Soviet Russia and the Proto-Fascist State

[trivas7]

Soviet Russia was a betrayal of socialism.


When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction. It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

One may take note of another device used effectively by State capitalist ideologists in their service to existing power and privilege. The ritual denunciation of the so-called 'socialist' States is replete with distortions and often outright lies. Nothing is easier than to denounce the official enemy and to attribute to it any crime: there is no need to be burdened by the demands of evidence or logic as one marches in the parade. Critics of Western violence and atrocities often try to set the record straight, recognizing the criminal atrocities and repression that exist while exposing the tales that are concocted in the service of Western violence. With predictable regularity, these steps are at once interpreted as apologetics for the empire of evil and its minions. Thus the crucial Right to Lie in the Service of the State is preserved, and the critique of State violence and atrocities is undermined.

It is also worth noting the great appeal of Leninist doctrine to the modern intelligentsia in periods of conflict and upheaval. This doctrine affords the 'radical intellectuals' the right to hold State power and to impose the harsh rule of the 'Red Bureaucracy,' the 'new class,' in the terms of Bakunin's prescient analysis a century ago. As in the Bonapartist State denounced by Marx, they become the 'State priests,' and "parasitical excrescence upon civil society" that rules it with an iron hand.

In periods when there is little challenge to State capitalist institutions, the same fundamental commitments lead the 'new class' to serve as State managers and ideologists, "beating the people with the people's stick," in Bakunin's words. It is small wonder that intellectuals find the transition from 'revolutionary Communism' to 'celebration of the West' such an easy one, replaying a script that has evolved from tragedy to farce over the past half century. In essence, all that has changed is the assessment of where power lies. Lenin¹s dictum that "socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people," who must of course trust the benevolence of their leaders, expresses the perversion of 'socialism' to the needs of the State priests, and allows us to comprehend the rapid transition between positions that superficially seem diametric opposites, but in fact are quite close.

The terminology of political and social discourse is vague and imprecise, and constantly debased by the contributions of ideologists of one or another stripe. Still, these terms have at least some residue of meaning. Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda. They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary process" and distort it to their ends of domination; "Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests," which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life. For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.

The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that "the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encourage by a revolution with led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage" (my emphasis). For the workers, as one anarchist delegate said, "The Factory committees were cells of the future... They, not the State, should now administer."

But the State priests knew better, and moved at once to destroy the factory committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3, Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control" (Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers' control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented; the Bolshevik leadership expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of socialism.

Soon Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" -- or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from overmanagement, but from undermanagement"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free. At the same time, 'factionalism' -- i.e., any modicum of free expression and organization -- was destroyed "in the interests of socialism," as the term was redefined for their purposes by Lenin and Trotsky, who proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist structures converted by Stalin into one of the horrors of the modern age.

[synthesis]

There you go again. Why bother trying to prove that Lenin and Stalin "betrayed" socialism if you don't agree with socialism in the first place? I don't see anyone here trying to prove to you how neoconservatives "betrayed" laissez-faire capitalism - correct me if I'm wrong, but most of us assume you recognize this already and have formulated your own response to it.

That said, this is still a pretty good (old) article, even if Chomsky tends to elevate libertarian principle above materialist analysis. This sentence, in particular, is useful in ways above and beyond how Chomsky intended.



The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society.

Replace "Soviet" with "Taliban" and "socialist" with "Islamic", for example, and you're one step closer to understanding radical politics in the Middle East.

[danyboy27]

LOL i didnt needed such a long explanation to understand that the soviet union was a totalitarian, unproductive regime...

seriously trivias, i have a hard time understanding why you posted this.

you will be most likely flamed by hardcore pro stalinist folks, or be applauded by anti stalinist, at the end nothing really productive is gonna come out of this, only an horrible flamewar.

you are a good guy trivias, i got a lot of respect for you and your position, but i think that all this pointing finger tactic isnt gonna end up in a productive debate.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Great Chomsky article!:D

[trivas7]

That said, this is still a pretty good (old) article, even if Chomsky tends to elevate libertarian principle above materialist analysis. This sentence, in particular, is useful in ways above and beyond how Chomsky intended.

What do you mean by material analysis, exactly; why should it count more than principle?


[...] i think that all this pointing finger tactic isnt gonna end up in a productive debate.
You are deluded if you believe revlefters are interested in productive debate w/ those in OI.

I confess I feel uncomfortable in either camp, perhaps I simply need to go away.

[RGacky3]

perhaps I simply need to go away.

Great advice.


You are deluded if you believe revlefters are interested in productive debate w/ those in OI.

Your definition of "productive debate" is very very strange.

[Cumannach]

Just don't ask him to back any of his cliched anti-communist crap up.

[synthesis]

What do you mean by material analysis, exactly; why should it count more than principle?

We're materialists.

(I wanted to see how it felt to answer questions like you do - it's pretty satisfying, actually, not having to put any thought or effort into one's response.)

[danyboy27]

What do you mean by material analysis, exactly; why should it count more than principle?

You are deluded if you believe revlefters are interested in productive debate w/ those in OI.

I confess I feel uncomfortable in either camp, perhaps I simply need to go away.

there is no need to go away, stay with us. you are not forced to convince revlefter, personally i am here to understand them, i dont have any interrest to challenge them on their idea, there is a huuge gap between understand someone and agree with him.

you are a man of great knowledge, but for some reason a lot of your post are: you guy are wrong, my arguments kickass, your ideology is made if fail!
you are pushing people a lot, but you wont be able to gain anything this way, no matter how much arguments and other thrump card you are holding in your card.

has i said before, you are a verry intelligent man, and your opinion differs, i am sure it can be employed more wisely.

if you came here to refute the leftist ideology, you wont gain any sympathy, or at least not publicly.

[LSD]

Yet more proof that Chomsky will take thirteen paragraphs to express an idea that a normal person would express in a sentence.

There's an old cliché in linguistics: if you want to understand Chomsky, whatever you do, don't read Chomsky!

An even older cliché, of course, is the one that says that Soviet Communism wasn't actually communism. Lenin's brand of Marxism has been denounced as heretical from the moment he published his first article. From Martov to Luxembourg to Trotsky, not a single year has passed since 1917 in which someone did not write an article "exposing" the lie that was big-c "Communism".

This particlary "exposition" was apparently penned by Chomsky in 1986. It's not particularly original, nor historically significant. And it's certainly not that well written.

So I must confess I'm rather mystified as to what great impulse drove you to copy this essay (in violation of all manner of intellectual property laws I might add) onto a board already replete with virtually identical analyses.

Here's some unsolicited advice, rather than scouring the internet for 23 year old criticisms of defunct states, try thinking of something new. 'Cause if there's anything the left needs these days, it's fresh ideas. Even bad ideas can spark something useful, regurgitation serves no one.

And who knows, maybe 23 years from now, someone will be copying your words onto some message board somewhere. Here's hoping they use propper attribution... ;)

[Pogue]

Yet more proof that Chomsky will take thirteen paragraphs to express an idea that a normal person would express in a sentence.

There's an old cliché in linguistics: if you want to understand Chomsky, whatever you do, don't read Chomsky!

An even older cliché, of course, is the one that says that Soviet Communism wasn't actually communism. Lenin's brand of Marxism has been denounced as heretical from the moment he published his first article. From Martov to Luxembourg to Trotsky, not a single year has passed since 1917 in which someone did not write an article "exposing" the lie that was big-c "Communism".

This particlary "exposition" was apparently penned by Chomsky in 1986. It's not particularly original, nor historically significant. And it's certainly not that well written.

So I must confess I'm rather mystified as to what great impulse drove you to copy this essay (in violation of all manner of intellectual property laws I might add) onto a board already replete with virtually identical analyses.

Here's some unsolicited advice, rather than scouring the internet for 23 year old criticisms of defunct states, try thinking of something new. 'Cause if there's anything the left needs these days, it's fresh ideas. Even bad ideas can spark something useful, regurgitation serves no one.

And who knows, maybe 23 years from now, someone will be copying your words onto some message board somewhere. Here's hoping they use propper attribution... ;)

Oh, your still here. Why?

[LSD]

I like to pop in from time to time.

Here's a completely unrelated question. What's the point of quoting an entire post just to make a one-line, off-topic response? I mean, it's flattering that you found my words so appealing that you felt it nescessary to re-post them in their entirety ...but doesn't that kind of undercut the whole "I'm so over you" theme you were going for?

Also, I would have done without the "why" at the end. Even used sarcastically, it makes you seem too interested. Besides, the shorter you make it, the more off-the-cuff it seems.

That said, you've inspired me:

Yet more proof that Chomsky will take thirteen paragraphs to express an idea that a normal person would express in a sentence.

There's an old cliché in linguistics: if you want to understand Chomsky, whatever you do, don't read Chomsky!

An even older cliché, of course, is the one that says that Soviet Communism wasn't actually communism. Lenin's brand of Marxism has been denounced as heretical from the moment he published his first article. From Martov to Luxembourg to Trotsky, not a single year has passed since 1917 in which someone did not write an article "exposing" the lie that was big-c "Communism".

This particlary "exposition" was apparently penned by Chomsky in 1986. It's not particularly original, nor historically significant. And it's certainly not that well written.

So I must confess I'm rather mystified as to what great impulse drove you to copy this essay (in violation of all manner of intellectual property laws I might add) onto a board already replete with virtually identical analyses.

Here's some unsolicited advice, rather than scouring the internet for 23 year old criticisms of defunct states, try thinking of something new. 'Cause if there's anything the left needs these days, it's fresh ideas. Even bad ideas can spark something useful, regurgitation serves no one.

And who knows, maybe 23 years from now, someone will be copying your words onto some message board somewhere. Here's hoping they use propper attribution... ;)

[IcarusAngel]

It's actually a great article. Chomsky is one of the most honest and consistent anti-authoritarians the left movement has had in years, and one of the best at combating the propaganda system that exists in the US.

The article deals with several themes, not just one:

-That the USSR's totalitarianism is something to be despised.

-That the USSR's totalitarianism betrayed tenants of socialism.

-That we should hate what these "state socialist" societies did for their totalitarianism and their crimes, and not for political propaganda purposes.

If a state commits a crime, it should be noted responsibly. It should not be allowed to be used for propaganda purposes, as this actually does a disservice to the people.

We know this is an important point looking at history, for example, the numerous attempts to portray Saddam as Hitler etc., giving a disporpotational analysis of his crimes compared to the rest of the world (even in countries where America was aiding in the atrocities - such as Indonesia and East Timor) to help justify an invasion.

Chomsky has taken conservatives to task for making up numbers as well, deliberately misquoting cited source ("Year Zero", etc.), and some journalists have even apologized for their use of lies, claiming they were doing it just to support America's cause, proving my point above.

-We shouldn't forget the atrocities and crimes of our own country, particularly because we supposedly have a minor influence on its policies, etc.

-What real Marxists and council communists like Anton Pannekoek advocated, and how that differed from social communism, etc.

I fail to see how all this could be done in a "few sentences" and I've generally found interesting insights in the words chomsky has put to the page. He's the "Bertrand Russell" for America.

Interestingly, his works (including linguistic works) were banned in the USSR, and yet conservatives claim he was an "apologist" for them, which is clearly just libel.

[trivas7]

An even older cliché, of course, is the one that says that Soviet Communism wasn't actually communism. Lenin's brand of Marxism has been denounced as heretical from the moment he published his first article. From Martov to Luxembourg to Trotsky, not a single year has passed since 1917 in which someone did not write an article "exposing" the lie that was big-c "Communism".

So I must confess I'm rather mystified as to what great impulse drove you to copy this essay (in violation of all manner of intellectual property laws I might add) onto a board already replete with virtually identical analyses.

Here's some unsolicited advice, rather than scouring the internet for 23 year old criticisms of defunct states, try thinking of something new. 'Cause if there's anything the left needs these days, it's fresh ideas. Even bad ideas can spark something useful, regurgitation serves no one.

It's still a question for me whether or not Bolshevism represents an historical example of the development of socialism; most Trotskyites seem to think so (the USSR was a "degenerate worker's state"). That's why I quote Chomsky in dissent of that opinion, I could easily have quoted Bertrand Russell as someone sympathetic to socialism (and he stands contemporary to the event).

Alan Woods in 'Socialism for the Twenty-first Century' (which I confess not to have read) is of the opinion that Leninism is a valid continuation of Marx and the way to proceed w/ socialism in the near term, anything else is mere reformism (Isn't this what the Cuban government believes?). Do you really think that there can be any new ideas re a theory that has been hashed and rehashed theoretically innumerable times since Marx?

If I can see any glimmer of hope that socialism can be more than just an ideal I would be happy, my fear is that historical materialism is fatally flawed theoretically, i.e., there is no science of history and Marxism shares the idealism of its Hegelian roots (Perhaps the flaw is merely applying it to politics).

[trivas7]

We're materialists.

What difference does that make? So was Ayn Rand.

[RGacky3]

It's still a question for me whether or not Bolshevism represents an historical example of the development of socialism; most Trotskyites seem to think so (the USSR was a "degenerate worker's state"). That's why I quote Chomsky in dissent of that opinion, I could easily have quoted Bertrand Russell as someone sympathetic to socialism (and he stands contemporary to the event).
'

Almost all Anarchists abandoned supporting Russia very soon after Lenin consolidated Power.


Do you really think that there can be any new ideas re a theory that has been hashed and rehashed theoretically innumerable times since Marx?


The principles of Anarcho-Syndicalism have never failed, always been put down violently (when put down) and never as the leninists say "degenerated".


If I can see any glimmer of hope that socialism can be more than just an ideal I would be happy, my fear is that historical materialism is fatally flawed theoretically, i.e., there is no science of history and Marxism shares the idealism of its Hegelian roots (Perhaps the flaw is merely applying it to politics).

The flaw of Historical Materialism is that human disicion making is vastly more complex than the way Marxists paint it as. There are many many more factors that come into play. Not just class power. The flaw is trying to make a science out of human desicion making and societal desicion making and using that analysis without taking into account the countless other unknown, unscientific (so far) factors.


An even older cliché, of course, is the one that says that Soviet Communism wasn't actually communism. Lenin's brand of Marxism has been denounced as heretical from the moment he published his first article. From Martov to Luxembourg to Trotsky, not a single year has passed since 1917 in which someone did not write an article "exposing" the lie that was big-c "Communism".

So? How does that make it untrue?

Trivas, you do realize that the majority of the people here are some form of Libertarian-Socialist right?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

By the way, hate to get off topic, but Trivas I notice you metioned Alan Woods.

Is he any good? Not only from an intellectual point of view, but is he a good writer?


The flaw of Historical Materialism is that human disicion making is vastly more complex than the way Marxists paint it as. There are many many more factors that come into play. Not just class power. The flaw is trying to make a science out of human desicion making and societal desicion making and using that analysis without taking into account the countless other unknown, unscientific (so far) factors.

I agree with this.

I personally think that Marxism is a very interesting sociological theory, and when looking at large groups over time it is noticeable that history has progressed in certain directions which he indicated. However, Marxism does not break down from a macro theory to a micro one and pretending that Marx had all the answers, and that those answers are indisputably right. is folly.

[trivas7]

'
Almost all Anarchists abandoned supporting Russia very soon after Lenin consolidated Power.

The principles of Anarcho-Syndicalism have never failed, always been put down violently (when put down) and never as the leninists say "degenerated".

The flaw of Historical Materialism is that human disicion making is vastly more complex than the way Marxists paint it as. There are many many more factors that come into play. Not just class power. The flaw is trying to make a science out of human desicion making and societal desicion making and using that analysis without taking into account the countless other unknown, unscientific (so far) factors.

Historical materialism is a theory re the historical process, not re human decision-making. That it acts like all other process, dialectically. "Men make history, but in circumstances not of their own choosing".

IMO Marx did not see economics as an end in itself. He had been and remained a philosopher all his life. Like Kierkegaard who was his contemporary, the problem of man was central for Marx. It is in this light that his concentration on economics is understandable.

Marx proceeds from the assumption that alienation is the chief issue of conflict in society and that it is the task of the proletariat to eliminate it. Not only are there diverse forms of the alienation but they exist in specific hierarchies whose base is economic alienation. The central fact is the private ownership of the means of production, determining as it does the particular forms of the division of labor as well as the alienation of the very process of labor and of its product -- the commodity. Private property is the pivot of this exploitation of man by man, the class division of society and its resultant institutions, the state above all.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this anthropological argument. The first is acceptance of communism as a process bent on the overthrow of society based on relations of economic alienation. The second is concentration on class struggle to be waged against economic alienation and intellectual engagement on political economy in service of this end. But the effort to solve economic problems and to settle the political issues so closely connected w/ them are only a means of fulfilling a central humanist aim -- the liberation of man.

[RGacky3]

Historical materialism is a theory re the historical process, not re human decision-making. "Men make history, but in circumstances not of their own choosing".

The Historical process IS people making decisions. Circumstances are created partially by people making desicions, other than that ask a geologist.

I'm not going to argue about the nature of Marxes philosophy because A. I'm not a Marxist and B. Its irrelivent.

[Dimentio]

Soviet Russia was a betrayal of socialism.

Yes I agree. I think many of the leftists here would agree.

[danyboy27]

in before the anti-revionist come and rape this thread

[synthesis]

What difference does that make? So was Ayn Rand.

The point is that Chomsky tends to rely on moralistic condemnation instead of sober materialist analysis. He resorts to accusing the Soviet Union of "beating the people with the people's stick" instead of dissecting the social, economic, and cultural origins of authoritarianism.

Chomsky is more eager to explain why his ideology differs from that of Leninism than explaining why Leninism was what it was. That's OK, but it's not effective or useful historical analysis. Authoritarianism in Russia did not begin with Lenin and it didn't end with Gorbachev, and the same will be true for China and Cuba.


The principles of Anarcho-Syndicalism have never failed, always been put down violently (when put down) and never as the leninists say "degenerated".Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Authoritarianism is cruel but at the same time incredibly valuable when resisting a sustained assault from without. You just can't win a war if nobody wants to take orders - that's the problem with anarchism. Sad but true.


The flaw of Historical Materialism is that human disicion making is vastly more complex than the way Marxists paint it as. There are many many more factors that come into play. Not just class power. The flaw is trying to make a science out of human desicion making and societal desicion making and using that analysis without taking into account the countless other unknown, unscientific (so far) factors.

I personally think that Marxism is a very interesting sociological theory, and when looking at large groups over time it is noticeable that history has progressed in certain directions which he indicated. However, Marxism does not break down from a macro theory to a micro one and pretending that Marx had all the answers, and that those answers are indisputably right. is folly.There isn't a theory out there that will be universally applicable to decisions made in the present, nor is there one that will always be valid for our plans in the future. Simply cannot exist. The world is too complex.

However, historical materialism is an immensely useful tool for analyzing the past. The conception of history as a collection of systems and processes - to analyze an individual or group's actions, to understand the environment of that individual or group, to "connect the dots," so to speak - is much more powerful than solely reaching an understanding of their mindset, because their mindset originated from their circumstances.

That's not to say that idealism is totally useless, because subjective opinions have objective effects when enough people have acted upon them. It's kind of like the chicken-and-the-egg question - there is an answer, but that doesn't make the question irrelevant.

[RGacky3]

The point is that Chomsky tends to rely on moralistic condemnation instead of sober materialist analysis.

Material analysis is only useful if you have a moral guide to use it with, without a moral guide theres no way to use material analysis to say whether or not something is positive or negative.


Authoritarianism in Russia did not begin with Lenin and it didn't end with Gorbachev, and the same will be true for China and Cuba.

I agree, HOWEVER before lenin no one claimed they were implimenting socialism or claimed they were creating a workers democracy.


He resorts to accusing the Soviet Union of "beating the people with the people's stick" instead of dissecting the social, economic, and cultural origins of authoritarianism.

The origins matter, but they don't justify.


You just can't win a war if nobody wants to take orders - that's the problem with anarchism. Sad but true.


See Anarchist Spain. True they did'n win, but they lasted amazingly long considering what they were up against.


Authoritarianism is cruel but at the same time incredibly valuable when resisting a sustained assault from without.

True, but its never only used for that, its almost always also used for consolidating power and wielding authority, as was the case in the USSR, after the civil war, when the Bolsheviks had too (according to them, I dissagree) become authoritarian, they did'nt give it up, they did'nt because power corrupts, always will, always has.


However, historical materialism is an immensely useful tool for analyzing the past. The conception of history as a collection of systems and processes - to analyze an individual or group's actions, to understand the environment of that individual or group, to "connect the dots," so to speak - is much more powerful than solely reaching an understanding of their mindset, because their mindset originated from their circumstances.


Yes I agree its very useful, but it must be used in conjunction with other things, this is where some Marxists fail in my opinion, they disregard explinations or reasonings if they don't follow historical materialism.


because subjective opinions have objective effects when enough people have acted upon them. It's kind of like the chicken-and-the-egg question - there is an answer, but that doesn't make the question irrelevant.

You hit it on head.

[synthesis]

Material analysis is only useful if you have a moral guide to use it with, without a moral guide theres no way to use material analysis to say whether or not something is positive or negative.


The origins matter, but they don't justify.


True, but its never only used for that, its almost always also used for consolidating power and wielding authority, as was the case in the USSR, after the civil war, when the Bolsheviks had too (according to them, I dissagree) become authoritarian, they did'nt give it up, they did'nt because power corrupts, always will, always has.

I'm not interested in making moral judgments, or hearing them from anyone else. People can decide for themselves whether or not something is positive or negative, and keep it to themselves as well.


I agree, HOWEVER before lenin no one claimed they were implimenting socialism or claimed they were creating a workers democracy.

Again, I am not interested in what people claim to be or what people claim to be doing. It's what they were and what they did, and more importantly why they were who they were and why they did what they did, that is important to me.


See Anarchist Spain. True they did'n win, but they lasted amazingly long considering what they were up against.


True they did'n win

Exactly.

[trivas7]

Yes I agree. I think many of the leftists here would agree.
Who/what do you look to as an historical source of inspiration?


By the way, hate to get off topic, but Trivas I notice you metioned Alan Woods.
Is he any good? Not only from an intellectual point of view, but is he a good writer?

Well, he's no Gore Vidal or Martin Amis, if they're your cup of tea. He's partisan and bland, but informative (I don't know your taste in political writers obviously). Go to marxist.com; he's got some books online there, marxist internet archives. He's even got a video on Google video on the history of the 20th century.

[trivas7]

Authoritarianism in Russia did not begin with Lenin and it didn't end with Gorbachev, and the same will be true for China and Cuba.

Good historical point. Like most Americans, I hate authority.

[Hiero]

The Historical process IS people making decisions. Circumstances are created partially by people making desicions, other than that ask a geologist.

So simply by people choosing not to like feuadalism they created capitalism?

[synthesis]

Good historical point. Like most Americans, I hate authority.

Yes, we have that luxury. Stability takes precedence over liberal freedoms when the alternative is chaos.

[RGacky3]

Yes, we have that luxury. Stability takes precedence over liberal freedoms when the alternative is chaos.

Which it never is, Stability (meaning authority) takes precedence over freedom and equality. The so-called Stability is what provokes the so-called chaos which is generally just a reaction against the so called Stability (which really means authority in political terms).


I'm not interested in making moral judgments, or hearing them from anyone else. People can decide for themselves whether or not something is positive or negative, and keep it to themselves as well.

So waht are you doing here on a leftist board? Of caorse you are interested in making moral judgements, thats why your against imperialism and Capitalism. Don't be naive here, thats why your FOR socialism.


Again, I am not interested in what people claim to be or what people claim to be doing. It's what they were and what they did, and more importantly why they were who they were and why they did what they did, that is important to me.


Well, my point was that Lenin, did not do, or impliment what he claimed his goal was.



Quote:
True they did'n win
Exactly.

Niether did Communism in Russia.

[synthesis]

Which it never is, Stability (meaning authority) takes precedence over freedom and equality. The so-called Stability is what provokes the so-called chaos which is generally just a reaction against the so called Stability (which really means authority in political terms).

True; the point is that the cycle can only be ended when material conditions have improved to the point that order can be maintained without constant brute force.


So waht are you doing here on a leftist board? Of caorse you are interested in making moral judgements, thats why your against imperialism and Capitalism. Don't be naive here, thats why your FOR socialism.

There's a difference between political agenda and historical analysis. When you make moral judgments about history, you're not only resting your case on something as unfalsifiable (and therefore un-debatable) as morality, you're also missing the bigger picture and therefore ignoring the lessons to be learned from past events.

The problem with simply dismissing historical phenomena as "immoral" is that you focus more on repudiating and differentiating yourself from a certain mindset than you do on understanding the material conditions that created that mindset in order to be able to properly address the present day.

For example, when someone dismisses the working-class white people who form a majority of StormFront as simply "racist bastards" who ought to be sent to the gulag, they're ignoring the reality of the situation, which is that working-class white people can sense their own disenfranchisement and that the far-right was the first to provide an easy answer that is acceptable to uneducated white folks who see the world as if they were in a Tolkien book.


Well, my point was that Lenin, did not do, or impliment what he claimed his goal was.

And my point is, there are reasons for that which go beyond merely attacking Lenin and his cohorts as power-hungry plotters. Russia's economy, culture, and internal conflicts were far more influential to the development of the early Soviet Union than the Bolsheviks' intentions alone.


Niether did Communism in Russia.

Exactly.

[RGacky3]

True; the point is that the cycle can only be ended when material conditions have improved to the point that order can be maintained without constant brute force.


brute force has nothing to do with maintaining order, thats what I was saying, it has to do with maintaining authority. Thats always been the case. Order doe'snt require brute force. Authoritarianism does.


There's a difference between political agenda and historical analysis. When you make moral judgments about history, you're not only resting your case on something as unfalsifiable (and therefore un-debatable) as morality, you're also missing the bigger picture and therefore ignoring the lessons to be learned from past events.

Thats true, I agree you can't analyse basead on morality, you must analyse based on material conditions, however, after analysis, you must look at the way things turned out, and how they turned out, and see if you consider those things positive or negative, which is moral judgement. I don't want to analyse soviet russia morally, I want to judge it that way (which is the only way you can judge it).


The problem with simply dismissing historical phenomena as "immoral" is that you focus more on repudiating and differentiating yourself from a certain mindset than you do on understanding the material conditions that created that mindset in order to be able to properly address the present day.


Yes, but material conditions are not the only factor, the principles that actions are based on make a big difference, we can't change material conditions, however we can act on principle.


For example, when someone dismisses the working-class white people who form a majority of StormFront as simply "racist bastards" who ought to be sent to the gulag, they're ignoring the reality of the situation, which is that working-class white people can sense their own disenfranchisement and that the far-right was the first to provide an easy answer that is acceptable to uneducated white folks who see the world as if they were in a Tolkien book.

I agree, I don't look at working-class white people who are racist as "Bad people" the same way I don't look at Lenin as a "bad person". Heres the difference however, Both of those 2 groups act and acted on bad principles that add to the problem, make it worse (in my opinion).


And my point is, there are reasons for that which go beyond merely attacking Lenin and his cohorts as power-hungry plotters. Russia's economy, culture, and internal conflicts were far more influential to the development of the early Soviet Union than the Bolsheviks' intentions alone.


I agree, don't get me wrong, I"m not saying Lenin and his cohorts were any worse than anyone else, or nay more power hungry. All of those circumstances your right had a lot to do with it. However, I believe, that had the Russian revolution been more commited to freedom along with socialism, things would have turned out differently.

Lenin reacted to his circumstances, any one would. His circumstances were he was now the leader of a revolution, a revolution being threatened from all around, and he believed, that in order to save the revolution, and thus the Russian people, he need to be a strong man and clamp down, he needed to have control so that the revolution could be protected, and like anyone, the more power you get, the more you want (whatever your intentions).

This is why the Spanish revolution was different in nature, absolute freedom was always a high priority, so no one was ever put in the situation Lenin was put in.

I say the same thing about CEOs, they are not bad people, they react to their circumstances, its the market, the rat race, they do waht they gotta do. Our goal as SOcialists, is to change the situation.

[synthesis]

brute force has nothing to do with maintaining order, thats what I was saying, it has to do with maintaining authority. Thats always been the case. Order doe'snt require brute force. Authoritarianism does.Depending on the circumstances, order often requires authoritarianism. Any country's political situation has a lot more to do with the state of technology and the automation of labor in that particular environment than you might think.

This is pretty universal, and it is derived from materialist historical analysis. In class society, when the most physically demanding of the socially necessary labor has not been largely replaced by machinery, there is almost always a strong government that keeps workers relegated to menial labor. Liberal freedoms are by and large a function of economic progress.


Thats true, I agree you can't analyse basead on morality, you must analyse based on material conditions, however, after analysis, you must look at the way things turned out, and how they turned out, and see if you consider those things positive or negative, which is moral judgement. I don't want to analyse soviet russia morally, I want to judge it that way (which is the only way you can judge it).What's the point? If you know how they fucked up, why do you need to make a moral judgment in order to want to avoid it?


Yes, but material conditions are not the only factor, the principles that actions are based on make a big difference, we can't change material conditions, however we can act on principle.Changing our material conditions is the most important job of any Communist; no principle is ever universally applicable.


I agree, I don't look at working-class white people who are racist as "Bad people" the same way I don't look at Lenin as a "bad person". Heres the difference however, Both of those 2 groups act and acted on bad principles that add to the problem, make it worse (in my opinion).But understanding why they came to those bad principles - isn't that of equal or greater importance than establishing their principles as "bad"?


However, I believe, that had the Russian revolution been more commited to freedom along with socialism, things would have turned out differently.Well, that's the problem with most revolutions in the past - on principle, the revolutionary government is run by revolutionaries instead of people who have previously proven themselves to be able to govern fairly.


This is why the Spanish revolution was different in nature, absolute freedom was always a high priority, so no one was ever put in the situation Lenin was put in.And it ultimately failed. That's not to say a similar strategy won't work again, but history indicates that their strategy wasn't right for their circumstances.


I say the same thing about CEOs, they are not bad people, they react to their circumstances, its the market, the rat race, they do waht they gotta do. Our goal as SOcialists, is to change the situation.So why do you say that we can't change our material conditions?

[RGacky3]

Depending on the circumstances, order often requires authoritarianism. Any country's political situation has a lot more to do with the state of technology and the automation of labor in that particular environment than you might think.

This is pretty universal, and it is derived from materialist historical analysis. In class society, when the most physically demanding of the socially necessary labor has not been largely replaced by machinery, there is almost always a strong government that keeps workers relegated to menial labor. Liberal freedoms are by and large a function of economic progress.

Not at all, historically authoritarianism ALWAYS has been for the defence of authority. Theres not one case where it was to stop "chaos" from a society that was already free. Also, if there is a group of class that has the authority to impliment authoritarianism and give or take away freedoms, then youd don't have freedom at all, and thus you can't have Socialism.


What's the point? If you know how they fucked up, why do you need to make a moral judgment in order to want to avoid it?


To know that they did "fuck up," and what was "fucked up" about it.


Changing our material conditions is the most important job of any Communist; no principle is ever universally applicable.

To the individual holding the principle they are, in other words, principles are a personal belief system, so if you claim a principle, you must stick to it universally.


But understanding why they came to those bad principles - isn't that of equal or greater importance than establishing their principles as "bad"?


Sure, but step one is not having those bad principles and not encouraging them.


And it ultimately failed. That's not to say a similar strategy won't work again, but history indicates that their strategy wasn't right for their circumstances.


The Spanish Anarchists were a Mouse fighting a lion, and that mouse lasted much much longer than any mouse should.


So why do you say that we can't change our material conditions?

When I say we can change our material conditions I mean the ones that are caused by us. For examples, if we assume leadership in a revolutionary movement we are changing the conditions of the revolution, if we stick my anarchist principles we are changing the conditions in a different way.

We cannot change things like culture and history and the current rulership.

material conditions are very very very broad.


Well, that's the problem with most revolutions in the past - on principle, the revolutionary government is run by revolutionaries instead of people who have previously proven themselves to be able to govern fairly.


In my opnion revolutions should'nt establish a "government" to run, they should eliminate power and authority as much as possible and encourage real communism.