Capitalism as a neccessary precondition for socialism?

[RedMonty]

What are the arguments behind the assertion that a capitalist society must precede a socialist revolution?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well for working class rule in society, there needs to be a working class for one. To paraphrase Marx, Capitalism gives the shovels to its own gravediggers by creating collectivized production. This kind of production is also much more efficient than work done by a bunch of individual artisans or farmers and so much more surplus can be produced. Thanks to capitalism we have the tools and ability to get rid of starvation and meet basic needs and then some. However, despite these advances capitalism also creates misery and starvation and exploitation of workers. This is why workers need to take control over production and society and run things democratically and in our own interests rather than under capitalist hierarchies for the interest of profit.

[New Tet]

What are the arguments behind the assertion that a capitalist society must precede a socialist revolution?

No mere assertion, comrade; it's a historical fact. Capitalism continues to exist and socialism has not yet been born.

[Nwoye]

I think the experience of the Russian Revolution could be interpreted as supporting the assertion that skipping steps is a bad idea. During the Bolshevik's rise to power, the peasantry was really the dominating class. Russia had only recently thrown off the shackles of feudalism, and many large agricultural estates were still owned by aristocrats. The industrial sector had not fully developed, and the same could be said of capitalism. Because of this, there really was no revolutionary proletariat acting as the oppressed majority. The rural farmers, who made up most of the population, really didn't give a fuck about worker control of the means of production - they just wanted land. The Bolsheviks really had no other choice but conceding to the demands of the peasants, and thus they conceded to a capitalist/bourgeois agenda.

The reason for all of this, is that capitalism was not fully developed. There was no complete transition from feudalism to capitalism, and thus the goals of the lower classes (the peasants in this case) was not socialism or communism, it was liberal democracy and private property.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think the experience of the Russian Revolution could be interpreted as supporting the assertion that skipping steps is a bad idea.
What? Where in the world did you get the idea that the russian revolution "skipped a step"?


During the Bolshevik's rise to power, the peasantry was really the dominating class.
No it was the proletariat, aligned with the peasantry that assumed power


Russia had only recently thrown off the shackles of feudalism, and many large agricultural estates were still owned by aristocrats. The industrial sector had not fully developed, and the same could be said of capitalism. Because of this, there really was no revolutionary proletariat acting as the oppressed majority. The rural farmers, who made up most of the population, really didn't give a fuck about worker control of the means of production - they just wanted land. The Bolsheviks really had no other choice but conceding to the demands of the peasants, and thus they conceded to a capitalist/bourgeois agenda.

What a gross misrepresentation and distortion of history; yeah man, the peasants didn't "give a fuck" about the means of production, they just wanted land........even though land is part of the means of production...

While the majority of Russian society at the time was comprised of 'small or medium producers', "small peasants"; this does not mean they alone were the "dominating class" as you say; rather the industrial workers and "small peasants" made up the alliance that formed the basis of Soviet society. To think that because the Bolsheviks "succumbed to peasant demands" and there fore "conceded to a capitalist agenda" is preposterous! What about the expropriation of capitalists and aristocrats, the formation of soviets, and the creation of socialist property ('public' or state property; and 'collective' property) makes the Bolshevik's or the Soviet government capitalist?


The reason for all of this, is that capitalism was not fully developed. There was no complete transition from feudalism to capitalism, and thus the goals of the lower classes (the peasants in this case) was not socialism or communism, it was liberal democracy and private property.

This almost borders on slander; private property was vehemently combated in the early years of the revolution, and totally abolished later.

Also, what in the fuck do you mean by "liberal democracy" when speaking about the Soviet Union? :lol:

[redSHARP]

technically you need an urban or rural proletariat to have marxist society. to have that, i guess logically one needs an industrialized capitalist nation.

[ComradeOm]

A few notes


During the Bolshevik's rise to power, the peasantry was really the dominating classThen why exactly has Russia never possessed a state that could be said to be representative of the peasantry's interests? In (very) simplistic terms, the Tsardom represented the nobility, the Provisional Government the bourgeoisie, and the Bolsheviks the urban proletariat. In all three cases (albeit less so as they progressed) the peasantry lacked any real influence at the highest levels of national government. Surprising for a "dominating class"

That the peasantry was the largest class is not in doubt but, as all of human history has demonstrated, numerical superiority is little basis for class rule


Russia had only recently thrown off the shackles of feudalism, and many large agricultural estates were still owned by aristocrats. The industrial sector had not fully developed, and the same could be said of capitalismRussia can be said to have "thrown of the shackles of feudalism" in 1861 and had been moving towards a full industrial society, at a reasonable pace it must be said, for half a century before the Russian Revolution. Even in the sphere of agriculture reforms had been gathering pace in the 20th C (by 1914 up to 40% of a peasant household's produce was sold on the market) as the country slowly modernised. So while the country was still backwards its certainly worth examining

One of the most notable characteristics of the pre-Soviet economy was the degree to which it was centralised. Talking about overall class numbers (as I do below) is very limited when you consider that virtually all of the Russian proletariat was clustered around a half dozen or so major cities. So while the countryside at large remained largely backwards (ie, populated with peasants) there was a very sound industrial base established in European Russia. The major industrial cities (Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Ivanovo, etc) were easily comparable to Western counterparts and were dominated by massive industrial works that each employed many thousands


Because of this, there really was no revolutionary proletariat acting as the oppressed majorityThe above should make clear just how incorrect this statement is. The industrial cities of Tsarist Russia very much possessed a "revolutionary proletariat" and in impressive numbers too. It may not have comprised a majority of the population but spatially this urban proletariat was very concentrated and very militant. It had always been fertile recruiting ground for radical socialists and was certainly, as 1917 conclusively proved, a base for revolution

There is always a tendency to simply dismiss Russia out of hand as a backwards peasant nation but you may be surprised to learn that on the eve of WWI approx 10 million Russians were employed in non-agricultural occupations (commerce and industry). Of these approx 5 million were employed in large-scale industry (ie, enterprises employing 30+ people) and transport/construction. While small in comparison to the vast bulk of the Russian peasantry, these numbers still compare favourably to the populations of Western European nations. France for example went into WWI with a total population of 40 million with roughly 6 million employed in industry and transport and almost half the working population employed in agriculture. Similarly Germany, long regarded as one of the most advanced industrial societies, still had over a third of its workforce employed in agriculture in 1933

In short, the Russian proletariat was still very much a minority of the empire's population but it was concentrated and, by European standards, relatively large. Certainly there is no basis for simply dismissing it out of hand and especially not when it proved to be capable of such revolutionary feats


To think that because the Bolsheviks "succumbed to peasant demands" and there fore "conceded to a capitalist agenda" is preposterous!Indeed. Its far more accurate to say that by "succumbing to peasant demands the Bolsheviks were forced to concede to a peasant agenda"

For all Sedrox's historical errors he is broadly correct on the most important point - the aims and interests of the peasantry did not coincide with those of the proletariat beyond the immediate task of land reform. Throughout the 1920s the country was gripped by, often violent, class struggle between the proletariat and rural peasantry. Lenin himself was forced to concede that the NEP was a "retreat" before the peasantry and he never adequately solved the peasant question before his death

Does that mean that the failure of the Revolution was inevitable? Of course not. Such conclusions, often arrived at via an overly deterministic and deeply distorted reading of Marxism, fail to account for the very real and significant collapse in the proletariat's strength during the Civil War years. Between conflict, starvation, economic chaos, disease, combat casualties (the core of the Red Army was always drawn from the proletariat) the numbers of workers in Russia declined drastically between 1917 and 1924. To illustrate, Petrograd possessed a population (admittedly war inflated) of 2.5 million in 1917 and yet just three years later this had fallen to just over 750K. Had this been averted (say by a quick victory in the Civil War or revolutions in Europe) then there's no reason why the proletariat could not have bested the peasantry many years before it did historically

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

In addition to the problem of having to deal with peasants, there is also the problem of capital accumulation. It requires a high degree of exploitation to effectively build up the MoP to the point where it can meet the needs of all of society. A workers state in an undeveloped society wouldn't particularly be any better than a capitalist state because the majority of the value produced by workers would still have to go towards capital accumulation, just as in capitalism, and I'm not sure that's something we can expect the proletariat to do itself without democratic decision making necessarily being curbed and the state turning capitalist. The Soviet Union being forced to adopt taylorism and one-man management is a good example. It was also pointed out that capitalism trains the workers to be able to one day run society. As Marx said, no social order ever disappears until it is no longer capable of developing the productive forces. Capitalism will be abolished out of necessity and when the working class no longer sees the rule of the capitalists as beneficial. Nothing necessitates removing capitalism in an underdeveloped economy and it's not particularly in the interests of the working class.


Does that mean that the failure of the Revolution was inevitable? Of course not. Such conclusions, often arrived at via an overly deterministic and deeply distorted reading of Marxism, fail to account for the very real and significant collapse in the proletariat's strength during the Civil War years.

Actually, I think it would indicate a very clear reading of Marx's writings:


If, therefore, the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory would be only temporary, only an episode in the service of the bourgeois revolution, so long as the material conditions which would render necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production, and consequently the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, had not yet been created in the course of historical development. From this point of view, the Reign of Terror in France did no more than to clear away the feudal ruins from French soil by its hammer blows.
The anxious and cautious bourgeoisie would have taken decades to perform this work. The bloody action of the people, therefore, prepared the way. Similarly, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would have been merely a momentary incident, if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not been developed to the point of ripeness.
Men built for themselves a new world, not out of earthly goods, as the bluff Heinzen superstition would have us believe, but out of the historical achievements of their shipwrecked world. In the course of development, they have first to create the material conditions for a new society themselves, and no effort of the mind or the will can save them from this destiny.



No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.



So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production -- so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society's productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

etc

[Big Boss]

Marx thought that the conditions that capitalism brought were the ones that would give birth to the proletariat class. That's why he predicted that the socialist revolution would come to the most advanced industrialized countries. It never did. What happened was something that even Marx never foresaw. And that is the socialist revolutions popping up in economically backwards countries like Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth, while at the same time skipping ahead Capitalism and going straight to Socialism in one single leap.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Marx thought that the conditions that capitalism brought were the ones that would give birth to the proletariat class. That's why he predicted that the socialist revolution would come to the most advanced industrialized countries. It never did. What happened was something that even Marx never foresaw. And that is the socialist revolutions popping up in economically backwards countries like Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and so forth, while at the same time skipping ahead Capitalism and going straight to Socialism in one single leap.

He recognized the possibility of a workers revolution happening in an underdeveloped country. He also recognized that it would not be a successful socialist revolution but would only aid the bourgeoisie, as in the Soviet Union, where state capitalism built up the productive forces faster than normal capitalism ever could have. So far he has been proven correct.

[More Fire for the People]

Socialism requires a level of productivity achieved by capitalism in the 1840s in western Europe. Though some would push this to a later date of the 1920s. Some parts of the world have no reached this level of productivity but alternatives exist to capitalism for these regions.

[Nwoye]

What? Where in the world did you get the idea that the russian revolution "skipped a step"?
from the nature of the Russian economy and society before the revolution, and from the desired goals of the peasant class.


No it was the proletariat, aligned with the peasantry that assumed power
well yes the proletariat seized power, but the peasantry was a massive portion of the russian population, and one that the Bolsheviks couldn't ignore. remember the Bolshie slogan, "peace, bread, land"? that was an attempt to gain support both from peasants, and from people disillusioned with the Russian govt's refusal to pull out of WWII.


What a gross misrepresentation and distortion of history; yeah man, the peasants didn't "give a fuck" about the means of production, they just wanted land........even though land is part of the means of production...
there is surely a difference between a peasant farming land himself and profiting individually and a worker working in a factory with 150 other people. of course land is a means of production, but the intention of the post was clear, was it not.


While the majority of Russian society at the time was comprised of 'small or medium producers', "small peasants"; this does not mean they alone were the "dominating class" as you say; rather the industrial workers and "small peasants" made up the alliance that formed the basis of Soviet society. To think that because the Bolsheviks "succumbed to peasant demands" and there fore "conceded to a capitalist agenda" is preposterous!
and why did the peasants form the base of the alliance of the Bolsheviks? because they recognized the importance of the peasantry as a class and supported their interests, despite them lacking socialism as a goal.


What about the expropriation of capitalists and aristocrats, the formation of soviets, and the creation of socialist property ('public' or state property; and 'collective' property) makes the Bolshevik's or the Soviet government capitalist?
i never said that the Soviet Union or Bolsheviks were capitalist, but rather that they gave into the demands of the peasantry, which resembled a capitalist agenda.


This almost borders on slander; private property was vehemently combated in the early years of the revolution, and totally abolished later.
i was specifically referring to the Bolshevik's approach to land (the Decree on Land, the New Economic Policy), not Stalin's forced collectivization. The peasants were allowed to farm large, former feudal estates individually and to profit (via speculation on grain prices) from them, often at great cost of the industrial proletariat.


Also, what in the fuck do you mean by "liberal democracy" when speaking about the Soviet Union? :lol:
what i meant was that the peasants wanted democratic reforms and more control over government (in addition to control over feudal estates), as an alternative to tsarist rule. they weren't necessarily supportive of a communist (leninist) agenda.

[Nwoye]

A few notes

Then why exactly has Russia never possessed a state that could be said to be representative of the peasantry's interests? In (very) simplistic terms, the Tsardom represented the nobility, the Provisional Government the bourgeoisie, and the Bolsheviks the urban proletariat. In all three cases (albeit less so as they progressed) the peasantry lacked any real influence at the highest levels of national government. Surprising for a "dominating class"
yes that's true, and it is precisely why Trotsky and Lenin made a point of gaining peasant support.


That the peasantry was the largest class is not in doubt but, as all of human history has demonstrated, numerical superiority is little basis for class rulebut the simply explanation of revolution as "majority class overthrowing a ruling minority class" cannot easily be applied to the Russian Revolution.


Russia can be said to have "thrown of the shackles of feudalism" in 1861 and had been moving towards a full industrial society, at a reasonable pace it must be said, for half a century before the Russian Revolution. Even in the sphere of agriculture reforms had been gathering pace in the 20th C (by 1914 up to 40% of a peasant household's produce was sold on the market) as the country slowly modernised. So while the country was still backwards its certainly worth examiningfair enough.


One of the most notable characteristics of the pre-Soviet economy was the degree to which it was centralised. Talking about overall class numbers (as I do below) is very limited when you consider that virtually all of the Russian proletariat was clustered around a half dozen or so major cities. So while the countryside at large remained largely backwards (ie, populated with peasants) there was a very sound industrial base established in European Russia. The major industrial cities (Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Ivanovo, etc) were easily comparable to Western counterparts and were dominated by massive industrial works that each employed many thousandsno argument here.


The above should make clear just how incorrect this statement is. The industrial cities of Tsarist Russia very much possessed a "revolutionary proletariat" and in impressive numbers too. It may not have comprised a majority of the population but spatially this urban proletariat was very concentrated and very militant. It had always been fertile recruiting ground for radical socialists and was certainly, as 1917 conclusively proved, a base for revolution

There is always a tendency to simply dismiss Russia out of hand as a backwards peasant nation but you may be surprised to learn that on the eve of WWI approx 10 million Russians were employed in non-agricultural occupations (commerce and industry). Of these approx 5 million were employed in large-scale industry (ie, enterprises employing 30+ people) and transport/construction. While small in comparison to the vast bulk of the Russian peasantry, these numbers still compare favourably to the populations of Western European nations. France for example went into WWI with a total population of 40 million with roughly 6 million employed in industry and transport and almost half the working population employed in agriculture. Similarly Germany, long regarded as one of the most advanced industrial societies, still had over a third of its workforce employed in agriculture in 1933I never meant to dismiss the revolutionary character of the russian proletariat. the point i was making was that the peasantry played a significant role in Russian society, being one of the largest (maybe largest) classes. problems arose when the interests of the peasants did not match the interests of the urban proletariat and the interests of a communist revolution.


In short, the Russian proletariat was still very much a minority of the empire's population but it was concentrated and, by European standards, relatively large. Certainly there is no basis for simply dismissing it out of hand and especially not when it proved to be capable of such revolutionary featsno argument. i never meant to do such a thing.


Indeed. Its far more accurate to say that by "succumbing to peasant demands the Bolsheviks were forced to concede to a peasant agenda"okay. but this peasant agenda was not drastically different then a call for private property and capitalism, particularly with the peasants of larger feudal estates who had the most to gain in land reform.


For all Sedrox's historical errors he is broadly correct on the most important point - the aims and interests of the peasantry did not coincide with those of the proletariat beyond the immediate task of land reform. Throughout the 1920s the country was gripped by, often violent, class struggle between the proletariat and rural peasantry. Lenin himself was forced to concede that the NEP was a "retreat" before the peasantry and he never adequately solved the peasant question before his deathyep.


Does that mean that the failure of the Revolution was inevitable? Of course not. Such conclusions, often arrived at via an overly deterministic and deeply distorted reading of Marxism, fail to account for the very real and significant collapse in the proletariat's strength during the Civil War years. Between conflict, starvation, economic chaos, disease, combat casualties (the core of the Red Army was always drawn from the proletariat) the numbers of workers in Russia declined drastically between 1917 and 1924. To illustrate, Petrograd possessed a population (admittedly war inflated) of 2.5 million in 1917 and yet just three years later this had fallen to just over 750K. Had this been averted (say by a quick victory in the Civil War or revolutions in Europe) then there's no reason why the proletariat could not have bested the peasantry many years before it did historicallyI agree with all of this - the Bolsheviks faced tremendous obstacles in their pursuit of a communist society - the nature of the peasantry and their interests being a significant example.

[mykittyhasaboner]

from the nature of the Russian economy and society before the revolution, and from the desired goals of the peasant class.
What does this have to do with the Russian revolution "skipping a step"? Perhaps this is just a simple phrase you used and I'm just being semantic, but I don't see how the Russian revolutions skipped anything.


well yes the proletariat seized power, but the peasantry was a massive portion of the russian population, and one that the Bolsheviks couldn't ignore. remember the Bolshie slogan, "peace, bread, land"? that was an attempt to gain support both from peasants, and from people disillusioned with the Russian govt's refusal to pull out of WWII.Right, but you make it seem as the peasants were dominant over the proletariat by labeling them the "dominate" class, which I assume was really just in reference to them as the overwhelming majority.



there is surely a difference between a peasant farming land himself and profiting individually and a worker working in a factory with 150 other people. of course land is a means of production, but the intention of the post was clear, was it not.Um, no it was not clear?

Surely there's a difference, however the peasantry were needed in order to take power in 1917 and establish land reform, so this difference mattered little when the proletariat in the western cities were seizing the factories and work places; so too where the peasants dedicated to take back the land. For all the quarrels between the workers and peasants, the initial cooperation between them still stands as a major component of the revolution.





and why did the peasants form the base of the alliance of the Bolsheviks? because they recognized the importance of the peasantry as a class and supported their interests, despite them lacking socialism as a goal.Well what did you expect them to do? I don't see how this is an argument, so I won't present one either.




i never said that the Soviet Union or Bolsheviks were capitalist, but rather that they gave into the demands of the peasantry, which resembled a capitalist agenda.No, the peasantry resembled a petit-bourgeois agenda. The "capitalist agenda" (ie the development of the MOP and forces of production in an undeveloped economy such as Russia's) was represented by the industrial worker's, who after seizing power in 1917 organized the economy and means of production based on the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to develop the economic forces of production and initiate the socialized ownership and development of society. Unfortunately, the proletariat suffered heavy losses against reaction of the Russian and imperialist bourgeoisie, so the Soviet state was forced to take on a peasant agenda, as ComradeOm explained.


i was specifically referring to the Bolshevik's approach to land (the Decree on Land, the New Economic Policy), not Stalin's forced collectivization. The peasants were allowed to farm large, former feudal estates individually and to profit (via speculation on grain prices) from them, often at great cost of the industrial proletariat.OK, you didn't specifiy what you were saying; so no argument here.


what i meant was that the peasants wanted democratic reforms and more control over government (in addition to control over feudal estates), as an alternative to tsarist rule. they weren't necessarily supportive of a communist (leninist) agenda.Initially your right, peasants wanted land reform, and not much else. However when industrial sector of the economy developed, it is without a doubt that the cooperation between the workers and peasants was strengthened after the state provided collective farms with tractors and other technological equipment which improved production. Despite the conflict between the two classes, eventually the distinction between town and country was lessened later after industrialization, and of course the total abolition of the difference was essentially the goal.

[ComradeOm]

In the first place I disagree vehemently with the habit of wheeling out a Marx quote in order to justify/criticise some event that took place decades after his death. The man was not a prophet. In any case, if Marx could praise the Paris Commune then I see no reason why he would not have done the same for the October Revolution


If, therefore, the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory would be only temporary, only an episode in the service of the bourgeois revolution, so long as the material conditions which would render necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production, and consequently the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, had not yet been created in the course of historical developmentI think that one of the first things that struck me when I first read up on the October Revolution was the degree to which the political demands of February had been replaced by demands for social change. The first revolution of that eventful year would fit the description above but come October the proletariat was no longer arguing for new ministers, or a socialist coalition, or even more bread - they were now demanding a fundamental restructuring of how society was run

Ultimately of course things went a bit pear-shaped but that cannot disguise the fact that the Russian Revolution was about far more than "overthrowing the political rule of the bourgeoisie" and that it achieved far more than that. It should not be forgotten that the years 1917-1924 did see the "the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production" (ie, War Communism) and the liquidisation of the bourgeoisie as a class. This was not merely political change


Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formationIndeed. The Russian proletariat was ready to stage an aggressively socialist revolution because the material conditions for one were ripe. In the cities at least, the rest of a country does not matter a jot in this analysis


but the simply explanation of revolution as "majority class overthrowing a ruling minority class" cannot easily be applied to the Russian Revolution.The revolutionary potential of the proletariat is not derived from simple numerical superiority (although they are always guaranteed that in relation to the bourgeoisie) but from the role in the relations of production. It is not necessary, though obviously desirable, for the proletariat to actually constitute a majority of the overall population. For example, in Marx's time no country in the world (with the possible exception of the UK) would have possessed a proletariat that constituted the majority of the population. In most European nations the peasantry continued to represent over 50% of the population until the early decades of the 20th C


I never meant to dismiss the revolutionary character of the russian proletariat. the point i was making was that the peasantry played a significant role in Russian society, being one of the largest (maybe largest) classes. problems arose when the interests of the peasants did not match the interests of the urban proletariat and the interests of a communist revolution.And this was a very real problem in Russia. However the peasantry, by its very nature, is a diffuse and poorly coordinated class. A simple numerical majority is not enough to prevent an obstacle to a revolutionary proletariat. The problem was that the latter in Russia was too weak after years of Civil War and economic hardship. Had this not been the case then there's every possibility that the Bolsheviks could have crushed the peasantry (or at least broken them to their will; the cities were not without their own levers of power) to the same purpose, if not means, that Stalin was to do a decade later

The challenge is to shift the mentality away from the deterministic idea that "the Russians skipped a step" and make a more in-depth analysis as to just what was going on in Russia during those years


okay. but this peasant agenda was not drastically different then a call for private property and capitalism, particularly with the peasants of larger feudal estates who had the most to gain in land reform.This may be me splitting hairs but there were real differences between the peasants and the bourgeoisie. You're correct to note that all the peasant's really wanted was land reform. Now this was something that the bourgeois Provisional Government refused to grant (although that may be due to simple politicking) because the aim of the capitalists was the abolition, not aggrandisement, of the peasant mir (commune). What they wanted to see, and what the Tsardom had tried to create in its final years, was a society of small private farmers, a vision incompatible with the traditional commune structure. So there were some subtle differences between the agendas

But yes, the peasants didn't give a damn who was in charge in Peetrograd/Moscow as long as they had their land and were left alone. In some regions they cooperated with the Bolsheviks, in others the Whites. Less so the latter because the one class really detested by the peasantry (ie, the nobility) were overly represented in the White ranks

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

In the first place I disagree vehemently with the habit of wheeling out a Marx quote in order to justify/criticise some event that took place decades after his death. The man was not a prophet. In any case, if Marx could praise the Paris Commune then I see no reason why he would not have done the same for the October Revolution

I was trying to prove whether or not a particular view could be viewed as legitimately Marxist. What better way to do so than by posting quotes from Marx?


I think that one of the first things that struck me when I first read up on the October Revolution was the degree to which the political demands of February had been replaced by demands for social change. The first revolution of that eventful year would fit the description above but come October the proletariat was no longer arguing for new ministers, or a socialist coalition, or even more bread - they were now demanding a fundamental restructuring of how society was runMarx was not just describing the proletariat "arguing for new ministers," he was describing the establishment of a workers state in an underdeveloped country, so unless you're calling the Kerensky government a workers state the two revolutions are not comparable. I really don't see any reason to point out that they were demanding changes in the relations of society because I don't see how a workers state could possibly be established without necessarily coinciding with a desire to change the structure of society.


Ultimately of course things went a bit pear-shaped but that cannot disguise the fact that the Russian Revolution was about far more than "overthrowing the political rule of the bourgeoisie" and that it achieved far more than that. It should not be forgotten that the years 1917-1924 did see the "the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production" (ie, War Communism) and the liquidisation of the bourgeoisie as a class. This was not merely political changeI think the fact that they were later forced to introduce the NEP only verifies his statement.



Indeed. The Russian proletariat was ready to stage an aggressively socialist revolution because the material conditions for one were ripe. In the cities at least, the rest of a country does not matter a jot in this analysis
You consider an extremely backwards an underdeveloped economy where 85% of the laborers are peasants to be ripe for socialism? Russia at that time was less developed than Laos and Afghanistan are today or France was 220 years ago.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The real question, though, is:

Was the bourgeoisie really that necessary? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/coordinators-and-stage-t111566/index.html)

[Agrippa]

Well for working class rule in society

The point of "working class rule" is abolition of the proletariat - armed defense of the communist society to prevent nefarious elements from trying to re-impose any class system. If we lived in a society in which the working class never developered, there would be no more need for "working class rule in society", in the same sense that there is no need for an antidote to a poison that does not yet exist.

The idea that the emergence of capitalism was necessary for the creation of a genuinely libertarian or communist society is spurious at best and most commonly advocated by those who are addicted to one aspect or another of bourgeois society. Capitalism has caused so much irreparable damage to our eco-system, and has set the stage for so many devastating social calamities, I would give anything to be in a position to stamp capitalism out when it was a mere seedling, rather than this monstrous weed....

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The idea that the emergence of capitalism was necessary for the creation of a genuinely libertarian or communist society is spurious at best and most commonly advocated by those who are addicted to one aspect or another of bourgeois society.

You mean like modern technology that has made human life far easier and allows us to live far longer? I have no problem admitting my addiction to that.


Capitalism has caused so much irreparable damage to our eco-system, and has set the stage for so many devastating social calamities, I would give anything to be in a position to stamp capitalism out when it was a mere seedling, rather than this monstrous weed....

And why haven't you been restricted?

Your post reminds me of this:


Consequently a reactionary character runs throughout the whole of Proudhonism; an aversion to the industrial revolution, and the desire, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly expressed, to drive the whole of modern industry out of the temple — steam engines, mechanical looms and the rest of the swindle — and to return to the old, respectable hand labour. That we would then lose nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of our productive power, that the whole of humanity would be condemned to the worst possible labour slavery, that starvation would become the general rule — what does all that matter if only we succeed in organising exchange in such a fashion that each receives "the full proceeds of his labour," and that "eternal justice" is realized?

[Big Boss]

He recognized the possibility of a workers revolution happening in an underdeveloped country. He also recognized that it would not be a successful socialist revolution but would only aid the bourgeoisie, as in the Soviet Union, where state capitalism built up the productive forces faster than normal capitalism ever could have. So far he has been proven correct.

Some people have pointed at this as one of the primary causes for the fall of the Soviet Union later on.

[ComradeOm]

I was trying to prove whether or not a particular view could be viewed as legitimately Marxist. What better way to do so than by posting quotes from Marx?Quotes are worthless if you misinterpret them or prune them from obscure polemics and then apply them to different topics entirely. If they are not representative of the man's thought then why post them at all?


Marx was not just describing the proletariat "arguing for new ministers," he was describing the establishment of a workers state in an underdeveloped country, so unless you're calling the Kerensky government a workers state the two revolutions are not comparableReally? This is where the fun in dredging up century old quotes comes in. Tell me, just where in the entire essay do you find the terms "underdeveloped country" or "workers state"? But then if you'd actually read the essay, instead of simply lifting convenient quotes, you'd know that its primarily concerned with property relations in Germany (albeit with a very interesting detour into the history and evolution of the Prussian state)

So now we know that this polemic with Herr Heinzen was not a matter of Marx sitting down to ponder the possibility of a workers' revolution in Russia. What did he actually mean then? As with most of Marx's writings its painfully obvious once you put aside preconceived notions - "the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie" does not automatically lead to or mean a "workers state" but rather a simple event in the midst of a bourgeois revolution. He gives this credence by specifically referring the Reign of Terror in which La Montagne and the Commune wiped out the Girondins. Was this a "workers' state"? Hardly but then it is slightly more relevant to Marx's passage than events in Russia over half a century later


I really don't see any reason to point out that they were demanding changes in the relations of society because I don't see how a workers state could possibly be established without necessarily coinciding with a desire to change the structure of societyWhich makes me wonder just why Marx would assume that someone could try to construct a workers' state when the conditions for such were clearly not present. Especially given that "Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation"... :confused:

Regardless, my point above was that during the February Revolution the proletariat, who had indeed done all the 'heavy lifting', were happy to settle for political reforms (such as the abolition of the Tsardom). However six months later when presented with such measures (the major running discussion being the formation of an all-socialist cabinet) they rejected them in favour of social revolution. In short, in October the Russian proletariat, like yourself and Marx, understood all too well that conquering political power without deep and fundamental changes to the social relations of society was simply impossible


I think the fact that they were later forced to introduce the NEP only verifies his statementI think you're missing a few years in your history. You can't simply skip from 1917 to 1924. Unless of course you have another Marx quote that goes into detail on the Civil War, Allied intervention, and failure of the German Revolution?


You consider an extremely backwards an underdeveloped economy where 85% of the laborers are peasants to be ripe for socialism? Russia at that time was less developed than Laos and Afghanistan are today or France was 220 years ago.I've addressed this above more than once. In the first place your assertion is complete bullshit. Anyone who claims, on the basis of a single statistic, that Russia is on par with today's Laos or Afghanistan is simply 100% wrong. Not only are you misrepresenting the actual statistics (75% of the Empire's population was rural, of which roughly 70% were peasants and the rest largely small farmers) both you are also ignoring both the impact of modern shanty towns on distorting urbanisation figures and the not-inconsiderable industrial progress made in the latter decades of the 19th C

I've already commented on this in above posts but, to reiterate, the Russian Empire had millions of workers involved in a wide variety of industries. How many million tonnes of coal and copper are being mined in Laos? How many million tonnes of steel or pig iron are being produced? How many kilometres of track are being laid and maintained in Afghanistan every year? What's the state of the machine tool and locomotive construction industries? I know Afghanistan uses a lot of AK-47s but how many of these, plus artillery and shells, does it produce on its own? That's not even mentioning textiles or industrial crops/food processing

Russia was not an advanced industrial nation but it is absolutely incorrect to compare it to the colonial nations of today or to insist that capitalist relations were alien to the country. The Empire possessed a large industrial base in absolute terms that only shrinks in comparison to the broader mass of peasantry. But the latter is entirely irrelevant when considering the relations between the country's bourgeoisie and proletariat

Really, what goes through people's minds when they type out such bullshit. Do you think the average Russian worker was thinking to himself "Hmmm 75% of the Empire's population are comprised of peasants. I guess I should just sit down and accept my shit lot in life"?

[Nwoye]

What does this have to do with the Russian revolution "skipping a step"? Perhaps this is just a simple phrase you used and I'm just being semantic, but I don't see how the Russian revolutions skipped anything.
Let's go back to my original statement:

I think the experience of the Russian Revolution could be interpreted as supporting the assertion that skipping steps is a bad idea.

My argument was that the nature of the peasant class was a major problem of the Russian Revolution and consequent Soviet Union, and the nature of this class was a result of the agricultural circumstances not yet fully developed into modern capitalism.


Right, but you make it seem as the peasants were dominant over the proletariat by labeling them the "dominate" class, which I assume was really just in reference to them as the overwhelming majority.that, and their importance for any party in gaining control of government.



Um, no it was not clear?

Surely there's a difference, however the peasantry were needed in order to take power in 1917 and establish land reform, so this difference mattered little when the proletariat in the western cities were seizing the factories and work places; so too where the peasants dedicated to take back the land. For all the quarrels between the workers and peasants, the initial cooperation between them still stands as a major component of the revolution. That cooperation being the concession of the Bolsheviks to peasant interests. But you're correct.


Well what did you expect them to do? I don't see how this is an argument, so I won't present one either. Oh I recognize that it was definitely the most feasible option for the Bolsheviks, and possibly the only one. And that was my point. The concession to a petty bourgeois agenda was an inevitable result of the Russian Revolution and the nature of the peasantry. The reason for this, could be interpreted (I'm not 100% sure yet and am open to other explanations) as the under development of of the Russian economy, particularly with regard to its agriculture, which was still controlled by large aristocratic estates. This is essentially, "skipping a step".


No, the peasantry resembled a petit-bourgeois agenda. The "capitalist agenda" (ie the development of the MOP and forces of production in an undeveloped economy such as Russia's) was represented by the industrial worker's,ummm I assume this is a typo.


who after seizing power in 1917 organized the economy and means of production based on the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to develop the economic forces of production and initiate the socialized ownership and development of society. Unfortunately, the proletariat suffered heavy losses against reaction of the Russian and imperialist bourgeoisie, so the Soviet state was forced to take on a peasant agenda, as ComradeOm explained. The Bolshies had already taken on a partly peasant agenda, with their Decree on Land and later on their New Economic Policy.


Initially your right, peasants wanted land reform, and not much else. However when industrial sector of the economy developed, it is without a doubt that the cooperation between the workers and peasants was strengthened after the state provided collective farms with tractors and other technological equipment which improved production. Despite the conflict between the two classes, eventually the distinction between town and country was lessened later after industrialization, and of course the total abolition of the difference was essentially the goal.What period of the Soviet Union are you referring to here? The Bolshevik's Land Policy led to large scale inequalities among the peasant class. There were poor peasants living in communes, and there were wealthy peasants (kulaks) who inherited former large feudal estates, and who profited greatly from grain production. When the govt instituted the NEP (which to be fair Lenin opposed), these kulaks began speculating and hoarding grain, so it could be sold at high prices to industrial workers. This process led to Stalin's forced collectivization, and the mess that went with it.

I don't see how the relations between the peasants and industrial workers was at any time improved.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Quotes are worthless if you misinterpret them or prune them from obscure polemics and then apply them to different topics entirely. If they are not representative of the man's thought then why post them at all?

I think it is fairly obvious what he was saying, but if you think they are being misinterpreted and don't represent his thought you are more than welcome to prove it.


Really? This is where the fun in dredging up century old quotes comes in. Tell me, just where in the entire essay do you find the terms "underdeveloped country" or "workers state"? He refers to a lack of material conditions(underdeveloped country) and an event where the proletariat was at the helm of the state(workers state).


But then if you'd actually read the essay, instead of simply lifting convenient quotes, you'd know that its primarily concerned with property relations in Germany (albeit with a very interesting detour into the history and evolution of the Prussian state)And he's referring to when the Proletariat took power(a workers state) in an underdeveloped country(France) to show that if the proletariat takes power in a country where the material conditions do not exist for socialism, it will be nothing but a service to the bourgeoisie.


So now we know that this polemic with Herr Heinzen was not a matter of Marx sitting down to ponder the possibility of a workers' revolution in Russia. Of course he was not talking about Russia, I never said he was. What he was doing was saying that if the material conditions for socialism are not present, a workers revolution will fail.


What did he actually mean then? As with most of Marx's writings its painfully obvious once you put aside preconceived notions - "the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie" does not automatically lead to or mean a "workers state" but rather a simple event in the midst of a bourgeois revolution.You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean the establishment of a workers state, but in some of their earlier writings Marx and Engels said the proletariat was at the helm of the state in France at this time.


He gives this credence by specifically referring the Reign of Terror in which La Montagne and the Commune wiped out the Girondins. Was this a "workers' state"? Hardly but then it is slightly more relevant to Marx's passage than events in Russia over half a century laterAccording to Marx and Engels, yes:


During the short time when the proletariat was at the helm of state in the French Revolution, during the rule of the Mountain party, it used all means — including grapeshot and the guillotine — to effect centralisation. When the democratic proletariat again comes to power, it will not only have to centralise every country separately but will have to centralise all civilised countries together as soon as possible.And his quote is perfectly relevant because it tells us what will happen in an underdeveloped country if there is an attempt to establish society for which the material conditions do not exist. That was attempted in Russia. As Marx predicted, it failed. The class composition of France in 1789 was almost IDENTICAL to that in Russia when the October Revolution took place!


Regardless, my point above was that during the February Revolution the proletariat, who had indeed done all the 'heavy lifting', were happy to settle for political reforms (such as the abolition of the Tsardom). However six months later when presented with such measures (the major running discussion being the formation of an all-socialist cabinet) they rejected them in favour of social revolution. In short, in October the Russian proletariat, like yourself and Marx, understood all too well that conquering political power without deep and fundamental changes to the social relations of society was simply impossible
Of course it is simply impossible, but I'm not sure what the point of this is. My point is that it doesn't matter if they want to change the relations of production if the forces of production to effect that change do not exist. As Marx put it, "...no effort of the mind or the will can save them from this..."


I think you're missing a few years in your history. You can't simply skip from 1917 to 1924. Unless of course you have another Marx quote that goes into detail on the Civil War, Allied intervention, and failure of the German Revolution?You have a point, but I don't think they had the conditions for socialism before the war any more than France had in 1789.


I've addressed this above more than once. In the first place your assertion is complete bullshit. Anyone who claims, on the basis of a single statistic, that Russia is on par with today's Laos or Afghanistan is simply 100% wrong. I'm not talking about urban/rural populations, I'm talking about the class structure and percent of the economy made up of industry. Those countries and Russia in 1910 have similar class structures and industrial share, not to mention that Russia was in a war that had killed millions.


Not only are you misrepresenting the actual statistics (75% of the Empire's population was rural, of which roughly 70% were peasants and the rest largely small farmers) both you are also ignoring both the impact of modern shanty towns on distorting urbanisation figures and the not-inconsiderable industrial progress made in the latter decades of the 19th CThis book argues that the industrial proletariat was less than one fifth of total employment and that 75-80% of the country was employed in agriculture:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dK44ciNfx6MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0

That is nearly identical to the condition of France in 1789.


I've already commented on this in above posts but, to reiterate, the Russian Empire had millions of workers involved in a wide variety of industries. How many million tonnes of coal and copper are being mined in Laos?I was referring to the class structure and percent of the economy made up by industry.


How many million tonnes of steel or pig iron are being produced? How many kilometres of track are being laid and maintained in Afghanistan every year? What's the state of the machine tool and locomotive construction industries? I know Afghanistan uses a lot of AK-47s but how many of these, plus artillery and shells, does it produce on its own? That's not even mentioning textiles or industrial crops/food processingI don't particularly know or care. The only comparison to the rest of the world I have for Russia at that time was that Russia's per capita production was about 15% of Britains. Even today after the growing inequality of wealth between first and third world nations, that'd put it on par with a country like Botswana.


Russia was not an advanced industrial nation but it is absolutely incorrect to compare it to the colonial nations of today or to insist that capitalist relations were alien to the countryI have never said that capitalist relations were alien to the country, but they were only as developed as a country such as 1789 France.


The Empire possessed a large industrial base in absolute terms that only shrinks in comparison to the broader mass of peasantry. But the latter is entirely irrelevant when considering the relations between the country's bourgeoisie and proletariatIn absolute terms, of course. Compared to Austria, India is an extremely developed economy in absolute terms. I think we know that it is far different relative to their population. If we adopted your argument that peasants are irrelevant we could pretty much say that any area with even a slightly developed proletariat is already ripe for socialism.


Really, what goes through people's minds when they type out such bullshit. Do you think the average Russian worker was thinking to himself "Hmmm 75% of the Empire's population are comprised of peasants. I guess I should just sit down and accept my shit lot in life"?No more than Lenin was thinking to himself "Let's make an authoritarian dictatorship where millions will starve to death." It doesn't really matter what the average Russian worker wanted because the conditions for it didn't exist, and "...no effort of the mind or the will can save them from this..."

[New Tet]

I've already commented on this in above posts but, to reiterate, the Russian Empire had millions of workers involved in a wide variety of industries. How many million tonnes of coal and copper are being mined in Laos? How many million tonnes of steel or pig iron are being produced? How many kilometres of track are being laid and maintained in Afghanistan every year? What's the state of the machine tool and locomotive construction industries? I know Afghanistan uses a lot of AK-47s but how many of these, plus artillery and shells, does it produce on its own? That's not even mentioning textiles or industrial crops/food processing


And if it were not for the Muslim superstition against communism, Afghanistan would have been a perfect client state! Who knows, they probably would have gotten at least an air force out of the deal! Instead the got USAID. Now look at 'em...

In re to the other stuff, the Russia/peasant/workers/capitalism thingy: I can only say that from what I read, the Russian proletariat was outnumbered on all sides, plus the civil war, plus the failure of Berlin in 1918, etc. According to Deutscher (I think), by the time the Bolsheviks consolidated state power, the Russian proletariat was decimated.
There weren't enough workers to build socialism. Hence the USSR.

So I guess it boils down to numbers. How many workers do we have? How many can we persuade? What is the level of proletarian consciousness at the moment?

Numbers, yes. Numbers, the right kind of message and Roman aqueducts.

[ComradeOm]

And he's referring to when the Proletariat took power(a workers state) in an underdeveloped country(France) to show that if the proletariat takes power in a country where the material conditions do not exist for socialism, it will be nothing but a service to the bourgeoisieAnd do you want to show me where in France (an "underdeveloped country") did the proletariat construct a "workers state"?


What he was doing was saying that if the material conditions for socialism are not present, a workers revolution will failHe said no such thing. He talks about the proletariat momentarily "overthrowing the political rule of the bourgeoisie" during the course of a "bourgeois revolution". At no point does he mention a "workers revolution" or suggest that one would be feasible. Why? Because Marx understood that a workers revolution is an impossibility when the material conditions for one are not present!


You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean the establishment of a workers state, but in some of their earlier writings Marx and Engels said the proletariat was at the helm of the state in France at this timeOf course, because there was no "workers revolution" in France and nor was any "workers state" constructed. Marx was not talking about Russia or some possibility of the workers taking power in a revolution before the material conditions were ready - he was describing a specific event in the French Revolution where the Paris proletariat (in addition to other radical forces) briefly came to the fore

Yet you, and others, try to turn this small paragraph into some deterministic concept that Marx developed specifically in regards to Russia. Marx did not rule out a workers revolution occurring in an "underdeveloped nation" because he understood perfectly well that the proletariat "sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve"


The class composition of France in 1789 was almost IDENTICAL to that in Russia when the October Revolution took place!Pray tell, how many million workers did France possess in 1789? How much capital was concentrated in the country? How many kilometres of rail had been laid?


This book argues that the industrial proletariat was less than one fifth of total employment and that 75-80% of the country was employed in agriculture:Which would be correct if you accounted for other urban elements


I'm not talking about urban/rural populations, I'm talking about the class structure and percent of the economy made up of industry. Those countries and Russia in 1910 have similar class structures and industrial share, not to mention that Russia was in a war that had killed millionsI know you're talking about nothing but a single percentage figure but, as I've made clear, this hardly constitutes a thorough understanding of the subject. To call Russia as underdeveloped as France 1789 simply ignores a half century of industrialisation that produced a booming proletariat and several huge clusters of industrialisation. I don't care how many times you ignore this and blatter on about the country as a whole but the reality is that France 1789 was less industrialised than Russia 1917. Even that industry that existed was, in contrast to Russia, largely small scale cottage industry (a long-term structural characteristic of the French economy) and thus not as concentration. Which is exactly why the Russian proletariat occupied a far greater role in 1917 (or even 1905) than that of the Paris proletariat of 1789

If you do want to compare Russia to France then a far more suitable date would be 1848 - by which point the first stages of industrialisation were already well under way (but the peasantry still comprised the vast bulk of the population; it would remain a majority until the 20th C) and Marx could legitimately look to the proletariat to take the reigns


I don't particularly know or care. The only comparison to the rest of the world I have for Russia at that time was that Russia's per capita production was about 15% of Britains. Even today after the growing inequality of wealth between first and third world nations, that'd put it on par with a country like BotswanaWhat an absurd comparison. In the first place your numbers are wrong according to my sources. Davies et al place Russia's domestic production per head at 30% of Britain's in 1913. This still ranks Russia near the bottom of the industrial table but given that Britain was the second largest economy in the world at the time (and probably the most industrialised) this is not overly surprising. Germany for example, long hailed as the most modern industrial society in the world, only possessed 65% of Britain's GDP per capita in 1917 and two decades later this had risen to a miserly 71%. So Russia in 1917 was almost half as productive as German industry and, while qualitative differences are more likely in this comparison, in both cases this represents the weight of a peasant majority on an otherwise productive industrial sector

But most important to dismiss out of hand is the ridiculous suggestion that Russia was as developed as Botswana. Doing a similar comparison with 1930s Germany would reveal it to rank alongside today's Iran and Tunisia. Do you think that's a fair assessment of Germany's industrial might in the period in question? Do you think that the idea of a workers revolution in Germany 1918 is absurd or doomed to failure?

(See Devies et al, 'The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union' and Tooze, 'Wages of Destruction' for source figures)


No more than Lenin was thinking to himself "Let's make an authoritarian dictatorship where millions will starve to death." It doesn't really matter what the average Russian worker wanted because the conditions for it didn't exist, and "...no effort of the mind or the will can save them from this..."If the Russian proletariat was 'thinking' en masse that perhaps the time was right for a socialist revolution then the conditions for one were already present