I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts. My claim isn’t only “great progress happened in the USSR in terms of material conditions of workers”, my claim is “these improvements of material conditions point towards the existence of a more Democratic system than in places where said improvements don’t take place”. I’m using the improvements as a materialist measure of democracy because these improvements are, in my opinion, evidence of democracy.
It would be a lot easier to defend the USSR if they only intervened to allow the proletariat to hold referendums
Well, obviously, but reality isn’t so easy when you’re just one socialist country in a world dominated by capitalism. This was very obvious to the Bolsheviks from the beginning, when during the Russian Civil War, 10+ world powers including the USA, Great Britain or Poland invaded them trying to help the Whites and to reestablish tsarist absolutism. The USSR was an example of what is called “Actually Existing Socialism”. You cannot get a totally socialist country when capitalist relations still dominate the planet and threaten your very existence, as was the case in the Soviet Union. For example, the main drive of rapid industrialization In 1929 together with rapid land collectivization was not ideological, but geopolitical: threat of invasion. When geopolitical, and not purely ideological reasons, are behind a lot of your decisions, it’s hard to do socialism perfectly. I agree we should analyze the problems and failures, but we can also look at the entire experience of the country and, judging by the results, it was very positive and arguably better than any system we’ve had so far.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts. My claim isn’t only “great progress happened in the USSR in terms of material conditions of workers”, my claim is “these improvements of material conditions point towards the existence of a more Democratic system than in places where said improvements don’t take place”. I’m using the improvements as a materialist measure of democracy because these improvements are, in my opinion, evidence of democracy.
Well, obviously, but reality isn’t so easy when you’re just one socialist country in a world dominated by capitalism. This was very obvious to the Bolsheviks from the beginning, when during the Russian Civil War, 10+ world powers including the USA, Great Britain or Poland invaded them trying to help the Whites and to reestablish tsarist absolutism. The USSR was an example of what is called “Actually Existing Socialism”. You cannot get a totally socialist country when capitalist relations still dominate the planet and threaten your very existence, as was the case in the Soviet Union. For example, the main drive of rapid industrialization In 1929 together with rapid land collectivization was not ideological, but geopolitical: threat of invasion. When geopolitical, and not purely ideological reasons, are behind a lot of your decisions, it’s hard to do socialism perfectly. I agree we should analyze the problems and failures, but we can also look at the entire experience of the country and, judging by the results, it was very positive and arguably better than any system we’ve had so far.