Special thanks to u/flesh_eating_turtle
Introduction
One of the most common allegations leveled against the USSR (and socialist states in general) by left-anticommunists is that it was not "real socialism," because the workers did not have direct control over production. This claim may be found in the writings of Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, and numerous other anti-Soviet leftists. It is claimed that the indisputable gains made by the working class in socialist states (such as vast improvements to their health and welfare) are irrelevant, because these revolutions were "bureaucratic," and therefore, illegitimate.
The goal of this post is to demonstrate that, in point of fact, the Soviet working class did have a degree of workers' control, which successfully gave Soviet workers far more rights and influence than their capitalist counterparts.
As always, sources will be listed at the end.
Workers' Control in the Soviet Workplace
When discussing this topic, it is helpful to start at the level of the individual workplace. Professor Robert Thurston (Miami University at Ohio) states that "at the lower levels of society, in day-to-day affairs and the implementation of policy, [the Soviet system] was participatory." He notes that workers were frequently encouraged to take part in decision making:
>The regime regularly urged its people to criticize local conditions and their leaders, at least below a certain exalted level. For example, in March 1937 Stalin emphasized the importance of the party's 'ties to the masses'. To maintain them, it was necessary 'to listen carefully to the voice of the masses, to the voice of rank and file members of the party, to the voice of so-called "little people," to the voice of ordinary folk.'
These were not empty words or cheap propaganda; while there were limits to criticism, Professor Thurston notes that "such bounds allowed a great deal that was deeply significant to workers, including some aspects of production norms, pay rates and classifications, safety on the job, housing, and treatment by managers." The workers had a voice in various official bodies, and they generally had their demands met:
>The Commissariat of Justice also heard and responded to workers' appeals. In August 1935 the Sarat
... keep reading on reddit β‘
The left often says they admire the more socialist europe with things like socialized medicine. Is it just a spectrum between free market capitalism and complete socialism and europe lies more on the socialist end or are there different definitions of socialism?
In 1945, 57% of French identified the Soviet Union as the most deserving of credit,
By 2015, the 70th anniversary of VE Day, that figure was 20% 11% for Americans polled.
It's a fair bet to extrapolate to the liberation of Auschwitz. Given enduring American ignorance, I'm sure vast majority of Americans don't even know who liberated Auschwitz and would guess American credit did so if polled.
edit: a sentence
What happens as a result?
The 1986 visit was by an American, and the book is titled Discovering Russia: People and Places.
The 1987 visit was by an Englishman, and is titled Life, We're All In It Together.
The authors of both books wrote in order to promote friendly relations between the peoples of their countries and the peoples of the USSR. I figure some here may find these mildly interesting, given they're travelogues of a country that no longer exists and of a period of Russian history that appears quite distant nowadays.
I am part of a project that scans many English-language books, most of them published in the Soviet Union, which can be found here: https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou
Reading them was encouraged or were they simply labeled as bourgeois literature or BOTH?
