Russia is a Regenerating Workers' State
with a Transitional Capitalist Economy
Introduction
The machinery of the Soviet workers' state, while battered by the upheavals of perestroika, privatization, and the collapse of the USSR, was not entirely destroyed but continues to function under changed conditions. This paper examines the continuity of the workers' state in Russia, the contradictions it faces, and the potential path forward.
1. Persistence of Economic Planning and State Control
Institutions such as Gosplan (or its successors) and other mechanisms of economic planning have not disappeared but are increasingly influential under Putin. This influence is especially evident in the context of the war with NATO-backed Ukraine. The revival of planning reflects the necessity of state coordination in key areas, including defense, energy, and agriculture.
Energy and Strategic Industries: Putin’s re-nationalization of energy resources and military-industrial enterprises reversed much of the privatization of the 1990s. Unlike a typical bourgeois state, where the capitalist class fights to maintain private control over strategic sectors, this shift represents a move toward centralized state control.
2. The Role of the Security Council and the Soviet Legacy
The similarity between Putin’s Security Council and Stalin’s wartime leadership structures is no accident. The Russian state has drawn heavily on Soviet-era organizational models, particularly in times of crisis. The Security Council’s role in coordinating military, economic, and political strategy during the conflict with NATO suggests a continuity with the centralized decision-making structures of the USSR.
3. State Sovereignty and Resistance to Imperialism
The resistance of the Russian state to U.S.-led imperialism is another indicator that it does not fully conform to the model of a bourgeois state. Examples of this resistance include Russia's opposition to NATO expansion, the reassertion of sovereignty over energy resources, and the rejection of Western-imposed economic sanctions. These actions demonstrate an ongoing struggle against the influence of global capitalist powers.
In the 1990s, under Yeltsin, the state was subordinated to the interests of global capital, with oligarchs acting as intermediaries for Western imperialism. Under Putin, however, the state has reasserted its sovereignty, subordinating the oligarchs and resisting the dictates of imperialist institutions. This shift suggests that the state’s fundamental character may not have been entirely transformed into a bourgeois state but instead retained elements of its Soviet legacy.
4. The Persistence of Social Protections and Public Ownership
Although battered by the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s, Russia has preserved significant elements of the social infrastructure created under the USSR. Public education, healthcare, pensions, and, most importantly, state ownership of strategic sectors like energy remain intact and accessible to much of the population.
State ownership of energy is particularly significant because it allows the state to retain control over a vital sector, ensuring that energy resources are used to benefit the populace rather than being exploited by private interests for profit, as is typical in many capitalist states.
5. The Weakness of the Bourgeoisie
In a typical bourgeois state, the capitalist class dominates the state apparatus and uses it to suppress the working class. In Russia, however, the bourgeoisie has been significantly weakened and subordinated to the state. The “oligarchs’” power peaked under Yeltsin, but under Putin, their influence has been curtailed and largely have ceased to be definable as oligarchs, unlike in virtually every other capitalist country. Under Putin, the state has reasserted control over strategic sectors and neutralized any oligarchs who challenge its authority, such as Khodorkovsky. This is not the behavior of a state wholly captured by the bourgeoisie.
The Persistence of the Workers' State
The argument that the core of the workers' state established by the Russian Revolution in 1917 persisted through the upheavals of 1991 and was not fully dismantled warrants thorough examination.
The RSFSR as the Revolutionary Core: The RSFSR was the original workers' state and remained the central pillar of the Soviet Union. Its survival after 1991 indicates that the machinery of the workers’ state—albeit deeply distorted and damaged—was not completely dismantled.
The Nature of the Secession of Other Republics
The departure and experiences of other former Soviet republics are in stark contrast with the Russian experience and signify the difference between a successful counter-revolution versus a failed counter-revolution. Many of these republics devolved into hyper-capitalist or even fascist regimes, aligning themselves with foreign imperialist powers.
This would be the case in Russia if it had ceased to be a workers’ state. A bourgeois state never becomes a workers’ state through its own will nor for any other reason - full stop. Nor can a workers’ state become a bourgeois state. Both states can only change by being overthrown. In Ukraine, it was overthrown the moment Ukraine separated from the RSFSR - which was the actual workers’ state. Separating from Russia severed its connection to the October Revolution which allowed the counter-revolution within Ukraine to steam roll over the working class, its consciousness, and its ability to organize, i.e. Fascism.
The fact that Russia did not become fascist is evidence that in Russia a successful counter-revolution did not take place, making the current state in its fundamental class character a workers’ state—just as it was fundamentally a workers’ state before the breakup of the Soviet Union—just as it was a workers’ state before the formation of the Soviet Union.
A Workers' State with a Capitalist Economy
A workers’ state which was not entirely overthrown or dismantled and was never truly a state Of the bourgeoisie, such as the RSFSR / the Russian Federation, can and does necessarily exist within a capitalist economy—just as any other workers state in the transitional epoch—and can certainly remain a workers’ state while developing socialism more or less according to the material conditions from within and without.
Historical Analogies: The NEP and Post-Soviet Russia
The existence of a workers’ state with a capitalist economy such as the Russian Federation of today as well as the Peoples Republic of China aligns with the historical precedent of the New Economic Policy (NEP) during the 1920s, when limited private enterprise was tolerated while the state maintained ultimate control over strategic sectors. This was a pragmatic response to the devastation of the Civil War and a recognition of the need to rebuild the economy under difficult conditions.
Just as with the NEP, so too in today’s Russian federation and Peoples Republic of China, the capitalist class is permitted to operate, but within definite limits, while state control over strategic industries and functions remains an overriding priority to private profit interests.
The Transitional Epoch: Characterized by Contradiction
While there is continuity of a workers' state, it’s inevitable that contradictions will exist. This has always been the case—since obviously a workers’ state is born under conditions of capitalist or belated capitalist development, which then begins the construction of the conditions for socialist development. A workers’ state is a transitional one, starting out with a capitalist economy and seeks to advance towards socialism or at least to hold the line and remain a workers’ state, defend the revolution and prevent a counter-revolution. This continues to be the case.
The Russian economy predominantly adheres to capitalist principles, permitting private ownership and free enterprise to address gaps in numerous consumer sectors —both temporarily in the 1920s, and again temporarily today. Nevertheless, these contradictions signify a transitional phase rather than being the product of a definitive counter-revolution, unlike other former soviet republics—where the counter-revolution was final and successful.
In light of Putin’s electoral victory in 2024—reflecting widespread support and the highest turnout rate since 1990, his favorability among the working class is not incidental. This is a working class which largely, and increasingly, views the state leadership as one which represents their own interests and will. Putin’s policies, such as the re-nationalization of energy resources, increased state investment in infrastructure, the reinstatement of social protections such as healthcare and pensions, and indeed the Special Military Operation (SMO), have reinstated a sense of stability, pride, and dignity among a populace that endured significant hardship during the neoliberal crisis of the 1990s. The experiment with neoliberalism is viewed as having been attempted, rejected, and reversed.
Discussions of 'tradition' should be understood in the context of Russia’s cultural traditions molded in the 20th century by the proletariat and its dictatorship established by the October Revolution. In Russia, 'traditional' simply denotes a euphemism for a renewed emphasis on the latent components of the Workers’ State along with its sanity—in opposition to an increasingly insane and rotten ruling ideology originating from the bourgeoisie in the countries of Imperialist decline i.e. “the west”.
While Russia’s economy operates on capitalist principles in many areas, the state continues to intervene in ways that benefit the working class. The Russian state’s resistance to foreign domination resonates deeply with a population that remembers the imperialist invasions and betrayals of the 20th century.
The relatively few millionaires and billionaires in Russia hold significant importance. Although there is a capitalist class in Russia, its influence is restricted and suppressed to a certain extent by the state. The capitalist class does not regard the state as "theirs," but rather as something that temporarily tolerates their activities, as long as these activities do not contradict the state's interests. This is because the state fundamentally remained a workers' state despite their earlier attempts. Like the excaliber sword, they were unable to pull it from the rock and wield it as their own - only the working class can.
This gives a literal meaning to the concept of “Permanent Revolution” - the october revolution is in fact permanent and irreversible.
Putin’s Politics: Neither Chauvinism nor Nationalism, but Pragmatic Internationalism
Putin’s policies cannot be neatly categorized as chauvinist or nationalist. His repeated calls for international cooperation, multipolarity, and alignment with nations resisting U.S. hegemony demonstrate a strategic vision of Russia as a leading force in a global coalition against imperialism.
Key Features of Putin's Internationalism:
Opposition to U.S.-Backed Nationalism and Fascism: Putin’s government has positioned itself against the resurgence of fascism and nationalism, particularly in Ukraine.
Defense of Sovereignty as a Basis for Cooperation: Putin emphasizes sovereignty as the cornerstone of international relations, aligning with a vision of mutual respect among nations.
Combatting Anti-Semitism and Nationalism at Home: Putin’s government actively suppresses nationalist and far-right movements, invoking the USSR’s struggle against fascism as a moral imperative.
Putin’s policies must be understood as a response to imperialism’s attempts to divide and redivide the globe through war, sanctions, and the promotion of reactionary ideologies. His government’s turn toward multipolarity and mobilization of anti-fascist traditions create space for resistance to imperialism.
Russia as a Refuge for "Refugees of Neoliberalism"
The extension of asylum or residency to individuals from Western nations demonstrates a deliberate effort by the Russian government to position itself as a counterbalance to the cruelty and dysfunction of neoliberalism.
A Haven for Dissidents of Imperialism and Neoliberalism: By welcoming those who oppose or have been harmed by neoliberal policies, Russia creates an ideological and physical sanctuary for dissenters of the Western order.
Contrast with Western Hypocrisy: Russia’s acceptance of these refugees exposes the moral bankruptcy of Western neoliberalism and its failure to provide for its own populations.
A Symbolic Gesture Against Imperialist Ideology: By granting asylum to Western citizens, the Russian state implicitly states: "We are not your enemy; your true enemies are those who exploit and marginalize you under the banner of neoliberalism."
Refugees as a Force for Solidarity: These individuals bring their personal experiences of oppression and their potential as a bridge for solidarity between Russia and the working classes of the West.
A Rejection of Nationalist Isolation: This policy demonstrates a willingness to engage in the global struggle against imperialism, welcoming individuals even from nations hostile to Russia.
This policy reflects an understanding by the Russian leadership of the growing contradictions within Western societies. By integrating these individuals into Russian society, the government fosters a global community that stands opposed to the imperialist bloc.
Toward Socialist Restoration
If the Russian state retains elements of the workers' state established by the October Revolution, then the task is not to overthrow it but to deepen its socialist character. Deepening the socialist character involves empowering the working class, expanding economic planning, and gradually revitalizing to an ever-increasing extent the legacy of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.
The ideological legacy of the Soviet Union, particularly its role in defeating fascism during the Great Patriotic War, remains central to the legitimacy of the Russian state. The memory of the USSR as a workers' state and its traditions of internationalism remain potent forces in Russian society. These traditions must be deepened and revitalized by the working class itself. By invoking this history, the state reaffirms the collective ethos and organizational frameworks of the Soviet era.
However, this does not mean prematurely attempting to establish workers' councils that duplicate what the state is already doing. Given the current conditions of a global capitalist economy, Russia operates under a capitalist framework out of necessity. Socialism in one country is not feasible, but a workers' state can exist in one country, managing within capitalist and contradictory conditions until workers' states are established in other advanced nations.
While the current stage represents a transitional phase—where remnants of the workers' state coexist with capitalist elements under the pressures of imperialism and the global capitalist economy—yet, nevertheless, the machinery forged by the October Revolution and shaped in the subsequent decades—of economic planning, state enterprise, anti-imperialism, and anti-fascism—persist and provide the foundation for a renewed advance toward socialism in Russia—without another revolution.
Conclusion
The road ahead is not without obstacles, but the revolutionary traditions of the Russian people—the legacy of the October Revolution, the Great Patriotic War, and the Soviet Union—are powerful tools in this struggle. By mobilizing the working class and building solidarity with the international proletariat, Russia is reclaiming its place as the vanguard of socialism and inspiring the world once more.
In the final analysis, the fate of Socialism in Russia—as an extension of the fate of humanity, ultimately depends not only on Russia, but on the Working Class in the imperialist countries—who must overthrow their own capitalist regimes and join Russia and China by establishing their own Workers' States. Until they do, humanity, just as Rosa Luxemberg warned in the Junius Pamphet, remains at a crossroads facing one or the other alternative: either socialist revolution, or fascism, barbarism and nuclear annihilation.
Only when the emerging multipolar world becomes a multipolar world characterized by federations of Workers States—governments that truly represent and defend the interests of the Working Class, the People—will the World Economy be transformed from a Capitalist World Economy to a Socialist World Economy.
Just found your work. Very well written, insightful. Best of luck as you move forward.
Make Russia Great Again!