was destroyed by COINTELPRO and McCarthyism. Therefore, the collapse of the USSR didn't really have any sort of effect.

If we're counting Latin American and Caribbean countries as Western, then yes, the collapse was really bad.

The only Cold War joke funnier than a Eastern Bloc Tankie party was a Western Bloc Tankie Party.

 

[yerm]

Heavyhanded socialism, the kind that tries to strip away individual responsibility, is a dangerous ideological cancer. The decline and fall of the USSR was good for the left in that it hurt the appeal of this disgusting ideology. Speaking for the USA here.

In the long term it may prove bad, as the lack of a visible warning against it is seeing communism (not socdem etc, communism) seep back into the fabric of the left. The result is a movement away from courting the support of the working class and even unions, in favor of coastal educated types.

Basically, I think the USSR kept the left sane and good, and am worried now that it's not there to scare off the anti-capitalist lunatics anymore.

 

[Geriander]

Heavyhanded socialism, the kind that tries to strip away individual responsibility, is a dangerous ideological cancer. The decline and fall of the USSR was good for the left in that it hurt the appeal of this disgusting ideology. Speaking for the USA here.

In the long term it may prove bad, as the lack of a visible warning against it is seeing communism (not socdem etc, communism) seep back into the fabric of the left. The result is a movement away from courting the support of the working class and even unions, in favor of coastal educated types.

Basically, I think the USSR kept the left sane and good, and am worried now that it's not there to scare off the anti-capitalist lunatics anymore.

I would say that you have this the wrong way around. The fall of the USSR greatly weakened the narrative of class struggle. Working class people and unions lost influence in favour of what is often termed identity politics, social justice warriors, etc. The policies of the ”coastal educated types” are not a return to those of the USSR but rather a new direction picked due to the perceived faults of the USSR.

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Actually, yes. Since 1960s, after purge of last true reformists in Eastern Bloc (1968), there were only rigid dogmas and decay of both society and economy.

While some marxist-leninist parties survives quite well and some regimes managed to continue (Cuba, Vietnam), anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism will revive with higher probability. Today, we see the fall of social democrats throughout Europe as well, making it more likely.

 

[Lyudmila Pavlichenko]

Ah, communists.

Who hate social democracy almost as much as the nazis did.

Ah, social democrats.

Who hate communists just as much as the Nazis did, amirite?

The only Cold War joke funnier than a Eastern Bloc Tankie party was a Western Bloc Tankie Party.

As an American Marxist-Leninist, I would like nothing more than to launch like 99.99999% of American Marxist-Leninists into the sun. I am including myself in this hypothetical sun launch.

 

[Geriander]

Ah, social democrats.

Who hate communists just as much as the Nazis did, amirite?
.

Nazis and communists sent social democrats to death camps, the reverse isn’t true.

 

[Galaahd]

Nazis and communists sent social democrats to death camps, the reverse isn’t true.

No, but they arrested them and kept them jailed for decades or forced them to flee abroad with dubious reasons.
They sent the police to shoot at them.
They infiltrated them with spies.

 

[Geriander]

No, but they arrested them and kept them jailed for decades or forced them to flee abroad with dubious reasons.
They sent the police to shoot at them.
They infiltrated them with spies.

And that is equivalent to being sent to a gulag or concentration camp?

Living as a communist activist, or leading a communist party, in Soc Dem countries was a lot safer than being a Soc Dem in Nazi Germany or the USSR.

 

[Herbert West]

Ah, social democrats.

Who hate communists just as much as the Nazis did, amirite?

Well, one works to make the system livable to everyone, the other burns down the system and replaces it with misery, repression, and "administrative exile".

 

[LordTempest]

And that is equivalent to being sent to a gulag or concentration camp?

Living as a communist activist, or leading a communist party, in Soc Dem countries was a lot safer than being a Soc Dem in Nazi Germany or the USSR.

Didn't you hear about the time Brandt had Ulbricht murdered with an ice pick?