A Discussion on Historical Materialism and Human Development

[Sentinel]

Recently a an administrative thread in the CC was closed in the middle of a discussion on this. I'm hoping we could continue it here. Please let's keep this a high quality discussion free of flaming etc.

Personally I consider myself, besides an anarchist, a libertarian marxist. By this I mean that I recognise Marx' theory of historical materialism and the development of human (class) society as accurate, while not being as fond of his theories about the communist party and it's role in the revolution.

This thread is not meant to be about the differences between libertarian and orthodox marxism though, but rather that between marxian and non-marxian anarchism. Simply put, I wish to discuss the progression of society and it's different phases, and the necessarity of these in human social development.

Non-anarchists are welcome to participate as long as this is kept in mind and anarchism/libertarian socialism per se isn't attacked -- there are plenty of other threads to do that.

***

So, I'll start with a brief explanation of what I mean by historical materialism. I believe that Marx was right in that society progresses in stages, and that these stages were each necessary as a bridges to the following ones.

In the beginning we had the hunter-gathererer and primitive communalistic societies which then evolved into agricultural and urban societies utilising slave labor. While this development led to a huge amount of oppression and misery, it also started our path towards where we are now -- on the brink of socialism.

In the fifth century the western parts of the Roman Empire, which had dominated the mediterranian, was overrun by germanic peoples which brought their own social customs and combined these with the urban culture of the empire. This was the start of European feudalism, which would in time develop into a society without outright slavery but where the peasants were instead tied to the land they were working as serfs.

Technological innovation and social progress were pretty much stagnant compared to later ages during this time, much due to the dominance of religious superstition on every level of society both in the catholic feudal Europe and the islamic/orthodox christian Near East. Indeed were these called the dark ages for a reason.

However after this period came the first the renaissance with it's important educational and philosophical reforms, followed by the so called age of enlightment when reason and rational thinking were highlighted as a virtues. The grip of superstition over the western europe faded, boosting technological and social progress enormously.

But while granting certain individual rights and liberties and boosting innovation these developments also led to a new age of ruthless conquests and the perfection of colonialism, with most of the globe being subjugated to the western powers. Then came the industrial revolution, giving birth to modern capitalism -- and the proletarian class -- and marking the definite doom of feudalism.

Capitalism and the ideas of (bourgeois) liberalism are today definitely reactionary to further development. But I am also firmly convinced that they were a necessary step and a huge improvement from past forms of social interaction.

Moreover, contrary of what Marx thought, they might have had a role to play much past the industrial revolution and defeat of feudalism -- secularism and equal rights are still today advancing under their banner. Material wealth and living standards have constantly been increasing in the capitalist countries, even though this is happening on the expense of the workers of the developing countries.

I'm leaning towards the opinion that however unfair and oppressive these developments are, they may be a necessary evil before mankind can be ready to develop further into socialism and communism.

Now, Marx said that the communistic revolution must begin in the most developed parts of the world, to be followed by a global reorganisation of production and distribution to a democratic model.

I think he was very right about this -- and during his time, these areas were simply not developed enough, neither technologically or socially. Today they might be, which will be seen the next time a transition to socialism is attempted.

The role of socialists is today, in my opinion, to support class struggle whereever it occurs both in the first and in the third world. The economic independence of the third world is crucial for the socio-economic development in the west, which has stagnated due to the relative material wealth and rights of workers of the first world on the expense of those of the third.

The class conflict in the west has temporarily been softened due to the capitalists being able to grant these rights to their 'own' workers by outsourcing production into, and parasiting on material resources of, the neocolonies. The independence and development of these will however likely lead to it being sharpened once more in the near future.

I'm not arguing that the 'third world' will have to go through modern capitalism in the way the 'first world' did on all occasions to reach socialism, as that would be absurd. The development will not be a copy of that in Europe.

But for instance in South America leaders confessing to 'socialism' are building social democratic, capitalist societies as we speak, which would seem to back up the assumption that capitalism is necessary as a mode of production for socialism and communism to develop from. It gives birth to a proletarian class in the modern sense and builds up the material abundance and social consciousness required.

I am thus arguing that Marx was right when claiming that the most developed societies will transit into socialism first. It remains to see whether the west will remain in this position or if it will be bypassed by some of the developing countries.

***

I am now turning towards those of you who disagree with this interpretation of Marx and human history of mine. Let's respectfully discuss what exactly we disagree on -- perhaps we can all learn something. :)

[Random Precision]

However after this period came the first the renaissance with it's important educational and philosophical reforms, followed by the so called age of enlightment when reason and rational thinking were highlighted as a virtues. The grip of superstition over the western europe faded, boosting technological and social progress enormously.

Secularism actually played only a very small role in capitalist development in Europe, and was only one possible result of the many from a growth in productive forces. Independence from the Catholic Church (a main upholder of feudalism) was accomplished mainly by the monarchy which adopted new forms of Christianity that suited them better, and more importantly allowed them to seize Church property. Secularism is only really associated with the French Revolution, while the bourgeois revolution in England adopted Puritanism, a most extreme form of Christianity, as its ideology, and secularism had only a limited role in other bourgeois revolutions.


Today they might be, which will be seen the next time a transition to socialism is attempted.

The only proletarian revolution in history happened in such a developing nation. Whether certain Western leftists consider this or that country "ready" for a revolution is irrelevant.


But for instance in South America leaders confessing to 'socialism' are building social democratic, capitalist societies as we speak, which would seem to back up the assumption that capitalism is necessary as a mode of production for socialism and communism to develop from. It gives birth to a proletarian class in the modern sense and builds up the material abundance and social consciousness required.

Latin America already has had a "modern proletarian class" for over a century now. Furthermore Chávez and Morales are nothing new to Latin America- they're in fact only a weak echo of the strong populist/nationalist (not exactly Social-Democratic) leaders of the region during the thirties and forties, like Lázaro Cárdenas and Juan Perón.


The role of socialists is today, in my opinion, to support class struggle whereever it occurs both in the first and in the third world. The economic independence of the third world is crucial for the socio-economic development in the west, which has stagnated due to the relative material wealth and rights of workers of the first world on the expense of those of the third.

The question you need to be asking is why third-world nationalism has not led to "independent capitalism" in any sense, whether that's in Latin America, Africa or Asia. The reason is that capitalism has been consolidated as a global system since the First World War, and the nature of its consolidation is such that capitalist forces of production can only be strengthened through integration into that global system- and even then, how much they are is dictated by the needs of the imperialist powers.


I am thus arguing that Marx was right when claiming that the most developed societies will transit into socialism first.

Marx did not live to see the division of the entire world between rival capitalist powers. The nature of capitalism today is that it retards the productive forces of all developing nations. Capitalism is a global system, thus, our revolution will have to be global.

[ComradeOm]

An interesting post and one that I'll try and come back to tomorrow. For now the below point just jumped out at me


Secularism actually played only a very small role in capitalist development in Europe, and was only one possible result of the many from a growth in productive forces. Independence from the Catholic Church (a main upholder of feudalism) was accomplished mainly by the monarchy which adopted new forms of Christianity that suited them better, and more importantly allowed them to seize Church property. Secularism is only really associated with the French Revolution, while the bourgeois revolution in England adopted Puritanism, a most extreme form of Christianity, as its ideology, and secularism had only a limited role in other bourgeois revolutionsI'd disagree with this. I can't think of a single Catholic nation that didn't go through some form of anti-clericalism when capitalist relations began to develop or come into fruition. France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Mexico... these nations all saw anti-clerical programmes throughout the 19th C that were specifically designed to remove the Church from the economic sphere and limit its influence on society. Hells, most of these programmes persisted into the first decades of the 20th C

That such campaigns are largely lacking from Protestant nations can largely be attributed to the fact that in these societies organised religion had already been 'de-clawed', so to speak, in the preceding centuries. There was no need for mass secularisation programmes because the local churches were already effectively under the control of the proto-bourgeois state and therefore in no position to interfere with the development of the capitalist mode of production. This was the direction that pre-Revolutionary France was already headed in and the model initially adopted by the new Republic

Either way suggests that superstition did pose a real obstacle to economic (or "technological and social") progress. Where the state could not 'conquer' religion, and bend it to its will, then it was forced to actively campaign to secularise society and ultimately sever relations with Church structures

[Random Precision]

I'm willing to admit that ComradeOm is correct. I do not know much about the anti-clerical campaigns in Spain, Portugal or Italy. But I would still disagree with Sentinel where he says that capitalism is furthering an end to "superstition", by which I'm guessing he means religion. Also he made it seem like it was secularism, or "the grip of superstition fading" in Western Europe that opened the way for technological and social progress. No doubt it went both ways.

[Bilan]

To continue with Random Precisions point, in response to Sentinel. Sentinel says, "The economic independence of the third world is crucial for the socio-economic development in the west, which has stagnated due to the relative material wealth and rights of workers of the first world on the expense of those of the third."

This, however, begs the question, is it possible to have economic independence within the context of global capitalism?
The development of "third world" (which, I should point out, is a rather archaic term, as there are no longer any "second world" nation states , they are now usually referred to as "Developing", just for clarity :p) economy has to be seen in relation to global capitalism, and not separate to it.

Is it possible for the economies in the 'developing world' to be able to gain economic independence, or to fully develop their economies on the same level as the West, or even close to, in the context of global capitalism? The answer, is of course, no. The imperialist powers are no more likely to accept the independence of the developing worlds economies than they are proletarian revolution in their own. It is a war, but a war that can only be won on a [I]global scale. The success of one revolution can only be part of the success of all.

Global capitalism necessitates this international division across the planet - with primary and secondary industry located in the poorer parts of the world, and the marketing and selling (or tertiary industry) located in the developed parts of the world. This is because, and inseparable with, the never ending desire for constant, growing accumulation of capital.


The class conflict in the west has temporarily been softened due to the capitalists being able to grant these rights to their 'own' workers by outsourcing production into, and parasiting on material resources of, the neocolonies. The independence and development of these will however likely lead to it being sharpened once more in the near future.

The key word here being temporarily. In recent times, its been back on the rise with force - such as seen in Greece, England, France, etc.

[Random Precision]

I agree, of course, with Bilan. Also here is some of a post I made about this a while ago to refute LSR- who believes essentially the same thing as Sentinel here but for different reasons:


... In fact your model [of independent capitalism] would run into countless problems. Since we started with Peru, let’s take that country as an example. Were Peru to have a “national-democratic revolution”, it would face the issue of building an independent (as you say) national capitalism, which involves building many diverse industries from scratch. So, let’s take for example an auto industry, which Peru does not have. There would be truly massive cost in developing first models and finally plants for this industry, all to serve an incredibly limited national market. This would make for a far lower rate of return to the national bourgeoisie than they can get now from cooperation with American imperialism.

Then there’s the problem of natural resources. Peru has some very important mineral reserves, but not nearly all that are necessary for developing an independent capitalist economy. There’s also a huge shortage of arable land in Peru, which means it would not be able to feed its population very well as it’s developing independent capitalism. We can also take this back to mineral reserves: Peru has huge quantities of easily reached copper that it would have no need for when developing independent capitalism, that is to say, without exporting it. This goes back to the inefficiency that developing a truly independent national capitalist economy would present.


Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose a socialist revolution breaks out in Peru, and the leaders of the revolution decide that the task in front of them is to consolidate national capitalism, as you are proposing. Soon after, however, the revolution in Peru sparks a revolution in neighboring Bolivia. With the very real chance of spreading the revolution into the rest of Latin America, should the Peruvian revolutionaries still turn inward? If both nations did this they would be competing with each other to establish national capitalism. Whereas if they turned outward towards the rest of Latin America, and began socialist cooperation between their national economies, they form the basis with which to challenge the United States and the entire, global, capitalist system.

In the short term, your schema means huge problems with the availability of resources and the efficiency of production for an isolated national economy, as I’ve pointed out. In the longer term, it means you essentially lock the workers of each country into their own national prison. You’re telling them to subordinate their own economic needs to those of "primitive nationalist accumulation", if I’m allowed to coin a phrase. This has to take place on the back of the working class. The only way "national capitalist development" will be possible is subordination of the working class, disarming them ideologically and organizationally. But when national capitalism has been consolidated as shown by a certain amount of GDP or whatever (and again we come back to the problem of defining "independent capitalism"), you can’t just tell the working class that "it’s time for socialism now!", because they’ve already bought into your nationalist framework, and can’t just resurrect their class-based politics and organizations immediately. There are far too many examples in the past century of the working class subordinating itself to the needs of national capitalist development, and becoming unable to break with that goal to serve its own economic needs.

Essentially, you're arguing for the working class to develop a nationalist perspective. But if you take an internationalist perspective based on the Permanent Revolution (the horror!), it allows you to overcome the short-term problems of efficiency and shortages of material resources with the spread of the international revolution, and forms the long-term political basis for international working-class rule.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communism-and-t94758/index.html?p=1293812

[ZeroNowhere]

It gives birth to a proletarian class in the modern sense and builds up the material abundance and social consciousness required.
Well, yes. Socialism requires a majority with socialist consciousness, which will not develop under feudalism or semi-feudal economies (sure, people can be anti-war and not like starving, as in Russia during WWI. It's different), due to the fact that capitalism develops the working class into a majority, and the working class are revolutionary due to their complete separation from the means of production, while feudal peasants still have an interest in running their farms as small businesses. It also leads to socialization of production, which, as Engels pointed out, tears the "great mass of the nation, the peasants, away from the isolation of their villages, which comprise their “mir”, their “world”, and lead them out onto the great stage, where they will get to know the outside world and thus themselves, their own situation and the means of salvation from their present distress." Though formations such as the old Russian peasant communes could function as, "a powerful means of appreciably shortening the process of development into a socialist society and of sparing themselves most of the suffering and struggles through which we in Western Europe must work our way." Still, "the example and the active assistance of the hitherto capitalist West is an indispensable condition for this," and it can take place "[o]nly when the capitalist economy has been relegated to the history books in its homeland and in the countries where it flourished." Of course, since then, there have been no proletarian revolutions, and Russia managed to, to quote Marx, "spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism" from Russia soil. So while the peasant communes there no longer exist, Russia is now a fairly developed capitalist economy, with a large proletariat.


Marx did not live to see the division of the entire world between rival capitalist powers. The nature of capitalism today is that it retards the productive forces of all developing nations. Capitalism is a global system, thus, our revolution will have to be global.
That's not new, actually. Marx had commented on Ireland, "Every time Ireland was just about to develop herself industrially, she was ‘smashed down’ and forced back; into a mere agricultural country … Ireland was compelled to contribute cheap labor power and capital for the establishment of the ‘great factory of Britain’."

[Sentinel]

The only proletarian revolution in history happened in such a developing nation. Whether certain Western leftists consider this or that country "ready" for a revolution is irrelevant.To the end result it hardly is -- despite some admirable achievements the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic nightmare with very little workers control, and today we have gangster market capitalism in Russia. Unfortunately an illumined vanguard leading a nation past stages of development, as beautiful a dream it is, also demonstrably was a failure.

A failure that had many reasons, but one of them most definitely was the country not being materially and socially developed enough in the first place. But let's not divert into that road too much, as the USSR really isn't what this thread was supposed to be about (it's actually mainly directed towards those of my fellow anarchists that oppose the theory of HM).

Bu it's one thing to be ready for a revolution, and another to be ready socialism, ie maintain workers power.


Latin America already has had a "modern proletarian class" for over a century now. Furthermore Chávez and Morales are nothing new to Latin America- they're in fact only a weak echo of the strong populist/nationalist (not exactly Social-Democratic) leaders of the region during the thirties and forties, like Lázaro Cárdenas and Juan Perón.I am not claiming that they are new as a phenomenon, merely that they are currently successfully leading the region in a new, more independent direction opposing US neo-colonialism as well as developing it rapidly. Chavez has done wonders in Venezuela in terms of both social and infrastructural development of the type that is crucial as a foundation for further advancement.


The question you need to be asking is why third-world nationalism has not led to "independent capitalism" in any sense, whether that's in Latin America, Africa or Asia. The reason is that capitalism has been consolidated as a global system since the First World War, and the nature of its consolidation is such that capitalist forces of production can only be strengthened through integration into that global system- and even then, how much they are is dictated by the needs of the imperialist powers.I do agree that at the moment this is the case. I do however not consider a future primarily south american 'anti-us' bloc acting independantly from -- and competing with -- the west an impossibility at all. The amount of socialism in it, whether it will be freemarket or state capitalist remains to see of course.

I think the anti-imperialist movement has chances of seriously damaging western imperialism by deriving it it resources and cheap labour. I do not find it likely that a socialist world revolution could come from it in a long while yet, but that it might become more of an an 'independent actor'.

***

As for your second post, I agree with you rather than the other guy. I also very highly doubt that individual countries such as Peru could manage this kind of indepedence.

Indeed would they lack the resources alone. What I see as possible though is a large bloc of third world countries cooperating -- venezuelan oil, peruvian copper, bolivian nature gas etc. If the control over these resources can be wrestled from the imperialists in enough many countries and the wealth they generate turned inwards to develop and build up the nations, perhaps competition with the west could not be such an impossibility after all.



Marx did not live to see the division of the entire world between rival capitalist powers. The nature of capitalism today is that it retards the productive forces of all developing nations.Could you expand on this?


Capitalism is a global system, thus, our revolution will have to be global.I agree, but it still has to start somewhere, preferably a highly developed region with material abundance and a strong and conscious proletarian movement. This both to strike capitalism a blow and to provide the force necessary for the revolution to spread.


Is it possible for the economies in the 'developing world' to be able to gain economic independence, or to fully develop their economies on the same level as the West, or even close to, in the context of global capitalism? The answer, is of course, no. The imperialist powers are no more likely to accept the independence of the developing worlds economies than they are proletarian revolution in their own. It is a war, but a war that can only be won on a global scale. The success of one revolution can only be part of the success of all. Remember here that I'm not one of those types that support national liberation movements unconditionally, far from it, so attacking such thought is clutching at straws in this context. I'm looking at this whole thing rather objectively and describing a possible further development of capitalism rather than a socialist world revolution.

Of course the established imperialist powers won't accept a new competitor on the world scene, and this kind of development would no doubt lead to hostilities and even large-scale war. But the question is whether they actually have the means to stop it without the cost being too high.

At the moment the US for instance seems rather impotent in Latin America, perhaps due to having their forces and efforts spread on too many fronts (Afghanistan, Iraq).

I think we sometimes exaggerate the power of the US Imperialists. Understandable, as they are a superpower, but we must remember that they still are far from all-powerful. There are limits to their resources as well, as has been seen many times in the past when they have had their ambitions thwarted, and as can be seen now that their own 'back yard' Latin America is slipping out of their control.

Indeed, him realising this is likely one main reason Obama is so keen to end the war in Iraq -- the forces of the 'empire' have been overstretched in a too ambitious campaign.

[Louise Michel]

Essentially the socialist revolution has to be global and this has been the case for well over 100 years - WW1 showed us that. However does that mean that we have to work from an idealised view of simultaneous revolution spreading rapidly across the globe? It's entirely possible or probable that our history will work itself out in a more tortuous fashion.

The Vietnamese, Chinese and Cuban revolutions did free their economies from the grip of western imperialism to a major extent because they could turn to the Soviet Union. I know there is a major argument over how to characterize these revolutions but essentially the anti-imperialist petty-bourgeoisie took power and threw out the capitalists. Now, I know, capitalism is being reintroduced but classical marxist and anarchist theories have some difficulty analysing these processes coherently.

And following the demise of the Soviet union China is now emerging as a financial superpower. However we characterise China economically it is becoming a possible alternative for trade to the USA for revolutionaries in developing countries.

I believe there is a great potential for war in the not too distant future (10 to 20 years) if the USA can't pull out of its current economic crisis and China looks like displacing it as the number 1 global economy. This in turn will spark revolutionary crises (impossible to forsee the nature of these) which could lead to forms of state power that are not capitalist but fall outside the categories described by Marx (or Lenin).

"The truth is concrete" Lenin said - and I think we're going to see a lot that doesn't fit our neat categories.

[Dimentio]

I think that civilisation owes historical materialism a lot. It was probably the first attempt to create a historical science which was not wholly based on the "history of great men". It moved history as a whole towards a more scientific direction. Earlier, history had mostly been about national myths and story-telling, often with moralist overtones.

But I remain critical to some of its assertions. I find it preposterous to claim that we would be able to predict future and how society will turn around through dialectics. The weakness of dialectics as I see it, is that it works from the position that we move from opposites to unities, while natural history rather shows that we are moving from simple structures to more advanced and heterogenous ecosystems.

I think we need an evolutionary understanding of history. Also, it saddens me a bit that I think that Marx did not put enough emphasis on technological innovation. Without steam-powered machines, I doubt that Europe would have developed capitalism.

I am also in agreement with Lousie-Michel that imperialism might be gearing up for a major war in Asia during the next ten years, and that might produce revolutions. My fear though, is that the 21st century will move in a tribalist, warlordist and fundamentalist reactionary direction, plunging mankind into a more primitive social state where capitalism is replaced by gangster capitalism in the style of Somalia, Bosnia, Pakistan and other failed states.

[YSR]

So I'm not sure if this is a helpful addition to the conversation or if it is distracting from where the discussion has evolved. But I want to respond to Sentinel's original post detailing how historical materialism sees the process of history.

I think Sentinel nails what classical historical materialism looks like. But I think in his definition, he raises the ugly specter of teleology, something which historical materialism has long been charged with. While sometimes these charges are just bourgeois slams, I think we need to be careful to just throw them out wholesale. There are plenty of evolutionist accounts of human history that are not communist or pro-class struggle. Rostow's development theory of the "stages of growth" in economics is a teleological project that is explicitly anti-communist. Fukuyama's infamous "End of History?" takes Hegelian dialectics and provides another teleological and evolutionist reading of history. So we can't say that just because a critique opposes classically-understood historical materialism makes it ipso facto anti-communist.

I think there's a real hesitance among revolutionaries to critique historical materialism on these basic philosophical grounds. At some level, it's comforting to say that all human history has been a lead up to communism. It places ourselves, as revolutionaries, in a historically important role, which certainly doesn't feel bad. But I think that by accepting wholesale an evolutionist model that privileges to dominant classes in the transformation of societies, like classical historical materialism, we fall into the philosophical trap that bourgeois philosophy wants us to.

That is to say, we accept the basic premise of bourgeois thought: it is the oppressors that make history. Naturally, following this principle, concepts like "dictatorship of the proletariat" emerge. Engel's famous, and oft-quoted around here, passage about revolutions being the most authoritarian thing of all, makes sense in this light. But it's okay, because it's in the service of humanity and because its our role. To make history, we must take up the role of the oppressor, because that's how history is made.

So I think we need to rethink historical materialism. As I pointed out in the Primitive Communism thread, there's a body of Marxist and libertarian work that embraces the concept of historical materialism but flips it on its head. These autonomists investigate how capitalism is not a system that has expanded because of the efficiency and cleverness of capitalists, but because of their response to working class resistance. Societal structures don't just evolve because the dominant classes want to exploit people more efficiently, but because subaltern classes force changes in those structures. Now I won't take the late-Negrian thesis that all of history is the result of reaction to subaltern resistance, but rather the early-Negri (and others) idea that the development of economic systems is a complex interplay between the oppressors and the oppressed.

Where does this leave us? Well, I think that this reevaulation of historical materialism also brings into doubt its evolutionism. If at times capitalist development in a certain manner has occured because of resistances, then this shakes up the idea that capitalism needed to develop in a certain manner. What if the Diggers had won?

It's easy to see this perspective as based in mastabatory speculation, but I think that charge is unfounded. After all, why is it that we see the need to look back upon the entire course of human history and prehistory and say "Ah, but it needed to happen this way." Why? Why is it more logical to say "it needed to happen this way" than it is to say "it happened to happen this way." I think the latter answer opens up a whole new way of thinking about struggle that emphasizes a more human-centered theory of action, one which encourages communist struggle at all times and in all places.

[PoWR]

What I see as possible though is a large bloc of third world countries cooperating -- venezuelan oil, peruvian copper, bolivian nature gas etc. If the control over these resources can be wrestled from the imperialists in enough many countries and the wealth they generate turned inwards to develop and build up the nations, perhaps competition with the west could not be such an impossibility after all.

But the only way these countries can unite is through international socialist revolution spreading to and from one another. Even in a place like Latin America, with a common history and language, unity is prevented by the native ruling classes who each want to protect their little fiefdoms.

The days of a progressive bourgeoisie are numbered. Capitalism is in decline.


That is to say, we accept the basic premise of bourgeois thought: it is the oppressors that make history.

But that isn't what historical materialism is about at all. Class struggle is the driving force and the mode of production is what determines what the society looks like.

[Random Precision]

To the end result it hardly is -- despite some admirable achievements the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic nightmare with very little workers control, and today we have gangster market capitalism in Russia. Unfortunately an illumined vanguard leading a nation past stages of development, as beautiful a dream it is, also demonstrably was a failure.

I won't go into this any more except to say that no one ever had that idea- certainly not the revolutionaries in Russia.


Bu it's one thing to be ready for a revolution, and another to be ready socialism, ie maintain workers power.

If the consciousness of the working class in a country is strong enough that there is a revolution, what stops workers' power from establishing itself? Material development is a condition that can be overcome. Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution was intended to bridge the gap between the high consciousness of workers in underdeveloped nations on one hand, and the conditions of underdevelopment on the other.


I am not claiming that they are new as a phenomenon, merely that they are currently successfully leading the region in a new, more independent direction opposing US neo-colonialism as well as developing it rapidly. Chavez has done wonders in Venezuela in terms of both social and infrastructural development of the type that is crucial as a foundation for further advancement.

Once again, this is nothing new. The last wave of nationalism in the region also attempted to develop capitalism independent of imperialist control. This was the force behind the oil monopoly in Mexico, the last vestiges of which are now being removed. Furthermore the current powerhouses in the region, Brazil and Argentina, each became powerhouses by integrating into the world economy- Argentina's leaders, for instance, adopted neo-liberal policies despite still claiming to be Peronists.


I do agree that at the moment this is the case. I do however not consider a future primarily south american 'anti-us' bloc acting independantly from -- and competing with -- the west an impossibility at all. The amount of socialism in it, whether it will be freemarket or state capitalist remains to see of course.

The formation of this "bloc" is quite unlikely. Chávez and Morales are not only isolated within the rest of the region, but are opposed by their ruling classes, who are not below faux independence movements like the one in Santa Cruz or even full-out coups, like have already been attempted in Venezuela. The only power that can break this deadlock is that of the Latin American working class.


Indeed would they lack the resources alone. What I see as possible though is a large bloc of third world countries cooperating -- venezuelan oil, peruvian copper, bolivian nature gas etc. If the control over these resources can be wrestled from the imperialists in enough many countries and the wealth they generate turned inwards to develop and build up the nations, perhaps competition with the west could not be such an impossibility after all.

In addition, I think the ruling classes of Latin America would never have an interest in cooperating to form such a "bloc" exactly because of this. Selling copper, or natural gas, or oil, directly to the imperialists is far more profitable for them than trying to mediate a standard through which to exchange all of them. On the other hand, the working class of the region will find such an exchange quite profitable if they decide to rise in revolt against their own rulers- but this is socialist cooperation that bypasses the need for independent capitalism altogether.

So the question is why do you believe independent capitalism is the stage at which Latin America needs to be rather than socialism. LSR believes that there isn't the material basis to overturn the law of value- which I've asked him about and didn't get a satisfactory response. In your case, it seems to be that you believe Latin America simply isn't developed enough to support working class rule. I would ask you, why not?


Could you expand on this?

I did not express myself very well. What I meant to say that in the current imperialist epoch of capitalism, the ruling classes of imperialist countries only seek to develop those parts of the economies of oppressed nations that they can make a profit off of.


I agree, but it still has to start somewhere, preferably a highly developed region with material abundance and a strong and conscious proletarian movement. This both to strike capitalism a blow and to provide the force necessary for the revolution to spread.

I actually had a debate on this same question with one of the Hoxhaists, although unfortunately we both came to dwell on whether the United States specifically could or could not develop socialism on its own. I think as to your first condition, I would question whether there is really any more "material abundance" that you see in the highly developed world. Why, for instance, could Europe develop socialism while Latin America could not? As for a strong proletarian movement, I think that history has shown us a strong proletarian movement can develop just as well, sometimes much better, in nations that are less economically developed.