Skip to main content

Why Soviet collapse created huge dent in world on 'progressiveness' of communism

Moscow rally on 100th anniversary of Nov 7, 1917 Bolshevik revolution
By Harsh Thakor* 
Even as the world observed the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in December 2021-end, the earth shaking event has been sought to be seen by many a liberal historian as final blow to communism and its ideological failure. No doubt, the collapse did create a huge psychological dent in the minds of the people around the world who believed in progressiveness of communism or Marxism.
However, there is a need to look at it a different level. The collapse also destroyed whatever the USSR claimed to have achieved by giving power to the working class between 1917 and 1956: workers owing means of production, no unemployment, literacy to all, universal healthcare unheard of even in western countries, and so on.
The USSR industrialized at a rate four times quicker than any western power during this period, a fact recognised by intellectuals like EH Carr, Alan Taylor, Anne Loiuse Strong, George Bernard Shaw and Sydney Beatrice Webb. More recently, writers like Grover Furr, Raymond Lotta, Vijay Singh, Joma Sison, Joseph Ball, Gonzalo and Bruce Franklin took a similar view.
These writers have vividly recounted how the USSR overcame hazardous obstacles to take people’s welfare to new heights. Carr also delves into the conspiracy of the colonial powers to topple USSR and why it was imperative for Lenin and Stalin to take certain steps.
Raymond Lotta, considered as one of the topmost revolutionary intellectuals, points towards, what went wrong. According to him,  “By 1934, Stalin and several others in leadership felt it was time to consolidate the political and social gains of the revolution. The new proletarian state was facing extreme and difficult objective conditions. War was looming. There was no prior historical experience for dealing with the magnitude of the situation. Adjustments were called for." 
"But", he continues, "Mistakes were made in how this dire necessity was dealt with. On the basis of the transformations in ownership that had gone on, there was a push for greater discipline and stepped-up production in the factories. But the development of the productive forces came to be seen as the guarantee of socialism. Leadership relied less on the conscious activism and initiative of the masses." 
He adds," The radical social and cultural experimentation of the 1920s and early 1930s was reined in – and things got consolidated in a way that strengthened more traditional relations. Socialism in the Soviet Union had to be defended. But the Soviet leadership tended to see the defense of the Soviet Union as being one and the same as the interests of the world revolution without any contradiction – and thus increasingly promoted national patriotism instead of proletarian internationalism.”
Citing Mao Zedong, Lotta criticises Stalin in the following words: “He relied on purges and police actions to solve problems -- rather than mobilizing the masses to take up the burning political and ideological questions on the overall direction of society."  
He adds, "Mao was critical of Stalin’s approach and pointed out that Stalin had a tendency to mix up two fundamentally different types of contradictions: the contradiction between the people and the enemy, and contradictions among the people themselves. Repression, which should only have been directed against enemies, was used against people who were not enemies but merely were making mistakes or expressing disagreements with the policy of the government.”
Yet, the fact is, major errors or violations of the Marxist practice occurred during the Stalin era from the 1930s. Innocent party members perished in the purges. Democracy was suppressed, leading to bureaucratism. Agriculture was neglected by giving too much emphasis on industry. Collectivization was undertaken by force.
A strata of a privileged class of party members was created with wage differentials imposed and a class of technicians created. The Soviets failed to function independently and were made subordinate to the Communist Party. Harsh treatment was meted out to poets, artists and writers not conforming with the system, with dissent not given voice.
Even scientists like Lysenko were not spared by Stalin. No doubt, USSR won the war against the German Nazis led by Hitler. The Soviet victory at Stalingrad was arguably the greatest turning point in the last century. But the violations helped foreign spies infiltrate USSR and the Communist Party.
Courtesy: Bloomberg
After 1956, Khrushchev introduced the profit motive concept, undermining Stalin’s socialist practice. The economy was sought to be decentralised. Managerial structures were re-introduced within factories. In 1964 Khrushchev was ousted and Brezhnev, who attempted to reverse whatever Khrushchev did, though with little success.
Gorbachev, through perestroika and glasnost from 1985, gave USSR a totally different shape. He virtually dismantled Stalin’s socialist legacy, even though welfare measures such as full employment, literacy, healthcare facilities, sports facilities and child care were allowed to continue.
Mao Zedong evaluated that Stalin was 70% correct and 30% wrong. Mao was particularly critical of Stalin's abuse of democratic centralism
The collapse had another root. At the international level, it was Stalin who first displayed big brother treatment towards Eastern European countries and China, which was continued later. After 1956 USSR advocated peaceful co-existence.It invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, supported emergency in India in 1975, invaded Afghanistan in 1982, and also supported martial law in Poland in 1982. Through Comecon it virtually treated East European countries as satellites. 
Though it appeared to become less supportive of national liberation struggles, it did sustain resistance to apartheid in South Africa, supported the Palestinian liberation struggle against Israel, supported Cuba and anti-colonial movement of Angola. It gave full support to Vietnam in the war against America.
Chairman Mao evaluated that Stalin was 70% correct and 30% wrong. Mao was particularly critical of Stalin's abuse of democratic centralism, neglecting superstructure and inability to involve democratic movements from below.
George Thomson believes Stalin dealt with opponents only through the medium of police terror, and failed to encourage democratic initiative of the people. The Red Paper publication “How Capitalism was restored in the USSR” is a classic in illustrating how USSR morally turned capitalist with the party turning into a new class.
Today, Russia appears to have turned into another imperialist country, even though it challenges the hegemony of superpower America. It has suppressed Islamic movements, exhibiting chauvinism. Internally unemployment and inflation have reached sky high levels.
The result is, many Russians have begun to feel that conditions were better when it was formally USSR. They have begun rating Lenin and Stalin quite high, as suggested by recent rallies in the country.
---
*Freelance journalist based in Mumbai

Comments

TRENDING

The golden crop: How turmeric is transforming women's lives in tribal India

By Vikas Meshram*   When the lush green fields of turmeric sway in the tribal belt of southern Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat, it is not merely a spice crop — it is the golden glow of self-reliance. In villages where even basic spices once had to be bought from the market, the very soil today is yielding a prosperity that has transformed the lives of thousands of families. At the heart of this transformation is the initiative of Vaagdhara, which has linked turmeric with livelihoods, nutrition, and village self-governance — gram swaraj.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Rajiv Shah  Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Authoritarian destruction of the public sphere in Ecuador: Trumpism in action?

By Pilar Troya Fernández  The situation in Ecuador under Daniel Noboa's government is one of authoritarianism advancing on several fronts simultaneously to consolidate neoliberalism and total submission to the US international agenda. These are not isolated measures, but rather a coordinated strategy that combines job insecurity, the dismantling of the welfare state, unrestricted access to mining, the continuation of oil exploitation without environmental considerations, the centralization of power through the financial suffocation of local governments, and the systematic criminalization of all forms of opposition and popular organization.

Echoes of Vietnam and Chile: The devastating cost of the I-A Axis in Iran

​ By Ram Puniyani  ​The recent joint military actions by Israel and the United States against Iran have been devastating. Like all wars, this conflict is brutal to its core, leaving a trail of human suffering in its wake. The stated pretext for this aggression—the brutality of the Ayatollah Khamenei regime and its nuclear ambitions—clashes sharply with the reality of the diplomatic landscape. Iran had expressed a willingness to remain at the negotiating table, signaling a readiness to concede points emerging from dialogue. 

False claim? What Venezuela is witnessing is not surrender but a tactical retreat

By Manolo De Los Santos  The early morning hours of January 3, 2026, marked an inflection point in Venezuela and Latin America’s centuries-long struggle for self-determination and independence. Operation Absolute Resolve, ordered by the Trump administration, constituted the most brutal and direct military assault on a sovereign state in the region in recent memory. In a shocking operation that left hundreds dead, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were illegally kidnapped from Venezuelan soil and transported to the United States, where they now face fabricated charges in a New York federal detention facility. In the two months since this act of war, a torrent of speculation has emerged from so-called experts and pundits across the political spectrum. This has followed three main lines: One . The operation’s success indicated treason at the highest levels of the Bolivarian Revolution. Two . Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and the remaining leadership have abandone...

The selective memory of a violent city: Uttam Nagar and the invisible victims of Delhi

By Sunil Kumar*  Hundreds of murders take place in Delhi every year, yet only a few incidents become topics of nationwide discussion. The question is: why does this happen? Today, the incident in Uttam Nagar has become the centre of national debate. A 26-year-old man, Tarun Kumar, was killed following a dispute that reportedly began after a balloon hit a small child. In several colonies of Delhi, slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Vande Mataram” are being raised while demanding the death penalty for Tarun’s killers. As a result, nearly 50,000 residents of Hastsal JJ Colony are now living in what resembles a state of confinement. 

The price of silence: Why Modi won’t follow Shastri, appeal for sacrifice

By Arundhati Dhuru, Sandeep Pandey*  ​In 1965, as India grappled with war and a crippling food crisis, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri faced a United States that used wheat shipments under the PL-480 agreement as a lever to dictate Indian foreign policy. Shastri’s response remains legendary: he appealed to the nation to skip one meal a day. Millions of middle-class households complied, choosing temporary hunger over the sacrifice of national dignity. Today, India faces a modern equivalent in the energy sector, yet the leadership’s response stands in stark contrast to that era of self-reliance.

Love letters in a lifelong war: Babusha Kohli’s resistance in verse

By Ravi Ranjan*  “War does not determine who is right—only who is left.” Bertrand Russell’s words echo hauntingly in our times, and few contemporary Hindi poets embody this truth as profoundly as Babusha Kohli. Emerging from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Kohli has carved a unique space in literature by weaving together tenderness, protest, and philosophy across poetry, prose, and cinema. Her work is not merely artistic expression—it is resistance, refuge, and a call for peace.