The revolutions of 1989 - SW Article [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

3rd November 2009, 22:32

Gabi Engelhardt was a leading member of the underground left in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. She spoke to Yuri Prasad about her experiences, and the unfinished business of the revolution that she and her comrades helped to initiate.

The events of autumn 1989, and the end of the East German state, can be traced back to the spring and summer before the Wall came down – and even further back in history as well.

The revolutions of 1989 stood in the tradition of the revolts of East Germany in 1953, Poland in 1956 and 1968 in Czechoslovakia.

In East Germany people “voted with their feet”, by leaving for West Germany. The worldwide deterioration of the economic and political situation in 1989 – particularly in the Eastern Bloc – saw the trickle turn into a flood.

I was part of a group who decided that we didn’t want to leave, and give up our homes, families and lives – we wanted to make change at home.
The international crisis, the incapability of the East German ruling class to respond to the increasing desire for political and social reforms, and their support for the attacks of the Chinese army on the protesters at Tiananmen Square all came together to ignite the fire.

I was a member of a left group in Karl Marx Stadt (today known as Chemnitz) that later would become the United Left.

In 1981, as a young activist in the peace and human rights movements, I had already lost my job as a typist in a local newspaper. Many others fared far worse and some were even imprisoned.

In those days we were forced to meet in churches, despite the fact that most of us were not Christians.

They were the only places where we could speak relatively openly about what we thought about our state, or those of other so-called “socialist” countries.

We talked about a lot of different issues, such as cruise missiles, environmental protection and human rights. After hearing about the massacre in Tiananmen Square, we organised a meeting about the situation in China.

We thought only a small number would come, but the church was full to overflowing – although we suspect that at least half of those who came were members of the Stasi secret police.

People were afraid that something like Tiananmen Square would happen in East Germany if we rose up.

Because of the Stasi presence, we organised for everyone to leave the meeting together, rather than in small groups, to prevent them arresting us.
From 1987, East Germany experienced a major economic crisis. There was a massive shortage of basic goods in the shops and by 1989 people were saying that they couldn’t cope any more.

Then on 7 October, during the holiday to mark the 40th birthday of the East German state, something really significant happened. We came out of the churches and took to the streets.

Actors and people from the church groups had decided to organise a meeting to discuss the developing crisis and the demands of the Neue Forum (civil rights movement) and other new organisations. The meeting was intended to be held in the town theatre, but it was cancelled by ruling party officials.

We decided to meet there anyway. But when we arrived we were surrounded by members of the paramilitary state task force, all dressed in raincoats. They were trying to prevent us from gathering. People who went into the theatre were told the meeting had been officially cancelled.
But we wanted to do something, and so we started to march. In the centre of town, in front of the big monument of Karl Marx, the dignitaries were holding a birthday celebration for the state.

Some of us wanted to go there to protest, but others said no, because there would be a clash. We all still had Tiananmen Square in our minds.
We decided to march to the central tram station, where we thought there would be safety in the large crowds on the streets because of the holiday.
But we weren’t safe. In front of our march of about 800 people were large numbers of police, and behind us were the task forces. They started to attack us with water cannons and arrested 26 people.

The state believed that it could frighten us off the streets – but it miscalculated.

The normal people on the streets that day were being attacked as well. The police could no longer tell the difference between the “bad” and the “good” people and even arrested bystanders.

After that protest we knew something significant had changed. Many of us had friends or family members who were soldiers at that time, and they told us that the regime was close to declaring a state of emergency and that troop carriers were stationed in the side streets.

But the army itself was in crisis, knowing that it couldn’t use its troops against us as the soldiers sympathised with the protests and had started coming to the demonstrations that followed.

Uprising

The head of the Stasi, Erich Mielke, is said to have speculated as to whether this was 1953 again. In that year a mass uprising spread across East Germany and was ultimately suppressed by divisions of Russian troops that were stationed in the country.

But it was clear from what Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian leader, was saying that there was not going to be a repeat of that. That gave us confidence and within a month of that first demonstration our marches had grown from 1,000 to 50,000 – and that’s in a town with a population of 350,000.

People found out that they no longer had to be afraid, and all the pent-up bitterness and anger in society was coming to the surface. Suddenly political discussion was everywhere.

Open meetings had to be held in three churches at the same time because one wasn’t enough to let in everybody who wanted to take part. The newspapers were starting to dissent too.

Even people in the ruling party openly acknowledged that there was a need for reform, but it was too late. There was no way they could put a lid on the situation. This was a revolution in the making.

Everywhere people were speaking out. On our demonstrations we chanted, “We are the people”. There was a feeling that we could do anything. The movement had not yet spread to the factories, where the economic power was, but it soon would.

At the time many of us hoped that once we got rid of the repressive state bureaucracy, we could build a new socialism in the East. It was only later that most of us realised that it was not possible to build real socialism on the base of what had been called socialism in East Germany.

As the demand for freedom of travel came to symbolise our demand for democratic rights, it became impossible for the ruling party to keep the Wall closed.

But when it opened the border, the crisis deepened, because suddenly people could compare their lives with those of people in West Germany.
The so-called socialism of East Germany meant shortages of nearly every kind of basic goods and no democratic rights. Capitalism in the West seemed to have a lot more to offer.

The slogans on the demonstrations changed from “We are the people” to “We are a people” – a clear demand for German reunification. The protests grew to 150,000 people in January. For some among us, that was a sign that although we’d made a revolution, we’d nevertheless lost and that capitalism had won.

Reflection

It was only some weeks later that I began to look at the changing nature of the movement as a reflection of the way political demands were translating into economic and social ones. The demand for reunification was really a demand for better living standards.

The ruling classes of the East and West feared the movement and quickly came to an arrangement that put Germany back together. Reunification came from above.

That reflects a problem in the left’s leadership. We didn’t have a clearly defined group of any size when the revolt began, so as the movement took off, ideologically, we had little to offer.

The hopes of 1989 quickly began to fade as economic recession gripped the reunited state. There was a massive wave of factory closures and rocketing unemployment.

We were told by the new and combined ruling class that we must not ask for higher wages because that would lead to more joblessness and factory closures.

There is a kind of nostalgia for the past among unemployed and low waged people in the East today. People miss the certainty of a job, a home and basic social security – though in reality, the economic crisis that gripped East Germany made that untenable.

The impact of the recession today means that even in the West many workers feel that there was something better about the old system than the fear of the future we have today. But there is also a realistic assessment that there is no way back.

Within two years of the 1989 revolution, we were on the streets again. This time we were fighting factory closures.

And in 2004, similar demonstrations returned in the battle against the government’s attempt to slash social security.

All three waves of protests had started on Monday evenings, and they became known as “the Monday demonstrations”.

The ruling class still has something to fear from the events of 1989. And now, as the working class in the East and West of Germany are no longer divided, we have a greater opportunity to launch the kind of united fight we need.

The central lesson that 1989 teaches us is that socialism cannot be imposed from above – it must rise from below.

In this way the spirit of the revolution continues to live on today. And, if I’m asked why it failed to deliver the changes that we wanted, I say the revolution isn’t finished yet.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19440

manic expression

3rd November 2009, 22:51

Yeah, let's celebrate! Someone bake a cake with Yeltsin's face in the icing! Russian prostitutes should be easy to get, too, since prostitution (and other forms of women's oppression) has skyrocketed since your "victory"! Why not invite all those friendly ultra-nationalists who've reared their heads since the glorious collapse of the USSR?! Maybe you could get some homeless Russian kids to act out the results of your "victory" (and we all know how they need the money)! We're gonna party like it's 1905!

Make sure you invite us all to your celebration of the defeat of the Paris Commune, too.

khad

3rd November 2009, 22:53

Yeah, let's celebrate! Someone bake a cake with Yeltsin's face in the icing!
I don't think I need to say where the knife needs to go.

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd November 2009, 22:55

...and then the worst reactionaries took over, privatised all the means of production, implemented "shock doctrine" as recommended by the IMF and World Bank, cut pensions and salaries, destroyed millions of jobs, kicked workers out of their homes so they could return property to pre-WW2 owners, banned communist political organisations, and in many cases actively suppressed working class revolts and strikes.

In some countries, 1989 was a year of reactionary - even fascist, in a few places - seizures of power. In other countries, there were real working class uprisings and revolutions in 1989 - but they got crushed, or betrayed, or failed due to lack of leadership.

Either way, it is something to be mourned, not something to be celebrated.

I do not usually make things personal on internet forums. But I am from Eastern Europe. If you are seriously intending to celebrate an event that caused incredible hardship for millions of workers, including my friends and family, then fuck you.

KurtFF8

3rd November 2009, 22:57

So the revolution in East Germany was initially a socialist one, although according to this write-up the members wanted to have a society more like the West come to the East?

I'm not too sure what the character of the earlier movement in East Germany was, and this article doesn't really paint a full picture one way or the other, just an anecdotal experience. But one thing that is clear: the movement in East Germany lead directly to the spreading of capitalism and neoliberalism to the East, and we can see the consequences for that quite clearly.

It would be interesting to see other accounts that call the East German revolution a socialist one, or at least a revolution that didn't call for capitalism. I've seen minor references to this in certain films and documentaries (i.e. "We don't want capitalism, just a better socialism") but I haven't seen much more than that, and this article isn't much more in depth at all.

The Wall itself certainly isn't something the left should celebrate, but on the same hand, the way in which it fell is also nothing to celebrate.

bcbm

3rd November 2009, 23:34

glad to see nobody wasted any time in spouting out predictable, knee-jerk, tankie crap over what was actually an interesting article that, without a doubt, they didn't even bother to read.

the last section of it is full of criticism and certainly isn't celebrating the return of capitalist rule. its merely a reflection of the LEFT opposition to the east german state and then goes on to talk a bit about their failures during the crisis ("For some among us, that was a sign that although we’d made a revolution, we’d nevertheless lost and that capitalism had won." yeah, fucking reactionaries), the problems that have faced them since reunification (ie, not glowing about it) and how they are carrying on the struggle towards building a real socialist society.

fatpanda

3rd November 2009, 23:49

Sam_b

3rd November 2009, 23:53

Either way, it is something to be mourned, not something to be celebrated.

I do not usually make things personal on internet forums. But I am from Eastern Europe. If you are seriously intending to celebrate an event that caused incredible hardship for millions of workers, including my friends and family, then fuck you.

Congratulations for completely missing the point. Please, don't go on this line thinking you're the only person who knows the situation in post-'communist' Central and Eastern Europe and the only person who has friends and family there. We all know about the situation with Schumpetarian privatisation, collapses of currency; areas of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia with 20% unemployment rates, and suchlike. So, leave the 'fuck you's out of it if you can't give a rational argument here.

The entire point is that we don't mourn the loss of the Soviet sphere of influence as if it is the only alternative to the working class. This is emphasised by the socialists who took part in the demonstrations in the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the socialists in East Germany as referenced here. If you don't think that civil society in CEE countries was often initiated and aided by class-conscious trade unionists then you have another thing coming. The article rightly states that socialism has to come from below, and this simply did not happen in many areas here. I assume you'll also give a huge 'fuck you' to your fellow Christians in Albania (and of course, for a time in East Germany) who battled religious censorship?

It's a semi-decent article, however my minor contention is grouping Czechoslovakia 1968 in with Poznan 1956: both rather different experiences in my view.

BobKKKindle$

3rd November 2009, 23:54

If you are seriously intending to celebrate an event that caused incredible hardship for millions of workers, including my friends and family, then fuck youI don't think I or anyone else in the SWP would celebrate workers in the 1990s enduring terrible hardship, but, as I pointed out in the other thread, the idea that you and a lot of the other people here who are baying for Gorbachev's blood seem to be putting forward here is that there was no problem with the Soviet economy before 1989, and that what happened in the 1990s was entirely the result of Stalinism being toppled - what we in the SWP argue was that, as capitalist economies operating in the context of an imperialist world-system, the economies of the Soviet bloc were all orientated towards meeting the military strength of NATO instead of meeting the demands and needs of their citizens, and it was this military orientation which resulted in those economies becoming heavily indebted, and, from the 1970s onwards, suffering stagnation and declining productivity. The events of 1989/91 simply represented the culmination of a process that had already been underway for some time and the reason that we should celebrate the fall of the wall and the toppling of the old governments throughout the region is that the workers of these countries took advantage of a crisis amongst the ruling class to win political liberties, which, despite the shortcomings of bourgeois democracy, and the trend towards authoritarianism in some parts of the region, have enabled them to organize - this did not happen in China which is why it's almost impossible to be a socialist in mainland China today.

I have however removed the thing about celebrating from the title - not because I don't think these events are worth celebrating, but because it was unfairly provocative.

If the world is divided in two camps, one clearly capitalist and one semi-socialistWe as Marxists reject the idea that a country can be a bit socialist, as the key issue for us is which class is the ruling class. Do you think the working class was the ruling class in these states, prior to 1989?

bcbm

3rd November 2009, 23:58

If the world is divided in two camps, one clearly capitalist and one semi-socialist, if you live within the semi-socialist camp in this world and if you think that the weakening of that camp can lead to anything other than a strengthening of capitalism, then you are an idiot.

i think its easy in hindsight to recognize that "reality," but i think socialists within east germany during the 80's did not see those two as their only options and genuinely felt they had built an underground left opposition that was taking advantage of favorable political conditions to push for a genuine socialist revolution. certainly that is what the woman interviewed seems to be saying, and i don't think her viewpoint is rare, given that this idea has been seen even in the mainstream of germany today (a film like goodbye, lenin for example). indeed, if they had been able to offer more ideologically, as she posits in the article, i think the revolution in east germany could have possessed a different character, even if the capitalist class had the initial victory. regardless, they're not the first socialist group to make mistakes and they won't be the last, but they were genuinely striving for a socialist society and continue this struggle today and so the mindless slagging in place of constructive political discussion is inappropriate.

Kwisatz Haderach

4th November 2009, 00:07

Ceacescu never was a socialist in any way i think ... actually i think he was an anti-communist.
Yes, Ceauşescu was scum. But those who came after him were no better. The replacement of one anti-communist by another is not something we should celebrate.

You are from Romania right?
Wasn't the "Revolution" there not just against Ceacescus government but against the whole "Communist Ideology" and agaisnt "Gypsy Scum" ?!
Well it was a violent revolution and as i recognized , a very reactionary Counter-Revolution!
No one is sure what the revolution was against, because it was not organized. There was no one who could speak for the people in the streets. No doubt many of them were reactionary, and many others were not. Large numbers of people simply wanted changes in Ceauşescu's disastrous foreign trade policy and nothing more.

The point is that it all led to very reactionary results, and a disaster for the working class.

Kwisatz Haderach

4th November 2009, 00:48

I don't think I or anyone else in the SWP would celebrate workers in the 1990s enduring terrible hardship, but, as I pointed out in the other thread, the idea that you and a lot of the other people here who are baying for Gorbachev's blood seem to be putting forward here is that there was no problem with the Soviet economy before 1989, and that what happened in the 1990s was entirely the result of Stalinism being toppled
I agree that there were serious problems with the Soviet economy (and all other CMEA countries) before 1989. However, I do not believe for a second that these problems were so fundamental and insurmountable that they could not be resolved within the existing system.

For one thing, they could have simply defaulted on their loans. If they timed it properly, they could have even caused a major crisis in the capitalist world system by doing this.

Also, everything that happened in the 1990s was entirely the result of Stalinism being toppled. All the economic problems of the old system were swept away in the great wave of privatizations - and a set of brand new, much worse problems replaced them.

what we in the SWP argue was that, as capitalist economies operating in the context of an imperialist world-system, the economies of the Soviet bloc were all orientated towards meeting the military strength of NATO instead of meeting the demands and needs of their citizens, and it was this military orientation which resulted in those economies becoming heavily indebted, and, from the 1970s onwards, suffering stagnation and declining productivity.
I agree with all of that except the characterization of those economies as "capitalist". But I do not see why any of these problems should have led to the collapse of the existing system. After all, many Western capitalist economies have proven themselves able to stagnate just fine without collapsing.

The events of 1989/91 simply represented the culmination of a process that had already been underway for some time and the reason that we should celebrate the fall of the wall and the toppling of the old governments throughout the region is that the workers of these countries took advantage of a crisis amongst the ruling class to win political liberties, which, despite the shortcomings of bourgeois democracy, and the trend towards authoritarianism in some parts of the region, have enabled them to organize - this did not happen in China which is why it's almost impossible to be a socialist in mainland China today.
But you have not considered the important fact that the Chinese government still relies on vaguely Marxist rhetoric to legitimize itself, meaning that they cannot directly attack Marxism in their propaganda - as the capitalists and governments of Eastern Europe do. Eastern Europe is flooded with anti-communist propaganda. In China, overtly anti-communist propaganda does not exist.

In China, it is still possible to read Marx. In Romania it is not (except by going online, of course). No Marxist texts of any kind have been printed here for 20 years, except for an edition of the Communist Manifesto that contained lengthy reactionary rants about the evils of communism after the text of the Manifesto proper.

We as Marxists reject the idea that a country can be a bit socialist, as the key issue for us is which class is the ruling class. Do you think the working class was the ruling class in these states, prior to 1989?
No, the working class was not the ruling class, but there was no bourgeoisie, either. I used the term "semi-socialist" because I wanted to convey the idea that (1) these countries were not socialist, but (2) they had an economic system very similar to the one that would exist under socialism. I suppose I should have called them "deformed workers' states" instead, since that is the theory I am closest to, but I think that term is just too convoluted.

FSL

4th November 2009, 00:51

BobKKKindle$

4th November 2009, 01:24

I agree that there were serious problems with the Soviet economy (and all other CMEA countries) before 1989. However, I do not believe for a second that these problems were so fundamental and insurmountable that they could not be resolved within the existing system.These problems have to be understood as what they were - elements of a capitalist crises that, like all crises of capitalism, keeping in mind that capitalism is a system that cannot avoid generating economic crises, was derived from the anarchy of the market. The only difference between the crisis that struck the Soviet bloc and the crises that have always struck market-capitalist economies like the United States is that in market-capitalist economies this anarchy takes the form of enterprises competing amongst each other, giving rise to overproduction and a declining rate of profit, whereas crises in the Soviet bloc were the result of international competition, with blocs of states seeking military hegemony, and, in the case of the Soviet bloc, falling into debt as a result. In the context of the 1980s, the intensity of the debt crisis in the Soviet bloc as well as other problems such as a lack of technical development and declining rates of labour productivity was such that in this situation the only way that the crises could have been resolved without workers seizing control of the economy and managing it themselves, i.e. a socialist revolution, was through the intense exploitation of the working class, by putting downwards pressure on wages and destroying those parts of the productive apparatus that were no longer generating surplus value, and this would have been a historical necessity from the viewpoint of the ruling class even if the economies had somehow managed to retain state ownership. It was, in other words, the eternal choice between socialism and barbarism, without an alternative. The former was by no means out of the question - we have seen from the article I posted that there were people who had knowledge of what socialism is really supposed to be about, and in one of my earlier posts I explained the role of workers in the Tiananmen protests in China. The fact that the workers in China were crushed (the working-class participants like the leaders of the BAWF actually received much higher penalties than the students) shows us two things - (1) that socialists who are committed to the emancipation of the working class, and, in the short term, workers defending their interests against capitalism, cannot look to Stalinism for solutions, and (2) that it is important for socialists in Stalinist states and indeed every country despite the level of political repression to be organized and in touch with the class movement so that when struggles do present themselves we are able to intervene and present an ideological alternative, alongside a clear plan of action, in order to ensure that these struggles are not captured by reformists, or, worse, leave themselves vulnerable to the state.

For one thing, they could have simply defaulted on their loans. If they timed it properly, they could have even caused a major crisis in the capitalist world system by doing this.The Soviet Union was by this stage an integral part of the imperialist world-system, being ruled by a ruling class whose interests were fundamentally the same as those of the ruling classes of Britain and the United States, and so, in terms of its class interests, it was impossible for the ruling class to do anything that would undermine capitalism globally and create the potential for a socialist revolution, this being true not only of the Soviet Union's policy on its debt, but also of its foreign policy, especially the way it related to movements fighting for national liberation. Let's also remember that it was not the ruling classes of these state-capitalist countries who payed for the crises and so they would have no reason to pursue a policy that was designed to protect the interests of the working class, even if, given the need to maintain the existing distribution of wealth and power, such a policy were possible, especially when they had so much to gain by carrying out privatization.

I agree with all of that except the characterization of those economies as "capitalist".The working class, lacking control of the means of production, sold its labour power as a commodity, and did not exert control over either the labour process or the goods it produced - these are capitalist relations of production.

After all, many Western capitalist economies have proven themselves able to stagnate just fine without collapsing.Whenever ruling classes in these economies have faced a crisis of profitability, which inevitably arise as a result of capitalism's internal laws of motion, they have sought to transfer the costs of the crisis to workers, by making them work for longer hours (i.e. increasing absolute surplus value) making them work harder (i.e. increasing relative surplus value) and reducing their wages (i.e. "immiseration") amongst other methods that involve the bosses being able to retain their privileges - so from the viewpoint of the working class, capitalism is never "just fine", people face a constant battle to defend themselves against the imperatives of profitability, and it is only through revolution that this struggle for survival can be put to an end. These imperatives were also present in the Soviet bloc, given that the economies of those blocs were also capitalist, which is why the ruling class of the Soviet Union used market reform as a way of restoring profitability, at tremendous human cost. As I said above, there was one other option, in the form of socialist revolution, just as, during the current crisis, there can be no solution within the confines of capitalism that will be favourable to the working class.

But you have not considered the important fact that the Chinese government still relies on vaguely Marxist rhetoric to legitimize itself, meaning that they cannot directly attack Marxism in their propagandaThe Chinese government's Marxism is a distortion of Marxism that serves the same purpose that Marxism did in the former Soviet bloc - to convince people that what they are living under is a legitimate form of socialism which is consistent with Marx's method and his vision of what a socialist society would look like. In other words, Marxism has taken the form of an ideology which protects the interests of the ruling class by obscuring and justifying the basic contradictions of Chinese society. For example, the government is fond of arguing that China needs to develop its productive forces before communism is viable, as this argument allows the government to claim that allowing capitalists to become members of the CPC and permitting the exploitation of the working class amongst all the other things that are allowed to take place in China is fine just as long as it eventually leads to an ill-defined thing they call socialism. From what I gather, it is precisely because Stalinist governments claimed that they were socialist that the concept of socialism is tainted in Eastern Europe today.

Oh, and good luck getting Trotsky and Marx's early writings in China, not to mention learning about the history of Chinese Trotskyism.

they had an economic system very similar to the one that would exist under socialism.In these countries, workers did not come together and democratically decide what should be produced. Given that this is what socialism is, I don't see how these countries had anything to do with socialism, let alone have economic systems that were very close to it.

Bright Banana Beard

4th November 2009, 01:49

You are just celebrating new imperialism in power. Congratulation! So what had we change?

Kwisatz Haderach

4th November 2009, 02:38

These problems have to be understood as what they were - elements of a capitalist crises that, like all crises of capitalism, keeping in mind that capitalism is a system that cannot avoid generating economic crises, was derived from the anarchy of the market. The only difference between the crisis that struck the Soviet bloc and the crises that have always struck market-capitalist economies like the United States is that in market-capitalist economies this anarchy takes the form of enterprises competing amongst each other, giving rise to overproduction and a declining rate of profit, whereas crises in the Soviet bloc were the result of international competition, with blocs of states seeking military hegemony, and, in the case of the Soviet bloc, falling into debt as a result.
In other words, the two types of crisis are completely different. One type is caused by competition for profit within a market, and the other is... not.

Competition between states for hegemony is absolutely not the same as competition between firms for profit. There is no commodity being sold in the competition between states. There is no such thing as a "declining rate of hegemony" or any other economic law that could possibly give us reason to expect an economic crisis as a result of competition between states.

In the context of the 1980s, the intensity of the debt crisis in the Soviet bloc as well as other problems such as a lack of technical development and declining rates of labour productivity was such that in this situation the only way that the crises could have been resolved without workers seizing control of the economy and managing it themselves, i.e. a socialist revolution, was through the intense exploitation of the working class, by putting downwards pressure on wages and destroying those parts of the productive apparatus that were no longer generating surplus value, and this would have been a historical necessity from the viewpoint of the ruling class even if the economies had somehow managed to retain state ownership.
First of all, the ruling class in those states was not appropriating surplus value. Surplus value arises from the difference between the market value of labour-power (which determines workers' wage) and the market value of the products of labour (which is always higher, and is appropriated by the capitalists).

In Soviet-style societies, there was no market for labour-power. In many cases there was no market for the products of labour, either. We cannot speak about surplus value in these conditions. I am open to the possibility that the Stalinist working class was appropriating something (though I have not yet seen any convincing arguments in this direction), but they were definitely not appropriating surplus value as the capitalists do.

Second, they could have solved their economic problems by stimulating technical development and labour productivity. This could have been done by shifting resources away from the military and heavy industry and into research and development and investment in new technologies.

The fact that the workers in China were crushed (the working-class participants like the leaders of the BAWF actually received much higher penalties than the students) shows us two things - (1) that socialists who are committed to the emancipation of the working class, and, in the short term, workers defending their interests against capitalism, cannot look to Stalinism for solutions, and (2) that it is important for socialists in Stalinist states and indeed every country despite the level of political repression to be organized and in touch with the class movement so that when struggles do present themselves we are able to intervene and present an ideological alternative, alongside a clear plan of action, in order to ensure that these struggles are not captured by reformists, or, worse, leave themselves vulnerable to the state.
Yes. I agree.

The Soviet Union was by this stage an integral part of the imperialist world-system, being ruled by a ruling class whose interests were fundamentally the same as those of the ruling classes of Britain and the United States
Err, no. Like I said, the Stalinist ruling class did not preside over a capitalist mode of production, and it did not derive its income, power, or privileges from ownership of the means of production. It was part of a completely different set of relations of production than the capitalist world. Sure, it traded with the capitalist world, but that means nothing. Feudal lords can trade with capitalists too.

The working class, lacking control of the means of production, sold its labour power as a commodity, and did not exert control over either the labour process or the goods it produced - these are capitalist relations of production.
No, the working class did not sell its labour-power as a commodity. There was no labour market. And the working class did exert some control over the labour process.

so from the viewpoint of the working class, capitalism is never "just fine", people face a constant battle to defend themselves against the imperatives of profitability, and it is only through revolution that this struggle for survival can be put to an end.
Yes, I know. I meant "just fine" from the bourgeois point of view. In other words, capitalist countries have recently proven themselves able to stagnate without any increase in class struggle or any serious challenges to the ruling class.

The Chinese government's Marxism is a distortion of Marxism that serves the same purpose that Marxism did in the former Soviet bloc - to convince people that what they are living under is a legitimate form of socialism which is consistent with Marx's method and his vision of what a socialist society would look like. In other words, Marxism has taken the form of an ideology which protects the interests of the ruling class by obscuring and justifying the basic contradictions of Chinese society.
Yes. But it also has the side effect of allowing working people to study Marxism freely, and making Marxist literature easily available to them.

From what I gather, it is precisely because Stalinist governments claimed that they were socialist that the concept of socialism is tainted in Eastern Europe today.
That used to be the case, but is increasingly less so. Ever-larger numbers of working people have no memory of Stalinism. As such, it is becoming increasingly less important what the Stalinists actually did in reality. The main thrust of anti-socialist propaganda is shifting away from real history and towards simply making stuff up.

We are heading towards the point where the bourgeoisie just spreads lies about socialism without any connection to reality or history - which is where you are in the West. As such, I'm not sure the experience of Stalinism matters very much any more. Capitalists would make up the same lies and use the same arguments with or without it.

The concept of socialism is tainted in Eastern Europe today because there is no one to defend it. Why would workers support socialism when there is no one saying anything positive about it, or even explaining what it means beyond "some horrible tyranny"?

Oh, and good luck getting Trotsky and Marx's early writings in China, not to mention learning about the history of Chinese Trotskyism.
At least you can get most of the writings of Marx, Lenin, and others.

In these countries, workers did not come together and democratically decide what should be produced. Given that this is what socialism is, I don't see how these countries had anything to do with socialism, let alone have economic systems that were very close to it.
Those countries had an economic system very close to socialism because it could have been made socialist by simply replacing the factory managers with workers' councils and the bureaucrats in charge of economic planning with democratically elected representatives. Everything else in the economy could have stayed the same.

Demogorgon

4th November 2009, 02:55

I think a lot of people in 1989 were wanting genuine improvements, some may well have looked West for the answers also-after all it would be very easy for East Germans to think the West German social market system held the answers, the grass is always greener and all that-but I think for the most part people were getting sick of the very unsatisfactory conditions they were in.

Of course no sooner had they expressed this then a whole host of reactionaries seized their chance and brought in some very unwelcome changes indeed, hiding behind the excuse of needing to "restructure" and acting with impunity due to Western sponsorship. And they didn't try turning into "nice capitalism" like West Germany with its welfare state and strong unions, no they went on a Neoliberal looting rampage doing things to the economy Thatcher would have felt went too far. They often combined this with some pretty authoritarian social policies as well (just look at Poland), not exactly buying into the new "freedom" that those who had at first risen up had wanted.

The really galling thing though, the bit that makes my blood boil is that the scum who did this had largely been members of ruling parties before this happened. Many were members of the Governments or else had cosy party sinecures or maybe even simply used their positions to network in preparation for getting the chance to be part of the theft of public assets. In other words members of these oppressive Governments benefited from the collapse of the same. Did the ordinary people who rose up benefit? Draw your own conclusions.

Incidentally, if you want a good example of the flaws in the "Communist countries" you need look no further than the fact that they allowed those who would engage in neoliberal looting into positions of power under the guise of being "Communists". The lack of democracy and free debate let that scum lay the groundwork for what they did after the systems collapsed and essentially meant that the same privileged group continued to prosper at the expense of others when those regimes came crashing down.

Sure as hell these 'Communist" regimes needed a major sorting out and a popular uprising was often justified, but the way it was hijacked by profit seekers, often from within the Communist Parties themselves is not anything to be celebrated.

manic expression

4th November 2009, 08:10

I don't think I or anyone else in the SWP would celebrate workers in the 1990s enduring terrible hardship, but,

So not only are you naive enough to think the "revolutions" in Eastern Europe represented steps forward for the working class (despite all evidence to the contrary), but you can't even recognize what celebrating those "revolutions" inherently entails.

Like I said before, you can tell yourself that you're not celebrating the decline of conditions for workers, but no one else will, because that's what you're doing.

The Soviet Union was by this stage an integral part of the imperialist world-system, being ruled by a ruling class whose interests were fundamentally the same as those of the ruling classes of Britain and the United States, and so, in terms of its class interests, it was impossible for the ruling class to do anything that would undermine capitalism globally and create the potential for a socialist revolution,

You mean like supporting countless socialist revolutions in Latin America (Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada and more), Africa (Angola, Ethiopia) and Asia (Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan)? You mean like opposing imperialist interests at every turn?

Is there any doubt that this pathetic line being put forth is reactionary and anti-socialist?

Kwisatz Haderach

4th November 2009, 09:13

Ok, ME, as much as I completely agree with everything you said on this issue, I have to take exception to this:

Is there any doubt that this pathetic line being put forth is reactionary and anti-socialist?
If Bob had made his statements 20 years ago, this would have indeed been the case. But today, any political line about the Soviet Union is a political line exclusively concerned with history - and, as such, not relevant to present struggles unless one uses it to draw conclusions about present struggles.

Or, to express the same point differently: Someone who accepts a reactionary interpretation of history might be stupid or naive, but, as long as he supports socialism and working class struggle in the present day, his bad views on history are not an obstacle to him being progressive, a socialist, and a comrade.

There is no point in fighting yesterday's battles. Let the dead bury their dead.

bailey_187

4th November 2009, 15:33

Spawn of Stalin

4th November 2009, 15:52

Socialist Worker makes me want to be sick.

Led Zeppelin

4th November 2009, 16:06

We as Marxists reject the idea that a country can be a bit socialist, as the key issue for us is which class is the ruling class. Do you think the working class was the ruling class in these states, prior to 1989?

Not that I agree with the criticisms of the article put forth by our resident Marxist-Leninists, but that's a pretty sweeping statement, one which puts Trotsky and Lenin out of the "Marxists" category because they did believe a country or state-apparatus could, for some time, be partly socialist.

Of course I mention this not to start a semantics-game or be petty, but because I fundamentally disagree with the Cliff version of events of that period, and of the Cliff theory of state-capitalism in general. But regardless of that, even Cliff wouldn't make a sweeping statement like that, because I'm sure he was aware that the USSR was never "fully socialist" to begin with, nor could it be, so it had to be only partly socialist.

I believe his theory states that it was partly socialist up until 1926 or 1928, not sure where they put the demarcation line exactly.

Spawn of Stalin

4th November 2009, 17:52

Really though, does anyone else think that Socialist Worker are just glorifying the collapse of socialism in a weak attempt to appeal to more people? "Oh hey yeah we're socialists, but we're nothing like those Stalinists of the Soviet Union, you know, because we think 1989 was a revolutionary year which should be celebrated". It wouldn't be the first time the SWP tried to make themselves look more legitimate at the expense of other socialists. The sad thing is that they - by far the biggest socialist group in Britain, and as such the primary representatives of the socialist movement - continually take an anti-socialist stance on issues that matter today or are of historical relevance. I suppose it's pretty easy to get away with things like that when your membership largely consists of apathetic students who were conned into joining at a freshers fair, "Here, buy this paper, yes it's 80p, thanks, congratulations, you're a member".

manic expression

4th November 2009, 18:21

There is no point in fighting yesterday's battles. Let the dead bury their dead.

That's a fair point. However, even if we can agree on that, I see this as pissing on the grave of socialism.

More importantly, this issue isn't dead for the Russian children who live on the streets, the woman in Russia who will be murdered by domestic violence every hour (see below), the ethnic minorities that live in fear of rampant fascists and others, the jobless and the alcoholics and so many others. That's one of the reasons it's still living with us.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/one-woman-killed-domestic-violence-every-hour-russia

Irish commie

4th November 2009, 19:19

Socialist Worker makes me want to be sick.
extremely helpful and productive.:rolleyes:

Spawn of Stalin

4th November 2009, 19:27

Irish commie

4th November 2009, 20:17

Well that's exactly how I feel about so-called socialist papers who go around spurting anti-Communist crap all the time, calling the restoration of capitalism a revolutionary event, and I'm not out to please their apologists either, so I don't really care if you think I'm being productive or not.

This is exactly the problem with the left we must forget the past however we interprete what went on it the USSR. How does their arguing of this harm any contemporary movement? Therefore your comments are counter productive in forming a workers movement.

Spawn of Stalin

4th November 2009, 21:04

Irish commie

4th November 2009, 22:20

I'm by no means completely pro SWP have many criticisms of them but they are the biggest group within the uk left. Maybe they should be talking more about these people however you can also see that because of constant propoganda it may be easy to scare away a certain section of the working class if you straight away start talking of theses figures. Perhaps it is a better to aprroach members of the working class by talking about our view on issues which effect them and then start talking about these figures rather than springing it upon them straight away anddriving them away.

Spawn of Stalin

4th November 2009, 23:07

I'd be absolutely fine with that if they didn't claim to be a revolutionary party. Easing people into the movement is fine, doing so at the expense of other revolutionaries is unacceptable. I've grown to love the fact that SWP takes a fundamentally reactionary stance on socialist states, existing or otherwise, but by printing articles like this they're just saying "hey, join us instead, we're a bit more moderate than the other socialists, with us, you can be a socialist without becoming an enemy of the state, you can be a socialist and an anti-Communist", but what's the use being a socialist without being a revolutionary? Because let's face it, of the Socialist Workers Party's enormous (comparatively) membership, how many of those within the organisation can claim to be revolutionaries? How many have even read Lenin? I know I'm coming across as a bit of an elitist here but I really don't care, SWP recruit non-socialists, not so that they can educate them, just for numbers. I believe that for revolution to happen in Britain, revolution within the socialist movement is required, SWP need to be knocked from their plinth and replaced with a true revolutionary party. Because I'm not going to support a party purely for the reason that they are the biggest group, I will only support a revolutionary party.

rednordman

4th November 2009, 23:20

You know the real problem with the left is? Big leftist parties who constantly distance themselves from the real left in favour of a position which is fractionally more acceptable to the establishment, and the bourgeois students, it is a position I like to call "left of Labour". Go along to the Socialist Workers Party website, there's a page detailing where the SWP stand on all the important issues of today, there is nothing about Communism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, the means of production, these words aren't even mentioned, not once, not even poor old Tony Cliff gets a mention. Because the SWP aren't ready to admit that they're a bunch of reds like the rest of us, and maybe if they did they wouldn't hold such a monopoly on the left, maybe the SP or the CPB would be a bit more successful, and they might actually get shit done. I hear stories of anarchists getting shit from UAF officials at demos, just so that their liberal membership don't look too militant on the six o'clock news. Time for SWP to step aside and let the Communists take centre stage.Truth be told! Its amazing how these parties try to get acceptability by comforming to establishment systems that are designed to bankcrupt and silence them. No wonder these parties are absolutly no-where in the public concience and like it or not never will be. Infact its actually rather scary to think this is what 'the left' has come to...so much for the council communist parlimentary way. Sorry if that sounded harsh, just things really are not looking good at the moment, and this is a time when you think that it would be the left prospering, not the reactionary far-right.

What Would Durruti Do?

5th November 2009, 00:22

Spawn of Stalin

5th November 2009, 00:37

It's not about criticising socialism, it's about putting a positive spin on the rise of capitalism, this is an unacceptable position for anyone who considers themselves a revolutionary.

bcbm

5th November 2009, 00:40

it's about putting a positive spin on the rise of capitalism

this article didn't do that.

rednordman

5th November 2009, 00:43

Boo! Hiss! How dare anyone criticize life in the glorious "semi-socialist" paradise of the Eastern Bloc! Boo!

:closedeyes:

Nice read, too bad some idiots can't see through their red tinted glasses enough to appreciate it.:confused:No ones said that they thought life was glorious within the Eastern block. This is what I do not get about alot of the left-communists and Trots. Just because someone may think that the fall of the SU was a bad thing, doesnt automatically mean they thought things where that great when it was around. Its obviously by what has come after the fall of the SU that it was a tragedy.

Any chance to make things better and turn the former socialist states into nice progressive countries (like thats ever going to be possible anyway with capitalism), has been totally hijacked by greedy rich people. I mean do you know how expensive things are in countries like Poland. All i hear at work is how the UK is cheaper...and you have to consider that people in poland get paid alot less than we do. I heard from one guy how the tescos in poland has virtually the same prices as it does in UK.

Anyone who believes that this is a triumph for socialism has seriously gone off the mark somewhere.

I guess if we could all agree on one thing, it would be on how it fell and how awfully the transition to capitalism was dealt with. But believe be, it would have been that way regardless. The only countries that will win under capitalism are the ones who write the rules to suit themselves...thats more like the UK and USA, certainly not Eastern Europe.

Vanguard1917

5th November 2009, 00:56

It's not about criticising socialism, it's about putting a positive spin on the rise of capitalism, this is an unacceptable position for anyone who considers themselves a revolutionary.

From the standpoint of independent working class politics, how was the system in East Germany any better than that which existed in liberal democracies?

reactionary stance on socialist states

What was socialist about the East German state?

Das war einmal

5th November 2009, 10:23

I find it kind of ironic that the same persons who praise the Islamic revolutionaries of 1979 (Bobk said something about wearing a nikhab in Iran as a sign of 'freedom') and support the oppressive Islamic movements in the middle-east (only because they fight against Israel) are so aggressive and hostile against ex-socialist countries. I see the same with some trotskyists in my own country.

Devrim

5th November 2009, 12:10

The revolutions of 1989 stood in the tradition of the revolts of East Germany in 1953, Poland in 1956 and 1968 in Czechoslovakia.

I don't think this is true. The 1953 revolt in East Germany started as a workers' strike movement. The 1989 movement didn't.

Everywhere people were speaking out. On our demonstrations we chanted, “We are the people”. There was a feeling that we could do anything.

Exactly, they weren't the workers as a class, but the people.

As the demand for freedom of travel came to symbolise our demand for democratic rights, it became impossible for the ruling party to keep the Wall closed.

It was a movement based on democratic rights', not the defense of working class interests.

The ruling classes of the East and West feared the movement and quickly came to an arrangement that put Germany back together. Reunification came from above.

In the East yes, the ruling class had lost control of the situation. I feel that the ruling class in the west was cheering it on though.

Would reunification 'from below' have had any socialist content? I don't think so.

In this way the spirit of the revolution continues to live on today. And, if I’m asked why it failed to deliver the changes that we wanted, I say the revolution isn’t finished yet.

I say that there wasn't a revolution, merely a change in the management of capitalism. Yes, workers living standards in many of the old Eastern block countries have declined, but this is true all over the world. Those in the weaker capitalist states have been affected the worst. It seems bizarre to me for socialists to celebrate this or reminisce nostalgically about some non-existent socialist past.

Devrim

Kassad

6th November 2009, 00:52

Frankly, I'm having trouble discerning between the International Socialist Organization in the United States and the Socialist Workers Party in the United Kingdom because both of them spew the same anti-communist stances over and over, which is why they're probably so appealing to the masses. Both of them are probably the largest "socialist" organizations in their respective areas, but both of those areas are also plagued with liberalism; a liberalism that both organizations seem to align with. This distorted socialism is likely so appealing because it appeals to petit-bourgeois liberals and such, which is where the elitism of both organizations comes from, in my opinion. I'll start off asking anyone who seems to support these organizations why you do not find it odd that your stance aligns with the imperialists and their agenda?

I feel the need to reiterate that point. When you fall in line with the Western colonialists and the corporate bourgeois agenda, you need to sit down, take a deep breath and establish what it is you're trying to do. I love seeing groups like the ISO and the SWP attack imperialism, while they turn the page and are right on the American liberal bandwagon of demonizing China, Cuba and the Soviet Union. Calling the revolutionary government in Cuba 'bourgeois' sounds a hell of a lot like calling them a dictatorship, which is exactly what the ruling class calls it. When you look at what the imperialists want, which is the destruction of anti-imperialist and socialist states, and side with them almost unconditionally, there is a serious flaw in your ideology. It baffles me that the International Socialist Tendency can take such a revolutionary stance in supporting the Palestinian national liberation struggle, yet they come out and directly assault anti-imperialist and socialist revolutions worldwide. It's mind-boggling.

It brings me back to my favorite part of these organizations and their anti-communism. I know the ISO, at least, calls for something along the lines supporting workers movements to topple the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, along with the fact that they cheerleaded the fall of the Soviet Union. However, what would result in this? Take a look at Russia. Life expectancy has plummeted. Alcoholism has skyrocketed. Crime is rampant. Prostitution had become very common and women's wages and rights are being diminished with each passing day. These things, though not ideal in the Soviet Union, were much less detrimental, as life expectancy was greatly bolstered and Soviet citizens had much better access to healthcare and education. Yet, the ISO and its ideological counterparts cheerleaded the fall of the Soviet Union. Look what happened due to it. Still, they call for the same counterrevolutions in Cuba and China, which would dismantle the massive social gains made by both states. How would anyone take such a stance that would be so detrimental to the working class?

Imagine if the Communist Party of Cuba was toppled by any kind of movement. This would likely lead to a complete division among the people and a loss of the massive social gains in healthcare, education and literacy, just as it did in the Soviet Union. This would give imperialism the exact cue it needs to strike and stake a claim to Cuban resources and strategic areas as they've wanted for decades. The fall of the Soviet Union allowed American imperialism to spread like wildfire in the Middle East, along with the fact that it has seen the division of the once united Soviet people, which has been nothing but detrimental for the proletariat.

These so-called "socialists", despite the lessons that history should teach them, still arrogantly call for the dismantling of the Cuban, Chinese and Korean revolutions and their appeal somehow continues to grow. It's not surprising to anyone that they cheerlead the detrimental effects of the fall of the Soviet Union and the widespread destruction of the progressive gains that the Soviet Union spread across much of Europe and Asia. Let's throw this anti-communism where it belongs: into the dustbin of history.

Devrim

6th November 2009, 10:27

robbo203

6th November 2009, 23:49

For what it's worth.

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc and then the USSR was one of the biggest disasters in History.

Actually no. The existence of the USSR was one of the biggest disasters in history. It was instrumental in sidetracking millions of people down what was doomed to be a state capitalist cul de sac and sullying the good name of socialism by associating it with tyranny and oppression. Had it not been for the Soviet Union and the discredited leninist ideology that went with it, I suggest we would have been far closer by now to the real thing - a genuine marketless stateless and communist world.

Certainly the collapse of the Eastern Bloc brought increased hardship - although it is arguable that it it was headed that way anyway. But what all these conservative worshippers of the "good old days" under Uncle Joe Stalin have to ask themselves is why? Why did these regimes implode so relatively easily. Who were the beneficiaries of the changeover and what was their connection with the old regime? Many who did well in the new order were precisely those that had power , wealth and connections under the old system - under the old dictatorship over the proletariat by a privileged and parasitic bourgeois class of nomenklatura

So good riddance to the old Soviet Union! But dont anyone dare suggest that to say this is to sanction and support the existing state of affairs. Revolutionaries fight against capitalism in all its guises whether in its soviet form or what exists in Russia today

What Would Durruti Do?

7th November 2009, 01:42

:confused:No ones said that they thought life was glorious within the Eastern block. This is what I do not get about alot of the left-communists and Trots. Just because someone may think that the fall of the SU was a bad thing, doesnt automatically mean they thought things where that great when it was around. Its obviously by what has come after the fall of the SU that it was a tragedy.

Any chance to make things better and turn the former socialist states into nice progressive countries (like thats ever going to be possible anyway with capitalism), has been totally hijacked by greedy rich people. I mean do you know how expensive things are in countries like Poland. All i hear at work is how the UK is cheaper...and you have to consider that people in poland get paid alot less than we do. I heard from one guy how the tescos in poland has virtually the same prices as it does in UK.

Anyone who believes that this is a triumph for socialism has seriously gone off the mark somewhere.

I guess if we could all agree on one thing, it would be on how it fell and how awfully the transition to capitalism was dealt with. But believe be, it would have been that way regardless. The only countries that will win under capitalism are the ones who write the rules to suit themselves...thats more like the UK and USA, certainly not Eastern Europe.

And this article was exactly about that - making socialism BETTER, or, technically, actually achieving socialism since the Soviet Union was nothing of the sort.

Yeah, it was hijacked by rich people and turned into a capitalist movement but this article isn't about that. It's about the humble worker-minded leftist beginnings of the Anti-Soviet movement. Maybe you should re-read it.

KurtFF8

11th November 2009, 18:58

bailey_187

11th November 2009, 21:41

The article hardly goes into the "socialist character" if the movement of the 1980s. I am aware that the movement did want "socialism with a human face" but this article doesn't really expand on that claim in any way.

A poll cited in Murphy - 'The Triumph of Evil' says that 71% of East Germans wanted to keep the Socialist System, while 73% wished to keep a separate state

The source Murphy cites for this is "Bahrmann, H and C. Links. Chronik der Wende. Christoph Links Verlag: Berlin 1994" - quite what this i do not know (magazine? book? journal?)

Wanted Man

11th November 2009, 21:59

"Chronik der Wende" means "Chronicle of the Wende" (what the reunification is called in German). Probably a book, then. "Christoph Links Verlag: Berlin" is simply the name of the publisher. "Links" in this case is the last name of the publisher, not the German word for "left". So it's probably not some evil commie source (that automatically means no credibility for some people here).

As for "revolutions of 1989" in the thread title, that is quite remarkable. Is the SWP's analysis not that the Eastern Bloc countries were state capitalist? In that case, the events of 1989 did not cause any change in class rule, did they? So how can they possibly be called "revolutions"? Or has the SWP converted to the "dictionary definitions are more important than marxist definitions" school?

The article is interesting in that it shows a perspective that you don't see as often, but there is little else to be said about it. The person who is interviewed gladly admits that their movement had next to no leadership, no size of any kind, so how can you possibly link their revolutionary rhetoric to what actually happened?

It's delusional to pretend that this simply makes it an "unfinished revolution". Holy shit, we can use that label for so many historical events by that standard. The protests that toppled Yanukovich in Ukraine? Well, the working class never seized power, and equally vile capitalists were put into office (same with East Germany, if you accept the state capitalist theory), but I'm sure there were a few small groups who agitated for socialism. So let's commemorate the unfinished Orange Revolution!

But I suppose these considerations are not important. The article is just a way to wash one's hands of all the "bad communism" with some revolutionary terminology.

Pogue

11th November 2009, 22:14

Why is it that the 'Socialists' thanking the posts made by the likes of manic expression above would have us believe that we should tell our class brothers and sisters in Germany that they should be forced to choose between a brutal authoritarian state capitalism with no political freedoms and crap living conditions (in a nationlised economy) and a brutal free market capitalist system with limited social security and uncertain standards of living?

Why is it that you are so primitive, insulting, cold and calculating to our class that you somehow think people should feel guilty for picking the western model over the eastern? Why do you defend brutal regimes solely because you can appeal to the emotionalism of a 'job for life' and 'stability' as if this is something we should aim for?

You have no imagination, you have commitment, just blind apologism, you cannot comprehend that some of us do not take petty factions in cold war conflicts or masquerade behind a veneer of socialism in order to justify our pathetic alleigance to one faction in a brutal conflict between the ruling class of the world, but that some of us have the interests of the working class as our foremost motivation, as we did, as individuals or for the younger comrades, simply in our traditions, throughout years of despicable imperialist posturing for the 40 years of the cold war.

You people are an insult to the world socialism, you are an insult to our class and you are an insult to both those who have struggled against the oppression of capitalism worldwide, whether it be in the traditional eastern bloc highly state run form of its free market equivalent. You have nothing to offer the class but bitterness and historical ducking and weaving that leads to justification for the suppression of the interests of our class.

Carry out your pathetic justifications all you want but stop claiming somehow your believes are revolutionary or in the itnerests of the class. This is a forum for revolutionary leftists, people who support working class revolution to establish working class rule, in opposition to paternalistic, totalitarian state capitalism such as that of the DDR, in opposition to free market economies and the class system worldwide. The rest of you lot can fuck right off with your sell out, pathetic, hypocritical and childish support for the 'red' faction of the bourgeoisie.

Wanted Man

11th November 2009, 22:24

Pogue

11th November 2009, 22:26

Nobody said that, but thanks for the speech. Very moving.

Its implied. What else is this constant apologism for shooting people at the wall about. And I don't think there is anything wrong with a bit of passion. Better than 'how many people is it acceptable for Stalin to put to death' number crunching.

manic expression

11th November 2009, 22:30

Why is it that you are so primitive, insulting, cold and calculating to our class that you somehow think people should feel guilty for picking the western model over the eastern? Why do you defend brutal regimes solely because you can appeal to the emotionalism of a 'job for life' and 'stability' as if this is something we should aim for?

That's rich. First, "people" didn't "pick" the "western model", one of the biggest myths about the destruction of European socialism was that the "people" supported the change. Not only is that the capitalist viewpoint, but it's demonstrably incorrect: the people of the USSR voted in favor of sustaining the Soviet Union; the "popular" movements in Eastern and Central Europe were under the complete control of capitalist forces who denied the workers any voice. You, apparently, don't care about this because you think there are more political freedoms in the former socialist countries than there were before, which is something I doubt you'll ever prove because it's not really true.

Second, it's not about east vs west, this isn't a Death Row vs Bad Boy beef, this is about a society based on collectivized property or a society based on privatized property. You, obviously, can't see the difference, which is the real problem.

Third, your label of "brutal regimes" is absurd. Even ignoring the fact that there were many different governments with different policies and reactions to opposition, but all states use violence in some form, and your rejection of the state is analogous to your rejection of working-class progress. As we can see from the facts presented in this thread and others like it, workers LOST when socialism fell in Europe; life got worse in just about every sense for workers. But you don't care, because you're too caught up in your obsessive hatred for all states, regardless of conditions. The Socialist Bloc, whether you like it or not, was defending workers' interests, and the aftermath of its collapse proves this. What you're doing is effectively opposing and deriding these very interests.

You say that socialists who defend workers' interests don't offer anything constructive, but a quick look at your present avatar (for the record: a sketch of someone throwing a molotov cocktail) shows us the extent of what you offer. Your disdain for the revolutionary gains of workers in Europe and Latin America and elsewhere is matched only by your inability to grasp the bankruptcy of your own politics. In fact, the two march hand-in-hand...in circles, going nowhere. Your own words condemn you.

Wanted Man

11th November 2009, 22:36

Its implied. What else is this constant apologism for shooting people at the wall about. And I don't think there is anything wrong with a bit of passion. Better than 'how many people is it acceptable for Stalin to put to death' number crunching.

Nothing wrong with it, indeed, but it helps to talk about real things. I agree that number crunching is pointless, because people do it from completely different viewpoints anyway. One thing that would be worth considering: in revolutionary turmoil, how much violence would be acceptable? What amount of the population would resist in such a way that they would have to be dealt with physically (internment or even death) to keep them from launching a military coup or whatever? What kind of provisions would there be to prevent ordinary workers or innocent people from getting caught in it unjustly? I always wonder that when people say "X amount is still too much, baby killers!"

Anyway, that's not really the subject here. There is no either/or implied, just that the "celebration" is silly considering what happened right afterwards. As if the fall of the wall and the restoration of no-holds-barred capitalism occured in isolation from each other.

bailey_187

11th November 2009, 22:48

Better than 'how many people is it acceptable for Stalin to put to death' number crunching.

Then dont walk into every thread on Stalin and say "he killed MILLIONS" or whatever.

bailey_187

13th November 2009, 16:37

"the destruction of the statues of Marx and Lenin - those symbols of oppression for millions of workers" - Socialist Worker 7 September 1991

:blink::blink::blink:

Spawn of Stalin

13th November 2009, 22:41

Wow, what?! Did they actually write that?

Bright Banana Beard

14th November 2009, 03:08

Wow, what?! Did they actually write that?

Yes, Marx and Lenin are Stalinist, they stand among the Stalinist states. They were quite oppressive because they existed & stand among those Stalinist states!

bailey_187

14th November 2009, 11:34

Wow, what?! Did they actually write that?

I think so. Its quoted in a book i bought from the Revolutionary Communist Group called "The Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution"

khad

16th November 2009, 16:19

Why is it that the 'Socialists' thanking the posts made by the likes of manic expression above would have us believe that we should tell our class brothers and sisters in Germany that they should be forced to choose between a brutal authoritarian state capitalism with no political freedoms and crap living conditions (in a nationlised economy) and a brutal free market capitalist system with limited social security and uncertain standards of living?
Your "class brothers" in Solidarity are the right wing of Polish politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_Electoral_Action

Solidarity Electoral Action (Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność, AWS) was a political party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) coalition in Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland). Since 1997 its official name has been Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność Prawicy (AWSP) or Solidarity Electoral Action of the Right. Ruch Społeczny (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruch_Spo%C5%82eczny&action=edit&redlink=1) AWS (RS AWS), or Social Movement for Solidarity Electoral Action, was the political arm of the Solidarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity) trade union and was formerly the leading party within AWS.

AWS was formed in 1996 as a coalition of over 30 parties, uniting liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) [neoliberal], conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) and Christian democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democrats) forces. Marian Krzaklewski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Krzaklewski) was its first chairman. In 1997 the coalition was joined by RS AWS, as well as the Unia Wolności (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unia_Wolno%C5%9Bci) (UW) or Freedom Union. Jerzy Buzek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Buzek) of RS AWS became Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister).

leninpuncher

16th November 2009, 17:29

In 1991, in the referendum asking people whether they wanted to dissolve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the overwhelming majority, 76% said “No”.

In May 1991, an American poll found 54% of Russians wished to keep Socialism, 27% wished for a mixed economy and only 20% wanted a free market economy (Monthly Review 12/94).

A similar poll, reported in the New York Times (12/1/89) found that 47% of Czechoslovakians wished for their economy to remain state controlled, 43% wanted a mix and 3% wanted majority private ownership.

For what it's worth.

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc and then the USSR was one of the biggest disasters in History.
I don't know what that's supposed to prove. 54% isn't a good number. When you consider how isolated Russia was from dissenting political opinions, and how over-bearing the state propaganda was; that almost half of the population wanted the economy to be drastically changed is very impressive. Actually, that number is almost identical to the percentage of Americans dissenting against their system:
Rasmussen released a poll that shows only 53% of Americans prefer capitalism to socialism. And Rasmussen tends to conduct more conservative polls.

This is an embarrassing argument to be having anyway. It's like debating Napoleon over Louis XVI. Who cares?

manic expression

16th November 2009, 18:10

I don't know what that's supposed to prove. 54% isn't a good number.

What, precisely, is a "good number"? I'd like to know.

By the way, something tells me that if 54% of Russian supported leninpunchers' ideology, s/he'd be singing a different tune.

When you consider how isolated Russia was from dissenting political opinions, and how over-bearing the state propaganda was; that almost half of the population wanted the economy to be drastically changed is very impressive. Actually, that number is almost identical to the percentage of Americans dissenting against their system:
Rasmussen released a poll that shows only 53% of Americans prefer capitalism to socialism. And Rasmussen tends to conduct more conservative polls.Russia was not isolated from dissenting opinions, don't try to patronize a country just because they were deprived of the diverse intellectual marketplace of FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc. Further, by the late 80's, the most vocal propagandists were in the capitalist camp, while the defenders of socialism had been hamstrung by Gorbachev's idiocy. This contradicts your assumption.

This is an embarrassing argument to be having anyway. It's like debating Napoleon over Louis XVI. Who cares?Who cares? Anyone who cares about the fact that the Soviet Union was a society that represented progress and working-class gains. Property and production were collectivized, the rights of nationalities and women were defended, workers were not exploited in the USSR and workers' interested were furthered. This has all been shown time and again in this thread and others like them. You may not think it perfect, but that's more a commentary on your narrow and subjective worldview than anything else.

More importantly, the difference between Russia today and Russia in the USSR is quite undeniable: unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism, life expectancy, education, women's rights, racism, the treatment of dissidents and more all GOT WORSE after the fall of the Soviet Union, and from that disaster the workers have scarcely recovered. All of these indicators of working-class living conditions fell, and yet to all this, you mutter the inexplicable: "who cares?" You need to answer that question for yourself, and fast.

And lastly, although this is completely off-topic, it needs to be said: Are you seriously suggesting that there was no difference between Napoleon and Louis XVI? Just by looking at the societies they presided over, there was an incredible difference (and that's before you get to the ideas they promoted and the people who supported them). Napoleon, compared to Robespierre and Herbert, was reactionary; compared to Louis XVI, he was doubtlessly progressive. Yeah, the course of the French Revolution changed the face of Europe and arguably the direction of history...but who cares?

leninpuncher

16th November 2009, 18:52

What, precisely, is a "good number"? I'd like to know.

By the way, something tells me that if 54% of Russian supported leninpunchers' ideology, s/he'd be singing a different tune.

If an anarchist society could only muster up 54% support for anarchism, I would be pretty worried

Russia was not isolated from dissenting opinions, don't try to patronize a country just because they were deprived of the diverse intellectual marketplace of FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc. Further, by the late 80's, the most vocal propagandists were in the capitalist camp, while the defenders of socialism had been hamstrung by Gorbachev's idiocy. This contradicts your assumption.

Uh, yes it was. I know for a fact, that the Soviet Union was so closed to outside ideas, they even refused to allow copies of Noam Chomsky's linguistic works. The west isn't exactly a bastion of free exchange, but we can come on websites like this and talk about different ideologies. And that's a big step above what we would be allowed to do in the Soviet Union. If 70 years of propaganda and supposed progress could be turned on their head by one man in just a few years, you have to start asking yourself some very serious questions about that ideology.

Who cares? Anyone who cares about the fact that the Soviet Union was a society that represented progress and working-class gains. Property and production were collectivized, the rights of nationalities and women were defended, workers were not exploited in the USSR and workers' interested were furthered. This has all been shown time and again in this thread and others like them. You may not think it perfect, but that's more a commentary on your narrow and subjective worldview than anything else.

Alright, lets look at the collectivization. The Kolkhoz collectivized farms were formed in the 1930s and went on through until 1991. The people working on the farms were obligated to sell their produce to the state. About 73% of the people were paid with grain, not money, and 10% weren't paid at all. The Kolkhoz had a state appointed manager who the workers could not vote in or out of office and could not strike against. In 1948 the Soviet government charged wholesalers 335 rubles for 100 kilograms of rye, but paid the kolkhoz roughly 8 rubles. They also did nothing to adapt to inflation, so people steadily lost income over time. The managers were paid more than the workers. Until 1969, all children born on a Kulkhaz were obligated to work there unless they were given permission to leave. If this isn't exploitive, exploitation doesn't exist.

More importantly, the difference between Russia today and Russia in the USSR is quite undeniable: unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism, life expectancy, education, women's rights, racism, the treatment of dissidents and more all GOT WORSE after the fall of the Soviet Union, and from that disaster the workers have scarcely recovered. All of these indicators of working-class living conditions fell, and yet to all this, you mutter the inexplicable: "who cares?" You need to answer that question for yourself, and fast.

I'm not arguing for capitalism, I'm arguing against the USSR. The treatment of dissidents hasn't got worse, they are actually allowed to exist now. To compare with a previous example; Chomsky has his books published there now.

And lastly, although this is completely off-topic, it needs to be said: Are you seriously suggesting that there was no difference between Napoleon and Louis XVI? Just by looking at the societies they presided over, there was an incredible difference (and that's before you get to the ideas they promoted and the people who supported them). Napoleon, compared to Robespierre and Herbert, was reactionary; compared to Louis XVI, he was doubtlessly progressive. Yeah, the course of the French Revolution changed the face of Europe and arguably the direction of history...but who cares?
Capitalism was a massive improvement on feudalism. That fact doesn't give capitalism any justification in my mind, because it's still exploitative, and theres no reason for it to exist. And compared to Hitler, Bismark was a progressive. It doesn't justify what he did, just because at some point someone was doing something much worse. It says a lot about your mindset that you're prepared to accept this doctrine.

bailey_187

16th November 2009, 19:02

consider how isolated Russia was from dissenting political opinions, and how over-bearing the state propaganda was; that almost half of the population wanted the economy to be drastically changed is very impressive.

Not in 1991. For years the media had been in the hands of anticommunists.
After years of hearing how they needed to "modernise" "move to a market economy" "become more efficient" and "end the rigid command economy" its impressive that the majority still wanted Socialism.
If this survey had been conducted say, the 1970s and the outcome was the same, then that was be a poor result.

also, wanting a "mixed economy" was not a "drastic" change from what Soviets had by 1991 as Gorbachev had already introduced many market reforms.

manic expression

16th November 2009, 20:41

If an anarchist society could only muster up 54% support for anarchism, I would be pretty worried

You should be more worried about the fact that aside from a few abortive attempts, "an anarchist society" has never been put in practice. We see once again the innocence of impotence.

Uh, yes it was. I know for a fact, that the Soviet Union was so closed to outside ideas, they even refused to allow copies of Noam Chomsky's linguistic works. The west isn't exactly a bastion of free exchange, but we can come on websites like this and talk about different ideologies. And that's a big step above what we would be allowed to do in the Soviet Union. If 70 years of propaganda and supposed progress could be turned on their head by one man in just a few years, you have to start asking yourself some very serious questions about that ideology.

Noam Chomsky's linguistic works, which the vast majority of workers have never read and have no interest in reading, are a terrible measurement of an open society. Soviet citizens were exposed to different ideas, many of them had relatives in capitalist countries and knew the differences between socialism and "the west". Soviet citizens were allowed to hold anti-Soviet views and talk about different ideologies. They just weren't allowed to publish their works in most cases. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's actually a lot better than what exists in Russia now, and considering the circumstances of the USSR, it wasn't all that unreasonable.

A few years of capitalist aggression, coupled with a paralysis of the Communist Party, can undo quite a lot. Many other revolutionary societies were destroyed in favor of reaction with greater haste. Your point here reeks of desperation.

Alright, lets look at the collectivization. The Kolkhoz collectivized farms were formed in the 1930s and went on through until 1991. The people working on the farms were obligated to sell their produce to the state. About 73% of the people were paid with grain, not money, and 10% weren't paid at all. The Kolkhoz had a state appointed manager who the workers could not vote in or out of office and could not strike against. In 1948 the Soviet government charged wholesalers 335 rubles for 100 kilograms of rye, but paid the kolkhoz roughly 8 rubles. They also did nothing to adapt to inflation, so people steadily lost income over time. The managers were paid more than the workers. Until 1969, all children born on a Kulkhaz were obligated to work there unless they were given permission to leave. If this isn't exploitive, exploitation doesn't exist.

The collectivization of industry is more what I mean. However, agricultural production was much the same. Being paid with grain isn't exploitation, it's another form of payment from a socialist government. Managers being paid more than workers is not exploitation, it's an acceptable income differential within a socialist society. The real question is whether or not commodity production existed. It didn't: the lack of a market for neither production nor manpower shows this, and the fact that labor was not a commodity shows this as well. So really, all the materialist analysis points to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was socialist.

And I'd like to see some sources on those stats.

I'm not arguing for capitalism, I'm arguing against the USSR. The treatment of dissidents hasn't got worse, they are actually allowed to exist now. To compare with a previous example; Chomsky has his books published there now.

How many dissidents have been blatantly murdered in the last few years? Did dissidents get gunned down in the streets in the USSR like they are now? So no, the treatment of dissidents is actually worse in many respects. And according to you Chomsky getting his books sold in Russia is more important than women's rights, children's welfare, collectivized property and more pillars of socialist life. It's not difficult to see where your priorities lie, and they don't lie with the workers of the former USSR.

Capitalism was a massive improvement on feudalism.

So your first position was wrong. Napoleon vs Louis XVI isn't a "who cares?" after all. Thanks for clearing that one up.

leninpuncher

17th November 2009, 01:07

You should be more worried about the fact that aside from a few abortive attempts, "an anarchist society" has never been put in practice. We see once again the innocence of impotence.

"Abortive", as in crushed by the Soviet Union.

Noam Chomsky's linguistic works, which the vast majority of workers have never read and have no interest in reading, are a terrible measurement of an open society. Soviet citizens were exposed to different ideas, many of them had relatives in capitalist countries and knew the differences between socialism and "the west". Soviet citizens were allowed to hold anti-Soviet views and talk about different ideologies. They just weren't allowed to publish their works in most cases. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's actually a lot better than what exists in Russia now, and considering the circumstances of the USSR, it wasn't all that unreasonable.

I lol'd. "Nobody would be interested in this, may as well just censor it". His linguistic works were banned because of the association with his political works, by the by. You've yet to explain how censorship is more prominent in Russia now than it was during the USSR. And it wasn't just literary censorship; google the Moscow Helsinki Group.

A few years of capitalist aggression, coupled with a paralysis of the Communist Party, can undo quite a lot. Many other revolutionary societies were destroyed in favor of reaction with greater haste. Your point here reeks of desperation.

Let's compare this with another example. Since Reagan, there has been a concentrated propaganda effort in the US to privatize social security. The press has been calling it bankrupt, broken and a drain on resources. The public has responded by almost completely ignoring elite opinion . Same goes with universal healthcare. The media hate the idea, the whole intellectual community is against it and has been since the idea was brought up. But the American people still support it. Some polls list around 75% support, and have done for 50 years. People aren't so gullible, that they'll refuse something that's obviously in their, and their families mortal interests just because a few people are telling them to. People aren't as easily swayed by propaganda as you think.

The collectivization of industry is more what I mean. However, agricultural production was much the same. Being paid with grain isn't exploitation, it's another form of payment from a socialist government. Managers being paid more than workers is not exploitation, it's an acceptable income differential within a socialist society. The real question is whether or not commodity production existed. It didn't: the lack of a market for neither production nor manpower shows this, and the fact that labor was not a commodity shows this as well. So really, all the materialist analysis points to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was socialist.

I see you avoided addressing the Ruble/rye data. Socialism is primarily about workers controlling the means of production. If you want to find out whether socialism existed in the USSR, you need to ask whether or not the USSR was democratic. I don't think any impartial person would spend very long on that question.

The sources:
Caroline Humphrey, Karl Marx Collective: Economy, society and religion in a Siberian collective farm, page 96 and Exile and Discipline: The June 1948 campaign against Collective Farm shirkers by Jean Levesque, p. 13

How many dissidents have been blatantly murdered in the last few years? Did dissidents get gunned down in the streets in the USSR like they are now? So no, the treatment of dissidents is actually worse in many respects. And according to you Chomsky getting his books sold in Russia is more important than women's rights, children's welfare, collectivized property and more pillars of socialist life. It's not difficult to see where your priorities lie, and they don't lie with the workers of the former USSR.

Even if your assumption is correct, It's irrelevant; I never made any favourable comparison between modern Russia and USSR Russia, or insinuated that the right to dissent was more important than the workers rights you've imagined the Soviets gave to their Subjects.

So your first position was wrong. Napoleon vs Louis XVI isn't a "who cares?" after all. Thanks for clearing that one up.
The point that I was trying to show, and that you missed completley, is that there is no point highlighting diffences between tyrants. They're both tyrants, and they're both unnessecary. If you were forced to choose between the two, or if you wanted to have the debate for some historical purpose, then it might be worth discussing. But free of those scenarios, there really is no point. Would you rather have a leg chopped off or an arm chopped off? Who cares?

manic expression

17th November 2009, 07:48

"Abortive", as in crushed by the Soviet Union.

No, as in never put into practice. Keep blaming others for your ideology's supreme futility.

I lol'd. "Nobody would be interested in this, may as well just censor it". His linguistic works were banned because of the association with his political works, by the by. You've yet to explain how censorship is more prominent in Russia now than it was during the USSR. And it wasn't just literary censorship; google the Moscow Helsinki Group.

Such censorship had no effect on the lives of the vast majority of workers, and did not deny Soviet citizens diverse ideas; we're not talking about linguistics. Further, if your posts are any indication, Chomsky's political works were anti-socialist anyway. Worker states have the ability and the responsibility of making such decisions.

The treatment of dissidents is worse. That's what I said, and that's a fact. You haven't directly dealt with this because it's true.

Let's compare this with another example. Since Reagan,

We're talking about socialist societies being undone by a confluence of conditions. You're dancing around the issue: the empowerment of reactionaries, the silencing of the defenders of socialism and the loss of decisive leadership among the communists helped undo the progress of the working class. Until you deal with this, you'll be beating around the bush that you don't want to look at.

I see you avoided addressing the Ruble/rye data. Socialism is primarily about workers controlling the means of production. If you want to find out whether socialism existed in the USSR, you need to ask whether or not the USSR was democratic. I don't think any impartial person would spend very long on that question.

The sources:
Caroline Humphrey, Karl Marx Collective: Economy, society and religion in a Siberian collective farm, page 96 and Exile and Discipline: The June 1948 campaign against Collective Farm shirkers by Jean Levesque, p. 13

I thought so. You're taking data from the late 40's, after the ravages of WWII and before the Virgin Lands campaign and the reconstruction of Soviet industry, and extrapolating that into the entire history of the Soviet Union. Typical. More importantly, you're dodging the FACT that labor was not a commodity, that there was no market for large-scale production or manpower, private property was essentially abolished and more. That is indisputable proof of socialism, and it's not surprising that you failed to deal with it.

The workers had a voice in the Soviet Union, more than they do in politics now. However, democratic organs are not the measure of socialism, material conditions and social relations are. The materialist analysis is the mark of a revolutionary, and obviously you don't have that.

Even if your assumption is correct, It's irrelevant; I never made any favourable comparison between modern Russia and USSR Russia, or insinuated that the right to dissent was more important than the workers rights you've imagined the Soviets gave to their Subjects.

You've been implying there's no difference between the two this entire time. "Who cares?" Does that ring a bell? Keep running away from your own positions.

The point that I was trying to show, and that you missed completley, is that there is no point highlighting diffences between tyrants. They're both tyrants, and they're both unnessecary. If you were forced to choose between the two, or if you wanted to have the debate for some historical purpose, then it might be worth discussing. But free of those scenarios, there really is no point. Would you rather have a leg chopped off or an arm chopped off? Who cares?

If the two leaders are different and preside over very different societies (Ancien Regime vs First French Empire) with very different conditions of living, then there is a very pertinent point in highlighting differences. Anyone who doesn't is being willfully ignorant and naive. What this whole point does is underline how oblivious you are to material conditions and the foundations of society. You can't even figure out why Louis XVI was very different from Napoleon, and how the time between the two (1789-1799) was one of the most momentous periods in European history. It makes perfect sense that you can't grasp the fact that the USSR was socialist, and that its collapse was a grave defeat for workers and revolutionaries everywhere.

Would you rather have socialism or capitalism? Oh, I forgot, you don't care. After all, Chomsky's book sales matter more to you than workers' living conditions.